A thorny subject for many. I listen to parishes within the benefice, I listen to Deanery Finance and also to DBF. It's a story of hardship and sacrifice by some, by hard work in parishes to bring stewardship to the forefront and sometimes sympathetic, unhelpful listening from those who want the money from us.
The fact that we manage through renewed effort to meet our share, is penalised by increases the following year, while others who just can't manage, are supported and given help in some cases.
I do know that unpaid share by some puts pressure on the deanery to make up the difference. more pressure on churches who are just keeping their heads above water.
Parish share is about hand-to-mouth existence, not being able to devote resources to activities we'd like just keeping a roof on the churches, keeping them heated and in an acceptable, usable standard for use. We've formed friends groups for some of our churches, and I think that if we hadn't, they'd have been closed years ago.
Not sure of the solution, when we are in hard financial times for all, its requires a stretch to expect some of our poorer families, without work, to make a choice between feeding their families, paying the bills or giving more to church. Generosity needs to be two way, generosity of giving from those giving and generosity of spirit for those who are unable to contribute.
Parishes should, as a matter of principle, have the first responsibility for paying their own minister and should do this directly, not via the DBF.
The amazing fact is they can move a significant way towards doing this under the present system, but none that I know of do.
The process is simple:
1. The PCC, acting as a charity, makes a donation or grant to the incumbent.
2. The incumbent puts the amount received from the PCC on the annual statement of income and expenditure that he or she returns to the DBF. (The 'pink form' aka PUN.)
3. The data entered from the 'pink form' means that the incumbent automatically has that deducted from their stipend for the coming year.
4. The PCC explains to the DBF that it has paid part of its quota in this manner to the incumbent.
5. The diocese automatically recoups the money via not having to pay the incumbent.
This system actually works. People just prefer the old one.
What if the CofE dissolves all teams/groups etc. and says "A minister costs £x. If you want one, pay the Diocese that amount and you can have one. Organise yourselves into groups to raise the money if you can't find it as individual parishes." Then all the crappy arguments happen between parishes without involving the Vicar having to listen to endless outpouring of bile about "rich parishes" or "penalising Dioceses".
Have some observations to make but haven't time as off to Vocations meeting but rest assured that I am reading, noting and will return some time later today.
Thanks for comments - always good to talk and better still to think (and with that leave you with a thought: It's great to talk of 'paying for their minister in terms of established church but who pays for those whom we send into 'missional settings'? Who pays for them - apparently not those who have and so I guess that means the diocese. Now that's a question of generosity, koinonia and love coalescing. Isn't it?0
Actually Steve, I thought that was exactly what Parish share was about? The group raising the money consists of every church in the Diocese: those who don't pay their portion risk losing their minister; just as your system suggests. Problem is, the communities most at risk of not paying and therefore losing a viable Christian presence are those with lower incomes. Parishes in more affluent areas can raise the cash to pay for their own minister and more, but few make the leap to help struggling colleagues. Therefore the Gospel becomes the prerogative of those who can afford it. The whole point of the parochial system is to have a Christian presence in every community, not just those who can pay for it!
No "anonymous" - I have six parishes, all of which struggle very hard to pay their share. Some only manage it by using up their reserves which of course isn't sustainable. Most also have fabric which ideally requires large amounts of money spent to keep in good condition - but they can't afford do that so they endlessly 'fundraise' to do the bare minimum.
When my lads were in school, every time an exam came round, the teachers would give a pep talk to the class about the importance of doing well. This caused great anxiety to my lads and others who had already done most of the work. To those who really needed to take note of the message it was water off a duck's back.
Sorry Simmy but your 'pep talk' analogy is just a little too simplistic to be able to be universally applied and be valid (or even realistic).
There are some who fit your scenario wonderfully but there are some in urban priority areas who are growing and yet have only a handful of people in the church who have an income. Regardless of how good the 'pep talk' might be they cannot afford any more than they can afford and so I guess using the 'pep' analogy I guess we'd just close them down and head off to give prizes to those who did well thanks to location and privilege.
Knowing you I know that's not what you would advocate but, having been to a meeting of ministers in inner-city, urban deprivation settings I know that many are going the stuff, are attentive (and aspire to do even better) but what we might be in danger of is abandoning the poor (yet again) and retreating to the comfortable (but not perhaps mega-rich) and their costly (in terms of insurance, upkeep and the like) mausoleums.
this is not an easy issue but it is one we need to crack and work together over - some of the poor are also poor in spirit and worse in attitude whilst some who have really do seem to want to commit the poor to the dustbin.
koinonia - more than a word.
I've deleted another 'anon' as it was not worthy of inclusion. feel free to disagree but PLEASE do it the right way,
Vic, I'm not in a Urban Deprivation area, but a Rural Benefice. Our reality is that the rural economy is suffering. In addition, local industry is closing in a major way, putting more people on the jobless list. Yes, we have a mix of people who can afford to give, but I know that many more can't. The spirit is willing, but the resources are weak.
Within our deanery, we have one benefice which has not paid parish share last year. These are treated as debts by DBF and passed back to the Deanery to deal with. Inevitable consequence the others pay more.
I've only struggled with this for the last 3 years and know how disheartening it can be - I have empathy for those parishes Clergy and PCC's who've had to live with it for many years.
If we are intent on going for growth, it needs resourcing, which can only come through the collection plate. In some senses, we're just managing decline. But mention church closure and everyone in the community, including non-church members are up in arms. They want the facility, just don't want to use it or to pay for it.
I sometimes wonder if we'd be better moving to the system suggested by Rev John Richardson, about paying for our own clergy. But that doesn't cover the diocesan costs you mention. The income to diocese from the Church Commissioners has fallen in real terms in recent years, so not sure how long it will continue. We'd be stuffed if we had to pay for our Bishops and those funded centrally.
Still can't offer any valid solution as I know that various models have been studied in recent years, but none have had any revolutionary solutions to offer, just tweaks to the current system.
That's another potential conflict area, the rural versus the urban where each sees their needs are being greater than the other and the position os strengthened by the we have always had a church in this hamlet/village/whatever, whatever' vs the 'But we are the only hope in a fast-declining area' battle.
the reality is that we are called to bring our whole tithe into the storehouse so that none go without and where the problem with paying isn't profligacy then I think we have a duty to offer support (financial/moral/spiritual./realistic).
I live in an area where the rural churches (well some of them) fulfil a most important role and the pressures on our farming communities and the hazard of comfy well-heeled incomers (for the weekend at least) makes for a bleak picture.
Mind you seems that some places have high income potential which is never realised and this is yet another issue that needs to be considered.
Great comments (well most of them anyway) thanks people - real food for thought here.
I have a beef with the "close if they can't pay" camp.
It is related to the true function of an individual church, and that of the greater church.
If a church is only seen as "some form of social club", and is only functioning as such, then its future must certainly be determined by the rules of financial prudence. But if a church is being a focus for Christian activity, both Spiritual and social then it has to be seen in a very different light. The light of being a missionary organisation, funded by those who can afford to fund, not always those who are receipt of its diverse services - who may be totally unable to fund a minister, and the associated building(s)
I ask those who say "can't pay = close it", what is your relationship with Christ, and what is the church you are looking at doing to forward the work of His Kingdom?
Hi, Wow its 0426 and I'm on a night shift and just read all 14 comments our church really did well last year to pay 15k but was still short of 4k we only have a small congregation of about 40 of which most are over 65yrs. most people give what they can when they can. I just want to comment on the "cant pay-close it" guy. If you had a job and your company was one of many in a group of companies but your site was running at a loss would you expect the "group" to bail your site out? or do you think your site should just close? if all of the group are struggling then there is no where to go except to cut cost and perhaps remove ministers or remodel to something that needs fewer ministers. I dont have the answers but I know that if you remove a minister the whole church will suffer sooner or later. I do agree on Bobs last comments I heard a sermon very recently on that exact issue. I think we should all be more open about the dirty word money during church it is and always will be a big issue. 0439 gotta go do some work now.
Am I right in my understanding that the true cost of a clergyperson is around £45,000? If so, perhaps you might be able to tell me how this comes out of a stipend that is less than half of that please?
Another question is does this figure include the cathedral staff and the dioceses staff as well?
Who pays for the bishops?
What does the Church of England do with all its money?
I look forward to some answers as I have had my questions largely ignored by our SSM priest.
The 'if you can't pay you must close' argument also ignores the fact that many churches provide services to the local community free-of-charge. Our own church supports a number of community-run groups who could not operate without the venue we supply at very low cost. If they had to pay commercial rates, they would simply close and the valuable work they provide for our Urban Priority Area would vanish - just as many government funded services are now, due to cutbacks. Eventually we are left with a Dickensian society where the poorer in our communities are left to struggle alone while others enjoy tea and cakes. I don't want to bash affluent churches: many are doing good works in their own way. but my warning to the money men deciding which clergy positions to end is not to ignore the missional output into local communities of churches who are struggling financially. Could be the reason they are struggling is exactly because they are putting themselves out there and baring the financial burden; should they withdraw behind closed doors, charge commercial rates for the use of buildings and ignore the needs around them? Jesus was an itinerant preacher with no home of his own: nowhere to lay his head (unlike the foxes and birds). He wasn't caught up with commerce or finances. But he was concerned with people and his group gave collections for the poor. Surely, buildings that are used for altruistic purposes shouldn't be penalised. The church is not - as one poster would have us believe - like the world. It exists for the sake of those who are not it's members, and who therefore do not pay for its existence. Like other charitable institutions, we rely upon donations and our own fund-raising efforts, but we need to ensure that the money given is used wisely and for the purpose for which it is given: to reach communities with God's love.
I think you misunderstood the pep-talk analogy, Vic. What I was trying to say is that so often it is those who have already taken the message to heart (whatever their level of income and ability to contribute) who get most distressed by the pep-talk messages that come out to the parishes. Those who are simply coasting are the ones who will continue to ignore it, no matter what is said. So often all these pep-talks do is increase feelings of guilt and anxiety among those who are already doing their best and giving sacrificially.
This is true both in UPAs and in rural benefices (like mine) with small congregations, most of whose members are on fixed incomes.
Well I did misunderstand but also said that knowing you the interpretation that led me towards my understanding didn't seem to match the you I knew - so now we're clear and (as I suspected) singing from the same sheet still (which could make us all wrong of course).
Thanks for the clarification in what is obviously quite a contentious issue.
How do you know this works, if no-one does this? I ask this as a genuine question, interested in doing it. (if it works!) And what would happen about pension contributions, housing etc.
It does work. We tried it for a while as a way to support a couple of other evangelical parishes via our quota payments. We didn't do it for our own vicar, but of course it would have worked just as well.
The things you ask about are all paid for through 'the system' - it doesn't affect them.
A man from the Church Commissioners advised me that the only thing to ensure was that there was enough in the 'pot' they paid from to cover the minister's tax and national insurance. Otherwise there wasnt' a problem wth it.
Reading Paul's letters to the churches he planted, it was common practice for churches to support others financially - even those that Paul wrote to correct, James.
I forgot this existed, but here's a link to a paper I wrote on a new way of doing mutual support, which was published by Church Society years ago, but widely ignored by the evangelical constituency (although the scheme does work!):
If a PCC, a trustee body, regularly pays parish share/diocesan quota out of funds other than the normal income and expenditure flow of the church (and allowing for exceptional costs such as heavy repairs or maintenance in any year or years), so that other funds, eg for a proposed new church hall, are thereby constantly being depleted, why is not this a breach of trust by the trustees, being a financial policy that no other trustee body would adopt, certainly in relation to a non-enforceable demand?
28 comments:
A thorny subject for many. I listen to parishes within the benefice, I listen to Deanery Finance and also to DBF. It's a story of hardship and sacrifice by some, by hard work in parishes to bring stewardship to the forefront and sometimes sympathetic, unhelpful listening from those who want the money from us.
The fact that we manage through renewed effort to meet our share, is penalised by increases the following year, while others who just can't manage, are supported and given help in some cases.
I do know that unpaid share by some puts pressure on the deanery to make up the difference. more pressure on churches who are just keeping their heads above water.
Parish share is about hand-to-mouth existence, not being able to devote resources to activities we'd like just keeping a roof on the churches, keeping them heated and in an acceptable, usable standard for use. We've formed friends groups for some of our churches, and I think that if we hadn't, they'd have been closed years ago.
Not sure of the solution, when we are in hard financial times for all, its requires a stretch to expect some of our poorer families, without work, to make a choice between feeding their families, paying the bills or giving more to church. Generosity needs to be two way, generosity of giving from those giving and generosity of spirit for those who are unable to contribute.
Daylight robbery!
We struggle to pay and are asked to pay more whilst other (rich) churches around us exist on special measure share payments.
Those who have are given more and those with little (monetarily) have what they have taken away to subsidise them.
Generosity - whare?
Parishes should, as a matter of principle, have the first responsibility for paying their own minister and should do this directly, not via the DBF.
The amazing fact is they can move a significant way towards doing this under the present system, but none that I know of do.
The process is simple:
1. The PCC, acting as a charity, makes a donation or grant to the incumbent.
2. The incumbent puts the amount received from the PCC on the annual statement of income and expenditure that he or she returns to the DBF. (The 'pink form' aka PUN.)
3. The data entered from the 'pink form' means that the incumbent automatically has that deducted from their stipend for the coming year.
4. The PCC explains to the DBF that it has paid part of its quota in this manner to the incumbent.
5. The diocese automatically recoups the money via not having to pay the incumbent.
This system actually works. People just prefer the old one.
What if the CofE dissolves all teams/groups etc. and says "A minister costs £x. If you want one, pay the Diocese that amount and you can have one. Organise yourselves into groups to raise the money if you can't find it as individual parishes."
Then all the crappy arguments happen between parishes without involving the Vicar having to listen to endless outpouring of bile about "rich parishes" or "penalising Dioceses".
Last comment obviously comes from a rich parish then ;)
Have some observations to make but haven't time as off to Vocations meeting but rest assured that I am reading, noting and will return some time later today.
Thanks for comments - always good to talk and better still to think (and with that leave you with a thought: It's great to talk of 'paying for their minister in terms of established church but who pays for those whom we send into 'missional settings'? Who pays for them - apparently not those who have and so I guess that means the diocese. Now that's a question of generosity, koinonia and love coalescing. Isn't it?0
Gotta rush,
Pax
Actually Steve, I thought that was exactly what Parish share was about? The group raising the money consists of every church in the Diocese: those who don't pay their portion risk losing their minister; just as your system suggests. Problem is, the communities most at risk of not paying and therefore losing a viable Christian presence are those with lower incomes. Parishes in more affluent areas can raise the cash to pay for their own minister and more, but few make the leap to help struggling colleagues. Therefore the Gospel becomes the prerogative of those who can afford it.
The whole point of the parochial system is to have a Christian presence in every community, not just those who can pay for it!
No "anonymous" - I have six parishes, all of which struggle very hard to pay their share. Some only manage it by using up their reserves which of course isn't sustainable. Most also have fabric which ideally requires large amounts of money spent to keep in good condition - but they can't afford do that so they endlessly 'fundraise' to do the bare minimum.
When my lads were in school, every time an exam came round, the teachers would give a pep talk to the class about the importance of doing well. This caused great anxiety to my lads and others who had already done most of the work. To those who really needed to take note of the message it was water off a duck's back.
Same with the Parish Share.
Sorry Simmy but your 'pep talk' analogy is just a little too simplistic to be able to be universally applied and be valid (or even realistic).
There are some who fit your scenario wonderfully but there are some in urban priority areas who are growing and yet have only a handful of people in the church who have an income. Regardless of how good the 'pep talk' might be they cannot afford any more than they can afford and so I guess using the 'pep' analogy I guess we'd just close them down and head off to give prizes to those who did well thanks to location and privilege.
Knowing you I know that's not what you would advocate but, having been to a meeting of ministers in inner-city, urban deprivation settings I know that many are going the stuff, are attentive (and aspire to do even better) but what we might be in danger of is abandoning the poor (yet again) and retreating to the comfortable (but not perhaps mega-rich) and their costly (in terms of insurance, upkeep and the like) mausoleums.
this is not an easy issue but it is one we need to crack and work together over - some of the poor are also poor in spirit and worse in attitude whilst some who have really do seem to want to commit the poor to the dustbin.
koinonia - more than a word.
I've deleted another 'anon' as it was not worthy of inclusion. feel free to disagree but PLEASE do it the right way,
V
If you don't pay you close
- that's how the world does things and the church is just the world with a god-character to cling to.
No different from the world when the going gets tough - all posturing and pretence.
Vic, I'm not in a Urban Deprivation area, but a Rural Benefice. Our reality is that the rural economy is suffering. In addition, local industry is closing in a major way, putting more people on the jobless list. Yes, we have a mix of people who can afford to give, but I know that many more can't. The spirit is willing, but the resources are weak.
Within our deanery, we have one benefice which has not paid parish share last year. These are treated as debts by DBF and passed back to the Deanery to deal with. Inevitable consequence the others pay more.
I've only struggled with this for the last 3 years and know how disheartening it can be - I have empathy for those parishes Clergy and PCC's who've had to live with it for many years.
If we are intent on going for growth, it needs resourcing, which can only come through the collection plate. In some senses, we're just managing decline. But mention church closure and everyone in the community, including non-church members are up in arms. They want the facility, just don't want to use it or to pay for it.
I sometimes wonder if we'd be better moving to the system suggested by Rev John Richardson, about paying for our own clergy. But that doesn't cover the diocesan costs you mention. The income to diocese from the Church Commissioners has fallen in real terms in recent years, so not sure how long it will continue. We'd be stuffed if we had to pay for our Bishops and those funded centrally.
Still can't offer any valid solution as I know that various models have been studied in recent years, but none have had any revolutionary solutions to offer, just tweaks to the current system.
That's another potential conflict area, the rural versus the urban where each sees their needs are being greater than the other and the position os strengthened by the we have always had a church in this hamlet/village/whatever, whatever' vs the 'But we are the only hope in a fast-declining area' battle.
the reality is that we are called to bring our whole tithe into the storehouse so that none go without and where the problem with paying isn't profligacy then I think we have a duty to offer support (financial/moral/spiritual./realistic).
I live in an area where the rural churches (well some of them) fulfil a most important role and the pressures on our farming communities and the hazard of comfy well-heeled incomers (for the weekend at least) makes for a bleak picture.
Mind you seems that some places have high income potential which is never realised and this is yet another issue that needs to be considered.
Great comments (well most of them anyway) thanks people - real food for thought here.
V
I have a beef with the "close if they can't pay" camp.
It is related to the true function of an individual church, and that of the greater church.
If a church is only seen as "some form of social club", and is only functioning as such, then its future must certainly be determined by the rules of financial prudence.
But if a church is being a focus for Christian activity, both Spiritual and social then it has to be seen in a very different light. The light of being a missionary organisation, funded by those who can afford to fund, not always those who are receipt of its diverse services - who may be totally unable to fund a minister, and the associated building(s)
I ask those who say "can't pay = close it", what is your relationship with Christ, and what is the church you are looking at doing to forward the work of His Kingdom?
Hi, Wow its 0426 and I'm on a night shift and just read all 14 comments our church really did well last year to pay 15k but was still short of 4k we only have a small congregation of about 40 of which most are over 65yrs. most people give what they can when they can. I just want to comment on the "cant pay-close it" guy. If you had a job and your company was one of many in a group of companies but your site was running at a loss would you expect the "group" to bail your site out? or do you think your site should just close? if all of the group are struggling then there is no where to go except to cut cost and perhaps remove ministers or remodel to something that needs fewer ministers. I dont have the answers but I know that if you remove a minister the whole church will suffer sooner or later.
I do agree on Bobs last comments I heard a sermon very recently on that exact issue.
I think we should all be more open about the dirty word money during church it is and always will be a big issue.
0439 gotta go do some work now.
Am I right in my understanding that the true cost of a clergyperson is around £45,000? If so, perhaps you might be able to tell me how this comes out of a stipend that is less than half of that please?
Another question is does this figure include the cathedral staff and the dioceses staff as well?
Who pays for the bishops?
What does the Church of England do with all its money?
I look forward to some answers as I have had my questions largely ignored by our SSM priest.
The 'if you can't pay you must close' argument also ignores the fact that many churches provide services to the local community free-of-charge. Our own church supports a number of community-run groups who could not operate without the venue we supply at very low cost. If they had to pay commercial rates, they would simply close and the valuable work they provide for our Urban Priority Area would vanish - just as many government funded services are now, due to cutbacks. Eventually we are left with a Dickensian society where the poorer in our communities are left to struggle alone while others enjoy tea and cakes.
I don't want to bash affluent churches: many are doing good works in their own way. but my warning to the money men deciding which clergy positions to end is not to ignore the missional output into local communities of churches who are struggling financially. Could be the reason they are struggling is exactly because they are putting themselves out there and baring the financial burden; should they withdraw behind closed doors, charge commercial rates for the use of buildings and ignore the needs around them?
Jesus was an itinerant preacher with no home of his own: nowhere to lay his head (unlike the foxes and birds). He wasn't caught up with commerce or finances. But he was concerned with people and his group gave collections for the poor. Surely, buildings that are used for altruistic purposes shouldn't be penalised. The church is not - as one poster would have us believe - like the world. It exists for the sake of those who are not it's members, and who therefore do not pay for its existence. Like other charitable institutions, we rely upon donations and our own fund-raising efforts, but we need to ensure that the money given is used wisely and for the purpose for which it is given: to reach communities with God's love.
I think you misunderstood the pep-talk analogy, Vic. What I was trying to say is that so often it is those who have already taken the message to heart (whatever their level of income and ability to contribute) who get most distressed by the pep-talk messages that come out to the parishes. Those who are simply coasting are the ones who will continue to ignore it, no matter what is said. So often all these pep-talks do is increase feelings of guilt and anxiety among those who are already doing their best and giving sacrificially.
This is true both in UPAs and in rural benefices (like mine) with small congregations, most of whose members are on fixed incomes.
Well I did misunderstand but also said that knowing you the interpretation that led me towards my understanding didn't seem to match the you I knew - so now we're clear and (as I suspected) singing from the same sheet still (which could make us all wrong of course).
Thanks for the clarification in what is obviously quite a contentious issue.
Pax
How do you know this works, if no-one does this?
I ask this as a genuine question, interested in doing it.
(if it works!)
And what would happen about pension contributions, housing etc.
We need to work on Gospel partnerships.
If they teach the bible and preach teh Gospel, happy to support a poorer church.
Although you are clearly not a Christian believer, I agree with you!
We need to pay our way.
Give sacrifically.
That's what free churches do.
People might actally start taking their discipleship seriously.
Starting with their wallets.
Dont pay that one parish that doesnt pay.
They will sink or swim (pay up and shape up).
Don't let failure drag you down.
Or demand the Bishop puts in a church planter to make it grow.
We had one useless guy who just sat there across 4 parishes.
We were not going to subsidize him.
it depends on whether that church is preaching the Gospel and teaching the Bible and actually doing mission, rather than social work.
The church my Father goes to has been decimated over the years by liberal catholic theology.
Whereas another church which teaches the Bible, and believes it, has gone from strength to strength.
Sure, support them if they are poor and preaching the Gospel.
but why should we prop up liberalism and heresy?
It does work. We tried it for a while as a way to support a couple of other evangelical parishes via our quota payments. We didn't do it for our own vicar, but of course it would have worked just as well.
The things you ask about are all paid for through 'the system' - it doesn't affect them.
A man from the Church Commissioners advised me that the only thing to ensure was that there was enough in the 'pot' they paid from to cover the minister's tax and national insurance. Otherwise there wasnt' a problem wth it.
Reading Paul's letters to the churches he planted, it was common practice for churches to support others financially - even those that Paul wrote to correct, James.
I forgot this existed, but here's a link to a paper I wrote on a new way of doing mutual support, which was published by Church Society years ago, but widely ignored by the evangelical constituency (although the scheme does work!):
http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/leaflets/Leaf_GivingAsPartners.pdf
If a PCC, a trustee body, regularly pays parish share/diocesan quota out of funds other than the normal income and expenditure flow of the church (and allowing for exceptional costs such as heavy repairs or maintenance in any year or years), so that other funds, eg for a proposed new church hall, are thereby constantly being depleted, why is not this a breach of trust by the trustees, being a financial policy that no other trustee body would adopt, certainly in relation to a non-enforceable demand?
Post a Comment