It seems that lots of people not only think that the state should fund churches but a lot already think it does. I can attest to having found people during my parsih and university/college ministry who assumed that that's the way it was. Even at a secular university people assumed that the university paid for the chaplains -or at least the CofE one. It seems to be thought natural in a situation of an established shurch.
I would not want the churches to be state funded [though the German model might be interesting in the light of these findings]. However, I think that where the state determines that a church building is an imporatnt piece of heritage and it is beyond the reasonably means of a congregation to keep it up, then I thiunk that there is a case for funding that heritage aspect. That is fairer than tying a group of people to a building that they would otherwise walk away from because it is beyond their meands to curate on behalf of the nation. After all, isn't that what's happened with stately homes... ? The issue thern becomes one of how much modding of the building can be sustained so that the building also is a living contribution to life not just a museum, and there lie a lot of arguments, on present showing.
New research shows 42% say that Churches should be funded by the State | Church of England
No comments:
Post a Comment