Comments: Bath & Wells: Church Commissioners lose their case

Sorted that for you:

Posted by Susannah Clark at Thursday, 1 May 2014 at 6:17pm BST

As Maggie once said "Rejoice, Rejoice". Now we need to restore Dunelm to Auckland Castle and Carliol to Rose. Arise, ye Northern people, the people of Somerset have led the way, now let's see what the folk of Durham and Cumbria are made of!

Posted by Father David at Thursday, 1 May 2014 at 6:56pm BST

What now is the future for the Old Rectory, Croscombe which the report describes as "an attractive investment asset"?

Posted by Father David at Friday, 2 May 2014 at 10:34am BST

I remember in the 1980s my grandfather, an early example of a non- churchgoing 'spiritual but not religious' type (he was born in 1907), complaining that 'these bishops live like little lords in their palaces, you know'. He lived on Woodland Road in Leicester, a street that looked rather like Coronation Street, in a tiny industrial revolution row house. It was very much a working class area and we were solidly working class, and even then there was a real sense that people who lived in huge palaces were - well - out of touch. Grandpa used to shake his head and say, 'a bit different from Jesus'.

I often hear concern here at TA that in the area of sexuality the C of E is out of touch. Well, what image do bishop's palaces give of how 'in touch' Jesus' disciples are? 'To see ourselves as others see us'.

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Friday, 2 May 2014 at 1:17pm BST

Tim, while English Bishops are still seated in the House of Lords, they will need the dignity of appropriate domestic arrangements. Mind you, when Disestablishment comes - which it might do if the General Synod does not do right by Women Bishops - there could be changes in the offing.

I know what you're saying, though, Tim. Jesus did say: "I came not to be served but to serve."

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 5 May 2014 at 2:07am BST


1. A minority of English bishops sit in the House of Lords.

2. Do prospective members of the House of Lords have to pass a housing dignity test before they can be appointed?

3. Should we really be basing decisions about episcopal housing on this sort of criteria?

4. When a (supposed) requirement related to an anachronistic holdover from Christendom conflicts with a gospel value, which one should give way?

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Monday, 5 May 2014 at 9:05pm BST

Sad when its a problem for someone to answer the door .....

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Tuesday, 6 May 2014 at 11:48am BST

Tim, if I remember correctly, the Church Commissioners were proposing spending something crazy, like 900,000 GBPs for "appropriate housing." Meanwhile, the palace is already owned, operated, and maintained.

The Church Commissioners were not talking about the fine digs that Susannah found for the bishop (looked good to me). Either way, we are not talking about Jesus like accommodation.

I'm not taking a position, I'm just observing with great interest, as we don't have historic palaces for our bishops.

Posted by Cynthia at Tuesday, 6 May 2014 at 5:13pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.