I remember when rock was young . . . Well actually it's got nothing to do with rock, but a crematorium near to my home. This place found itself in the position whereby three very enterprising retired clergy got together and offered themselves to the undertakers and the Crem' on a rota basis should they not find someone to take a service.
These three did a roaring trade (no pun intended) and they found theirs services (still not a pun) called upon as the local ministers found themselves unable to cover all of the services at the Crem'. Everyone was happy, and then as is often the case, someone realised that there was but 'one small problem'! The problem was that because the people doing the bulk of the services were retired, there was n income for the diocese.
It wasn't long before there was a missive sent out from diocesan HQ telling the incumbents that they should endeavour to pick up the majority of the funeral services because it was both a pastorally and financially efficacious act. So they did and the three, really nice, old geezers went back to doing the odd service now and then.
many years later, there was the situation whereby retired clergy that I knew were being asked to give a percentage of the fees that they received to the diocese. A while back, if I recall correctly, there was a piece from Leslie Chadd regarding the same thing in Portsmouth diocese. He wrote to the local funeral directors to tell them that unless it was a dire situation or he'd known the person, he was hanging up his tat. His reason was that he'd been told to pay one third of the minister's fees (which as I understand it are £66 and so this is about £22) to the diocese.
Now I find myself positioned somewhere in the middle of this argument. My first thought is that you 'don't muzzle the ox that treads the grain' (Deut 25:4) and those who have served in holy orders and continue to offer themselves should reap the full reward, especially when those who find themselves in Church of England Housing appear to be paying more than those in comparable housing in the private sector (I know it's all to do with the Charity Commissioners and getting the maximum return, but the reality is that it's wrong!).
The other side of the fence upon which I am so uncomfortably pivoting tells me that without income we cannot keep the lights on everywhere and although many moan about the demise of 'a parson in every parish' as a reality, reducing income will only exacerbate that situation. But there has to be equity and care for those shown for those who have retired and continue to offer an incredibly valuable and effectively free service to so many churches and parishes.
I err towards giving retired clergy the lot whilst making sure that those to whom the task naturally (or should I perhaps say 'rightly' and if I do will it cause a furore?) falls pull their weight and ensure that those passed out to retired clergy are the lesser percentage of the whole.
We need to maximise the income streams whilst ensuring that we continue to service our 'core business' (gosh, sound like the old days before ordination) of caring for all within our parishes and districts, open all hours and coming alongside (with the other Paraclete) to minister God's grace, help people to live as best they can and die well too!
Pax
2 comments:
If you look at the 2011 table, the fee for a crematorium funeral is £102 (last year was £99), which ALL goes to the diocese as "towards incumbent's stipend." A retired minister obeying the diocesan rules would keep two thirds (£67) and send the rest "towards inccumbent's stipend, so its about £34.
However, the £67 kept by te retired minister is still more than the "incumbent's stipend" contribution were the same service to take place in the church (£57), when the PCC gets to keep £45 of the same £102 fee.
Go figure, as our American cousins say.
Indeedy!
V
Post a Comment