I'm most grateful to John Richardson (AKA the Ugley Vicar) for pointing me to the 'Giving as Partners' sheet (which may be found here) on the Church Society website.
The billing:
The Church of England is an institution in crisis. Contemporary pressures are mounting to change the Church’s practices and teaching. At the same time, historical factors mean the leadership of the Church is rarely answerable to the ‘membership in the pews’. In this crisis, money plays a key part. On the one hand, the funds available to the Church are declining in parallel with the membership. On the other hand, there are regular calls to ‘Quota Cap’ as a response to perceived abuses within the Church.
‘Giving As Partners’ addresses these issues in a radical way. Rejecting Quota Capping, it nevertheless offers a proposal that could change the Church by changing the way churches relate to one another. Simple in principle, it would create dynamic mission partnerships that would improve the effectiveness of the Church whilst at the same time increasing the likelihood that Quotas would be paid in full. This could
well be ‘an idea whose time has come’
Makes for some interesting reading - I'm about to embark upon the document and invite others, especially those who have commented on the earlier 'Parish Share' blog pages to perhaps do the same and see where this takeds our discussion.
Pax
Showing posts with label church and money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church and money. Show all posts
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
But the Church is rich! (Part Two)
So my upbringing led me to believe that the Church of England was not only rolling in money but that aside from the cash they took from the 'poor' (i.e. those who filled the pews on a Sunday) but that they owned a greater part of Central London and made money from the excesses and vices that filled those areas. This was something that was just there, it didn't make me antagonistic and it didn't make we feel good about them, it was just as it was for 'The Church' and all the others who had loads of money!
Oddly, I remember as child newspaper headlines about 'selling the family silver'* and my Dad telling me about the way that having property, possessions and money meant that you could always have access to money. The very act of 'having things' meant that you could make money apparently. This sounded odd to a ten year old and so I asked the Father how this could be and received a lecture on interest on money deposited and case to be made from property rented and how the only things in life that could be trusted were gold, property and things that gained in worth for these were the things that just kept on giving. Selling them meant a short-term increase in what you had and covered the fact that once this was gone, you had much less! This was what 'selling the family silver' was all about.
So I learned that where it was possible, prudent people (and organisations like 'The Church') would accrue property, land, things and of course, money, and these would ensure that there was always money to pay the bills and live your life. I also learned that having lots of numbers behind a pound sign meant you were rich but that being rich didn't mean that you had money, a strange conundrum indeed! If an organisation or individual is 'rich' then they can spend and live as if they are rich (and then be poor) or can live comfortably off of what they have and continue to do so (with the odd excess I'm sure) ad infinitum. This is where the Church of England should be!
Yes it has money and lived off of its property, land and stuff for a long time but sadly those who invested and were supposed to make money for the body haven't always done such a stand-up job of the task and so money (income and owned) has been lost. Some of this has been recouped because of the land owned and other things but the reality is still that whatever the church owns is there to be a source of income and should be helping to keep us (the CofE) afloat. (A bit of fact: Lots of Central London is owned by the Duke of Westminster, the Queen, the Earl of Cadogan and Paul Raymond!)
We couldn't live on the money that comes in through offerings and donations and so the having stuff element is an important factor in terms of keeping the light on. The same was, and is, true when it came to St Paul's for even though many comment that, "It's a church, who would pull the electricity on a church?" the answer is simple, "Every energy supplier, tradesman and person who does business with it!" People need to have their bills paid to live and the church is just another customer and if they don't pay they get treated the same way as every other customer who doesn't pay. It's ironic that those who don't see the Church as special suddenly think that by being 'Church' it is absolved of the moral and contractual obligations before it - not so.
The bottom line (honestly) is this:
The Church might have money, land and possessions and it is these that, invested and managed wisely, underpins and provides the money needed to keep being the real 'Big Society' and keep our lights on.
Pax
* Ironically these were to do with Alec Douglas-Hume who many years later accused Margaret Thatcher of exactly the same thing!
ps. Hopefully this explains why 'being church' isn't the negative that some would seek to make it and helps to lay the foundations of a defence of Church as an institution. I am assuming the same goes for RC plc but they just have a lot more of everything. I'm sure they use their wealth and stuff to help the poor (don't they?).
Oddly, I remember as child newspaper headlines about 'selling the family silver'* and my Dad telling me about the way that having property, possessions and money meant that you could always have access to money. The very act of 'having things' meant that you could make money apparently. This sounded odd to a ten year old and so I asked the Father how this could be and received a lecture on interest on money deposited and case to be made from property rented and how the only things in life that could be trusted were gold, property and things that gained in worth for these were the things that just kept on giving. Selling them meant a short-term increase in what you had and covered the fact that once this was gone, you had much less! This was what 'selling the family silver' was all about.
So I learned that where it was possible, prudent people (and organisations like 'The Church') would accrue property, land, things and of course, money, and these would ensure that there was always money to pay the bills and live your life. I also learned that having lots of numbers behind a pound sign meant you were rich but that being rich didn't mean that you had money, a strange conundrum indeed! If an organisation or individual is 'rich' then they can spend and live as if they are rich (and then be poor) or can live comfortably off of what they have and continue to do so (with the odd excess I'm sure) ad infinitum. This is where the Church of England should be!
Yes it has money and lived off of its property, land and stuff for a long time but sadly those who invested and were supposed to make money for the body haven't always done such a stand-up job of the task and so money (income and owned) has been lost. Some of this has been recouped because of the land owned and other things but the reality is still that whatever the church owns is there to be a source of income and should be helping to keep us (the CofE) afloat. (A bit of fact: Lots of Central London is owned by the Duke of Westminster, the Queen, the Earl of Cadogan and Paul Raymond!)
We couldn't live on the money that comes in through offerings and donations and so the having stuff element is an important factor in terms of keeping the light on. The same was, and is, true when it came to St Paul's for even though many comment that, "It's a church, who would pull the electricity on a church?" the answer is simple, "Every energy supplier, tradesman and person who does business with it!" People need to have their bills paid to live and the church is just another customer and if they don't pay they get treated the same way as every other customer who doesn't pay. It's ironic that those who don't see the Church as special suddenly think that by being 'Church' it is absolved of the moral and contractual obligations before it - not so.
The bottom line (honestly) is this:
The Church might have money, land and possessions and it is these that, invested and managed wisely, underpins and provides the money needed to keep being the real 'Big Society' and keep our lights on.
Pax
* Ironically these were to do with Alec Douglas-Hume who many years later accused Margaret Thatcher of exactly the same thing!
ps. Hopefully this explains why 'being church' isn't the negative that some would seek to make it and helps to lay the foundations of a defence of Church as an institution. I am assuming the same goes for RC plc but they just have a lot more of everything. I'm sure they use their wealth and stuff to help the poor (don't they?).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)