- 44 -
"... so many good solid lay people ... when they come to
church affairs don't use the same sort of expertise as
they've got in business .. . they leave it to the vicar
who very often isn't trained to do this sort of thing".
(C4)
To say the least, both those points are regrettable.
2.6.3
Buildings: degree of utilisation
There can be no reasonable doubt that, in the majority of cases,
churches are not used to anything like the reasonable maximum, and
whilst that is not as serious in its consequences as it would be for
an organisation whose prime motive was profit (since some of the fixed
costs associated with such assets, e.g. rent and rates, are non-existent,
and others, e.g. depreciation, are not as severe), it nonetheless pre-
sents a managerial aspect which merits attention. Whether poor usage
is deliberate or accidental is beyond the scope of this study - which,
properly, is concerned with consequential effects on diocesan finances
rather than original causes - but since cause and effect are always best
studied together we may permit ourselves a brief look in a search for
financially relevant data.
One commentator opines that the Church "has tended to look
askance at such strictly commercial practices as management of physical
assets"
(P14)
. He is probably right - the same theme emerged in subdued
form in several of the interviews - and his later comment that "one
explanation ... for the sorry financial plight of the church is the
amazingly few hours each week that the church edifice ... is used"
(P14)
probably isolates what any businessman would feel to be the principal
weakness. Usage however is seasonal, particularly in the rural areas
of the Craven Archdeaconry where there is a substantial influx of
visitors in summer and a consequent fall-off in winter (when of course,
costs such as heating are at their maximum). These peaks of demand
create a need for high capacity. There appears though to be no
