to be really quite disgusted with the Church?

[CopperHandle]

Visited Norwich Cathedral and the place was plastered in begging signs asking for donations. They were boasting that it costs almost £4000 a DAY to run the building, not including major repairs which regularly run into six figures in a year.

For an institute that preaches charitable giving, putting others before self etc etc is it not massively hypocritical to run in such a way that is so incredibly costly?
£4,000 a day for a single building... so there are more than 80 cathedrals in the UK - just on this alone - how many people could be helped with this amount of money?!

AIBU to think this is massively hypocritical and, well, just plain wrong?

My cathedral is the same... it relies on public donations to stay on good condition! If only they could have done it for a Castle we have nearby!

I disagree with the comment that sending aid to third world countries is put to good use.

Aid should be aid. Items they need, help and suppliers. Medicine and clean water systems. Not with a hint of religious documents. Like the shoe box appeal, give the kids the boxes, without the need to bring them to the faith.

If there was a god, and he really was all loving these children wouldn't need shoe boxes filled with stuff from the western world.

cathedrals (and many churches) and busy community centres with far reaching benefits to the whole society, as well as hubs for religion, music and history.

I said this upthread, but I'll say it again here.

Most winter shelters for rough sleepers in London are in churches, around 19/20. Most refugee centres and food banks are run out of churches, ( and most refugees sleeping rough in London are Muslim, not Christian)

Most toddler groups and brownies/cubs etc are run in churches, many music schools and choirs, etc.

There are three churches in our high street, two will be open for tea and coffee right now. One is open every single day to serve tea and coffee, and runs a youth club several evenings a week.

One has three separate churches running from the same building, one English speaking, one Polish speaking and one African. Each congregation has a Sunday service, a couple of weekday services, a womans service, a worship practice, planning and admin meetings, bible study, etc, as well as the toddler groups and holiday clubs etc they run together.

The idea that churches are only used a couple of hours a week is quite weird.

The big historic buildings I do think we need to find the money to maintain them. We don't want to wipe out our national history and replace it with blandness just to cut costs do we?
However, I go to a church where about 50 people meet in a huge building which costs a fortune to maintain and consequently I'd say 80% of the church's efforts are focused on raising money and caring for our building. This annoys me hugely as we live in an area of real deprivation. I'd love to see the building sold, the money given to people who desperately need it and the congregation moved into a simple hall somewhere. Won't happen though!

I work, occasionally for a church. The building is very old. I recently found out how much their yearly insurance bill came in at and came over quite queasy.

I'm not sure how that's relevant, Errol. Can you explain more, please? Do you mean that I should not have mentioned I gave the homeless man some money? I think it's true - I should not. The reason I did mention it was to avoid derailing the thread into people telling me I should have done that, which IME is what would have happened. (And fear is happening now.) I agree with you that public performance of charity, like charity galas etc, are also against the teachings of Jesus. But I don't agree that explaining the difference between how Christians consider how to act (led by the teachings of Jesus) and how non-Christians consider how to act (led by another moral or ethical framework) is inherently sanctimonious. It is factual and relevant.

Church of England is a very rich organisation. Catholic church more so. Neither need public donations or tax break or government VAT policies to help maintain buildings. Of course, there used to be more worshippers and thus more tithes from the poor to fund the grandeur of God......

The queen is ungodly rich but still charges admission to her private residences. The Duke of Northumberland is rich but still charges admission to his private residences, etc etc. Their residences cost money to maintain.

Is that just your personal opinion, or is it based on fact.

So the facts are that the Church of England spends just a little bit more than it earns each year (so dipping slightly into investments).

That is with giving, gift aid, PCC fees, some VAT exemptions, income from grant & trusts, and tourist contributions. Take away any of these and it would be very difficult to fulfil the mission of the church.

I don't know about the RCC but I am always a bit surprised when I read here that they are rolling in it. They don't have a lot of land, parishioner giving is low, priests are on a stipend etc. They don't seem rich.

The Queen's wealth is tied up in things she can't sell though. Similar to the church, I suppose.

zolah - no, I was just adding to your scriptural quotation the bit (v 5:6) about going to your room to pray... you cant help wondering what the Jesus portrayed in the gospels would have made of cathedrals. I couldn't work out how to c&p a couple of vv so linked the whole chapter

Sound-biting Scripture is rarely useful.

The people who built cathedrals wanted to glorify God, as well as providing a practical space to meet and worship.

We know the medieval church was in error with the sale of indulgences etc, as this was a way to get the buildings built. We've had the Reformation to try to reverse this. As someone else said, we'd need a time machine to change anything.

But I will put my hand up and say that I am glad our churches are not like Brethern Meeting Houses. How we build and kit out our buildings are also an act of worship.

And we also have to remember that God is the provider. All things come from him.

Oh I see! I worried. Phew!

Bizzy, I was really just trying to point up the reason that Christians might act differently to any other random group of people in direct response to Sequence's question. That was all! It's not unreasonable to say that people who believe things sometimes try to act according to those beliefs, I think. Anyway, onward.

Here's the website of Norwich Cathedral

One of the first things it says on its home page is "Admission is Free. Donations are welcome".

Page 14 of the Strategic Plan gives information on their "vision for our finances and buildings".

LittleBooInABox might I suggest you take a look at the Christian aid website. You will find that it is not "just aid" that is given but a great deal more.

I will say it once again. There are many ignorant comments on this thread.

I don't know about the RCC but I am always a bit surprised when I read here that they are rolling in it. They don't have a lot of land, parishioner giving is low, priests are on a stipend etc. They don't seem rich.

The RCC globally is extremely wealthy primarily due to the assets and investments of the Vatican bank and its landholdings. In this country; not so much. I'm in quite a thriving parish (bucking the trend commented on in this thread of 4 people listening to "hate filled" teachings) - we have a liberal priest with a modernising attitude and a growing Polish community. Parishioner giving is quite substantial in relative terms, but it's for specific things - aid in the local community, a diocesan refugee project, international campaigns e.g. Syria - it's not used for day to day running expenses.

I think there's a difference between the echelons of an institution and how it actually functions in a community. You can disagree with, for example, the Vatican (and I generally do) while supporting a priest and a parish in your local area which you know to be doing genuine good and not rolling in it. Start putting in place financial penalties and it's that local good work which will detrimentally affected, not the Vatican.

YANBU to be 'disgusted' at the church.

Financial crises is threatening the future of some of the country’s most cherished buildings.

If you want to enjoy these spectacular buildings then you need to be prepared to pay for the privilege, churches and cathedrals are not state funded (like in France) they are self funded.

I'm from Norwich and was always grateful that the cathedral is one of the few that doesn't require an entrance cost. I used to walk past it on my way home from school and used to go in a lot just for a bit of quiet and reflection. I have never found the notices 'begging'.

Tourists who visit often don't go for spiritual reasons but because its such a beautiful building. Do you think all historical buildings should be left to fall into ruin?

The last time I went to Canterbury, you couldn't even see the cathedral from the town - the whole grounds have been blocked off from view. It used to be that you could cut through the grounds. To me, that is just greedy. It's one thing to charge entry fees to Cathedrals for upkeep but the amounts charged can be too much, so as to exclude poorer people - religion is meant to be inclusive, it's not the same as charging people to go to longleat!

I can't help thinking that the money spent on upkeep would fund an awful lot of doup kitchens. Imo the church shouldn't be sitting on any wealth - it should all be spent to help people and they can fundraise when they run out!

I go to church in a medieval pile about 4 mins walk from Norwich cathedral...you can walk in for free. Of course if it is raining the holes in the roof might make you a bit damp. The children's work takes place in the tower rooms, we've no effective heating so they will be keeping their coats on. We'll give you a lovely welcome and a warm drink/biccie . You can wander around the outstanding architecture and admire medieval stained glass windows. All for free.

For the congregation the building is the bane of our lives. It eats money. But the Victorian soc and other worthy institutions who wish to preserve history untainted by the trappings of modernity won't let us modernise. So sorry that the loo is not disabled access, and you are cold but at least it is free eh.

OP would you apply the same criteria to buildings from other religions, here and around the world? If Christians are to be held to account for their morality and use of money, what about other religions and belief systems, or any agnostics and atheists who say their moral code doesn't include religion but is just as good?

AvoidingCallanetics, what do you think should happen to the buildings? They can't be sold- there is no alternative use for a mediaeval cathedral, and you'd never get permission to turn one into anything else - they can't be left to fall into ruin because they're listed and protected, and you don't think the church should use them because they send the wrong message. So what should happen? How does the church deal with its buildings? (Possibly it shouldn't have built them, but there's not much that the present generation can do about that.)

Thomasina I don't really mind fundraising to maintain the building, but they shouldn't block off an entire Cathedral from view, to exclude anyone who cannot pay - to me that isn't in the spirit of religion.

Are you sure that's why it was blocked off? Did anyone object to the planning application?

AvoidingCallenetics but the churches already fund and run most soup kitchens