Church and State

Will any of the candidates have the coujons to take on the C of E over
the way that they rip us off by getting free churches, free maintenance,
free accommodation for the staff, etc. We even pay someone to do the
cleaning.

Amazing seems the candidates dont want to commment in case they upset the church electors....

Perhaps we should hole all parish meeting in the churches as they do belong to the rate payers ,this would save having to hire out a place big enough for meetings .utilize all building

I was brought up by my parents as a Church of England, we went to church and Sunday school, it was enjoyable and we learnt lots about religion generally, and the words to some great hymns! Other than Christenings, weddings and funerals I have not been a church goer as an adult. Your language 'rip off' is emotive and if you dont mind me saying so unhelpful if you want to engage in a debate on this subject. The question of future funding has now been put in process through the agreement to review the current situation - that is good because it will allow a mature informed debate to be held where all sides of the issue can be aired and considered. So, in answer to your question - lets engage on all of the issues and come to a fair and reasonable conclusion that reflects on church/religion in our community and the costs/responsibilities of maintaining the infrastructure going forward. Paul

Thank you for your reply Paul. The term 'rip off' is my opinion, and is the opinion of others. It might be an emotive term, but it is an emotive subject, one which many candidates wish to avoid or give weak answers to.

The purpose of this thread is not to debate, but to find the opinions of the election candidates

As a church goer myself and a rate payer i am also of the opinion that the church should pay a rent for the building they use and also pay for the heating costs and other charges .
We Methodist pay a huge amount for our building and we pay for everything for them including all repairs and any updates that need to be done
The parish churches as beautiful and the folks that use them should be very grateful for the amount of cash that goes into paying for the upkeep of these buildings.
perhaps we should utilize the building and use it for other purposes ?

Church of England assets (churches, rectories etc.) should not be funded by parish ratepayers. In 2012, there is no longer a case for parishioners to support one branch of one religion.

The churches are beautiful, historic buildings and I can see a case for the taxpayers agreeing to provide a grant towards their long term upkeep as part of our heritage. The rest of their costs should be borne by the Church.

I also agree with that ,if they paid a rent we would not have to pay so much in our rates or the money could be ring-fenced for other improvements around the parish

It is entirely up to the ratepayers how much they spend on maintaining the fabric of their parish church and rectory. As the PERRC Report confirmed the parishes are the ‘beneficial owners’ of the churches and it recommended the rectories be vested in the parishes. Therefore it is and will be worth the parishes maintaining such historical and valuable assets. It has been customary for the CofE to have use of the churches without charge and I cannot see that changing though PERRC did seek to encourage additional uses, with the rector’s approval. It has also been customary for the rectories to be provided without charge and possibly the most controversial recommendation in the Report was the ‘secularisation’ of the rectories which would allow the parishes to decide what to do with them. The only constraint being the yet to be determined legal status of the rector’s customary right of abode.

This is a debate which is now essentially
about funding buildings and property, that originated in the England of the
1800s with the dramatic increase of evangelical non-conformist churches (ie.
those who did not want to subscribe or conform to a State-controlled church for
spiritual and other reasons, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists,
Presbyterians, Quakers, Salvationists and the like. Also adherents of the Roman
Church (which arguably could be thought of as the original ‘owners’ of historic
church property at least pre-reformation) although not ‘non-conformist’ in the
protestant sense, regained in the 19C their right to freedom of worship and
political freedoms which had been denied them post-reformation.

Soon the Church in Wales was disestablished, similarly in Ireland, the Church of
Scotland is a different denomination, and the Church of England ceased to
receive parish rates in support of its clergy and buildings back then. The
Church Commission was set up, and the property along with the responsibilities
handed over to this organisation; gradually over the last century in England
parishes have amalgamated and buildings been sold as the CofE membership and
income diminished.

But none of this of course really affected the funding in the Channel Islands
where the Anglican church still acted as it had done in the past, mainly funded
by every rate payer living in the parish area regardless of whether they
attended Anglican services or not. Several attempts were made by Methodists
annoyed at having to ‘pay twice’ back in the early 20C to end this system, but
little change occurred as the States government was largely conservative,
royalist and sympathetic to the Anglican hierarchy. This is no longer the case.
If Guernsey was a community of 70k people in the UK it would consist of likely
only one or two Anglican parishes, instead there are ten ecclesio-political
parishes, and a further four other self-supporting ecclesiastical ones
(Trinity, St Stephen’s, St John’s, St. Matthew’s). As these four other Anglican
parish churches manage to support themselves (ie they own their own buildings
and clergy residences, pay for all heating, cleaning, repairs, etc. it is a
fair argument that at least some of the remaining ten historic parishes might
do the same. The trouble is currently most of them have very few regular
attenders and it has been estimated that perhaps only two would survive if this
were the case, unless giving increased dramatically.

The sad thing is that the longer this situation continues the less incentive
there seems to be to remedy it, and instead the CofE corporately seems to be
fighting for the rather cushy status quo (i.e. “everyone else pays, we have
exclusive historic privilege”) which is not exactly a very positive, Christlike
message, in my opinion.

In my view Christianity flourishes better & is more at liberty to represent
the Gospel of Grace when it is not established, connected, propped up, or
associated in any ‘national’ way with the State. Thus I am an
anti-Constantinian in that respect! Constantine was the Roman Emperor under
whose rule in the 4C the Empire Christianity became established first as an ‘accepted
religion’ (I’m not against that - up until that time Christians had been thrown
to the lions and persecuted for 300 years) but then eventually Christianity
took over as the only ‘State religion’. This is wrong and in fact against the
teaching of Jesus. But Constantine (who it reportedly was converted during
battle by seeing the sign of the Cross!) was facing a splitting Empire and he
saw conformity to the Christian faith as a tool to try and keep it united.
However in just a short time state-sponsored ‘churchmen’ were persecuting
Christian leaders who did not agree with state-control. (No-one expects the
Spanish Inquisition!)

Still in my mind the Anglican church & its pastors would be far better off
& more biblical if they paid their ministers a decent salary so allowing
them to choose where & how they lived according to their own means like
everyone else in their congregation. The current system encourages ridiculous
envious scrutiny of rectors personal & family life.

I felt huge sympathy for a previous vice-dean of Guernsey, who was then rector
of St Pierre du Bois. His theology was almost the exact opposite of mine but
when we got to know each other a bit more and I listened to him talk about how
he had little time to think about mission, outreach and social action because
he felt encumbered with in effect the job of a ‘curator of a museum’ I felt
compassion for his situation. He would have liked like me to help lead and
motivate a community of people, leaving a building that was designed for
worship and mission in the middle ages and perhaps choosing to meet in a hall
or school down the road. To concentrate on meeting people where they are at,
helping the poor and marginalised. Instead he felt hemmed in by keeping this
ancient (and pretty) edifice looking nice for weddings and funeral, ensuring
that everything stayed largely the same as it had always done so that those who
attended occasionally were not upset. If a pastor’s life is made up of steeple
funds, arguments about removal of pews, keeping the place looking the same as
it has for centuries, the cemetery tidy, organ funds, stained glass windows
etc. then it would indeed be better to name him ‘facilities manager’ or
something, for this is far removed from the message of Jesus Christ.

The fact is when many of our parish churches were built, in the Norman times,
they were the multi-functional buildings of their day. Markets would be held
there, courts would sit there, committees would meet there, deals would be
done, families would make covenants together. Only the ‘altar area’ would have
been retained for church use exclusively. It was the advent of the Victorian era
and their blasted fixed pews that changed much of this, as before people would
have stood or there would have been moveable chairs or benches. Partly as a
result these buildings became more of a once-a-week facility and ceased to be
extended and developed to meet the changing needs of each generation.

I really like the Dean, and I am saddened that he got himself embroiled in this
way. But I do think he (and others) are still fundamentally coming from an ‘institutional’
standpoint. Tim Keller argues that as soon as the Church of Jesus Christ sees
itself and tries to defend itself that way it loses something fundamental; it
loses its vulnerability, the message of the Cross. I’m also with Tertullian in
arguing a strong apologetic as to why the State should not persecute Christians
but rather give them freedom to live and act in accordance with their calling
as Christians should and can be the most loyal and productive citizens.

Some Anglicans have argued that our parish churches are ‘sacred space’ and that
they are entrusted as being the guardians of it. For me ‘sacred space’ is a
pre-Christian, non-Christian, old covenant phenomenon. Jesus came to make all
space sacred through ushering the new era of ‘sacred/holy people’.






So whilst I love history and would certainly
want to keep a few of these historic buildings on those grounds, I am not
precious about sacred space. The early church met in the Jewish Temple courts
(shared space with another religion), people’s homes (where no doubt all kinds
of other activities sacred and otherwise took place), the market place (speaks
for itself), schools (Tyranus - Paul seems to have been happy to lease these
premises in which we have no idea what else went on in terms of education, but
presumably the whole breadth of Greek culture, philosophy and religion) etc.
During the first 12 years of our church we owned no property and moved around
for Sunday and other meetings, homes, borrowed buildings, schools, theatres,
and the like. We rented property shared by all kinds of others. We were
certainly glad in 1995 to own our own building but it wasn’t because we think
it is intrinsically ‘sacred space’; we’d have been happy with B&Q which we
also looked at. We made it sacred by meeting there!

With regards to ‘sacred space’ Christians may certainly not agree, but no
matter, it is not a major issue, except perhaps when it is used in arguments
like this. Like it or not the Anglican authorities in Guernsey have at least
given the impression that the parish churches are the property of the
rate-payers and that the church should not be expected to foot the bills for
repairs etc. At the same time they are arguing that they should have exclusive
rights of use over deciding what happens in and to them whilst not paying rent!
I may not believe in sacred space but I do believe in rights of ownership.
Either parish property belongs to the church (and I would be quite happy to
give it to them for free!) or not. But it seems that the Anglicans don’t want to
own these properties. Why? Ah, maybe because they cost too much to upkeep and
they would have to pay for major renovations to bring them up to 21C use
perhaps? Welcome to the world of the rest of us! And the New Testament.






You can’t have it both ways. Indeed,
since even up to 500 years ago these buildings were being redesigned, knocked
down, rebuilt and adapted in more suitable ways to function for their
contemporary generation. Take St Philippe de Torteval for example - the old
building was falling into disrepair and becoming uneconomical for use in the
19C. It was rebuilt in a totally different style and fashion to suit the ‘preaching
house’ desires of its day. St James and Trinity were built around the same time
in that fashion too. My point is, it seems that the argument on sacred space is
all lovely and nostalgic and sentimental until someone has to pay the bill!

You can tell from all this that I am a disestablishmentarian! Not because I
have something against the Church of England - far from it, they have produced
some of the best theologians the world has known - nor because I am a
republican or anything like that. I really believe it would benefit that
denomination, and the whole Christian Church if it were not so connected to the
state.

Ok so you're right Spirit. No-one is really interested. Explains a lot.

I wonder what would happen is a load of parishioners attended the relevant meetings and voted down the church budgets?

I like the parish churches, there is a nice historical feel to them and I am grateful that someone maintains them. They to my mind are a part of gurnsey much like the parish schools were.

A previous poster stated that the PERRC Report maintains the parish is the beneficial owner. Beneficial owner to me means that the parishioners own the church if that is the case then the parish should maintain it as the owner.

It does seem a shame that the parish vicar (for want of a better term) spends most of his time looking after the church and not the people. If the fixed pews are the obstacle to utilising the church that is easily sorted, lets unfix the pews. There are many social and club activities that could use the church for meetings.

As Le Tocq sort of mentioned the building does not make the religion. The people do that, so is it totally relevant where they meet.

Good points, plimmerton, so why not charge the tenants a fair rent to use them?

Spirit wrote:Good points, plimmerton, so why not charge the tenants a fair rent to use them?

If the parish made more use of the church then that would be in lieu of a charge. Perhaps it could be argued that the vicar is there for anyone in the parish that wishes to make use of his services so we charge for the rent and he charges for the services so lets leave it as is!

To play devils advocate the other religions could argue the same point and charge for their services although (I am not religious so am not sure how it all works but am sure I will be corrected) as Le Tocq points out there are a lot of historical points to be considered, points that have been accepted through time as a right, for instance the vicar supplies the religion we supply the accomodation as a trade off. I suppose the other religions do not have that historical base to fall back on and therefore had to pay their way to be accepted.

A bit off the beam with that one, we don't charge a rent, yet the vicar charges for the services. The user pays twice and the non-user still pays once. The vicar doesn't pay at all he just receives a good wedge, whether he works or not.

If looking at historic notes, weren't the churches stolen from the catholics? The C of E happily pay for the upkeep of their other churches, other denominations pay for the upkeep of their own churches, so why do the ratepayers have to fork out for the upkeep of one section of one branch of one religion?

At the end of the day if we charge rent there is the possibility of the vicar moving out to alternative affordable buildings. We then have a bigger expense to upkeep the church. there are lots of things that tax payers pay for that aren't fair but it works for both parties until someone rocks the apple cart.

Why would it cost more? The ratepayers already pay 100% of the maintenance. If the C of E want to move out, rent the buildings to someone else.

Spirit wrote:Why would it cost more? The ratepayers already pay 100% of the maintenance. If the C of E want to move out, rent the buildings to someone else.

The buildings have a limited rental value in their present state. Unless something is done like with the Victoria Road Church then rental would be limited. At the moment the vicar acts as a warden/caretaker or non paying tenant. Someone has to be on site or the building will become run down. So the parish would have to employ at least one person to be on site 7 days a week or at least during church opening times. At the moment there is a coexistence, if the parish own the church then it seems right that they maintain it. It is important for the church to be maintained for cultural, tourist and religious reasons.

The way I look at it is the church pay a rent by having someone present looking after the building. If we want to make more use then have the benches unfixed and use it for groups. That shouldn't upset the structure of the building and it could still be used as a church.

Sorry, ridiculous argument, Just look at St Matthews, St Joseph's, Trinity, etc etc. All owned and maintained by the relevant religious communities.

Anyway, this thread is for the candidates to state their positions, not for general debate. Maybe a moderator could move these posts to a separate thread?

letocq - great contribution, from which I have learnt a lot. Shame you were not in the States when this was discussed! Perhaps we can look forward to a Requete if you are elected on Wednesday....?!

plimmerton811 - I suspect you are right: to take the issue forward, those opposed may need to tackle at the parish level as that is where the control is now. There is clearly no appetite in the current States to take this head on and the new States may be no different.