Wherein lies our trust, our courage, our hope?

Last night whilst taking my third communion service of the day I found myself drawn to words from 1 Corinthians 16:

'Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. Do everything in love.'

Be alert. Keep watch. Be steadfast. Be brave. Be strong.
Let love be the key, the guide, the reality, the reason and the means by which we exist.

And of course that love is the love that sees Jesus come to this world of ours to bring about the means by which we are reconciled with, and to, God. It is in the Good News of Jesus, the Christ, that we find the path through the dense forests and cloying mire that life demands we pass through.

The problem is that we, the Church, are no longer alert.

The watchmen on the walls are asleep or distracted by issues which, regardless of how important we are being called to think they are, are nothing but a distraction.

The people who bear the name 'beloved'; those who corporately are what is otherwise known as 'The Church' are hopping from foot to foot and turning this way and that as they try to be correct in terms of language, mindset and discipline. They vacillate and vary their beliefs to avoid being unpopular and yet, in doing so, present not a welcoming church but a weak Church!

The Church has set aside being brave for being popular and this means that we have become cowardly in the delivery, and the living out, of our faith. Our strength is failing and we are about to be overrun.

'But,' I am sure some will say, 'We are doing it in love. We are being strong because we stand against those in 'The Church' who oppose x and y and z. We are steadfast and courageous as we change our position and welcome those who otherwise might not be welcome; those who would find the traditional views of The Church unpopular and unwelcoming. We're just being creative.' 

The problem is that what is being created is fluffy fiction not solid faith!

Last night, as I left the church building, one of those who had been present came to me and said:

'The Church is full of cowards. If we believed that Jesus holds the keys to life then surely we would have the courage to tell those we love about Him. Surely we would act to see them brought into relationship with God through the atoning work of the cross.'

He thought he was being controversial - I thought he was being exactly what I wanted as a response to the sermon last night.

And that's part of the problem with Church today. We focus on the wrong things and believe those who tell us that they are more important than the Gospel itself and when people stand for the real issues, they are told they are out of touch or confused or just a little bit bonkers!

When we find the average age increasing, the average attendance decreasing and the ability to pay the parish share a challenge, what do we do:

i. We start becoming fixated on 'bringing children and young people into church',

ii. We stop looking outside the building and gather in a fear-filled huddle inside it, looking out only for ourselves,

iii. We become more concerned with numbers (age, attendance, money) and, letting this become our focus, take our eyes off of Jesus,

iv. We see bringing people in as the solution to our ills and yet are unwilling to create for them a place of welcome, security and nurture: We take things of the menu to ensure that there's nothing difficult for people to swallow,

v. We promote diocesan, deanery and parish plans and call people to concentrate on whatever the fad those who are supposed to be leading have been convinced to take up as the salvation of the Church, and

vi. We rush off to see what thew 'successful' churches are doing in the hope that emulation and 'adopting best practice' will reverse the trends.

There are many more points I would like to add but by now, if you're anything like me, you're probably so depressed / angry / frustrated / (add your emotion here)  that I would just be compounding the misery.

Love is the key; and that love begins, resides and ends in Jesus.

I'm going to be an even bigger pain over the next few days and week because I'm going to challenge colleagues and congregations and the man in the mirror before me and the person with the pointy hat and those who occupy the elevated positions within 'The Church'. I am fed up with being someone who is among a people who are discontent at 'managing decline' and yet resigned to that role. I am so grateful for that one person last night who has inspired me so (and got me out of bed and praying and reading my Bible and scribbling these thoughts at four in the morning) - this is the passion and the spur I desired to see in the church: one out of a population of 100,000 in our town: I think that's probably all we need to get the stone rolling away from the tomb!



Be warned (and be watchful)

Be afraid (very afraid)

Be blessed (and be a blessing)

Ministering or Administrating?

Public health warning: Rant and soapbox ahead - may appear nuts!

Yesterday I had the misfortune to find myself at the hands of the facile observer, the sort of person who looks at someone with their arms crossed and proclaims them to be defensive because they once read something somewhere (back of a cereal packet perhaps?) that said that and the making of this 'knowledge' theirs has made them an expert! 

I am sure you know the type - the sort of person who issues the trite statement as if they were bringing forth tablets of stone written from on high (my least favourite is the person who utters the awful, 'Assume makes an Ass of you and me!' epigram). I'm sure those who read this will know someone who matches the photofit I am creating.

But, for me at least, the thing that disturbs me most is the retreat of those who should be winning souls and proclaiming Jesus, the Christ, into spreadsheets, flowcharts, organograms (AKA organisation charts) and the like seem to be turning ministers in to administrators. 

I engage with people who were pastoral and up close and personal with people who have become distant and working in personnel (Human Resource Management [HRM] rather than Human Resource Development [HRD]) and this is wrong. HRM manages people - HRD develops them (or so I was taught when doing that sort of thing). One checks attendance and sickness and disciplinary stuff whilst the other seeks to equip and enable people to do the job well. The problem is that all around me I see little passion for people or development but loads for administration and meetings; parameters, guidelines and reviews being the order of the day! (aaaaargh!!!)

I find people who should be ensuring that the church they are in and the Church around them is singing from the same song sheet but instead they are carried away by spreadsheets instead. Rather than call upon God they call yet another interminably boring meeting and try to arrange the deckchairs on a ship which is destined to sink when what is really needed is the services of a pilot who will help us plot a course through, or away form, the icebergs and potential perils before us!

I am an evangelist, pastor and a (lightweight) theologian by calling, nature and passion. I love people, the excite me and stimulate me to say, do and be things I might never have imagined. The Gospel is the fire in my belly and the desire to see people live life at the fullest and be the best they can be is something that fires me up and keeps me mad (was going to say 'sane' but realise how many there are who might just disagree with that).

I am an Anglican priest because I believe in the Church of England I have found an expression of Church, a denomination,  with so very much going for it. Our liturgy is biblical, our worship* is at times sublime and our consideration of the whole of the Bible (thanks to the lectionary) all-encompassing and enabling and our traditions and practices generally spot on (or at least somewhere near).

So as I go to break bread and pour out wine I will issue this plea from a lowly, probably inadequate in most departments, cleric to all who minister (lay or ordained):

+ Put aside the management speak, the spreadsheets, flowcharts, organograms and the like.

+ Stop planning for grow and instead preach the Gospel, build authentic Church and enjoy growth** instead.

+ Regain the gift of being a minster of the Gospel (and we all are called to be ministers by virtue of being baptised so this is something that applies to us all) and pick up your Bible and read; fall to your knees and pray - asking, thanking and praising; sing God's praise and make a joyful (even if not tuneful perhaps) noise.

Let's bring the Church back to the place it should be as the different, counter-cultural, voice in the wildness of today's frenzied society.

Or you carnage another business meeting to ponder over the BOPs and the Share and other really important stuff - but as you do yet another SWOT*** analysis ask yourself whether you are the 'S' column or the 'W' insofar as Church and discipleship and 'doing the stuff' is concerned.

We need to be good managers - don't think I'm not saying that - but most of all we need to be passionate, informed and focussed Christians who are managing their spiritual households.

Are we?

*Worship: Not just the music! Anglican worship is the words and the music, the liturgy guides our work and the music gives a chance to sing spiritual songs, the prayers are more than 'gimme' moments for this too is worship. Worship is a multi-faceted, multidimensional and exciting thing: all encompassing and life-enabling in itself.

** Growth: When asked by a senior clergy person about growth recently my response was, 'I'm hoping you mean growth in the spiritual sense.' Sadly they meant it in the sense  of BOPS (Bums on Pews) and so, sadly, it continues :-(

*** SWOT: Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat. You make a list of the four categories and see where to applaud, where to be worried and where you need to work to survive and to grow. A really useful, although just a little hackneyed, way of getting people to think. But it works when used lightly and intelligently.

A thorny issue: Paying your way!

Being totally honest is something I always regard as good and yet something that is rarely applauded! One of the issues where I often find this is regarding the expectations and the realities of a church (meaning a gathering of people who come to worship God in all that He is) 'paying its way!'

There are those who send me letters 'encouraging' to get the congregation to give more in the light of diminishing income and tough financial climates. This is often accompanied by offers of help, should I need it, to inform and encourage better giving.

When further letters of 'encouragement' came I found myself drawing this:

This upset some people because, as they rightly complained that, 'The diocese has to pay its bills and make ends meet!'

And this is, of course, true. Once the money runs out the lights go off and the churches become cold and doors are shut. This is a reality of life: Charity might begin at home but it doesn't extend to utilities and suppliers of stuff who need to be paid to pay their staff and buy in the stuff they sell and the like. It's simple grown up world stuff innit?

One notch down the diocesan food chain we find the churches and they need to pay too. So I wrote this and stuck it on the wall:

And some people were appalled that I could do such a thing because,they assumed, 'everything was free!'.
The idea was to get people to realise that it cost money to keep a little church like ours afloat and with around 20% of the congregation having an income, this is a challenge for us each and every year.

Then came down from high a memorable little motto from the grown ups in the diocese that upset some who come to church. It went like this:

'If you can't pay - you can't have!'

And people beat their breasts at the thought of no longer having a church in their own patches - after all they'd always had it! But some were resolute and maintained their position with a sad look on their faces.

Then came the complaints that we didn't charge people to use the building space. 'You're undercutting us!' complained one church and the moaned at me, 'How can we pay our way if you're charging less than us? What are we supposed to do?'

Others called me foolish and yet the same people were the first to tell us how lucky we were when those who weren't paying offered us new seating and tables and helped put in central heating and the like. 'Cast you bread upon the waters ...' says the KJV - and we did and God proved Himself to be no man's debtor - and those outside complained at that!

I got into an argument because I thought that having taken money to do a wedding or funeral in a building that any subsequent offering or giving was something to be grateful for and applauded rather than become something to be complained about because it was too little.

Then I got into another argument because I made the point that when we started a church plant or a 'fresh expression' it would be good if we worked out how long we would be fully funded and then decide how the responsibility for 'paying our way' could become ours fully. Wow! This was a real red rag (as was suggesting perhaps that it was acceptable to church to ask people to pay for messy church'). People asked whether we asked those who came to other services to pay - and of course we do, what are our tithes, gifts and offerings if they are the people paying money to ensure that the church (local) pays it's way?

Bringing all of our tithes and offerings into the storehouse ensure the bills are paid and means that those with needs in the fellowship (and let's not fight over what that means for now because I have more weird ideas here too)  go without.

So perhaps we should charge for admission?

Hmmm - discuss :-) 

Clergy - What should we pay for? [1]

The answer to the above questions, in my book,  is 'Absolutely Everything!'

Recent conversations with friends, colleagues, clergy and the bloke who stopped me and asked how long we got before the Bishop 'moved us' have all included (with varying degrees of knowledge)  the issue of the clergy vacancy. The expectations cover all stages from totally unrealistic through to, "Yeah, in your dreams," and yet some of the most unrealistic were from within the church and from those who should perhaps know better!

Some job descriptions stop just a tad short of including sending the poor cleric up the chimney and yet others, looking like a doable role, stun the poor soul reading the advert into something approaching catatonia when they see the dreaded 0.5. Just in case you think the 0.5 post is there for short clerics, let me explain:

There have been some interesting trends and some constructive thinking over the past few years. One involved asking clergy whether they'd be happy to note down the time that school work took and that which related to church schools was work and all other was effectively our hobby (I kid you not). This was repeated over a number of areas (church club = work, veteran's club = hobby and so on) and the end result was that a good idea of what should be paid for by the church and what was merely 'our personal interest' could be separated. When I was asked what I thought the Church should be paying for, the response was simple = everything!

The reasoning for my response comes from the fact that there are some who appear to be looking to reduce the role of minister to something that resembles the sessional youth worker! Where we have a service that demands the presence of a priest, which usually means that an epiclesis* is involved, we budget for one and in so doing restrict our priestly requirement to Communion, marriage and (for some places) Baptism**! So we pay for the presence of priest on Sunday and then, realising, we need one for the Wednesday midweek communion service and subsequent home communions to those who otherwise couldn't make it add another day to the pile.  This done, we add to the mix another day to enable hospital visits and other 'Vicar' type stuff (Vestry hour, meeting Wardens, parishioners and the like) and bingo, that's the 0.5 post put to bed.

I have been involved in some amazing conversations about paying our way where the mantra 'can't pay, can't have' has been paraded before an assembled clergy whose expressions said it all:

 And so, with that, I'll leave you to have a reflect on this first shot. A shot that builds nicely upon the question of giving to God that for which we have not paid and asks where is our treasure? For that is surely the key to much of this issue.

Happy Saturday :-)




* epiclesis - an invocation or calling down upon or blessing involving the Holy Spirit. This is the bit where we bless people at the end or consecrate the bread and wine or bless the rings or the couple or the water in which (or which will be poured over to enable) the rite of baptism.

** when I was ordained, baptism was not allowed until I'd been priested and so this was a 'priest's job' - that said I have found many handing this over to deacons and I've heard of some who have allowed their Lay Minister's to do the service too (which is still, as I understand it, wrong).

Christmas Cards - Dec 10

Ho, Ho, Holy cow - even the Daleks can get the Christmas spirit!

Now, all we need to do is convert them and:

Made me laugh: WCs - A new twist

I've always enjoyed the 'male, female and clergy' toilet signs and so the variant of WCs sign shown below was most definitely destined to make me smile, especially as I recalled another 'Dalek' poster from some time back:

I hope you find both of them able to help raise a smile on a day when they are in short supply across the world.

Mission, money and point something ministers

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

'Missional' means cost-cutting!

These words were thrown into the mix during an excellent discussion with my colleagues on the shape our combined ministries should take. Wearing my missioner hat I tried hard to point out the realities of the word but the problem was that the Dario Fo farce-like reality of 'can't pay - won't pay' was made all the more real by the words of some at diocesan level who baldly state that "If you can't pay then you can't have!"

There is a problem within the Church of England in that one side of the coin has churches who are able to pay are, in the main, also 'comfortable' whilst the other finds churches in Urban Priority Areas (UPAs), Estates and rural settings who struggle to exist.

Now, just in case anyone thinks that I am having a go at those churches who can pay (and this is not easy in today's economic situation), please be assured that I am not. My sending church was one who managed to pay their share with little trouble and they were also engaged in the community around them and supported a church in what for them was a UPA setting. Having money is not a sin and does not imply any lack of missionary or evangelistic, social-concern or any other zeal. It is not a sin for a church to have money or to have people who can afford to support the church (although there are some perils - but I will revisit them some other time).

There is an attitude from some that the UPA, Estate church fraternity are living a lifestyle that serves them and fails to support the central church. I have been in conversations where the 'haves' give the impression that the 'have nots' are, much like the scroungers the Daily Fascist revels in, the victims of their own folly, lifestyle or lassitude. This of course is, generally, not the case. Now I do know some congregations who have a begging-bowl mentality, but these are very few and far between.

Now Jesus never told us to go into the places that could afford us and this is the problem we face in that if those who can't afford the Gospel being preached, the pastoral and social action being present and a place of welcome and support being open are never touched then we deny the words of James' (2:9) in that we are showing partiality and the very people who are captive to so much are not to be set free because the Church isn't willing to foot the bill!

I know of churches who cannot pay their parish share and yet, despite this, have seen people come to faith in fair numbers over the past few years. So here's a few questions (answer if you dare):

How do we put a price on this?

Do we set limits on how many need to be in the congregation before we take them seriously?

If a church can't pay the share in full and yet sees one or two people a year come to Christ, is it valid? If we say 'Yes' then why aren't we willing to support it from external sources? If we say 'No', then what makes a church valid?

If a church pays its parish share but exists only for itself, is this a valid church? Who decides (and why)?

I am finding an increasingly cynical and despairing tone amongst many of the clergy and congregations I come across and yet, as I see it, the future's bright and the achievements, commitment and faith are cheering and fantastic. I see positives but the need for the words, and actions, of those who set the direction need to take these up and be consistent in following and encouraging those who do Church where it meets the world.

I look forward to your answers, experiences and considered views.

Pax

Give until they leave

I thought this was one of the funniest clips relating to giving in church that I have seen for a while, so I thought I'd share it with you all.

Parish Share - Giving as Partners

I'm most grateful to John Richardson (AKA the Ugley Vicar) for pointing me to the 'Giving as Partners' sheet (which may be found here) on the Church Society website.

The billing:

The Church of England is an institution in crisis.  Contemporary pressures are mounting to change the Church’s practices and teaching.  At the same time, historical factors mean the leadership of the Church is rarely answerable to the ‘membership in the pews’.  In this crisis, money plays a key part.  On the one hand, the funds available to the Church are declining in parallel with the membership.  On the other hand, there are regular calls to ‘Quota Cap’ as a response to perceived abuses within  the Church.
‘Giving As Partners’ addresses these issues in a radical way.  Rejecting Quota Capping, it nevertheless offers a proposal that could change the Church by changing the way churches relate to one another.  Simple in principle, it would create dynamic mission partnerships that would improve the effectiveness of the Church whilst at the same time increasing the likelihood that Quotas would be paid in full.  This could
well be ‘an idea whose time has come’

Makes for some interesting reading - I'm about to embark upon the document and invite others, especially those who have commented on the earlier 'Parish Share' blog pages to perhaps do the same and see where this takeds our discussion.

Pax

Money and the CofE

I've halted play for a few moments to (try and) answer some questions about money and the CofE.

Hopefully I'm heading in the right direction with these (and if not am sure I will be corrected):

The cost of an ordained minister
The cost of an ordained minister varies from location to location and seems to range from £45-50k. tThe final figure comes about by taking the stipend, National Insurance, training, support services (i.e. diocesan staff), housing costs, Council Tax, Water rates and pension contributions and lumping them together. Once this is done the final figure is divided by the number of stipendiary ministers and there's the figure.

Funding Bishops)
As I understand it the bishops (and their staff) come from central funds.

Funding Cathedrals
Money comes from funds other than diocesan common purse

What does the Church of England do with all its money?
Well it's obviously not good biscuits and a good variety of tea (don't do coffee) is it.

The money that the Church Commissioners have, this includes property, things and other liquid assets (but still not tea :-( ) is used to add to the money that comes in from the giving of the church's own members.

Take a look at the pretty picture below and you'll get an idea as to how, where and what (and you'll see that the 'what' with regard to 'all it's money' means a subsidy of some 21% of the total money needed/used):



I hope this quick response provides some useful answers,

V

Parish Share - Cue for Conflict?

Having posted my little graphic interpretation of a couple of the issues regarding parish Share I was quite shocked to see some of the comments that came in. It seems that this is not an issue that unites and many of the lines drawn up leave us with the oh so familiar 'have' and 'have not' battle, the 'poor management' debate and the conflict between rural and urban too!

I guess I'd have to start with a hint from Malachi 3 about bringing the 'whole tithe' into the storehouse and parallel that with a quick foray into Acts 2: 42 where we find reference to unity, 'being family' (koinoinia - translates as 'fellowship' but this is nearer family than a cuppa after the service!). The reality is that we should be looking at the churches in our deanery and seek ways of sharing and supporting the work of the Church spiritually (always the first call as without prayer we're merely a social club), practically (not saying praying isn't practical, just mean 'doing' and sharing stuff), financially (which is practical and needs to be embarked upon prayerfully) and in love.

The idea that those who can't pay 'need to pull their socks up' and if they don't they die is pretty simplistic as many of those whom I encounter as struggling are working flat out (just as some I come across who are comfortable and pay without problem are coasting because they maintain numbers, pay their share and have no need to do any more!).

We have two main areas of stress within our churches and these are to be found in the places where deprivation and decline in the community has an impact upon the income of the church within it and yet surely these are the areas where the impact of the church is most needs to be felt? It's a sad fact of life that I see the rural and urban priority areas as the most needy and see the most struggling between the groups as it seems they are fixed to the same stick like the characters of a weather house!

As I write this I see I have received another comments post with loadsa questions and so will leave you with the thoughts thus far and return with some answers - catch you later.

Pax

Mutual Support - A modern parable

Have you ever been to a meal in a restaurant with a number of people where each person chooses what they want and then, at the end of the meal the issue of how to settle the bill comes up? Well I have and I find that the dynamics of this situation are a very good parable on the issue of 'being Church' and 'Mutual Support'. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin:

One night a group of people decided to meet together to have a celebration meal for one of their friends. They decided at the beginning that each would buy their own drinks and they'd sort out the bill at the end. And so some had starters whilst others choose just to go to their main course. Everyone had a main course, each choosing what they wanted and then whilst others wanted dessert, others decided they were full and so their meal ended there.

Then came the moment of reckoning and one person suggested that they took the cost of all the meals and divided it by the number of people and so this is what they did. Now some of those at the meal, having eaten just a main course, found that the 'divided out' sum was twice the cost of what they had eaten, and yet they paid the agreed sum. Others decided that they would pay for, "What they'd eaten," and gave this money and no more. Still more people, having had starters, a main and a dessert paid the 'divided out' figure in the knowledge that they were 'winning' because their meal had actually come to more than the 'divided out' figure.

When the money was collected in they found that there wasn't enough to pay the bill and so some of those who had already given more than their own portion of the bill really was found themselves giving more so that the bill could be paid and they could go home.

Now which of those acted in the way that God would have us act in order to build His kingdom?

+ Those who paid more than the cost of their own meal acted 'generously'(especially as the giving of the extra from some was 'sacrificial' in that they had little to start with!),

+ Those who paid for their meal and nothing more acted legalistically in that 'you get what you pay for (and vv)' or perhaps it was merely the outworking of 'begrudging meanness' or 'thinking only of themselves (but nevertheless they paid their own way I hear some say, but what does this say of community and relationships?), and

+ Those who paid the 'divided sum' knowing that their meal cost more than that acted in a self-serving (or perhaps 'greedy or grasping') manner. The good old 'won that one' syndrome!

Do you recognise yourself, or your church, in this story I wonder?

have a think - more to come

But the Church is rich! (Part III)

The Church (of England) costs around £1,000M to keep the doors of our churches (13,000 of them) and cathedrals (43) open. The pretty graph below gives an idea of how the money comes in:

From it we can see that 21% comes from investments,

16% from Fees (Baptism, Wedding and Funerals), and

The rest (excluding 'other') pretty much comes from within (and the 'tax recovered' is a component of giving too!).

So - the reality is that we do have money but we aren't rich and the money we generate from it means we need to raise around £210m less from within (i.e. the members and churchgoers). The central organisation is therefore subsidising the operation leaving church members with their Parish Share to meet the rest.

That said, Parish Share is no small amount as can be seen with our  'church in a phone box and its need to find £65 every day of the year to pay it (and that's without running expenses) but it would be £100 without the 'wealth!'.

And what the communities we serve get is extremely good value for money and those who are Church (meaning CofE for this example) should be proud of what we are in the main doing and being.

Pax

ps. If you are a church member (and denomination or group) why not GiftAid your giving and maximise the power of your giving?

Static church

Following on from the four state diagram of church based upon the two parameters of 'Resource' (Spiritual health, People, networks, building, equipment, money, etc.) and 'Mission' (Going into all the world, making disciples, being Christ to the world - taking Christ to the world.), I thought it might be helpful to consider each of the fours states of 'being church' that exist, beginning with 'Static Church'.

In the two parameter (MR - Mission and resource) model a static church is one that has enough money to pay its way and generally exists for those within its walls rather than outside. Traditionally churches like these will continue to potter comfortably along doing as it always has and attracting new members who usually come into an area from a church which is similar. A conversation with a static church member told me that the people did church as they wanted and because they paid their share and kept well below the radar (after if there's nothing to shout about, good or bad, then people tend not to notice you) they were generally left to their own devices.

The church did everything it always did, Fairs and Fetes, Harvest Supper, Candlelit Carols, Beetle Drives (is that something to do with farming?) and all the other stuff that made church the place to be when the members were kids all still happened. There was a choir with an organ and nowhere was there a guitar to be found. It was fifties church made possible today - a sort of Beamish Museum for the Anglicans!

The members assumed that because they paid and maintained their numbers they were a successful church and you know what, I don't think they were wrong! There is something to be said for maintenance in places where mission isn't anything other than a nice concept, after all the community was pretty static and the nature of the place was such that those moving in, when homes became available, were pretty much the same people. The problem will come when those who start moving in to the area are dechurched or unchurched and fresh stocks to replenish the pews diminish. The sudden awareness that mission is needed to pay the share and fill the pews is more than just a culture shock (as some of those with whom I engage are beginning to find)!

So if you're in a static church why not start to look at how you might add a missional element into what being church is for those around you? It's what we are called to be and it's much easier to start the ball rolling in an environment that is relaxed and working to its own agenda than to trying to engage in looking outwards when you find you can't pay your bills and the share is looking unpayable.

Pax

Privileged Clergy, pressurised Parishoners

Returning to the issue of 'finance and the Church', time to respond to the comments made in the first-placed observation, namely:

"The clergy live in their privileged and comfortable lives whilst demanding that their poor and disadvantaged congregations pay for the privilege in the money the are pressured to give!"

Assuming that the 'privilege' is meant in some way to be monetary, for it fits with the general tone of the comment my first observation has to be that if they are then they're either doing it from private means as where I find myself the six of us work hard to keep our heads above water, especially with the current recession, rises in energy, fuel and just about every other cost! I realise that having six of us in a household is perhaps not the norm but it is for us.

As for, "demanding that their poor give!" Working in an Urban Priority Area I have to say that generally all of the those within the area we serve might well be considered poor with respect to many parts of the country (for 'poor' is surely a comparative) and even with in our own town we most definitely serve the 'have nots'. As for pressurising the congregations, I would have to say that generally, as a breed, clergy still tend not to lean on people to pay a tithe (which is actually the minimum of course) and yet there is this misconception amongst those outs, and I have to assume that the author of this comment was not a church member, that we are always out there with our begging bowls!

Where I am, and I cannot speak for others, our church building is used by the community without charge. Groups and individuals come and make use of our facilities and services and the answer is always the same, for Church (the people of God) should be paying for their buildings and the heating, lighting and whatever where it can and where it can't, if there is good reason for this (and I would have to say being a truly missionary church is pretty much the only caveat here) it should be supported by the other churches around it (i.e. at diocesan level or nationally). Now we get loads of flak from some because we don't charge, especially those who do charge for EVERYTHING and see us undercutting them (rather than ministering to the needs of those around us) and those who moan because of the difficulty we have in paying Parish Share (claiming we should charge for everything and pass the plate around at every opportunity), but that's life I guess.

Oddly though, the same people who complain that we charge for nothing are the very same people who get envious about the fact that we've decorated, installed central heating (where we had storage heaters), got new chairs, fitted a new kitchen (with dishwasher and double-ove, eight burner oven) and more besides - at no cost to the church (yep, all donated - even the plumber came and offered his services free!). God calls us to scatter our bread on the water - well we do and God has proved himself time and time again to be no man's debtor!

But clergy are indeed 'privileged' for the the calling that we have responded to is something that is a reward in itself but it's not financial. We might not be 'comfortable' but, generally speaking, we have dinner (and often lunch too) at home and are not subject to the pressures of working for someone else, for we set our own workloads and tasks for much of our working week. Now that is a privilege, but perhaps one that should see us offer to exchange places with people in the 'real' world of work or do a day with church members every now and then to keep the experience real. That said, we have but a very small number who are working and so, for me, this would be a bit difficult!

Those who are Church are also privileged and we all, for we are all 'Laos' (i.e. Church, God's people) should be paying sacrificially but from the outpouring of our hearts with gratitude and never because we are pressured by another.

Church should work at people seeing what they get for free and yet to do this without claims of exhibiting pride or generating envy on the part of others is something I just don't know how to do. So we do the stuff, live the life, house the homeless, feed the hungry and minister to the broken. The rest is up to God!

Pax

St Paul's - what ordinary folk think

I came into conversation about St Paul's no less than four times yesterday whilst going about my day. Not only that but a concerned person came and knocked on the door of the Vicar's palace late last night asking what they could do about the situation!

It seems to me that the situation at St Paul's has touched a nerve and caused many to regard the Church as a body that is firmly in bed with those who have. The only saving grace was that no one actually used the term 'the Conservative Party at prayer', but it's what they surely felt.

The consensus was that St Paul's (funny how like Spring, the building is a sentient entity) should open its doors and welcome in the protesters. Rowan should have made an appearance on the first day and spoken out about the great divide between rich and poor, the excesses of the financial types and the obscenity of the ever increasing profit. "St Paul's is a church that is built on Jesus," said one commentator, "So why are they living like it's a City establishment?"

I explained that there are tensions in that the desire to accomodate and embrace is countered by the pressure of paying the bills, maintaining the building and keeping the lights on and that this was the most likely cause of asking the people to leave. In telling people this we reveal the problem facing so many Christians every day - doing what we need to do Vs doing what is right.

My companion last night said that surely no one would cut the power off because St Paul's hadn't paid. Sadly though, I wasn't so sure.

Another said, "Surely if St Paul's embraced the protesters and ran into financial problems because of it, people would rally round and pay the shortfalls!" Sadly I find myself engaged in a number of things and whilst they are the 'right' things to do, when others hear of it (and the pressures they create) they merely shuffle off, more concerned at meeting their own needs than supporting what should be done! Those who would merely say, "Be well, be blessed and leg it having done nothing are still with us.

A further comment came regarding the wealth of the CofE, how it owns land, property and great treasures. I pointed out the fact that 'having stuff' generated money (well it did!) and this money meant that the bills could be paid, support for the diocese I am in and many other needs could be met. "But they should sell it all," came the response. My reply was, "Fine, but will you put your hand in pocket to help the churches in your town continue? Will you pay so that we can keep our lights on and work in the community?" There was no answer - but I think we all know the answer.

I am always amazed at the number of people who assume that the CofE gets its money from some state funded source and when I explain that our little church needs something approaching £20k to pay the Parish Share and then find money for everything else - they mumble about 'never knew' and 'not right' and leg it (slowly but it is still legging it!).

So for those who stumble across this and think we're living in luxury with no pressures on us consider the image below and then ask - am I supporting the work of my local church?

(click on the image to see a larger image)

Pax

Minister's Fees and Retired Clergy

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