Another Look at Church and State
From VHCHILD on UCCHRISTNETMarch 24, 2004
"Remember, that particularly in Massachusetts and Connecticut, colonial-era towns were required to have a church before they could organize as a legal entity. So, the older the town,the more likely the church is to be positively intertwined with town life. it's also true that in many small towns the church was the largest building in town and thus was used to hold Town Meetings. I can imagine that led to some folks seeing the church as the religous arm of the secular government. I don't see that happening today, in my town.
But the original inter-twining of church and state led, in the early days, to the development of a method of church organization unique to the parts of the US where we were the "state church" . Part 1 was an "ecclesiastical society" which welcomed every voter in town - governed by the trustees - budget voted at Town Meeting; and Part 2 was a "church" which was composed of those who had owned the covenant - governed by the deacons - budget voted by the covenanted members.
There is still at least one church in the Mass conference with a dual organization, tho I don't know how their budget is handled. My church abandoned the dual organization within the past 10-15 years, and we still have a two-level membership system.
The church I serve is in a small town, and self-consciously sees the building as a community resource. it is used 6-7 days a week for meetings of one sort or another - Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Power Squadron, Women's Club, AA, Al-Anon, OA, play groups, music for toddlers, retreat space for teachers, police, etc. If the event is non-profit, we usually don't charge rent. We'd do a food pantry but the RC church next door does that, and we'd have a clothes closet, but have a problem with persistent dampness.
In my experience, there's not much difference between being a community resource here and being a community resource outside New England. I think it's rare for a church today to see itself as a part of the Town organization -- and if they did, that'd be an unhealthy, unchurch-ly mind set. I think it's healthy for a church to see its facilities as a resource, healthier than not allowing anyone to use the building.
posted by Richard at
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home