Bringing the church into disrepute
I am certain that very little damage was done to Christianity or the established church by the rather silly letter to the Daily Telegraph organised by the British Humanist Association which I blogged about a few days ago and was effectively answered by Bishop Nazir-Ali here, by several non-christians here, by some distinguished academics here, and by the Archbishop of Canterbury here.
Fifty letters like that do less damage to the church than one act of stupidity or injustice by the church itself, or an individual chuch, can do.
Or an act of stupidity and injustice such as registering to use an outmoded Tudor law giving some churches the right to claim "Chancel Repair Liability" from householders who may be nothing to do with the church concerned.
I am not against the community providing support to religious organisations which are contributing to the cultural or social fabric of society where the funds are voted for in an open and transparent way by elected representatives meeting in public who are willing to be accountable for their actions. Indeed, as a councillor in the past I supported grants from public funds being provided to St Albans Cathedral and other churches in both St Albans and Copeland where those churches were providing a valuable service to the whole of society.
But it is one thing for councils to use taxpayers' money in that way where the elected members who will be accountable to voters for that decision at the next local poll are willing to explain openly to those voters why they think the community is getting something worthwhile for their money. It is another matter entirely for churches to use a law passed under Henry VIII, nearly 500 years ago when the role of the church was utterly different, to make householders pay for repairs to church buildings even when they may live miles away and never have visited the church concerned.
The present government has rightly passed legislation to ensure that "Chancel Repair Liability" can only be enforced when it has been registered with the Land Registry. Of more than 5,000 churches wbicb could have registered the right to claim this charge only about 5% - around 250 parishes - have done so. But that is 250 too many.
We need to find a way of addressing the problem of maintaining historic churches which are part of our nation's cultural heritage, but Chancel Repair Liability isn't it. Considering how unreasonable this charge appears to me as a devout Anglican who isn't personally affected by it, I shudder to think how it appears to unbelievers, members of other faiths, and people who are.
This sort of thing does far more harm to the church than Professors Richard Dawkins and Jim Al-Khalil and all their like minded friends put together have done in their entire lives.
It is not a practical possibilty to untie this particular knot this side of the next general election - when you start to repeal laws which are hundreds of years old you hae to work through all the implications carefully because you don't usually know when you start what all the knock-on implications will be - but I hope that the next government, whoever the electorate may return in 2015, will after appropriate discussions with all interested parties find a fair and reasonable way to abolish Chancel Repair Liability.
Fifty letters like that do less damage to the church than one act of stupidity or injustice by the church itself, or an individual chuch, can do.
Or an act of stupidity and injustice such as registering to use an outmoded Tudor law giving some churches the right to claim "Chancel Repair Liability" from householders who may be nothing to do with the church concerned.
I am not against the community providing support to religious organisations which are contributing to the cultural or social fabric of society where the funds are voted for in an open and transparent way by elected representatives meeting in public who are willing to be accountable for their actions. Indeed, as a councillor in the past I supported grants from public funds being provided to St Albans Cathedral and other churches in both St Albans and Copeland where those churches were providing a valuable service to the whole of society.
But it is one thing for councils to use taxpayers' money in that way where the elected members who will be accountable to voters for that decision at the next local poll are willing to explain openly to those voters why they think the community is getting something worthwhile for their money. It is another matter entirely for churches to use a law passed under Henry VIII, nearly 500 years ago when the role of the church was utterly different, to make householders pay for repairs to church buildings even when they may live miles away and never have visited the church concerned.
The present government has rightly passed legislation to ensure that "Chancel Repair Liability" can only be enforced when it has been registered with the Land Registry. Of more than 5,000 churches wbicb could have registered the right to claim this charge only about 5% - around 250 parishes - have done so. But that is 250 too many.
We need to find a way of addressing the problem of maintaining historic churches which are part of our nation's cultural heritage, but Chancel Repair Liability isn't it. Considering how unreasonable this charge appears to me as a devout Anglican who isn't personally affected by it, I shudder to think how it appears to unbelievers, members of other faiths, and people who are.
This sort of thing does far more harm to the church than Professors Richard Dawkins and Jim Al-Khalil and all their like minded friends put together have done in their entire lives.
It is not a practical possibilty to untie this particular knot this side of the next general election - when you start to repeal laws which are hundreds of years old you hae to work through all the implications carefully because you don't usually know when you start what all the knock-on implications will be - but I hope that the next government, whoever the electorate may return in 2015, will after appropriate discussions with all interested parties find a fair and reasonable way to abolish Chancel Repair Liability.
Comments