Where I am are various styles of 'unpaid' clergy - these are called Non Stipendiary Ministers (NSM) or Self Supporting Ministers (SSM), Ordained local Ministers and House for Duty* (HfD). Now the word 'unpaid' (not one I use) is rather frowned upon by many and yet still used by some. Self Supporting has given way to Non Stipendiary because (they tell me). "We don't like 'non' people!" Actually I think the distinction is moot and perhaps just a little pouty - but that's me, innit? If you are not in receipt of a stipend (yes, we will discuss stipends soon) then you are 'non-stipendiary'! How difficult is this (it's up there with the 'history' foolishness!).
Nomenclature issues aside - the reality is that many are looking to those who fit into this category of ministry where cost to the diocese is reduced to solve the cashflow problems that have come through a variety of reasons to haunt the CofE. In case you're wondering what they might be, three of the reasons I've been given thus far are:
1. Poor or imprudent financial management of the assets,
2. Diminishing per capita giving, and
3. Diminishing numbers of communicant or committed members.
One model, which many refer to as the 'Minster' model (but they are wrong), looks to a stipendiary minister in the central (AKA 'the big') church and 'assistant clergy (unpaid) in the other churches within the team. The problem is that we need to keep the lights on in churches and provide some form of leadership and because we demand an ordained leadership (all to do with epiclesis** and presbyteros*** - two important issues in my book - but that's for another day).
As someone who is a committed proponent of all-member ministry I am a firm supporter of releasing church members into leadership positions (lay and ordained) and think this should be the force behind our actions. Sadly though, even though many ask me what's my problem as the end result is the same, there are some who seek to find people to do the job as a means of saving cash rather than equipping, enabling and releasing them because it's what we (meaning me and others like me) are called to do! It has the feel of one of Dostoevsky's comedies.
The question though (at last) is should we be paying for our clergy? If we didn't pay them then we would have the issues of renumeration, housing, support services, clergy reviews and the like.
If we restricted payment to those who work in the revenue generating areas, this would this cut the expenditure - a view held when I came to Lichfield diocese for there was a proposal at the Diocesan Synod to save money by cutting 'sector ministry' roles' These are the people who do non-parochial roles, working for the diocese, and so are a cost centre rather than a means of income. Regardless of how much they bring in, parochial clergy do bring something in from the members and so making sure we don't muzzle the ox that tread the grain we shoot those who don't! A very shortsighted view indeed.
Talking about the issue in 1943, the House of Bishops said of the stipend:
" Has been rightly regarded not as pay in the sense in which that word is understood in the world of industry today, not as reward for services rendered…
but rather as a maintenance allowance to enable the priest to live without undue financial worry,
to do his work effectively in the sphere to which he is called and, if married,
to maintain his wife and bring up his family in accordance with a standard which might be described as neither of poverty or riches…"
In 2001, the Clergy Stipends Review Group's report "generosity and sacrifice" (GS1408) gave us this:
"The stipend is part of the remuneration package which is paid for the exercise of office. It reflects the level of responsibility held. This package acknowledges the dual demands in Scripture of generosity and sacrifice on both those who receive the stipend and those who raise the necessary funds."
So another answer to the question, "What should we pay for?" brings forth the answer that it is there to provide clergy with the ability to give their whole time to the work of the Church without distraction from other secular employment.
Having had the discussion many years back where those who were stipendiary were accused by an NSM of, "Taking money from the Church whist they (being NSM) gave to the Church for free out of their love for it!" Now this was an invitation to a punch-up and as the discussion continued one of those present asked what time they gave to the Church, the response being some Sunday services (but not all or even every Sunday) and some time during the week. They gave 'what they wanted to give'! The shot that set fire to the world around us that day was, "Not only that but you expect me to work all day and then ask me to go to evening meetings too!"
Goodness me, the number of clergy who pointed out that they were working all day and going to the same meetings as them - was not a nice experience. The bottom line is that some have secular jobs and give what they can when they can (Thank You) and some work and give what they choose to give (Thank You again) when they =choose to give it. Regardless of the realities, the situation is that people are bringing stuff in and doing stuff and for that we are truly grateful. The stipend removes the external daily toil from the workload and permits a focussed and consistent application of the dogcollar's time and energies and this brings a different, but equally valid, 'Thank You'.
So there is a justification for paying for ministers if it means that they are fully therefore committed to the work of the Church - but this needs to be done sensibly and sensitively for indeed it is not pay, but it needs to reflect the responsibility and workloads, pressures and challenges (mental, emotional, spiritual and fiscal) and deal with them in a mature fashion (anyone considered the secondary costs of living in some areas perhaps?).
More grist to the mill - more stuff to reflect upon and get us all thinking (looking forward to some intelligent dialogue from this and the other stuff that is to come).
Sorry is it meanders a little - head full of cotton wool and lungs full of yeuk!)
Happy Monday
*HfD is just a little different as we will see later.
**epiclesis - invoking the Holy Spirit = blessing, consecrating and the like (see part 1)
***presbyteros = being a Priest is what we are and not what we do - it's about changes in being (ontology)
4 comments:
I'm a pentecostal church member and we don't pay our pastors so why should church of England ministers be paid. Do Mehodists or Baptists get paid?
I think it is all wrong and you should go and get a job.
The stipend is part of the remuneration package which is paid for the exercise of office. It reflects the level of responsibility held. This package acknowledges the dual demands in Scripture of generosity and sacrifice on both those who receive the stipend and those who raise the necessary funds."
As well as the stipend there are housing costs and the expenses of ministry which are paid in addition to share (which meets stipend, housing & diocesan costs) even so, I believe that Clergy with a stipend are also generously giving of the extra time for evening meetings, out of hours calls on their time and probably in many cases, bearing costs that should be charged to expenses, but their individual parish would find them unaffordable (I'm thinking travel & retreat accommodation costs etc). I have known having to harass clergy to put in all of their expenses, as never believed that it was fair for them to bear the cost of something that was plain an expense of ministry.
I sit in PCC meeting when we're discussing finance over a very complicated spreadsheet, and perhaps 1% of members of the PCC have a scooby about what we're discussing. Their bottom line is why are we paying so much share and why does it cost so much for cleaning and maintenance of the Church Hall?
There is little training offered for new PCC members? If you were a school governor there is mandatory training in finance, governance, safeguarding and much else. For the PCC it seems to be on the job training at bi-monthly meetings, while most of the work falls on those on the standing comittee, particularly the Vicar.
Our diocese offered half-a-day recently, during the day, when most PCC members were working? Which demonstrates something about the level of awareness at diocese of who is actually on PCC's, were not all retired or part-time (although I am).
When I became treasurer, I had to insist that I went on specific to role training as a PCC treasurer, because it was outside my range of accounting skills in the public sector. It took nearly a year to get half a days training, and in the meantime I made it up as I went along or consulted the oracles that I could find online.
Eventually DBF started to issue both a treasurers handbook and quarterly financial update bulletins, which made life a lot easier for us. Perhaps we need a hand book for PCC members?
Some people look at the share calculations from diocese (or deanery_ and query the costs of services that diocese provide, or object to the elements that go towards clergy training or vocation and training of clergy and laity, or as you describe those in diocesan or deanery roles that don't have a specific parish role? Not appreciating the importance of these people in keeping the show on the road.
Yes, clergy deserve to be paid a stipend of office, but perhaps we the laity should think about the costs involved in having a paid Vicar and increase our giving by a few pounds a month, reasonable for most off us, to ensure that we keep a Vicar in the longer term, and are not merged with another parish with all of the implications of that for both parishe.
Anonymous: Most Methodist and Baptist ministers get "paid". Certainly for Baptists there are guidelines from the Baptist Union, but an individual Church and minister can come to their own arrangements. Some have a further job and work "part-time" for the Church, which I believe is a situation ripe for exploitation.
If your Pastors receive no remuneration, how do they live? If they do a full-time paid job, how much time can they devote to the Church? Without looking up the references, I am pretty sure that Paul had things to say on this matter.
It sounds to me as if the Church hierarchies are trying to redefine "Treading out the Grain" to suit their financial situation. Mind you, notwithstanding the 1943 House of Bishops comments, I reckon that a stipend Is de facto pay, but that That has been re-defined to evade employers responsibilities to some extent. This is based on my knowledge of the Baptist more than the CofE.
I realise that providing an income is an onerous task for small congregations, particularly new ones, and that a responsibility to provide employment rights might be a deal-breaker. Well, two things: Firstly, it should then be up to the wider Church to step up to the plate - the Baptists have their Home Mission fund which often runs parallel to Baptist Missionary Society giving, and supports a lot of smaller Churches, I cannot remember the name of the CofE system, despite attending a weekend retreat led by someone who helps run it!. Secondly, if the Church cannot treat its clergy decently, then don't expect me to pay any respect to the Churches own pronouncements on other peoples employment rights - which it badly Needs to be doing.
Dear Anon,
As a former Pentecostal Pastor I have to offer you some correction in that whilst some Pastors do a secular job and run a church on an unpaid basis, this is not the case for all. In fact I know some who have been paid quite well indeed for it seems that there might not be a national scale relating to their pay but you get what you get according to where you are and who you might be!
Baptists, Methodists and many others have stipendiary or paid clergy too so I think you are wrong and should buy me an Arsenal season ticket to cheer me up (only joking - I'm already happy!).
Thanks for the comments regardless,
Vic
Post a Comment