Forum Thread
Rallying Point of Jerusalem Declaration, Diocesan Funds and FCA

Thank you, Mark, for the information about the Southwark system.  I suppose it remains that parishes in dioceses with systemsbased on income may experience otherwise.  If I recall correctly, York used a hybrid system, based on capability to give (based on population, socioeconomic character of parish, etc.) but also on actual income. 

As yet, no one has chimed in with a description of their use of a ministry trust, so perhaps my perception that their use is somewhat common is erroneous. 

The post relating to generosity is attractive to me.  The church I serve currently has the structure of a proprietary chapel, but makes a generous contribution to the episcopate and ministry association.  Cheerful giving, not under compulsion, makes a duty a joy in this instance!

Clifford Swartz

Clifford

One of the points of the "Southwark system" is that it is an attempt to evaluate the capacity of each congregation to give. If sums of money are placed into trust funds, they may be available for particular uses and shielded from being squandered on other things, but this won't reduce the amount that the parish is expected to contribute to the Diocese (common fund). The assessment is not on the amount of money in the parish accounts, but on the presumed capacity of people to give.

This has been one of the most stimulating threads! It makes one consider the theological and doctrinal debates in very concrete terms of how we lead our congregations financially. While anyone engaged with the issues motivating Fulcrum correspondents will have considerable sympathy with the GAFCON / CEEC approach to church networks, especially with the frustration at diocesan and provincial government, that does not mean we should do the "natural" cultural thing and mix only with those we know and feel comfortable with. I did ask myself what Jesus's response would be to a Petrine suggestion of heading up a Galileean outreach network for fisherman, or Matthew's vision to lead a mission to tax accountants. I have seen our traditional and liberal friends in a quite new way recently after 26 years worshipping in two local evangelical churches. In that time the diocese has been grateful for priests called out of our congregation (14 in 30 years) to go into ministry in mainly traditional rural parishes. To their amazements the demands of the gospel, the responses to the Holy Spirit, the personal spiritual needs were exactly the same as we experience in our evangelical factories in the larger towns; only the population density, language and some of the accounting costs are different. While our Bishops and Deans may frustrate us at times, and the liberal mission performance is usually fatally flawed, we must not give up on supporting the financially week, especially rural and poor urban ministry. I also observe that if more evangelicals bit their tongues and engaged with diocesan structures, whether DEF's or synods, then much of the lunacy (not to speak of the heresy) in our C of E polity would not happen. Our frustration level would drop and our influence increase. Just as the CEEC leaders appear to have done last week, we have to admit to being too fussy about our friendships, too precious about our politics and probably too disobedient to the scripture we so value. We must combine argueing (not fighting) for what is right with the self-control and kindness which we are told are true fruits of the spirit.

Our diocese has moved away from a system of central assessment and a quasi-tax approach to a parish offereing scheme based on parishes making a 'generous offer' towards the cost of ministry. In the diocese, the cost of ministry is slightly more than the contribution received from the parishes and many parishes are paying less than the cost of the ministry they receive. Discussions happen on a deanery basis and the deaneries make offers in a cross-deanery process of what they will pay towards the costs of ministry in the diocese.

There is, therefore, no assessment of the kind that you suggest, Clifford, and which still is a common way of doing things. There are some parishes which for reasons which (in our context) tend to be pragamatic rather than theological which have such trusts which were established to put monies outside the diocesan assessment process. The device is well-known, and in a setting where cost of ministry is a main criterion and neighbouring parishes in a deanery are being encouraged to put forward a 'generous offer' it simply doesn't was for a parish to say, 'Oh our income is only such and such' where their neighbours know full well that there is a large tranche of income which is kept out of the PCC accounts.

A parish's non-contribution instead of being an apparently 'private' issue between them and 'the diocese' is revealed in its true colours as an openly known issue between them and other parishes in the diocese represented by, specifically, the other parishes in the deanery.

Dear Clare,

Thank you for your reply to my post.  I think on re-reading it you will find that I was asking how many readers on this site already use such entities, and was positively advocating parish to parish links to facilitate domestic mission, not the use of a ministry trust as the only means to accomplish this goal.

Your point about the Church of England being a family does raise, for me, an interesting question of identity.  That is, do we find ourselves experiencing stronger bonds of fellowship with evangelicals who are not Anglicans or Anglicans who are not evangelicals?  I have noted in recent articles and posts that question the validity of the CEEC that non-diocesan networks are the places where encouragement is sought (in that example, networks such as New Wine or Spring Harvest rather than a Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship). 

This seems to indicate that the diocese is not the primary level of fellowship (which would agree with the Article that the church is a congregation of faithful people where the word is faithfully preached and sacraments duly administered).  I offered the observation that most people view themselves in a local church family, and part of the worldwide family of God.  The bonds of fellowship at the diocesan or denominational level are weaker, and rightly so in my view (and ecclesiology).  So my observation and question are aiming at strengthening parishes in mission.  I grant that this would likely weaken diocesan finances.

I don't know what to make of the silence by others in answering that question about ministry trusts.  Perhaps a quick look at the charity commissioners website, Clare, will be revealing!  (Simply type in the name of the parish and write the word "trust" next to it, and see what comes up...).  Thank you once again for the exchange of ideas.

Clifford Swartz, writing from Manhattan USA

christchurchnyc.com

Clifford schwartz's suggestion that we set up trust funds to 'shield' against assessment seems to me a horrendous suggestion - if we really have to 'shield' ourselves against one another - what on earth is the point of being Anglican?? being an Anglican means to belong to a family that despite its disagreements give and receives from one another - just like a family does. if someone in my family needed to shield' their income from me, lest I should expect some sort of help in my our of need, then I would believe that they had de facto abandonned our family - ceased to be in communion as it were.  If this is what they really wanted to do -so be it - but then they should have the good grace to be honest about it and explicity sever ties.

I accept that being an Anglican means that my common fund could be used to fund forward in faith churches, reform churches, homophobic churches, disorganised churches, wasteful churches........we are a family and we have bonds of commitment that go beyond agreeing with each other or even liking each other very much.

'shielding' sounds like some of us our enemies against whom we need protection.  seriously this is the most horrible suggestion I have ever come across on fulcrum.

Having been a lay member of Southwark DBF some years ago, I recall that it was true then - and I suspect that not much has changed - that the giving in "poor" parishes - parishes in areas of high deprivation - was significantly higher in relation to income than in the wealthier parts of the diocese.

This reminds me of Jesus and the widow who put her two coins quietly into the temple offering - it is all too easy to judge people we don't know, and to be rather easier with those we do.

The discussion also reminds me of the row which happened when criminal fines and penalties were scaled against income - those who had paid £60 for an offence or for a child's offence and thought very little of it were suddenly being asked to pay an amount which hurt enough to make a noticeable difference. There were bitter complaints and the system was changed. But that is how much it hurts a family at the bottom end of the scale, and the system wasn't changed to make life easier for them.

It should not be, in a church which knows the way of the cross, that we should be drawn into counting our own pain/frustration more significant than the cost which others unknown to ourselves are bearing. Of course it takes wisdom and discretion to allocate resources - and these are undermined by a lack of trust - and that lack of trust grows in part because of the unfortunate language we sometimes use.

Here in Chelmsford we had a recent debate on money at Diocesan Synod - and we learnt that something like 80% of all parishes pay what is asked of them - to hear people talking about the subject it is almost as if "we" are the only ones. This kind of misreading of the situation is untheological and ungracious and feeds pragmatic ideas of what to do about money which have little root in the gospel.

I appreciate too that there is an activist streak in evangelical faith which is welcome, and even essential. But activism is not everything - the story of Martha and Mary, for example, is an indication that there are times to listen. And the being/doing dimension is reflected in personality differences - an activist church may not be the easiest place for some people to encounter the Gospel (then again there are few churches which are wholly activist).

For some churches being patiently in the community is at the root of mission, breaking down barriers and building bridges so that the word of life can be spoken with a chance of being heard.

Bob Jackson, whose work reflects on the 'tax on growth' issue amongst others also looks at the life-cycle of parishes and suggests that there is merit in resisting the 7-year-stint for clergy: part of this will be down to the time that it takes to build relationships which are secure enough and deep enough to allow effective work to happen. The language of urgency is compelling, but so often people take time.

"Money for mission" is of course desirable, but it is unfortunate (especially in current circumstances) if the message heard by the rest of the church is "money for us" - and that is what ears seem to be tuned to hear just now.

Here's a question for those reading this particular thread: 

How many of your parishes have set up a ministry trust into which some giving is directed, in order to shield it from assessment? 

Such entities do precisely what Julian Mann advocates, i.e., a parish deciding that it knows better than the diocese what the members wish to support. 

It seems to me that very few folks in a congregation have any sense of belonging to a diocese.  They likely see themselves as part of a local church, possibly as Anglicans, and hopefully as members of the worldwide Church.  This does not in itself demand any particular position on the topics in this thread be supported; however, if true, it does instruct us on the inherent frustration of viewing ministry partnerships as taking place at the diocesan level.

By way of comparison, a church will be given the opportunity for direct links if they are CMS or Crosslinks supporters; and domestically, Julian Mann's proposal (if I understand it) would allow for such mission links.  This seems wise, as the need to the evangelisation of England is great, with far more Christians in most parts of Africa, for example, than in the north of England.

Thank you for the forum for discussion on this site (writing from the USA and formerly of Hull, UK!).

Clifford Swartz

www.christchurchnyc.com, Associate Minister

titusonetwo.blogspot.com, Blogger in Chief

Tony,

The issue that would concentrate the minds of Fulcrum leadership team members would be what is best for the funding of mission across a diocese, and that will get as many different answers as there are dioceses represented. Some agreeing with their diocesan policy, some not, whatever that is.

I have had experience of two dioceses, and served on both their board of finance. both have been concerned with fairness, and have answered the questions raised in almost diametrically opposite ways. I suppose that reflects local culture. In Hereford it is a cost based system, but then, as I said earlier the diocese is not wildly divergent in nature across its rolling acres.

In Southwark the divergence is massive, and the system is designed to take account of that. Where Stephen, I think, has points  is firstly whether church membership should be over a rolling three year period, which would smooth growth trends, and enable some leeway for teaching on stewardship to take place, and secondly the flexibility to take account of what funds used locally could do for mission, as opposed to central expenditure (which I think used to exist). An example might be a waiver of parish share if it would enable the employment of (say) a youth worker, which might be an investment into future growth for the church (and therefore future increased share for the diocese and mission in Southwark).

But these things are details, and my argument to anyone is that is why it is essential to be involved in the ecclesiastical structures as appropriate, wherever you are to make the case.

I'm also grateful for PeterM's comments. There are churches that are innovative (though solidly sacramental) in worship, who preach the Jesus gospel, and who have significant numbers of poor people in their congregations, who are really scared by the financial sabre rattling they get from the big 'evangelical' congregations who suck the life blood from the outliers. when my parish church gets closed, nobody else I'm afraid is goung to fill the breach. So much as I am thankkful for Stephen Kuhrt's apology, it's hard not to think that his overhast remarks don't reflect a common view in the fulcum leadership and their sympathisers.

Thanks Stephen for your gracious reaction. Southwark is at least an interesting place to be!

I've worked in both Southwark and Chester. And the Chester system is far fairer. Here in Chester, Christ Church New Malden would pay well under £100k. You have two incumbent equivelents (Vicar + Minister for St John's) and you are in a relativly wealthy area, so you'd pay about 210% That's 110% per minister -10% as you provide one of the houses.

In Southwark Julian's Church would be stung, as I know mine would.

You need to ask, why are these Churches even being asked for 1/4 million pounds? It's absurd.

Getting to Julian's point and picking up on some of the criticism, it doesn't follow that being Anglican means supporting all shades, as the quota system is relativly new. Does that mean pre-war (or whenever it was) there were no Anglicans? CPAS was once called "the extra curate fund". Evangelicals gave generously to it and they dished out curates around the country. Anglo-Catholics had a similar thing.

What we now have is centralisation and control. Why pay a load of your generous givers money into a central pot, in order to claim some back. That is wasting money of someone in an office filling out forms! I think Stephen's point about "being v doing" is valid, but not always the issue. Sometimes we may have to say, this area is tough, BUT they really are doing all they can. But sometimes we have to say that they are not - not always due to laziness. (I'll take you're word that this applies to Evangelical Churches - I'm struggling to think of Evangelical Churches, by any fair meaning of the word, that doesn't pay it's way, even when small, old & UPA)

Now this is where I would like to defend Emmanuel (I don't know co-mission well enough, but I think it is similar). Emmanuel has got out of the quota system by a quirk of nature. However, it is, I think similar in size to New Malden, but on the basis of the figures Stephen mentioned, they actually give more than that total figure away. I think (it's a while since I saw their figures) that is in the area of their home mission giving! They give more to overseas. Most of who they give to is UPA Parishes around the country who they have developed some sort of partnership with. It's prayerful and personal. There money pays for a Children's worker, or a planter or whoever.

Talking about UPAs is if they are the problem isn't quite the whole picture. I did my curacy in a Southwark UPA, I'm Vicar in a Chester UPA and we pay our way. Even if everyone were on a pension or doll, we would still pay our way, if they tithed. We also get generous amounts from the people demonised here (for specific work) and people wanting to spend time ministering to us on missions etc. at their expense.

Now, if someone were to say, lucky you, you know the right people. I'd say why where are your partner Churches? If liberal Churches are all that generous, let's run with experiment of just giving to our own kind and see what happens!