All text on this website is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
Recently, I went to St Paul's Cathedral in London. In order to get in, I had to pay £7.00 at the door (thats around $11). You have to pay to get into most of the great cathedrals in England: Westminster Abbey, York Minster, St Pauls, and others. There are still some of the cathedrals who don't charge - like Durham Cathedral (the best in the country) and Southwark Cathedral. The big tourist attractions though, charge money for entrance.
There are two main objections I have to this: secular and spiritual. The secular reason is this: the Church of England, who owns those properties, is the state church in England. Consequently, while they are not owned by the state, the state does give them money. Their buildings form part of our national heritage - which we pay for in taxes, paying for their upkeep, as we do with other national monuments. I have absolutely no problem with that, and neither do most other people - Christian or not. The cathedrals are manifestly our national heritage, tourist attractions, things which add value to the country. So why are we denied access to our heritage? We have already paid money for their upkeep, why must we now pay more? £7 may not sound like a lot, but if we take me, my weekly income is £40, so I paid nearly a quarter of my income in order to make one visit to a cathedral! I can understand (though I do not condone) charging foreign visitors to enter, but not the people who have already paid. That was the reason that all national museums became free recently, because we already pay for those institutions via our taxes, and should not have to pay a second time.
The spiritual reason I'm sure is quite clear:
"The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, 'Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade.'" (John 2:13-16 RSV)
What is a church for? Is it to make money? Or is it a place for believers to gather, to pray, worship and learn? How can any church justify preventing people from worshipping God (the same God they serve) in the name of money? I cannot go to St Paul's to pray, I cannot afford it. I cannot go to services there, I cannot afford it. I cannot call that church my normal meeting place, because I simply haven't the income to support more than very occasional visits there. For those who live nearby, whose parish church it is supposed to be, how are they to use it as their parish church? A church ought to be free, free for anyone, believer or unbeliever to enter as and when they wish. To turn people away from the church because they do not have enough money is appalling!
"My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "Have a seat here, please," while you say to the poor man, "Stand there," or, "Sit at my feet," have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?" (James 2:1-4 RSV)
This is made actually worse by the Church of England's position. As the established church, every single British person is nominally entitled to the offices of the church - baptism, confirmation, marriage, funerals - the Church itself would even allow a Muslim to be married in the church, because as a British subject it is their right. (This accounts for some of the problems the CofE has with its doctrines.) Yet they are happy to exclude people from those churches which they believe are the right of every citizen to enter because they want to make money out of worshippers instead.
Don't think that I do not understand why the Church charges for entrance. Its not so that they can make a profit out of God's children, its not miserlyness and its not love of money. The reason they charge is simply because it costs a great deal for the upkeep of those churches - particularly the older ones - and visitors do not volunteer a great deal of money. I always do give money when I am not forcibly made to do so on entrance to a church. When I visit a church, particularly the small rural ones which don't get that many visitors, I always put whatever I have into the box, or buy some of those cards they sell for a decent profit to support themselves. I have no issue with that, in fact I think we visitors should give more money. But it should not be forced - if you don't have the money, you shouldn't be turned away from the church. What I would do, is to get the government to pay for the upkeep of the churches, without charging for entrance. As I said earlier, the people of Britain own the cathedrals, they are our heritage and we pay for them through taxes. As those churches are short of money to keep them in the state they deserve, the state ought to give more money. That would free the Church to give more money to more worthwhile things - such as providing funding for the training of ministers rather than forcing them to pay their own way, better wages for ministers, more money for parishes to evangelise, more money for missions.
And of course, its great benefit would be that we could appreciate our own heritage without paying when we could not afford to. Taxes are at least means-tested, church admissions are not. The Widow with her mite is not welcome in those cathedrals - and that is a glaring indictment of the state of the church today. Remove those charges, let people, as they do in every other nation freely worship, learn and pray to God in the settings which their ancestors enjoyed without cost.
"Freely ye have received, freely give." (Matthew 10:8b KJV)
© Dubhóc MacEògainn, 2005.