Here's a jumble of random musings, observations and conversations regarding mission, money and various responses to them that have excited, entertained and challenged me over the past few days:
One of the biggest challenges we have before us is that of living in the reality where some are proposing ways of closing church buildings 'creatively, living in multiple benefices and using 'point something' clergy.
As diocesan staff calculate the cost of clergy some are finding themselves being asked to consider whether or not we might 'contract' clergy for those services in which we need them. This poses an interesting phenomenon in that this could lead to ministry on a sessional basis. Another alternative is the use of 'point something' clergy such that where a congregation can afford 0.3 of a dogcollar, that's what they get! Both present creative financial solutions but I have to admit that I struggle with the pastoral and missional implications here.
If we have three churches who between them can pay for a whole vicar-like entity, then what we have is something that looks like a multiple benefice but is in fact a group of independent and yet, by virtue of a shared minister, interlinked churches. The ideal is that these three work together for the good of the Gospel and use the time of their cleric creatively and wisely. The challenge comes when all three want their Sunday service at the same time and place equal demand on the dogcollar for the major services i.e. Easter Sunday, Christmas Eve, Christmas day and the like, and anyone who has worked in a multiple benefice setting will affirm the reality of this.
A recent query from someone, somewhere, relating to the stipend caused me more than a little concern. The query? "What does the stipend pay for?" My answer, "Everything!" To answer any other way is surely to move us towards something quite concern-making.
Let me tell you why:
When weighing up clergy workload a recent exercise determined that those who were governor in, od did assemblies, etc, in a CofE school could count that as part of their official workload. For those who did the same things in any other school, this was 'voluntary' and was regarded in the same was as any other interest or hobby might be. This is facile because assemblies and membership of governors, especially as religious ed coordinators, is surely to be considered part of the job?
If we start looking at what we can regard as 'core' stipend paying for activities then we are starting down the road that will see that core done and the the rest?
Although I am a big fan of shared ministry and teams, the problem is that all too often this means that even though stuff is handed over to members of the church they end up on the desk of the minister! The reasons for this being that of course, laity may well have work to do and this will take first place and sometimes they just don't get done (s guess who ends up doing it?).
The problem with 'core' tasks and 'point something' clergy is that we are, unless we take great care, looking at the world of work quantification, timesheets and employment (something which the critics of common tenure keep telling me is all part and parcel of the same) are knocking on the door of the previously assumed calling.
So there we have it - It's wednesday and these are just a few of the issues that are challenging me. Ideas or comments - especially better answers than those I might give) are most welcome.
Happy Wednesday
