One Methodist blogger Minister David Warnock is bursting with excitement and asking why no one is taking legal action against the TUC and the Labour Party.
I'm a member of both the Labour Party and a trades union.
Neither the Labour Party nor the trades unions have charitable status. Unlike the Methodist Church they are unable to claim up to a fifth of their regular income from fellow taxpayers. Nor are they able to benefit from generous tax breaks on legacies, endowments, land sales and investments. All these benefits are funded by taxpayers, who have little say in how those funds are used.
The Labour Party is specifically a political organisation with political objectives.
After a long battle the trades unions have to hold contributions for political activities in a separate, carefully audited, voluntary "politcal fund".
In the last few days David Warnock has been harranging me on other blogs saying that its all very simple - just put a "memorial" to Methodist Conference and all will be well with the world.
So at next year's Methodist Conference we can expect a Memorial proposed by the Reverend David Warnock calling for the Methodist Church to cease trading as a charitable organisation, refuse to take another penny of taxpayers' money and ask every member to cough up an extra pound a week for a seperate auditable polical fund.
Perhaps someone will move an admendament suggesting we no longer take government grants to run playgroups, training schemes and the like? We would also refuse to take any money from bodies like English Heritage.
Many of our 4500 churches would financially collapse within weeks. Our buildings would continue to decay. We'd have to lay off staff, possibly including David Warnock.
Conference will clearly vote for that on the same basis that turkeys regularly vote for an early Christmas.
Personally I've never been wholeheartedly in favour of churches having taxpayer's funding. For example as an MEP I refused to support campaigns to get work on church buildings exempt from VAT. My late brother's church in Leicester never took a penny from public funds. Many smaller independent churches take that line precisely so they are free to work as they believe God leads.
And in the current economic climate with a government anxious to seek cuts in public expenditure it may not be the wisest course of action to compare the Methodist Church with organisations that have no taxpayer funding and are entirely funded from their membership.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
I doubt you'll let this through but it's actually really difficult to believe that you care about the finances of the Methodist Church.
A report that probably cost less than £1000 and is NOT an on-going expensive campaign would have been noticed by no one if you had not made it high profile.
A lawsuit *will*, of course make a big dent in church finances.
When people say one thing with their words and another with their actions, I believe their actions.
If the pro-Israel principle is that important, it's also important that a high-profile organisation who people actually DO listen to is taking the same stance as the Methodist Church regardless of whether it is for-profit or not.
Thanks Pam your comments are always welcome. Just to clarify: you use the phrase "pro-Israel".
Does that mean you and the Methodist Church are "anti-Israel". If so exactly what are you "anti"?
Are you "anti" Israel enough that you want the Israelis driven into the sea?
Are you "anti" Israel so that you would repudiate any peace settlement that would involve a land swop (on the table in discussions at the moment).
Can you explain what you mean when one is "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel".
How do you think the Methodist Church should express its new "anti-Israel" credentials? Is Portsmouth report and resolution "anti-Israel" enough? Or would you like it to be more "anti-Israel"?
Incidentally, I've had to moderate comments as I've had a few nutters on and can't sit here 24 hours a day moderating comments.
Your creativity in inventing a whole story about me is impressive and amusing. Just a shame that it is so disconnected with reality.
You claim to be suing the Methodist Church for having a very similar policy towards the illegal settlements in the West Bank to
- The TUC
- Christian Aid
- Oxfam
- Cafod
and potentially The Labour Party.
Some of these are charities and some are not. You are a member of at least one of them.
My point was nothing about gift aid (something I happen to be very ambivalent about as I see it as a relic of Christendom and do not want the Church to be dependent on the state). It was about why you are picking on the Methodist Church and no other organisation with similar policies.
After all one of your arguments was that the Methodist Church needs to be consistent and act in all cases of injustice or none - I am only holding you to your own standard.
Thanks David.
We have common ground on our ambivalence about the church being dependent on the state. I'm looking forward to your memorial to Conference.
You are right there are several organisations that have passed resolutions critical of Israel.
My Methodist Church contribution represents more than a tenth of my disposable income.
It is my biggest single financial commitment since paying off the mortgage so I feel I have a responsibility to ensure that it is used lawfully, especially as part of that contribution is now gifted aid.
I worship in a struggling church in the most deprived area of Birmingham. It would help if the Connexion actually did something positive to support churches such as ours that are effectively "on mission".
Posturing on issues upon which Conference is clearly ignorant - at least judging by the report that was presented to it - is not helping us proclaim God's love in a broken world.
David,
I have no intention of wasting my time or the Churches time with a memorial on tax relief.
I want the Church focused on mission not on tax law.
I do see a focus on Mission at Methodist Council, District Synod, District Exec, our Circuit Meeting, our Circuit CLT, in the Churches in our Circuit, in the work of the connexional team (like the Discipleship book). I want to encourage all this not stifle it or distract from it.
In other words I can see many people getting hold of mission in all it's aspects and getting on with it. I see eagerness and I see results (just heard great news from a Church I have moved on from. They have had a huge Junior Church Anniversary, are going on with growing their fresh expression etc).
I have said before many times that this is a great time to be a Methodist as God is so clearly at work.
I passionately believe that working for Justice and Peace is a central part of mission. In the report on "Justice for Palestine and Israel" I see passionate people who have dedicated time to working for the Mission of the Church. They cannot have got everything perfect as they are busy people - busy with mission. They have produced a report and the democratic conference received it and passed the resolutions after an open debate.
So I see a Church that is trying to focus on mission and get on with things with eagerness and urgency.
Then I read that you want to sue this Church because you disagree with the democratic decisions of the democratically elected conference.
I do not understand this at all. I know people have different views on Israel. I disagree with your views.
But to me all you are doing is trying to stop mission. To distract the Church from mission and you are doing so in ways that appear to me to be fundamentally opposed to Scripture.
You are giving good money to the Church, great. But now you want to throw away your money and the Churches money over a decision you don't like but that was democratic and happened after an open debate. You could have read the paper and spoken to your elected representatives before conference and you can now work for a change at the next conference.
I am at a total loss to understand how you think there is any possible way that your actions could be considered to be good for the mission of God.
Even if I agreed with your position on Israel and Palestine I can't see how your actions would be good for mission.
David,
I have no intention of wasting my time or the Churches time with a memorial on tax relief.
I want the Church focused on mission not on tax law.
I do see a focus on Mission all over the Methodist Church (Methodist Council, Synod, District Exec, Circuit Mtg, Circuit CLT, Local Churches, Connexional team). I want to encourage all this not stifle it or distract from it.
In other words I can see many people getting hold of mission in all it's aspects and getting on with it. I see eagerness and I see results (just heard great news from a Church I have moved on from. They have had a huge Junior Church Anniversary, are going on with growing their fresh expression etc).
As I have said before this is a great time to be a Methodist as God is so clearly at work.
I passionately believe that working for Justice and Peace is a central part of mission. Busy, passionate people have dedicated time to working for the Mission of the Church by writing this report. They cannot have got everything perfect as they are not perfect and are busy people. But the democratic conference received it and passed the resolutions after an open debate.
So I see a Church that is trying to focus on mission and get on with things with eagerness and urgency.
Then I read that you want to sue this Church because you disagree with the democratic decisions of the democratically elected conference.
I do not understand this at all. I know people have different views on Israel. I disagree with your views. But to me all you are doing is trying to stop mission. To distract the Church from mission and you are doing so in ways that appear to me to be fundamentally opposed to Scripture.
David
You are giving good money to the Church, great. But now you want to throw away your money and the Churches money over a decision you don't like but that was democratic and happened after an open debate. You could have read the paper and spoken to your elected representatives before conference and you can now work for a change at the next conference.
Even if I agreed with your position on Israel and Palestine I am at a total loss to understand how you think your actions could be considered to be good for the mission of God.
How do you think your actions can help your own Church on Mission?
Tell you want. Let is follow the Quaker model (where they do not wish to support war via their taxes). Let us agree how much of your total giving has gone to the connexion and been spent on this issue.
You reduce your giving by that and I'll increase mine by the same amount providing you a) drop the lawsuit and b) seek to change the policy of the Methodist Church through the mechanisms of the Church
Conference may be ill-informed. Even ignorant. Reports it receives may be badly researched and badly written, leading to poor conclusions. (I don't believe that is very often the case, but it is arguable. And if you think that, there are good ways in which it Conference can be challenged.
That's a very different thing from claiming that Conference is pursuing a racist political campaign which results in the illegal use of Methodism's funds.
Allow me to ask again, ever so politely:
1. Where is this political campaign against the Jews?
2. What money is Methodism using illegally?
3. Have you actually taken any legal action, or are we still talking about a threat?
ust to clarify: you use the phrase "pro-Israel".
Does that mean you and the Methodist Church are "anti-Israel". If so exactly what are you "anti"?
Let's see if you let this through.
I think that's exactly the impression that you have been trying to give and that you're trying to give again with this question.
I am "for" godly actions no matter who does them. I am "against" murder, the suffering of small children, dispossession, etc., no matter who does those actions. Thus, in my book, it is not - for example - OK for Hamas to launch rockets that murder small children on the way to school and destroy people's homes. But that doesn't mean that whatever Israel does that kills, dispossesses and deprives Palestinians of a decent living is OK either.
I see you promoting a kind of paradigm here where you demand that as a Methodist I must support all of Israel's actions, no matter what those actions are and how much they hurt people.
I am not a politician who is called to make a Realpolitik kind of choice along the lines of "Israel is the least bad option, so we need to throw all our support behind them and crush their enemies".
I am a Methodist minister who is called to say - for example - murder is wrong when it is done by Hamas, it's wrong when murder is done by Israel, it's wrong when it's done by me and it's wrong when it's done by you. I am called to name evil actions when they are evil. Not to take sides against one group of people or the other.
Yesterday, my Jewish colleague and I disagreed about something and he teasingly called me an "anti-Semite" to which I replied "misogynist". He got the last word in and said "you obviously have a problem with all men". All this was said in affection between two people who hold each other in high regard. But, in the system you are promoting, it seems legitimate to start screaming "you hate me for who I am" every time someone disagrees with me. I think that's another manifestation of untruth.
And, I do particularly dislike this sort of spin where you set people up to "show" how we are "anti-Israel" and "anti-Semetic".
Sorry Pam. You used the phrase "pro-Israel" and I was interested to understand what you mean by that and the contrary.
There is no need to preface future posts with the salutation
"Let's see if you let this through"
As you may see from other posts I am getting nutters having a go on the site at the moment.
I don't like moderation - stifles discussion.
I suspect that Pam prefaces her comment in that way because she has experience of comments not making it through moderation. As have others. And they're not all from "nutters". (Incidentally, nice choice of word for someone who objects so strongly to personal abuse)
Post a Comment