26th July 2005, 09:07 PM
To answer these points and repeat the point I made earlier the Church is a very broad Church of people with widely ranging views on matters historic. To generalise about all Christians who follow one particular creed and their attitudes is like saying all ***** ***** - that is a a statement whioch would get me barred from BAJR.
Funding-
It all depends upon what type of Church and and who is responcible - active parish churches usually the congregation with grants from the lottery, EH and similar.
Redundant Churches
Depends if they are in the care of the redundant churches committee as it was called thye via a joint fund of the Church and government. Otherwise the diocese in which they are until disposed of in which case via the parish share - raised by the congregations and via there own investments.
There are shades of grey in between.
Both can be eligible for enabling development - in effect public subsidy. In addition there are bequests, and other ventures. See
http://www.stnicholasipswich.com
There is a polarity of views on Churches. Lay people think Church upkeep should be paid for by the state - they are in many countries and church users who think the historic nature of Churches is important but find the burden of cost difficult.
There is currently a 17 million shortfall in the upkeep cost for the Parish Church upkeep costs. Some of this has been meet by government. Details of this can be found in "Faith in our future"
Curator Kid says that "attempted intimidation and downright abuse" - I find this very difficult to believe and indeed this is a libellous statement if not true. I would remind curator kid that one of the key themes of PPG 16 is that conflicts are resolved and I would hope that any curator has the experience to resolve any conflicts or better still avoid them.
My own experience about attitudes is that there is a degree of cynicism about archaeologist. This I would suggest is due to the way archaeologist have treated them in the past. For example one unit well known IFA reg etc did a watching brief charged an arm and a leg and didnt send the Church a copy of the report. Naughty or what. The second piece of work commissioned by this Church well does not do what is required in circumstances such as this. They deployed an expensive experimental technique and all of this paid for by wife and her friends. I was furious when I found out.
I could rant about this some more .....
I am proud to have the CofE on my client list they are in many respects the most forward looking, but respect and wish to protect their heritage, and friendly people to work for.
Peter
Funding-
It all depends upon what type of Church and and who is responcible - active parish churches usually the congregation with grants from the lottery, EH and similar.
Redundant Churches
Depends if they are in the care of the redundant churches committee as it was called thye via a joint fund of the Church and government. Otherwise the diocese in which they are until disposed of in which case via the parish share - raised by the congregations and via there own investments.
There are shades of grey in between.
Both can be eligible for enabling development - in effect public subsidy. In addition there are bequests, and other ventures. See
http://www.stnicholasipswich.com
There is a polarity of views on Churches. Lay people think Church upkeep should be paid for by the state - they are in many countries and church users who think the historic nature of Churches is important but find the burden of cost difficult.
There is currently a 17 million shortfall in the upkeep cost for the Parish Church upkeep costs. Some of this has been meet by government. Details of this can be found in "Faith in our future"
Curator Kid says that "attempted intimidation and downright abuse" - I find this very difficult to believe and indeed this is a libellous statement if not true. I would remind curator kid that one of the key themes of PPG 16 is that conflicts are resolved and I would hope that any curator has the experience to resolve any conflicts or better still avoid them.
My own experience about attitudes is that there is a degree of cynicism about archaeologist. This I would suggest is due to the way archaeologist have treated them in the past. For example one unit well known IFA reg etc did a watching brief charged an arm and a leg and didnt send the Church a copy of the report. Naughty or what. The second piece of work commissioned by this Church well does not do what is required in circumstances such as this. They deployed an expensive experimental technique and all of this paid for by wife and her friends. I was furious when I found out.
I could rant about this some more .....
I am proud to have the CofE on my client list they are in many respects the most forward looking, but respect and wish to protect their heritage, and friendly people to work for.
Peter