Cost of Church. What would Judas say?
I'm going to a moderate size (50 ish to main service) CofE church. It's quite well placed as the only Church in a defined estate, it's New Wine but as yet not over the top, decent but not great preaching and usual house groups and kids stuff etc. Thing is - the cost of running it is around £120,000 p.a. and it's hard not to wonder, as famously one of the disciples did, whether this was a good use of money.
Of course things didn't end well with Judas, and it's therefore easy to paint anyone who questions the cost of religion, as spiritually suspect. Which in many ways, of course, I am. Aren't we all (well mostly)? And the constant pressure to give more does get on my nerves, because of course I could but aren't motivated to.
For some background, my earliest exposure to religion was the Jehovah's witnesses, and their running costs were low. There were no paid officers at the local level, and the few full time workers were paid a pittance. Maybe because of this, when I reverted to a version of standard evangelical Christianity I gravitated to the Brethren, but not for long. And I have to admit neither of these two are good adverts for unpaid-clergy denominations.
The finances of the Church are not exactly transparent, and in general spend does not need congregation approval. But my experience in a Baptist church didn't convince me that having the Church Meeting as final authority kept things under control. It became, to the leaders, almost a boast that the accounts weren't audited, and some fairly large amounts of money went walkabout.
Do any others have similar misgivings about the cost of Church?
Of course things didn't end well with Judas, and it's therefore easy to paint anyone who questions the cost of religion, as spiritually suspect. Which in many ways, of course, I am. Aren't we all (well mostly)? And the constant pressure to give more does get on my nerves, because of course I could but aren't motivated to.
For some background, my earliest exposure to religion was the Jehovah's witnesses, and their running costs were low. There were no paid officers at the local level, and the few full time workers were paid a pittance. Maybe because of this, when I reverted to a version of standard evangelical Christianity I gravitated to the Brethren, but not for long. And I have to admit neither of these two are good adverts for unpaid-clergy denominations.
The finances of the Church are not exactly transparent, and in general spend does not need congregation approval. But my experience in a Baptist church didn't convince me that having the Church Meeting as final authority kept things under control. It became, to the leaders, almost a boast that the accounts weren't audited, and some fairly large amounts of money went walkabout.
Do any others have similar misgivings about the cost of Church?
Comments
Second, some of the things you mention may be really important even apart from faith -- in=person house groups and kids stuff can help build vital community connections in a world in which we're less and less connected with each other in person. That's life-changing.
In my opinion, every historic church should be maintained and insured by the state- via those departments who block every attempt at modernisation. After all, the churches are there for everyone in the whole country, with the spiritual benefits of this unmeasurable.
Those in the congregations would only then need to concern ourselves with the basic running costs of power and water, wafers and wine. All of which Judas might approve.
Thanks.
As you've identified, there are issues with a wide range of models of doing and being church (as it were).
My experience of the Baptist church-meeting thing is more positive than yours but perhaps we were just fortunate.
I can't think of any system or model that is free from problems though.
I think I'd pitch at Cultural benefits over Spiritual because they have the advantage of being acknowledged to exist by the vast majority.
Your problem then of course is the "many demands on the public purse". And by pointing to the cultural benefits which in part owe to the historical significance of the church fabrics you may exasperate the conflicts of interest over modernisation.
It's also worth considering in what ways the everyone that the churches are for wants them to be for them.
I've recast that last sentence several times and I'll have another go in a second.
Whether congregational approval of spending is needed is going to depend on how a church is structured - a Congregational structure would put approval in the hands of the Church Meeting (in practice, elders/deacons/equivalent role would be able to make small spending decisions that the Meeting would simply wave through, but large decisions would need to be explicitly approved), other church structures could exclude the congregation entirely, and of course lots of positions in between (though technically not needed, last Sunday our property committee asked approval of the congregation for a significant spend on servicing the heating system and acceptance of the choice of contractor with all the quotes available for perusal by anyone interested).
However - and I speak here as a Baptist - many churches are not independent charities but for many years have acted as "excepted" charities under the denomination's charitable umbrella. As a consequence they don't send their financial returns to the Charity Commission, nor to the Baptist Union, so could theoretically slip under the radar of accountability.
The cost is not high in general. And all members have the option of a view on what is being planned, and it is all being done with serious consideration for the future and for the environmental challenges. But the building is pretty much a standard sort of build.
I was in the CofE before, and I know the costs of maintaining a medieval church. I once did vote against spending money on the building, because I did not think it should be our priority - I think I was alone in this, having had no expectation of actually swinging the vote, but I wanted to express dissent.
Here's the thing - if you want to have your meetings in an ancient building, there are massive costs associated with that building. The choice is explicit - meet there and pay the 120K a year costs, or meet somewhere else and pay significantly less.
It’s not explicit though is it? Because ‘or meet somewhere else’ is not a remotely straightforward option in a world where closing the church building within the CofE takes about five years (and you’re liable for it as a PCC throughout that time), and leaving the medieval building to move somewhere else is a PR nightmare in the local community when it isn’t a PR disaster.
PCCs would get a fairer hearing IMO if they were closing because all the worshippers are dead than arguing the worshippers wanted to worship in another building. ‘Why aren’t YOU keeping OUR church open for us?’
The problem comes back to the wider public and their demands for the buildings to be kept open, but without wanting to pay for or contribute to that in any way.
Coupled with an assumption - I’ve had this conversation this very week - that it’s all funded by the state anyway because it’s the state church, so why are we always trying to raise money locally?
You will know from time on a PCC that it’s really not as simple as you’ve just said. Moving as a congregation is not a real choice unless you’ve got an asbestos overcoat. It’s probably easier to actually shut down and just go and individually worship somewhere else than relocate a church congregation en masse from a medieval building.
A have worked quite a lot in Denmark and from talking to people there, I think that in general the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches have gone along this line, and part of what they get out of it is extensive state support, as well as a lot of use of the Church for what are often cultural traditions as opposed to belief based actions. So, I believe in Denmark, most families have their kids baptized as a form of acceptance into the community. Similarly the Church plays a large role in Funerals which is helped by its basically non-dogmatic approach. I believe people can opt out of state tax, but few do, and in general people view the Church as fulfilling an important role in society. Very few of my colleagues in Copenhagen did not share this view, and none expressed any beliefs about the doctrinal content of Christianity. My experience is out of date and I don't speak as an expert.
This, however, would not fly, if the Church adopted attitudes at variance with the consensus on matters touching on ethics, like (obviously) human relationships and sexuality, nor with any idea that the services of the Church depended upon people doing things like enforced sessions of Christian indoctrination, no matter how well done.
To those of a liberal persuasion this may be exactly how they think things should be. To others it is a Faustian bargain. At present it is not an options for the CofE as a whole. I'm split on this. A State-Church maybe should be just that. A branch of the State which handles life issues without the attempt to divide the state into believers and non-believers. This would imply, for me, no attempt to prevent other confessional groups doing their thing, but they should (and typically wouldn't) expect state aid. But I'm an MOTR sort of Christian and I don't see the Church as a valid institution without the Faith.
However, the Scandinavian model (if my understanding is more or less right) works and people are free to join a confessional group if that's their thing.
A full time member of staff, covering salary/stipend plus NI contributions and pension, will be a big chunk of £120k. Add in legally required public liability insurance, and costs of maintaining an organisation start to add up even without a building to deal with. Building upkeep could also, of course, include a manse or vicarage as well as the more obvious church buildings - and, be more than just maintenance (there'd be insurance, utilities, annual inspections of fire systems ... all of which needs to be paid for). Moving to a newer building should cut maintenance costs and the heating bill, if it's more secure there may be a cut in insurance. But, as a fraction of church expenditure (especially if that includes staff) won't make a big difference in overall spending unless you really are spending £100k per year to keep the roof from falling in.
But not far away is a parish with a old building that built a new building but then never got rid of the old one. So there is a old building for the use of around 12 people who, needless to say, are not bearing the cost. This is hardly wise use of money.
Each diocese decides for itself the method for calculating the amount any given parish in the diocese is asked to pay. In practice, the factors vary significantly between different dioceses.
Parishes are asked to pay the share. In practice, an ever-increasing number of parishes don't pay the full share, either because they have insufficient income, or because they are deliberately withholding part of the share in protest.
It helps, of course, that FInC is a *self-supporting* minister, living in a house provided by the Diocese - the PCC and congregation pay his expenses, but I'm not sure offhand what we contribute towards his housing. He is certainly money well spent, IYSWIM!
When he was appointed, the Diocese made the sensible decision to rent out the enormous 5-bedroomed vicarage, and to purchase a modest 3-bedroomed modern end-of-terrace house (10 minutes' walk away from the church). Any future priest allocated to Our Place is likely to be another self-supporting house-for-duty person.
It’s a financial support system different enough from what I’m used to that I’m not sure I’d have any helpful thoughts. (We have “per capita” payments that go to presbytery, synod and General Assembly, but those payments do not fund anything related to our building or to our ministers and staff.)
Okay, but in this I largely agree with @betjemaniac's post above, firstly because the costs are not explicit and secondly the alternatives are not necessarily straight forward.
The costs are just a reflection of property prices being high, mapping to high prices for any kind of building services and comparatively higher salaries so that people can afford a place to live. Ignore the heritage issue, I think most churches would be better off just seeing money as a unit of accounting and paying their clergy properly.
There are a number of organisations dating back from earlier times with similar issues; Scouts, social clubs, fraternal organisations and so on. There are some solutions in certain circumstances; but redevelopment isn't always appropriate and divestiture can only be done once.
At some point the cost is just the cost.
Does Father in charge have another paid job like a bivocational pastor in a non-conformist setting? Or are his non housing costs met in another way?
In our diocese each parish or group of parishes is asked to make a ‘generous offer’ to try and meet the cost of the clergy who serve them.
Each year the diocese publishes cost of local ministry figures. For 2025 the cost for a full time stipendiary clergy person was:
Payroll costs:
Stipend £31,719
Pension £7,783
Other (e.g. National Insurance) £3,365
Total Payroll Costs £42,867
Housing (net of renting out vacant houses) £10,449
Contribution towards curates in training (stipends and housing) £9,609
Ordination training (local and national costs) £3,883
Training for laity and clergy in service £1,640
Other (e.g. removals) £1,446
Total £69,894
Approximately 80% of the cost is met from parish offer. The balance (IIRC about £600K a year) is made up from diocesan resources.
When the fund-raising committee used this formula, they actually decided to shorten the funding program to just 10 years. Which meant the averages per each level would be double. Turned out the congregation itself met all their goals within five years, which was astounding to me. They just figured the project was well within their reach.
Another trick I learned was how to calculate the gross income of the congregation. In the United States, the average percentage of income given to a church is around 2.5%. The congregation that I am a member of collects around $750,000 per year from offerings. If I divide the contributions by that 2.5 percentage, that means my congregation, that would mean the total gross income of the members of my congregation would be $30 million total. Just think what it would be like if the congregation could receive an actual tithe of that income.
You can use the bell curve to pretty well figure how much everyone is giving annually too. About 10 percent of our congregation are college students, while another 10 percent are quite wealthy. 15 percent of the congregation is low income. 15 percent is upper middle income. 50% are middle income and they are giving the average.
Statistical analysis is quite interesting.
Sorry - just spotted this.
No, AFAIK he has no other job (he seems to work at Our Place pretty well full-time!).
Clerical Shipmates with experience of self-supporting ministers within the C of E will probably be better able to explain how they support themselves. FatherInCharge is a single chap in his mid-70s, so receives the state pension, but I don't know what other source(s) of income he may have.
He would think of things to his advantage. He would not be concerned about the general finances of the group but what he could get out of it. Not a good person to look to for opinions.
He was also a terrorist. How does that and being a thief invalidate his opinions?
I am saying that in relation to the OP, particularly the title, he is not someone that fits. I said nothing about him being entitled to his opinion. I questioned if he actually matches what the thread was about and was therefore not someone to look to. It is very clear from the Gospel record he cared about the money and not much else. Please find a Passage that contradicts what say and I will take it all back.
However, the biggest drain is the requirement to employ only those architects and surveyors on an "approved" list, when we have the expertise in the congregation who could, and would, do the job for free. That, and the restrictions of having a Grade I listed building, is a severe drain on our finances.
In what way was Judas a terrorist? Are you mixing him up with Simon the Zealot?
I'm not saying I particularly favour this theory but it is one that has gained traction in recent years. Other Shipmates will know more about this than I do.
Remember that the whole parish share is voluntary, regardless of how each diocese frames it. Parishes should not treat it as a bill for services rendered (or not). And I would bear in mind that deliberately withholding part of this voluntary contribution could be self-defeating if a parish wants to minimise the duration of an interregnum.
The conflation of worshipping community with historic building preservation society does no-one any favours. It's hard to see this deteriorating arrangement being addressed any time soon.
The church itself is not draughty (except around the main door!), but is expensive to heat in winter. The hall would be a much more sensible place for Sunday Mass in the colder months, but, of course, is not very *church-like*, IYSWIM.
OMG we need a Mystery Worshipper to do a review of Prestonwood, stat!