Forum menu
*Not a humblebrag - village parish with a dwindling congregation = not very much income with significant running costs. I donate via standing order even though I'm an atheist: I believe in community, so it's one of a number of organisations I'm happy to support who try to make a difference.
Good for you - that is the reason I do what I do as well - people take what it does for granted and as society becomes increasingly secular, the Church is losing confidence in its voice and fails to get across all the good that it does.
It depends on the church, really, but since the OP was asking about the CofE, the answer is: mixed. Legacies, weekly collections, hall rentals, fees for weddings and funerals: all of those things add up to cover costs.EDIT: I should add that nobody has to pay anything.
This is the situation at my church (c of e). They got rid of collections a couple of years ago as it was felt it made people feel obligated and put people off coming. Majority of income is regular giving and legacies. In the last 10 years I've been going I can't recall a guilt trip sermon - it's left to people to decide what they give and only the vicar and the church secretary have any details. The church's accounts are published on the web every year and audited. I expect most church's (c of e at least) take a similar approach. The church basically just breaks even but that includes funding a couple of mission partners overseas - pediatric doctors in Bangladesh.
Profits from our town charity shop go to the local church who in turn spend it on local projects which whilst I'm no big fan or religion does seem to be a very good idea.
My church (CofE) doesn't meet in a church building but instead currently meets in a secondary school. 10% of what is given is passed onto other charities, including a homeless charity in Reading. Many people in my church will give to those in need but would always want to do this anonymously. Currently my church are considering whether we can fund the fit out of a new community centre, which would be run by a newly established Charitable Incorporated Organisation and would be run not for profit. Any money to fund this new community centre would come from individuals in the church; fundraising and potentially grants that we can access.
Previous churches (all sorts of different types / denominations)that I've been a member of have through individual giving contributed to building programmes that were then used by the community including youth groups; basketball (as we had a full size sports hall); dance classes; societies, etc. all throughout the week. I am aware that in some instances, individuals have mortgaged their own properties / downsized / moved to cheaper areas to help fund facilities and / or to give more away to those in need.
Absolutely no requirement to pay to go to church though.
mefty - Member it costs a lot of money a £7 billion investment fund isn't that much in that context.
Have to question what are you stockpiling money for ?
Shirley it should be put to benefit believers.
(Someone had to say it)
It's also possible that you have a chancel repair covenant in your house deeds which means that you are responsible for paying for the upkeep and repairs of your local church/chapel. Would be very interested to see what would happen if one of those got called upon.
McHamish's comments on the Catholic church amaze me, I'd be going straight to the Priest and seeing what his opinion is.
Have to question what are you stockpiling money for ?
If you looked at my numbers, you would have seen that if every parish mirrors our run rate, the annual costs would be over £1.25 billion so that investment funds would fund it for less than 5 years.
I don't want to get into an argument, it's not my point.
But I don't see why the stockpiling of money helps [i]any[/i] congregation, now, then, future, past.
It pays for liabilties that continue - clergy pension liabilty is approx. £2 billion.
Do you have to pay to go to church?
You have to pay to have a look round York Minster, which I think is a bit cheeky seeing as Durham Cathedral (which makes York Minster look like a small bungalow) just has a donation box!
[quote=P-Jay ]Attendance is falling and they're closing churchs - 'our' Priest is actually the Priest for 3 churchs, he does 6 shows a day on Sunday, 2 in each.
Yeah, but 6 days off a week, it's not a bad gig.
Yeah, but 6 days off a week, it's not a bad gig.
Sadly they only get one day off a week.
Yeah, but 6 days off a week, it's not a bad gig.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! 😐
Profits from our town charity shop go to the local church who in turn spend it on local projects which whilst I'm no big fan or religion does seem to be a very good idea.
There really is not much need for them there [ its not their money] except to be a committee who decides how to spend it ...lots of LGBT stuff I presume 😉
true, but to claim to speak for the church they must feel they have some standing within the community. And, one assumes, some sort of religious beliefs around Jesus' teaching including his words about temples and money?
May thinks that she is a Christian, make of that what you will.
Yeah, but 6 days off a week, it's not a bad gig.
My Dad had Tuesdays off, was tricky persuading people not to contact him then though so it was like he was on call....
lots of LGBT stuff I presume
Interestingly they're getting really into that side of things - realizing their failings of the past perhaps?
Ridiculous organisations, the sooner we get rid of their archaic influence in our country the better. They should sell all their assetts and give it to the poor & build social housing on their land.
I don't think the organisations are ridiculous, I think they do provide a grounded support network.
But to be effective I support your view of asset stripping and land stockpile sell off and to put that into supporting local initiatives, housing for instance.
Ridiculous organisations, the sooner we get rid of their archaic influence in our country the better.
What changes should be made?
They should sell all their assetts and give it to the poor & build social housing on their land.
Ridiculous organisations, the sooner we get rid of their archaic influence in our country the better. They should sell all their assetts and give it to the poor & build social housing on their land.
Do you mean CofE or Catholic or both or all churches?
My church is independent, paid for the land and the building we have on it ourselves, indeed even have a big mortgage to pay off, don't have any cash spare at all (any surplus given away!). So I don't think we would take too kindly to someone stealing it off us for no other reason than they didn't believe what we do. I think that sort of thing happened in other countries quite a lot in the last century, wasn't remembered as a particularly nice thing to do.
Also you'd put about 60 people out of work too. I am assuming you'd find other equivalent work for them.
JY - that is not a valid response.
They should sell all their assetts and give it to the poor & build social housing on their land.
Amusingly, the Catholic Church appears to be right behind you on that one.
Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few.”
Not sure I've seen much evidence of them selling off their vast reserves of property, art, gold, etc and redistributing the proceeds, mind you.
If they sold all their property, how would they make their money? You'd have to subscribe to go to church, which would exclude some of the people it helps most from its services.
And although you might be ever-so-brilliant and have evolved far beyond such fanciful beliefs, it's very important to a lot of people who need it. We fund other forms of support through the NHS and directly, so why not this?
Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few.”Not sure I've seen much evidence of them selling off their vast reserves of property, art, gold, etc and redistributing the proceeds, mind you.
You have to remember that the Catholic Church is a huge organisation 1.3b members, 225k parishes, 5k Bishops, 415k Priests, 45k Deacons, etc etc.
Like any large organisation, especially one that's not a hire and fire business there's a lot of internal politics and in-fighting, and yes there are some real shady characters near the top of the Catholic Church, too many geezers in red dresses with Gucci sunglasses and handmade shoes.
The current head of the Church, Pope Francis is a bit of a ‘no messing’ type of Guy and has said that he wants a “Poor Church for the Poor” which isn’t really how it’s been run in the past, he took over from a Pope that resigned which never usually happens after a short term in office (by the standards of Popes) and within 3 months of him taking over Priests who ran the shady Vatican Bank were being arrested.
We may see the Church selling off some of it more ‘lavish’ assets in the future – but not all of them, like large charities they’re not in the business of getting a quid and spending a quid – they invest and spend the profits on ‘good works’ so they can carry on forever.
Its a church it is not, or should not be and the Bible and Jesus is very clear on this point, a business interested in making money.If they sold all their property, how would they make their money?
Sermon on the mount
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break in and steal; 20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.’
Whilst they do use the wealth for good [ though it is also in the churches interest and they decide what is good] there is also no doubt they have accumulated wealth and trinkets and they are in danger of serving two masters- would they give it all away?
One of those personally I just find it odd when those who have dedicated their life to salvation and they are told about the dangers of wealth that they would do this
Its a church it is not, or should not be and the Bible and Jesus is very clear on this point, a business interested in making money.
It shouldn't be making [i]profit[/i] no, but the people who work for it need to eat, and those buildings need upkeep and so on.
I was thinking that while the C of E is subject to the same oversight as all charities in the UK, the RC church on the other hand has its own state (the Vatican) where it has its HQ, so at that level can do whatever it wants.
Ideal situation if you wanted to set up your own money making religion (which I'm not saying the RC Church is).
I imagine cults like the Scientologists would love to be able to do this.
its should not be accumulating wealthIt shouldn't be making profit no
By any measure it has
Interesting and educational discussion, thanks.
Out of interest, does anyone know how mosques are funded? I was under the impression that it's a similar sort of tithe system but I don't actually know.
I imagine cults like the Scientologists would love to be able to do this.
Why is that a cult and not a religion? What's the difference (in this context)?
its should not be accumulating wealth
Depends what you mean by 'wealth' doesn't it?
If it accumulates assets to use to create money with which to do good charitable work, then there's nothing wrong with that. No different to Greenpeace buying themselves a boat for example - IF you think Greenpeace do good work with their boat, for the sake of argument.
@Cougar - I'll ask my boss (who's a muslim) on Monday. I think you are expected to give a proportion of your income to the mosque which uses it to provide help within the community.
Does anyone know if it's an urban myth that there's no legislation banning cults like Scientology because they can't draft anything that doesn't include the CofE?
Cheers. Yeah, that's what I thought.
I imagine cults like the Scientologists would love to be able to do this.
Why is that a cult and not a religion? What's the difference (in this context)?
[url] http://cultinformation.org.uk/question_what-is-a-cult.html [/url]
The Cult Information Centre (CIC) defines a cult as a group having all of the following five characteristics:
It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members
It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
It believes the end justifies the means in order to solicit funds recruit people.
Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.