I’ve pulled this topic out of the comments on this post. It seems to me that there’s a mix of confusion and misrepresentation on this subject by people who ought to know better. At a popular level it’s even worse. I remember once explaining our expectations of preparation for baptism to an angry grandmother. Her answer: “What do we pay our taxes for? I want the baby done now.”
As far as I know, there are four primary connections with state money. If anyone knows of others, I’ll add to this post, or you can add to the comments.
Individual historic buildings owned by the Church (mainly cathedrals and parish churches) apply for and receive grants of various sizes for specific projects maintaining the nation’s architectural and cultural heritage. These grants are insufficient to cover all the work that needs to be done, and always need supplementing by local fund-raising. These grants are, of course, not exclusive to the Church of England, but the Church of England is the custodian of the greatest number of such buildings. In practice it is more the case that the Church aids the State, practically and financially, in the upkeep of its built heritage, than the other way round.
The VAT paid on repairs to historic buildings may be reclaimed. This is significant, but the Church still has to cash flow this, and so can easily lose out on investment income. Again this applies to any historic building, and therefore is not exclusive to the Church of England.
The church can reclaim the tax on money given to it by regular and one-off donors. This is done through a Gift Aid scheme, which is available to every recognised charity, including all the churches. It is not an exclusive privilege of the Church of England.
Finally, there is the funding for Church Schools. I would not even have considered this in this category if Ekklesia’s Jonathan Bartley hadn’t tried to claim it was a means of state funding (in the comments referenced above). I regard this as disingenuous. As a mix of historical accident and present policy, the Church of England is heavily invested in the State Education system. Most of the schools’ costs are covered from State funding, and the schools are themselves an inextricable part of the State provision, which must follow the State curriculum. Take this Church provision away overnight and the State system would collapse in many parts of the country, particularly in primary education. (Incidentally, don’t read this as support for the system, just an explanation of it.)
These schools come in more than one variety. But in those in which the Church’s say is significant, the Church funds a percentage of the costs of all capital development. This effectively means that church-goers and other local supporters of these schools end up paying twice for improving local facilities that benefit the whole community, once as taxpayers and once as churchgoers. In practice, this is not “State funding” in any real sense. But even if it is classified as such, it is available to all Church Schools, and indeed the model is now being rolled out to the wider concept of “Faith Schools”. The Roman Catholic Church is the second largest provider of supplementary aid to the State system after the Church of England.
The point that seems to emerge fairly clearly (to me at least) is that there is no State funding given to the Church of England exclusively. Funding is given to custodians of ancient buildings and partners in a national education system. In both those cases this work would cost the tax-payer a lot more if the Church didn’t share some of the burden. Tax relief is given on repairs to historic building and on all charitable giving from individual donors to any charity.
Anyone who tries to represent this as “State funding of the Church of England” as though this were a special and unique case is, I suggest, either misled themselves, or misleading others.
Comments on this entry are closed.