.jpg)
The main drawback was the inequality between parishes. Some were very rich and could pay a large stipend, and others not much more than the widow’s mite. However, there were remedies, including Queen Anne’s Bounty, which later became the Church Commissioners, charged with distributing money to poor clergy and parishes.
The socialistic mind of the 1970s could not abide these local variations. With the best of intentions (which, of course, pave the path to perdition) to iron out inequality, the wealth of the parishes was nationalised.
The innocuous-sounding Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976 forced all 11,000 parishes to surrender their historic endowments to the Church Commissioners in London, and their glebe lands to their dioceses. The payment of a standardised stipend to clergy from these funds then became a central responsibility.
The law of unintended consequences then did its baleful work. The sudden influx of huge amounts of money to the dioceses and Church Commissioners spawned a costly and inefficient bureaucracy to look after it.
In some dioceses, there are now almost as many administrators as priests. This bureaucracy has become ever more focused on its own perpetuation and concerns: corporate communications, modish eco initiatives and divisive racial justice work, justifying HR and political fads under the cloak of misread scripture.
As for the parishes whose historic wealth has funded this bureaucratic incubus, they are rewarded with evil for good. The central authorities hold them in contempt. Since the time of Archbishop Justin Welby, if not before, the pressure has been on to amalgamate parishes and to run down the number of parish clergy.
The old and resilient bond between local priest, local church and people is being broken. Where new funding is available, it is often to train unpaid lay volunteers to do the work of vicars, and to establish “hubs” outside and opposed to the parish system.
Despite this, the central authorities demand large “parish share” payments from the parishes, and outrageously blame shortage of clergy on less money being put in the collection plate.
This 1970s experiment in centralisation has failed. It is time for these distant and disdainful bureaucracies to be broken up, and the money, and power, to be returned to the people and parishes who truly understand and can respond to local needs.
There is enough money to pay for clergy, and to keep the roofs on our historic churches, were it not being immolated in the high places to the false gods of red tape. If the parishes had their own treasure back, they wouldn’t be having to pray for a passing Good Samaritan to help them.
Across a number of churches, they have found bags of gold and silver coins stuffed as donations into collection boxes, mischievously hidden under kneelers, or even in one instance under the cross on an altar.
Their total value, around £70,000, has been a lifeline for volunteers and vicars alike who are facing huge bills just to keep their historic buildings in good repair and open for services.
We may be charmed by the story of this Good Samaritan, and indeed we would do well to follow his example if we care about the future of our local churches – even if we do just park a more conventional £20 note in the collection plate instead of a bag of gold sovereigns.
Yet it should not take a host of Good Samaritans to save our impoverished churches. There is treasure enough to look after our churches, treasure which until recently belonged to them but was taken away. It is time for this treasure to be given back.
It was once the case that individual parishes had their own not inconsiderable wealth. Generations of locals and benefactors, stretching back to the Middle Ages, had endowed them with church lands (known as “glebe”) and investments that helped (along with the “tithe” taxes) to pay for the employment of a priest and the running of the parish church. This endowment also usually included the vicarage for the priest’s accommodation.
This local control of wealth and responsibility for paying priests was economical. The absence of central control also allowed clergy to be independent-minded and responsive to local needs.