John Rutter on religion

Thanks to lillygran and jo5 - the only 2 who have replied directly to my direct question [sushine]. The otherwise silence perhaps (?) indicates that most would not either, or would not to be put in a situation where sitting on the fence is no longer possible (as has happened here recently - really putting the cat amongst the pigeons big time).

There are so many different kinds of state schools now with so many different sponsors and so many different funding arrangements, I think it hardly matters.

If most of the funding comes from the state, it doesn't seem right to me that they are called church schools, even if it was the church that set them up in the first place. Nowadays it seems to me that they are state schools supported by the church rather than church schools supported by the state. Historical oddities, I suppose.

Church schools have different levels of funding and different funding arrangements, but yes, the majority funding of church schools comes from the state. But in spite of the perception that children are only allowed in if their parents go to church, many church schools have an intake that reflects the local demographic in terms of faith/non-faith, ethnic background, family income. There are many other forms of education, though, from nurseries through to adult education and training for church members and non-members. For example, I've most recently been to courses on child protection and on the position of Muslims in the local population as well as quite a few on faith-related topics.

Thanks, lily. I did go to the link. It didn,t give very much information, I thought, such as what, exactly, the investments are. But maybe I didn't look deep enough.

One part did puzzle me a bit: the claim that the CofE provides a lot of education. Aren't CofE schools largely funded by taxpayers, including non-members of the Church?

Bags some rich people give and have given large amounts, yes. It's explained in the link I gave, above. The CoE has large investments.

Just had a thought about above post - perhaps I'm very wrong - we could end up supporting stuff like scientology etc. I was just thinking about the churches and chapels of my youth, not the scary cults of today.

If we accept that churches are part of the fabric of a country's life, and perform important sociological and charitable functions, then they should receive enough government support to function.

As an atheist, I would have no problem with a bit of my tax going that way. After all, local taxes go to supporting other things in which I have no interest, such as sport.

Doesn't the CofE, like the Catholic Church, have investments (from donations from rich sponsors) that help it to pay its way? The RC is phenominally rich.

www.churchofengland.org/about-us/facts-stats/funding.aspx Churches in leafy suburbs subsidise inner city churches and much other work. But having said that, many inner city congregations do support their churches because those who have, give generously. All CoE churches are expected to pay a contribution to the general work of the diocese. This is not a tax since it is not compulsory but it operates in a similar way.

People who become Christian to get their children into good schools would probably pay because it's still cheaper than school fees!

'Middle class parishes in leafy suburbs' may well be able to balance the books - but what about those in inner city areas- where contributors are struggling financially and have so many social and other problems, thus requiring so much more time, effort ... and finances to pay for such? Hence here, people pay tax to the County synod that will then share according to need.

Lilygran - I fully understand your reply and that you would be prepared to pay, as you are, it seems, a regular Church goer with a genuine Christian faith.
My question was 'aimed' at those who, like John Rutter want to sit on the fence, have their cake and eat it. The ones who, here where I live, when asked to put the money where they 'mouth' is - turned away.

What Granjura asked was, if you were asked to pay 2.3% of your income...would you give up your religious affiliation. Yes, Of course I would pay and no, of course I wouldn't give up my religious affiliation. Many people pay much more than that and some churches already tithe. Churches (at the moment) still have charitable status and therefore people can covenant what they give. Lots of people do. And many people also give their services, like the organist at St Saviour who was murdered at Christmas. Many churches cover their costs. Many don't. In the CoE most churches pay a contribution based on income to the diocese which covers the admin costs of the diocese and goes towards the support of poorer parishes. Those of you who are not believers but say you like visiting churches and listening to the music benefit from the money raised by the Christians who attend church for other reasons.

As for John Rutter, I have just read, in my Bernard Cornwell book, a quote from some saint (can't remember the name):- "If you won't have God as your Father then you can't have the Church as your mother".

Quite right I would think.

I think working for your church - like being an "elder", and organising Xmas fairs and suchlike, is an acceptable way to "pay" towards your church.

Of course, there is always the collection.

Sorry, granjura, I thought you were asking whether we, in this country, would be prepared to pay a tithe to whatever Church we purported to belong to, I wasn't considering the bigger picture.

You wouldn't expect to continue to play golf or squash at a club and yet refuse to pay fees, would you?

Ana, it might not affect their beliefs - but it would affect their relationship with a Parish unable to deliver its services, not just in Church, but in the community, where they play a large role with the elderly, infirm, sick, lonely, etc. The Parish of course gets a list of names of those who pay, and of course can easily deduce who does not. Personally, if I expected to be part of a Parish, and expect its services to continue, both in and outside Church- I'd feel pretty bad not to pay- and to continue to expect such service to continue.

Of course not. I pay more than that snyway. But it wouldn't please me. I hate compulsion.

Well, those who didn't wish to pay would simply change what they put on official forms. It wouldn't affect their beliefs of course.

Rutter does not simply want to sit on the fence - he gets on and sits on it! And good for him! He has cogent and well-expressed reasons for doing so.

Here it is not a nominated Church as per Parish - it is the local Church as per, the Protestant or Catholic Church of a county, in the UK would be something like 'CofE of Leicestershire' or 'Catholic Church of Surrey'.

I would think that those who go regularly, take part in most of the acitvities and do believe in what the content of the King James Bible and the crede, would do, quite naturally. But probably not most of those who only go once in a blue moon for a wedding, a funeral or to sing Carols on Christmas eve, those I previously called 'cultural Christians' (just has has happened here where I live- where sitting on the fence, like Rutter wants to, would cost a pretty penny).

No, neither would I. Can't see DD agreeing to that either, and she's a "pillar" of her church!

No.

If I had a nominated church and a serious religious afflilation then presumably I owuld sign up to supporting it financially.