Thread: The parish share Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023353
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
Recently looking around a village church I noticed that the congregation which varies in size is largely made up of pensioners on a low income and often unwaged young or youngish middle aged men (rare in many places - we are lucky).

When the church is full about once a month, these are themed services for the church school or adapted eucharists and the good congregation isn't very committed, but dutifully puts something on the plate. They have the slight memory of church school and come to see their child take part. Every month the congregation is large but with seemingly different people each time.

Due to the legacy of an elderly and very long serving popular priest known to everyone locally (he came to us at 62 and stayed until his death at 94), hundreds even in the next town regard it as 'their' church, although they might rarely if ever go. It has a quite extraordinary ministry and visibility still living off his reputation and flamboyant personality. Even the workers behind the scenes in the crematorium 20 miles away have a photo of this old vicar on the wall of their office, and there are houses on the local council estate that have his picture on top of the telly. His legacy has meant that church is seen as 'OK' rather than something embarrassing or totally alien to many.

The problem is that the income of the parish is very small although the congregations look very healthy. It is not a matter of asking people to give more - most can't and many aren't that committed and just go from time to time. If you pushed them they would soon stop going altogther. However if does show the influence of the church in general probably exceeds the statistics.

Is this common and how can a church cope with it?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Letting the congregation know the parish's financial situation is not pushing people. They have a duty before God to support their parish and they should know that.

On the other hand, those pensioners and underemployed congregants are usually the most generous givers in a parish. I have known old widows and college students that would miss meals to support their church.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
It's common. We're in much that situation right now, with several thousand people who claim Mr. Lamb as "their" pastor (due to 25 years of citywide ministry) but barely a dime for the church to bless itself with. They are all immigrants and the regular attendees are either elderly or children in the main.

What we've done is to go without a salary. It wasn't by choice (St. Paul, you can keep your laurels, grrrr) but things are what they are. As for what they SHOULD have been--well, it would be very nice if the larger denominational structure took heed of these oddities and was willing to supply modest help from our more financially fortunate sister churches; but nevermind. (If we're in bad shape, imagine the shape of those who do Muslim ministry! Brrrrrr)
 
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :
 
A rural congregation being below the critical mass to support a priest is probably very common. In the days of tithes, glebe land, patronage and endowments, it mattered less. Nowadays, the Church Commissioners and diocese are trying to shift the burden of paying for clergy to congregations. Even in places like yours where there it sounds as though there is a good connection with the local community, it must be difficult and reliant on subsidy. Realistically, the clergy/parish system is probably not fit for purpose in the modern age.

Your old priest must have held the freehold. Things in the wider world have probably changed drastically in terms of how parishes are organised during the time of his incumbency. There also aren't the number of new clergy to replace those retiring. He sounds a great example of how the Church of England can minister to those beyond its pews.

Rural ministry is a very pressing problem. As you say it's unrealistic to expect small, elderly congregations and fringe attenders to stump up the cash that's needed. Equally, pulling the plug would be very bad news.

The Church in Wales proposes some fairly drastic root and branch reform of its parish system.


Kersplat
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Letting the congregation know the parish's financial situation is not pushing people. They have a duty before God to support their parish and they should know that.

On the other hand, those pensioners and underemployed congregants are usually the most generous givers in a parish. I have known old widows and college students that would miss meals to support their church.
That is to over-estimate their commitment and would probably hasten the falling off of attendance. Without exaggeration EVERYTHING has to be explained to them and the Lord's Prayer typed out on the service sheet. It is even necessary to say 'we turn over the page now'.

They will attend the carol services and other special occasions but probably beleive very little. I suspect this is more common than realised. To ask them for money might put them off altogether (and then you get a members only church). The phrase 'A duty before God' would be assuming more belief than I imagine exists! That is our problem.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Sebby

My experience with the Methodists is that unless a church has a large and very middle class congregation, it needs to develop an outside source of regular income, rather than always pestering a small number of regular attenders to give more and more money.

Is your church letting out any of its rooms or buildings? On a small scale, this can just mean a local group using a room for two hours a week, or on a larger scale, it might mean remodelling a whole wing, adding an extra floor, etc. for a commercial or public sector institution that needs the space on a full time basis.

I've come across churches that seem to have managed a large scale conversion project well, although making the decision, getting the funding, organising the whole thing and doing the work to get there is quite traumatic and complicated. My own church tried this and failed - the credit crunch brought negotiations to a shuddering halt. What I'd say is that you shouldn't leave the process until the church is on its last legs. That's too late.

My impression is that the CofE has greater access to funding and advice than other denominations.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
The renting bits out and getting money is a very good idea.

A while ago the vicar applied successfully to have some discrete masts placed on the tower for mobile phone net works and it would have brought in a substantial income. However there was such an outcry because of the proximity of a school that he was nearly lynched. No-one seemd to care about the proximity of people's houses though. The use of 'school' cuased the usual panic, obsession hysteria that now seems to go with anything to do with children. The scheme was abandoned.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
The OP raises any number of issues, and it's tempting to comment on them all. However to focus on three:

1) Much as I generally despair of the diocese of Manchester, I have to give it credit for its latest version of its means of calculating the parish share. This not only looks at the numbers, but asks what is the average income, and excludes irregular attenders, by imposing a 12 attendances bar per year before you are counted.

2) The core question comes down to whether anything of value is occurring in this parish. 'Presentism'* and 'keeping the show on the road' ensure that many Christian institutions carry on well past the date when they are offering anything of value.

3) If your parish needs subsidies from somewhere else, the question is: 'Why should I offer you support in preference to supporting a Ugandan diocese where the priest shortages are far worse? Or should my parish forgo its youth worker who is seeing effective ministry among young people in order to support your ministry?

At some point churches should be closed. That we fail to do so until far too late is a big mistake. Growth CAN come - but it won't if we persist in spreading what resources we have too widely.

----------------------------
* Presentism: the belief espoused by the bishops of the CofE that having a ill attended church building regularly presenting a badly done worship service has a positive impact on the credibility of the church. Has the advantage of justifying their continued presence in the House of Lords. Justified by some vague appeal to the incarnation, ignoring the fact that Jesus made a very visible difference to those whom he was among.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I realise I am thinking back nearly 20 years now, but we had a dilemma. It was a London inner-suburban parish, like many undergoing a demographic revolution as the original lower-middle and upper-working class inhabitants died off or moved out, and young, fairly wealthy professionals moved in. Obviously it took a while for the latter to find their way into the church community in significant numbers, but by the time they did the older inhabitants were fewer in number and their total giving was down. Many of the younger group , who were only feeling their way towards commitment, probably were giving less than they could or should; the minority of these who were more committed found that despite their reasonably good salaries, expenses such as housing, raising a family, etc ate into their disposable income.

Then it became noticeable that several of the middle-class congregation moved out of the area. Children nearing school-age, the desire for a larger house with a garden and more space and fresh air, the comparative cheapness of some parts of the outer suburbs, were all factors. These were people who were beginning to take an active part in church life but not to the extent of being able or willing to pay towards a parish share assessed on the apparent prosperity of the community. People who once they settled down in Goodlifeville would probably become the pillars of their church community and serve as churchwardens, treasurers, diocesan synod members and so on. But while they were with us, and comparatively young, they had no time and little spare cash.

We were nurturing them as future assets of someone else's church, but expected to contribute to diocesan funds as if they were already up and running.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The renting bits out and getting money is a very good idea.

A while ago the vicar applied successfully to have some discrete masts placed on the tower for mobile phone net works and it would have brought in a substantial income. However there was such an outcry because of the proximity of a school that he was nearly lynched. No-one seemd to care about the proximity of people's houses though. The use of 'school' cuased the usual panic, obsession hysteria that now seems to go with anything to do with children. The scheme was abandoned.
I understand that the usual technique is for the masts to be placed inside the tower/spire. From memory, that also removes the need for planning permission.

FWIW - although it will make no difference I'm advised, despite much research, that there is absolutely no evidence to show that communications antennae generate harmful electromagnetic radiation.

[ 04. August 2012, 22:52: Message edited by: HughWillRidmee ]
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Is this common.....maybe, for that type of parish. But that parish has my utter sympathies.

What can be done, about it?
Well doing nothing is temping but hardly sensible.
Failing to meet parish share does get a parish noted but for all the wrong reasons.
So i would be expecting the treasurer and the Vicar to be paying a visit to the local Church House and having a chat with whoever is in charge of such matters in your neck of the woods. Because if that parish doesn't come up with some ideas, then the powers-that-be might.

And it's always best to get in at the discussion stage early, rather than suddenly discover nasty surprises just about to be launched.

Who knows, there might be some ideas lurking around the Diocesan administration corridors that no one in the parish has thought of yet.
It is entirely possible.

I suppose it depends on whether the parish wants to endlessly explain why they can't pay?
Or present themselves as eager to do something about the situation and asking for help?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Well, that's all very well and true enough, but in my experience the district authorities do NOT have lurking good ideas for funding (else they'd have implemented them already, they've got many parishes in the same boat and would desperately love to get some of them off their list). Which means that hoping that one of them will suddenly come up with a great idea is equivalent to "sitting around and doing nothing" (or whatever the phrase was).

Of course you have to explain the situation to the powers that be (realizing that this will make no difference to their response; they are over a barrel just as you are). But IME the onus for finding a bright idea will fall on the only people who truly care about whether the doors stay open--which is the pastor and hopefully a key leadership core. If there IS a solution, that's where it will be found. Much much sympathy--and a suggestion that you look into forging unofficial mission partnerships with one of those wealthier suburban parishes that might be willing to pay part of the cost for you, in exchange for a seat on the cutting edge of urban mission.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
The Church in Wales proposes some fairly drastic root and branch reform of its parish system. Kersplat
Wow, I think those proposals make an awful lot of sense (apart from the comment about tithing), actually recognising the issue of falling numbers in (many) rural churches. I'd agree with Ender's Shadow that many churches seem to react very slowly to changing circumstances, perhaps instead wishing / hoping / praying that things will sort themselves out in time.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Somewhat tongue-in-cheek:

quote:
• Parishes replaced by much larger ‘ministry areas’ which would mirror the catchment areas of secondary schools, where possible, and be served by a team of clergy and lay people;
It's called a Session. Multiple congregations with a single Session are called a Pastoral Charge.
quote:
• Creative use of church buildings to enable them to be used by the whole community;
Hall rentals, daycares? Beer store seems a little much.
quote:
• Training lay people to play a greater part in church leadership;
They're called Elders.
quote:
• Investing more in ministry for young people;
Everybody always says that. We'll breed our way back to importance.
quote:
• Developing new forms of worship to reach out to those unfamiliar with church services;
See above; this point is aimed at those of age to become parents.
quote:
• Encouraging financial giving to the church through tithing.
Somebody divided the Church's financial needs by average Sunday Attendance and came up with a number. It was larger than current givings so they called it a 'tithe'.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
The problem is, that however you organise parishes, ministry still has to be paid for. Parish share pays for clergy stipends, training, housing and pensions. So if we want to keep the stipendiry clergy then we need parish share or the equivalent.

Most people I know who are struggling with their parish share, still think they should have a vicar,

Trouble with many CofE congregants is they have been historically cushioned from the realities of paying for their ministry. In a way that other members of other congregations aren't and so many still do not understand that the church needs to pay it's bills, in the way that any household does

A huge mindset change is needed in the church, either to manage peoples expectations or to raise their giving and involvement.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
I totally accept that last final paragraph.

However at the root of the problem (for us) seems to be the over estimation of people's commitment by those not in the know, as it were. This is partly due to the nature of the CofE as a sort of default setting and our commitment to 'presentism' described by one shipmate. We are regarded as THERE and GOOD like the Sally Army but people don;t wanted to be INVOLVED.

Result:

(1) Really rather healthy looking congregations at cetain special services and a good age mix. Visting clergy often remark at how good it looks. Whether these actually BELIEVE anything is a different matter. They have got out of bed and the men stand there in their rugby shirts watching their child read, or whatever. SOME put something on a plate. I suspect this over estimation of commitment is a far greater CofE problem than realised.

(3) A good relationship with the community and clergy 'known' and respected and involved.

(2) The residue is an elderly few and a handful of (I hate this expression) misfits and odditides including people with various difficulties and special needs (about 2). Amongst these one old person recently said she 'just liked coming' but 'not if it gets too religious'.
 
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
I think we have to be brutally honest. Assuming a clergy cost of £50k, taking 150 services a year that means that each service costs £333.33. In a rural benefice the chances are that church running costs are at least £10-£15k a year too, although Friends and Fees and investments often soften this cost in some parts of the country.

However the Maths are against us, as in practice church culture suggests plate giving is based on the number of services. As clergy are shared, building costs increase, and the amount per service goes up. Obviously multi-parish benefices will have more people, but they seem to give less as services are reduced!
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The renting bits out and getting money is a very good idea.

A while ago the vicar applied successfully to have some discrete masts placed on the tower for mobile phone net works and it would have brought in a substantial income. However there was such an outcry because of the proximity of a school that he was nearly lynched. No-one seemd to care about the proximity of people's houses though. The use of 'school' cuased the usual panic, obsession hysteria that now seems to go with anything to do with children. The scheme was abandoned.
I understand that the usual technique is for the masts to be placed inside the tower/spire. From memory, that also removes the need for planning permission.

FWIW - although it will make no difference I'm advised, despite much research, that there is absolutely no evidence to show that communications antennae generate harmful electromagnetic radiation.
IF there is a genuine problem with the electromagnetic spectrum used by mobile phones, the problem is not with the towers. It's with the phones themselves which we all hold right next to our head. Putting towers further away from where people are would make this worse, not better, because getting a weaker signal means the phone boosts the amount of power it it putting out - right next to your brain.
 
Posted by Hoagy (# 12305) on :
 
"A while ago the vicar applied successfully to have some discrete masts placed on the tower for mobile phone net works and it would have brought in a substantial income. However there was such an outcry because of the proximity of a school that he was nearly lynched. No-one seemd to care about the proximity of people's houses though. The use of 'school' cuased the usual panic, obsession hysteria that now seems to go with anything to do with children. The scheme was abandoned."


This occurred at my Church & was howled and brow beaten down at PCC level and why I gave up being treasurer on the PCC.Both Churches in the Benefice would have more than welcomed the income.I was sick of seeing people I never saw at Church using it as a convenience for Funerals and Weddings( even baptisms ) and never seeing them again after services.The Parish Share was the be all and end all of what i believe the church existed for and finally had enough in January when it was announced the Commissioners were investing cash reserves in Hedge Funds (£60million was quoted last week in the press) .
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Most people I know who are struggling with their parish share, still think they should have a vicar... A huge mindset change is needed in the church, either to manage peoples expectations or to raise their giving and involvement.
This seems obvious and unarguable to me; is it not widely accepted in CofE circles? The plain facts are surely that a congregation of, say, 20 people of average financial means simply cannot support a full-time vicar. So expectations surely have to change - shared vicars, more non-ordained involvement, giving up church buildings and so on.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
Our circuit is redoing the equation to calculate assessments (Methodist for parish share).

It will be based on 4 things
1) Membership - signed up folk
2) attendance - those actually there (using Oct count)
3) income - including lets etc
4) savings - how much sitting on (if exists!)

(I don't have the % weight to hand but the majority is on members and income i think....)

What we get is people holding 'membership' but no longer coming, which increases the assessment, and creates a bias in growing churches to keep people as attenders in the hope they are not in the head count for assessment. Here the balance will be taken between the 'list' and the turnout.

Every church complains about the assessment being unfair and too much for them, often it is seen as 'them out there taking our money for their stuff' and don't seem to grasp that it mainly pays for the ministers they see.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Most people I know who are struggling with their parish share, still think they should have a vicar... A huge mindset change is needed in the church, either to manage peoples expectations or to raise their giving and involvement.
This seems obvious and unarguable to me; is it not widely accepted in CofE circles? The plain facts are surely that a congregation of, say, 20 people of average financial means simply cannot support a full-time vicar. So expectations surely have to change - shared vicars, more non-ordained involvement, giving up church buildings and so on.
SCK it might see obvious and unarguable to you but believe me not to many CofE congregants. For some reason it is expected that the mysterious 'they' will somehow pay thier way for them.

The cry of 'but we are a poor church' is heard regualarly. One of our group of churches has a very low parish share because of size and economic deprivation, but they still feel agrieved at having to pay a parish share, that is a sixth of some other churches.

They seem to have some sort of feeling that the nasty old diocese, are taking their money off them, despite having a vicar that they nowhere near pay for.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
SCK it might see obvious and unarguable to you but believe me not to many CofE congregants. For some reason it is expected that the mysterious 'they' will somehow pay thier way for them... They seem to have some sort of feeling that the nasty old diocese, are taking their money off them, despite having a vicar that they nowhere near pay for.
I suppose congregations that are small or have limited resources feel they should be supported by wealthier / larger congregations? And indeed the parish share system does this, at least to some extent.

What about people physically moving from well-resourced CofE congregations to smaller ones, does that happen? For example, do you often get groups of people relocating from a busy urban parish to a small, dwindling rural parish? I've got a lot of respect for people who do this kind of thing; leaving behind what they're familiar and comfortable with, in order to serve in a community where the Christian witness is fading.
 
Posted by Hoagy (# 12305) on :
 
Please read your message carefully before posting.
This seems obvious and unarguable to me; is it not widely accepted in CofE circles? The plain facts are surely that a congregation of, say, 20 people of average financial means simply cannot support a full-time vicar. So expectations surely have to change - shared vicars, more non-ordained involvement, giving up church buildings and so on.
""


No win situation South Coast Ken even though I agree with "expectations" and the need to change if things stay the same with aging & dwindling congregations.

It's pretty much like the NHS with the CoE (something we expect free and take for granted ) cutting back on Clergy,like the NHS cutting back on front line people like Drs & Nurses,would backfire big time.I cannot imagine congregations tolerating for long the idea of lay people and the non-ordained replacing retired Clergy' and keep paying the Parish Share to fund their pensions.

Whatever way you look at it the problem was ( and is ) within,be it the Churches failure to continually evangelize Parishes,Church Commissioners disastrous investments in the 80s or failure to stop the falling congregations.

I warned for a long time at PCC level about the demographic make up of the congregation and the failure to attract those who are CoE in name only,along with young adults but chose to leave after it fell on deaf ears.

The words of William Temple about the "CoE existing for the benefit of those outside" is now viewed with cynicism rather than his sincerest observations,and enough for me to walk away
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
SCK it might see obvious and unarguable to you but believe me not to many CofE congregants. For some reason it is expected that the mysterious 'they' will somehow pay thier way for them... They seem to have some sort of feeling that the nasty old diocese, are taking their money off them, despite having a vicar that they nowhere near pay for.
I suppose congregations that are small or have limited resources feel they should be supported by wealthier / larger congregations? And indeed the parish share system does this, at least to some extent.

What about people physically moving from well-resourced CofE congregations to smaller ones, does that happen? For example, do you often get groups of people relocating from a busy urban parish to a small, dwindling rural parish? I've got a lot of respect for people who do this kind of thing; leaving behind what they're familiar and comfortable with, in order to serve in a community where the Christian witness is fading.
The point of the parish share is exactly that - and indeed the parish I was talking about is heavily subsidised by the system. The system falls down because of human frailites.

There are rich parishes who don't see why they should pay, or some who won't pay, because they disagree with diocesan/CofE policies. Then you get poor parishes like the one above who just don't see why they contribute because they are 'poor'. Poor of course is always a relative term.

Trouble for many CofE memebers they have grown up in wealthier times and have been spoiled. Anybody from any sort of free church background understands the realities of paying your way.

The church treasurer says that the numebr of people who take weekly envelopes and put under a pound aweek in them is amazing. And a pound a week as an offering is very common.

I have no experience fo people relocating, in these days people church shop for the experience that they like. There seems little sense of mutuality and helping other people
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

Anybody from any sort of free church background understands the realities of paying your way.


In British Methodism, if you can't pay your 'assessment' (= parish share) as well as looking after your building, your insurance, etc. you just have to close. The local Methodist circuit may offer sympathy and advice, but it won't carry a struggling congregation.

So long as there are enough lay officers in the church (or one person who is willing to do everything) the size of the congregation is not immediately relevant. My church closed while other churches with far fewer members and attenders remain open, simply because they have a lucrative range of tenants to provide them with a good income.

quote:

The church treasurer says that the numebr of people who take weekly envelopes and put under a pound aweek in them is amazing. And a pound a week as an offering is very common.
As a church steward, I've experienced the same thing, so this isn't limited to the CofE. As one of the paupers myself I couldn't really complain, but my colleagues in the vestry used to grumble about it frequently! But giving did increase when our minister and senior people from the circuit explained why the money was needed. Lots of church people really don't understand what their offering has to cover. Still, I often found it distasteful to hear church officials always asking for more money from a declining congregation. I tried not to be one of those officials.

quote:

I have no experience fo people relocating, in these days people church shop for the experience that they like. There seems little sense of mutuality and helping other people
I hear that the Baptists are now becoming a bit more mutual, with large, wealthy churches beginning to 'mentor' weaker, smaller congregations. In other situations, it would make more sense for local churches to help each other ecumenically. Sebby's congregation might want to develop relations with neighbouring churches of other denominations rather than looking for help from a rich CofE congregation with a totally different type of churchmanship.

Helping out is one thing, but I think it's too much to ask ordinary Christians to put their own spiritual needs and preferences to one side in order to attend someone else's struggling church. It reminds me of Methodist preachers who give the impression that going to church is a duty, and that it really doesn't matter what the preaching is like or what you 'get out of it'. But those days are gone. The clock started ticking during the Reformation, and clocks don't go backwards. Most people expect to exercise their right to choose.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
The church treasurer says that the numebr of people who take weekly envelopes and put under a pound aweek in them is amazing. And a pound a week as an offering is very common.
Goodness me, I wonder how common this is across different churches. Presumably, it costs more than £1 to process a cash donation (I'd guess this is the case even taking into account that some of the work would be done by volunteers) so maybe it's worth telling people that if £1 is all they can afford, then really they should be receiving, not giving.

I mentioned upthread that I don't agree with tithing. The reason being that ISTM the New Testament principle is for people to share with one another so nobody is in need. Tithing does the opposite, hitting those with little disposable income far more than high-earners.

My church has something it calls the 'Joy Fund', a bucket in which people can put money or cheques, which the church leadership will then distribute to people in the church who are struggling financially. We support some causes outside our church too, but this is one way we try to follow the teaching in the NT about supporting one another within our church community.
 
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :
 
It's probably very common SCK. Traditionally, there hasn't been a connection between what goes in the collection plate and the priest at the front. It is now increasingly necessary to do this. (Eg. Church Commissioners pays clergy pensions rather than salaries).

Church replanting is more an urban thing in he C of E. My church was replanted about ten years back. I think just dropping in a person or couple to a struggling church would, on the whole, not work. I think it would tend to allow things to continue as they are. A lot of congregations are more comfortable with the way thiings are than change.

I think the longer-term future of rural churches will involve some replanting though.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Our circuit is redoing the equation to calculate assessments (Methodist for parish share).

It will be based on 4 things
1) Membership - signed up folk
2) attendance - those actually there (using Oct count)
3) income - including lets etc
4) savings - how much sitting on (if exists!)
If I understand correctly, we used to pay per member (whether some or all of the assessment i don't know). That led to resentment of less active members, eagerness to find an excuse to unenroll them, "they come Christmas and Easter, they are costing us money, take them off the membership list!" District had to make a rule, which currently stands at "two years of zero attendance and zero giving before you can take them off the list."

They also changed the assessment to a percentage of the local church's own budget. This pushes as much as possible off budget ("please make a special donation for Vacation Bible School" and endless other special appeals) but does seem like it would better reflect a local church's actual financial ability. (Which doesn't stop some from resenting the inactives.)

How would the church have any idea what if any income or savings individual members have? Or did that refer to church's own income and savings?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Church replanting is more an urban thing in he C of E. My church was replanted about ten years back. I think just dropping in a person or couple to a struggling church would, on the whole, not work. I think it would tend to allow things to continue as they are. A lot of congregations are more comfortable with the way thiings are than change.
I was really thinking it would be a small group of people, perhaps - I don't know - 2-3 families with kids, 2-3 older people / couples and 2-3 younger people / couples without kids. A mix of people, to really invigorate a struggling church.

I guess there's no way of doing this without the approval of the 'receiving' church, but the incomers would absolutely not be taking over the church. My idea is that they'd serve and help out where needed, under the direction of the existing church leadership. So the incomers would have to be humble people, willing to serve even if things are really done in ways they don't think best. They mustn't just come in and take over!
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Church replanting is more an urban thing in he C of E. My church was replanted about ten years back. I think just dropping in a person or couple to a struggling church would, on the whole, not work. I think it would tend to allow things to continue as they are. A lot of congregations are more comfortable with the way thiings are than change.
I was really thinking it would be a small group of people, perhaps - I don't know - 2-3 families with kids, 2-3 older people / couples and 2-3 younger people / couples without kids. A mix of people, to really invigorate a struggling church.

I guess there's no way of doing this without the approval of the 'receiving' church, but the incomers would absolutely not be taking over the church. My idea is that they'd serve and help out where needed, under the direction of the existing church leadership. So the incomers would have to be humble people, willing to serve even if things are really done in ways they don't think best. They mustn't just come in and take over!
Church Planting is more urban than rural but rural does happen. I know of one instance where a struggling rural cofe church is being helped by people who used to attend a nearby baptist church that is thriving (despite being in a rural/coastal area).

For this kind of thing to be effective demands humility and acceptance on both sides. It isn't a takeover nor is should it be taken as an affirmation or reinforcement of an outmoded unconnected ministry. It should always be a mutual commitment to growing the church by a living engagement with its community.

There lies the real issue: churches are dwindling because they are not connecting with their community. They resist change (often strenously), locking out families, newcomers etc unless they conform to the existing ways and standards of doing things. People won't accept that any more and vote with their feet. Hence in some areas people will drive 20 miles past a number of churches to go soemwhere where they can identify with. I don't say it's right, but it happens and I've seen it at first hand a few times.

The issue of planting - and of course, finance - becomes more tense when one considers the theology underlying rural churches. Many were built is estate villages or by major landowners for their employees. There are now less of them working and the compulsion to attend church is now rather less anyway. The landowners themselves are now way less likely to support their local church to such great extents as in the past as they can't afford it or can't use it to buy the popularity they once could by doing so (Cynical - I know but it happened).

Add to that a rural theology that is mainly creation driven and you get an interesting mix of folk religion. That's why you get huge numbers for harvest and not so much for easter. You can get a year round attendance of 15 but a 100 extra at such times but they don't contribute much at least from a financial pov.

Add to that the fact that rural churches can be a form of social club where faith is rarely mentioned (if ever) beyond the confines of an hour on a Sunday - and sometimes not even there. The strangest theological views are often found in rural churches (the Sea of faith crowd, gays, liberal and pretty much anything you can mention floursihes in rural backwaters where it seems that once the cofe used to send its more colourful clergy).

In rural areas the emphasis (owing to lack of funds) is more on maintenance as opposed to mission. That's a death knell to the church. Yes they are lovely grade 1 listed buildings and yes, they are an important part of our history and heritage, but if we are pumping money into them for goodness' sake find other uses too than just an hour a week.

The baptist clustering system is expending within its own 2012 review. What baptists also major on is the idea of local congregational autonomy and a wider understanding of ministry (not just ordained). It does mean a relative stable (in terms of numbers) denomination as everyone is encouragd to be involved not restricting ministry to the "trained" as found in other denoms.

If a baptist church can't run itself with lay or ordained ministry (and there's lots of training now for lay ministers), then it closes or is replanted if possible. Yes baptists do give to a central fund and do pay big pension costs but the principle of self funding/autonomy is the guiding factor. There are some central resources for growing and mission causes but they have to be justified by need or potential - you don't just get cash on the nod as it were.

Many cofe churches survive through their historic balances or endowments, and that can make you lazy knowing that soemone will always bail you out or pay your wages. If they had to survive based on income alone, I suspect very few would be able to support themselves but the ones who coujld, would do so handsomely.

Baptists have to be a bit more cutting edge.

If the church moves away from establishment then argument about being "the" church for the parish goes and I suspect we'll see more closures. Despite the sabre rattling over SSM, history suggests that's all it is and the cofe is unlikely to carry the threat through. Sadly, wind and bluster.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Yes baptists do give to a central fund and do pay big pension costs but the principle of self funding/autonomy is the guiding factor. There are some central resources for growing and mission causes but they have to be justified by need or potential - you don't just get cash on the nod as it were.
Sadly, by no means all Baptists do give to the central "Home Mission" fund. My wife was a Director in one of the Area Associations some years ago and found that fewer than half the churches - including some large ones - made any contribution at all.

There are a number of reasons for this, I think: an idea of congregational autonomy which can become near-selfishness, a post-denominationalism which sees no need to support "our" kind of churches, a desire to decide where to give money rather than being satisfied in contributing it to a common kitty ... and probably other reasons, too.

It's different to "Parish Share" or the URC's "Mission and Mionistry" fund, as money paid to Home Mission does not have any direct impact on the giving church, except (and this is a very important "except", which churches tend to forget) that it does provide the central legal, financial and other support services of the denomination.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...I guess there's no way of doing this without the approval of the 'receiving' church, but the incomers would absolutely not be taking over the church. My idea is that they'd serve and help out where needed, under the direction of the existing church leadership. So the incomers would have to be humble people, willing to serve even if things are really done in ways they don't think best. They mustn't just come in and take over!
I think there's a spectrum here; at one end is the scenario where the receiving church has a lack of a fairly specific skill set and invites another church to fill that need by sending them a person. At the other, the receiving church has actually been closed, and the new plant is into a building, not a congregation. The problem, of course, is that the receiving congregation will be tempted to want to carry on as before; to the extent that the new arrivals are part of a shift away from that, it is inevitable that they are 'taking over'. And if the issues that were leading the receiving church 'over the cliff' aren't resolved, then the whole effort will prove to be a waste of time.

Somewhere deep in our psyche there is a belief that we've got to keep existing shows on the road for the honour of God. This is a thoroughly pernicious belief: as I've said above, a culturally relevant liturgy presented badly is far worse than nothing.

The second problem is that we seem to think that 'being loving' means avoiding conflict; the effect here is that if Colonel Blimp, or Mrs Stick in the Mud, or Ms Politically Correct kick up a big enough fuss, then the proponents of change will back off.

And finally the 800lb gorilla: given that the CofE has chosen to define itself as a 'broad church', it cannot then also expect it's congregations to support one another unconditionally - yet this is the claim which the bishops are making. Historically when parishes were individually funded by their own endowments, or even when the central funds were still able to do the job, the issue didn't arise. Now however that scenario has gone, and IMHO it is entirely unreasonable to expect me to financially support ministers in whom I have zero confidence. In theory the bishops should discipline clergy [Killing me] Given that, it is probably inevitable that we will see many more closures.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

And finally the 800lb gorilla: given that the CofE has chosen to define itself as a 'broad church', it cannot then also expect it's congregations to support one another unconditionally
On the contrary. Part and parcel of belonging to a 'broad' church is the idea that (uncynically, unlike the PM's use of the term) we are all in it together. If there are issues in some parishes which put them beyond the pale in terms of their Anglican allegiance, it's up to the bishop to deal with it. Not individual congregations unilaterally deciding to withhold contributions. In any case, parish share is not solely spent on the 'unorthodox' or 'failing' parishes... in fact, very largely not.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

And finally the 800lb gorilla: given that the CofE has chosen to define itself as a 'broad church', it cannot then also expect it's congregations to support one another unconditionally
On the contrary. Part and parcel of belonging to a 'broad' church is the idea that (uncynically, unlike the PM's use of the term) we are all in it together. If there are issues in some parishes which put them beyond the pale in terms of their Anglican allegiance, it's up to the bishop to deal with it. Not individual congregations unilaterally deciding to withhold contributions. In any case, parish share is not solely spent on the 'unorthodox' or 'failing' parishes... in fact, very largely not.
The logic which I apply is as follows:

1) Payment of the parish share is voluntary
2) This is a very new system - less than 60 years old in practice

Therefore the only coherent DUTY is to pay for the ministry that you do receive (approx £50k pa per full time cleric)

Beyond that all payments to the diocese need to be weighted against alternative means of ministry.

Given:

a) the poor record of the CofE as a mission organisation
b)the demonstrable inability of bishops to enforce discipline
c) other mission agencies are doing a far better job

It is bad stewardship to make significant net contributions to diocesan structures.

Now of course in practice it would be unrealistic to abandon the system overnight, but that's the direction we need to move in. Because the present approach is merely managing decline, and wasting silly amounts of effort as a result.

One simple reform: where applicable, rather than thanking a parish for paying its share, it should be told how much it was subsidised by this year. This should be on the diocesan receipt. After that the PCC should be asked to vote on the motion 'We believe before God that we should continue to receive this amount of subsidy'.

It's all about presentation...
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
So just as you have 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor working class people, you have 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor parishes. How Christian! How Dickensian!
 
Posted by Hoagy (# 12305) on :
 
Well said Ender's Shadow..

The Parish Share needs to be replaced because outside of PCC level most of the congregation, who are aware of it , do not understand the anomaly of it at best or at worst don't care like those CoE "in name only " and use their local Church as and when they need to.

My former Church was a rural village of a few thousand souls who paid more than a nearby town with a population four times bigger.

It's a time bomb ticking with aging congregations and dwindling numbers,and the fault lays with those who put the burden of Clergy Pensions on those who attend,along with Clergy who failed to evangelize or hold on to congregations..
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hoagy:
It's a time bomb ticking with aging congregations and dwindling numbers,and the fault lays with those who put the burden of Clergy Pensions on those who attend,along with Clergy who failed to evangelize or hold on to congregations..
I agree with you in general, Hoagy, but on the pension issue - if a pension is offered as part of the employment conditions for vicars etc., then who should pay for these pensions if not 'those who attend'?

And I think your next comment indicates a mindset that will IMO just reinforce the decline that many CofE parishes are seeing. It's not up to Clergy to evangelise, it's up to the people of God as a whole - I think Christianity is most alive and effective when it's a grassroots movement, not when the paid people do the work on behalf of 'whose who attend'.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So just as you have 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor working class people, you have 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor parishes. How Christian! How Dickensian!
Obviously someone has to decide where the money of the people of God is to be spent; given that the present system is demonstrably failing, and that THE QUOTA IS VOLUNTARY, it has no better claim on my giving than other means of determining it.

You appear to assume that St Stick-in-the-mud which happens to be Anglican and English has a greater claim on that money than other churches that are not Anglican or not English, let alone not both. Why? Note that the claim that this is 'the local church' implies that the diocese is 'the local church' exclusive of non-Anglicans; this is dubious IMNSHO.

Love your neighbour as yourself means exactly that: the claims of ALL need to be treated equally. To assume that English Anglicans have a superior claim to African Anglicans is... problematic. To claim that Anglicans have a superior claim to non-Anglicans is to deny the basic principle of the Ecumenical movement.

£3000 will support the training of an Ugandan African priest for a year - or a small proportion of a English one. Is it really loving to insist on it being the English one I train?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:


You appear to assume that St Stick-in-the-mud which happens to be Anglican and English has a greater claim on that money than other churches that are not Anglican or not English, let alone not both.
Bishops, Archdeacons and Area Deans (despite their faults) are likely to have a more considered and impartial view of their parishes and whether or not they have a 'greater claim', than the leadership of a parish church which sits light to its Anglican identity, has several doctrinal axes to grind, and is obsessed by the unChristian notion of rewarding 'success' (as if any of us were capable of measuring it anyway).

As to whether it is better to fund an English priest or an African one, it's surely obvious we should try to do both. Jesus didn't go along with Judas and sell the woman's ointment.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:


You appear to assume that St Stick-in-the-mud which happens to be Anglican and English has a greater claim on that money than other churches that are not Anglican or not English, let alone not both.
Bishops, Archdeacons and Area Deans (despite their faults) are likely to have a more considered and impartial view of their parishes and whether or not they have a 'greater claim', than the leadership of a parish church which sits light to its Anglican identity, has several doctrinal axes to grind....
On the other hand the instruments which the hierarchy bring to the party are extremely limited; about all they can do is appoint or not appoint a new incumbent when the previous one moves on. And if the current church has a clearly agenda which is antithetical to effective mission, then the appointment of a new incumbent is unlikely to resolve the situation. Whereas another non-Anglican mission agency may well be able to finesse the blockage and achieve effective ministry in the environment.

And given that the record of dioceses over the past 50 years has almost entirely been one of kicking the problems down the street until the existing leadership has retired, there's no good reason to start believing they'll do better now.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

...and is obsessed by the unChristian notion of rewarding 'success' (as if any of us were capable of measuring it anyway).
Ah - but that's the strategy that Jesus endorses, and is practiced in the Acts.

"5 And as for those who do not receive you, as you go out from that city, shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” Luke 9

10 But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘ Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ Luke 10

But the Jews incited the [ad] devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their [ae]district. 51 But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium. Acts 13

But let me sharpen the point by introducing you to the Eden Projects. As you can see, these are groups of Christians committing to live on rough estates to bring the gospel of Jesus to people whom it has never reached. They have an impressive track record. They are planning to start an Eden project in an adjacent parish, sponsored by our local Independent Evangelical Church. Now, as an Anglican church, we can either get sniffy, mutter about parish boundaries, and turn our backs, or we can get involved, offer financial and practical help and see good things happen as a result. No, it won't be distinctively Anglican. Is that really necessary to enable people to meet Jesus?

Are we serious about Ecumenism as meaning that we regard the efforts of other churches as equal to our own? Or is it really just a piece of being nice to our neighbours?

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

As to whether it is better to fund an English priest or an African one, it's surely obvious we should try to do both. Jesus didn't go along with Judas and sell the woman's ointment.
[Killing me] If I was looking for a truly fatuous reply that exemplifies the fecklessness of some's inability to make hard decisions, that's got to be it.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
Wouldn't it be more sensible for retired clergy to be rural/area deans? That way those who wish it can devote themselves to the welfare of the clergy and other decanal functions without having to look after parishes as well. Also, they could bring to bear all their years of experience to the job.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[On the other hand the instruments which the hierarchy bring to the party are extremely limited; about all they can do is appoint or not appoint a new incumbent when the previous one moves on.
They might have limited power to make changes. But if they are doing their jobs (and Area Deans are pretty close to the grass roots) they should have a good idea of which parishes are struggling, and why. There may be very good reasons, despite a faithful priest and a committed congregation, why St X's isn't able to pay its parish share. Reasons that are unlikely to be known by St Y's, which might well be at the other end of the diocese, and suspicious of a parish of a different tradition.

I take your point, made in several posts, that just being 'a presence' in an area can be an excuse for inaction. Not much can be done with a recalcitrant vicar who won't take any advice or accept support. But [1] just to close down a church and withdraw (effectively, even if the territorial responsibilities are transferred to another parish) is worse than leaving it to tick over; [2] sometimes life is there and faith is ready to spring up even when all looks dead; who knows what encounters are happening unbeknown to most people? It is dangerous to judge by appearances and to snuff out the smouldering flame. [3] of course any sensible Christian would welcome the co-operation of other Christian churches. But few of them have the same commitment as the C of E to being available to all and sundry, few of them have clergy on call 24/7, many have an exclusive view of mission and evangelism.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Our Diocese had a fund called 'Million for Mission' - where parishes could bid for funding for their special project, having to show the money would be used for outreach. Apparently £1m was available overall. After a blast of publicity last year for the scheme, and several large grants being made, I'm now rather puzzled that the Diocese is saying it is in dire straits. The sudden swing from largesse to a plea of poverty seems rather strange.... Meanwhile, the amount our parish is requested to pay as their parish share is huge (well over £100,000 p.a.)
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I take your point, made in several posts, that just being 'a presence' in an area can be an excuse for inaction. Not much can be done with a recalcitrant vicar who won't take any advice or accept support. But [1] just to close down a church and withdraw (effectively, even if the territorial responsibilities are transferred to another parish) is worse than leaving it to tick over; [2] sometimes life is there and faith is ready to spring up even when all looks dead; who knows what encounters are happening unbeknown to most people? It is dangerous to judge by appearances and to snuff out the smouldering flame....
And sometimes it's worse to keep a residual unattractive inaccessible church open. The priest is being discouraged and slowly destroyed. The congregation is maintaining an outward form that is at best harmless, and at worse an active discouragement; a friend attended a local Anglican church. The first thing someone said to her was 'That's my pew'. You will not be surprised that it is now closed.

Something has got to give. However much you want to train both the African and the English priest YOU CAN'T DO BOTH. If dioceses persist in propping up parishes by allocating stipendiary clergy to them, they are destroying the possibility of rapid growth in other parishes that may well then be able to plant out to those derelict parishes in the long term. It's nice to avoid these decisions - but the reality is that we've played this game too long now, and the next generation will pay the price.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE][3] of course any sensible Christian would welcome the co-operation of other Christian churches. But few of them have the same commitment as the C of E to being available to all and sundry, few of them have clergy on call 24/7, many have an exclusive view of mission and evangelism.
I dunno about that, it's not helpful I think to generalise and repeat the well worn (and IME incorrect), mantra that it's only the CofE which is the church for everyone in the community.

I run on those kind of lines pretty much all the time and I'm BUGB not CofE. As an eg my day (starting at 6 am) is just finishing 11pm. A morning in the church office (door open to visitors and to the street - metaphorically and physically), afternoon visiting a friend in hospital (70 miles round trip), admin and phone calls this evening.

The added attraction for many in my present urban "parish" and in my last rural coastal "parish" is that I never charge fees for any service for the community. In markland XYZ baptist Church was known as "our church" in the village for some of those reasons.

I'm happy to work collaboratively across BUGB churches and other denoms. I'm both accessible and available to everyone with my contact details (mobile and home phone, with address) on the web and weekly news sheet. If people want they can call round -- not so many do here but in rural ministry it was common practice.

No, I'm not a saint - far from it. But, the cure of souls in a community is not the exclusive preserve of the CofE. At times, it seems (sadly that internal politics gets in the way of their involvement.

[ 06. August 2012, 22:56: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Our Diocese had a fund called 'Million for Mission' - where parishes could bid for funding for their special project, having to show the money would be used for outreach. Apparently £1m was available overall. After a blast of publicity last year for the scheme, and several large grants being made, I'm now rather puzzled that the Diocese is saying it is in dire straits. The sudden swing from largesse to a plea of poverty seems rather strange.... Meanwhile, the amount our parish is requested to pay as their parish share is huge (well over £100,000 p.a.)
Probably creamed off to the rich south of Devon!
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But let me sharpen the point by introducing you to the Eden Projects. As you can see, these are groups of Christians committing to live on rough estates to bring the gospel of Jesus to people whom it has never reached.
Just the kind of thing I was referring to upthread, nice one ES.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Now, as an Anglican church, we can either get sniffy, mutter about parish boundaries, and turn our backs, or we can get involved, offer financial and practical help and see good things happen as a result. No, it won't be distinctively Anglican. Is that really necessary to enable people to meet Jesus? Are we serious about Ecumenism as meaning that we regard the efforts of other churches as equal to our own?
This reminds me of the discussion in the 'Authority of the Catholic Church' thread. If one does consider one's own church to be superior (in an objective sense, not just that it better suits your preference) then perhaps one will 'get sniffy' about other churches doing mission on one's doorstep.

But if people have a broader view of the body of Christ being all those - across denominational boundaries - who trust in Jesus, then perhaps missional work being instigated by others will be encouraged and supported. And the unity of God's people will be demonstrated.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
The problem is, that however you organise parishes, ministry still has to be paid for. Parish share pays for clergy stipends, training, housing and pensions. So if we want to keep the stipendiry clergy then we need parish share or the equivalent.

Most people I know who are struggling with their parish share, still think they should have a vicar,

Trouble with many CofE congregants is they have been historically cushioned from the realities of paying for their ministry. In a way that other members of other congregations aren't and so many still do not understand that the church needs to pay it's bills, in the way that any household does

A huge mindset change is needed in the church, either to manage peoples expectations or to raise their giving and involvement.
Why does the Parish Share need to do it? In the United Church of Canada, clergy pay, housing costs and pension are charged directly to the congregation. The pension is Defined Benefit which means that the premium is uniform across the national church. We've had a "congregations pay" model since 1925.

We pay a Presbytery Assessment, which works out to $20/member/year in this Presbytery, calculated by a three-year moving average of the membership roll. 1/3 of the Presbytery Assessment is forwarded to Conference (Synod). General Council is funded through its own investments revenues.

If a congregation cannot support itself, it can apply for Mission Support but funding is not guaranteed. Else you have to disband.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Our Diocese had a fund called 'Million for Mission' - where parishes could bid for funding for their special project, having to show the money would be used for outreach. Apparently £1m was available overall. After a blast of publicity last year for the scheme, and several large grants being made, I'm now rather puzzled that the Diocese is saying it is in dire straits. The sudden swing from largesse to a plea of poverty seems rather strange.... Meanwhile, the amount our parish is requested to pay as their parish share is huge (well over £100,000 p.a.)
I live in the diocese and share your bafflement and wonder.

When you hear of such things, or more importantly when congregations hear of such things, how can they be expected to cough up more?

Maybe there was an oversight at the Reformation, or when tithes were abolished. If the clergy were paid for by the state, and so was the upkeep of buildings like in Norway, Sweden etc, the CofE could be more like the valued and loved NHS - Free at the Point of Delivery and From the Crandle to the Grave. Not a bad example to follow I would have thought.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
* Crandle haha mixture of candle and cradle.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE][3] of course any sensible Christian would welcome the co-operation of other Christian churches. But few of them have the same commitment as the C of E to being available to all and sundry, few of them have clergy on call 24/7, many have an exclusive view of mission and evangelism.
I dunno about that, it's not helpful I think to generalise and repeat the well worn (and IME incorrect), mantra that it's only the CofE which is the church for everyone in the community.

I run on those kind of lines pretty much all the time and I'm BUGB not CofE.
[Hot and Hormonal] Many apologies, Exclamation Mark! For years I have been criticising those imperialist and blinkered Anglicans who believe Establishment gives us the Royal Seal of Approval as the only real Christians around, and now I'm guilty of the same thing.

Of course I know that many other churches are keen to serve, and are actively involved in serving, their own communities and people of every belief and none. In this part of the country the Roman Catholics function as the default church to turn to in many places; the Methodists have done some wonderful pioneering work in an imaginative way that is beyond the perception of most Anglicans; and groups like the Street Pastors - among whom I'm sure there are many Baptists and independent evangelicals - show great pastoral sensitivity towards vulnerable young people in particular.

However, I think I reacted to Ender's Shadow so negatively because I read between the lines of his posts (unfairly perhaps) an agenda that seeks to disown the breadth of the C of E and imply that 'true Christians' (aka Evangelicals with a capital E and no qualifications like 'Open') are best allying with evangelicals in other churches and dissociating themselves from most of their fellow-anglicans. That is certainly one of the reasons behind the anti-parish share campaigns in many dioceses.

I still believe that in most places, the first port of call of anyone in need is the Vicarage... that's not to minimise the value of the many imaginative ways that people like you, EM, put yourselves at the disposal of the community, but to point out that in most cases it's the C of E church building and its adjoining parsonage that is most prominent. It's often the poorest neighbourhoods where you find the most devoted clergy, where it is hardest to draw people into the worshipping life of the church, and hence where the combination of need and financial hardship are at their most acute.

I resent any implication (and this may well not be ES's point, so please don't take it as a personal attack) that prosperous suburban churches full of educated, committed and comparatively wealthy people should take it upon themselves to judge their fellow-Christians in poorer circumstances who might happen to have a different perception of the Christian faith.

It's a bit like the school league tables. It is far too simplistic to say that school A, in a middle class area, is a success because it's achieving above average GCSE results, and school B is a failure for being below average with a much poorer intake. Plenty of 'successful' middle class churches are superficially flourishing, maybe even producing large numbers of evangelists and/or candidates for ordained ministry, but in reality coasting below what they should be achieving.

A church in the back streets with a congregation of 20 or 30 faithful but generally elderly and far from wealthy souls might well be a light in a dark place for the Gospel. Their building might be crumbling - but it might also be the one place of beauty and stillness in the neighbourhood, and replacing it with a utilitarian shed would destroy that; their priest might spend very little of his/her time in traditional church duties, but s/he might spend a long time in prayer and reflection, holding up the parish to God, and will certainly be available to all and sundry.

In case this is perceived as an anti-evangelical rant, at least half the churches I know that are in this category would describe themselves as 'evangelical'. They might not pass the theological quality control of Reform or even of Ender's Shadow, but they are doing the Lord's work and they need support every bit as much as that theoretical priest in Uganda.
 
Posted by recklessrat (# 17243) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
A church in the back streets with a congregation of 20 or 30 faithful but generally elderly and far from wealthy souls might well be a light in a dark place for the Gospel. Their building might be crumbling - but it might also be the one place of beauty and stillness in the neighbourhood, and replacing it with a utilitarian shed would destroy that; their priest might spend very little of his/her time in traditional church duties, but s/he might spend a long time in prayer and reflection, holding up the parish to God, and will certainly be available to all and sundry.
That's my church, Angloid! And it saved me so it must be doing something right [Smile]
Needless to say, we didn't do very well towards our parish share last year. I think I worked out that £10 a week from everyone would sort it, but this just isn't an option for many, who are just surviving on their pensions/JSA.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
The problem is, that however you organise parishes, ministry still has to be paid for. Parish share pays for clergy stipends, training, housing and pensions. So if we want to keep the stipendiry clergy then we need parish share or the equivalent.

Most people I know who are struggling with their parish share, still think they should have a vicar,

Trouble with many CofE congregants is they have been historically cushioned from the realities of paying for their ministry. In a way that other members of other congregations aren't and so many still do not understand that the church needs to pay it's bills, in the way that any household does

A huge mindset change is needed in the church, either to manage peoples expectations or to raise their giving and involvement.
Why does the Parish Share need to do it? In the United Church of Canada, clergy pay, housing costs and pension are charged directly to the congregation. The pension is Defined Benefit which means that the premium is uniform across the national church. We've had a "congregations pay" model since 1925.

We pay a Presbytery Assessment, which works out to $20/member/year in this Presbytery, calculated by a three-year moving average of the membership roll. 1/3 of the Presbytery Assessment is forwarded to Conference (Synod). General Council is funded through its own investments revenues.

If a congregation cannot support itself, it can apply for Mission Support but funding is not guaranteed. Else you have to disband.
The system I am familiar with in the USA is much closer to what you describe. Eah parish is financially responsible for itself. Each prish decides what to pay its minister baed on the scale provided by the Province. Small churches either share or have part-time clergy paid accordingly; some of the really struggling parishes have NSMs. Their responsibility to the National Church is 10% of plate.

The National Church pays the Bishops' expenses and tops up their stipends. The bishops usually have a parochial charge as well with our dioceses generally being the size - in terms of number of charges - of a Rural Deanery. We prefer part-time bishops to a disconnected Episcopate. In terms of hierarchy we have several whole tiers missing compared to the C of E; the overall structure rather resembles the Scottish Episcopal Church.

The Home Mission should be a fixed 10% of the annual National Budget. This is not a huge sum, but it provides pump-priming money for new works. If a parish is paying its Tithe to the diocese then it is contributing to Home Mission. The National Church Women's Group also raises money for home, and occasionally overseas, mission.

Whilst the system is not ideal it avoids several layer of church bureaucracy and can be adapted relatively easily as church evolves and (usually) grows.

PD

[ 07. August 2012, 17:28: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Our circuit is redoing the equation to calculate assessments (Methodist for parish share).

It will be based on 4 things
1) Membership - signed up folk
2) attendance - those actually there (using Oct count)
3) income - including lets etc
4) savings - how much sitting on (if exists!)
If I understand correctly, we used to pay per member (whether some or all of the assessment i don't know). That led to resentment of less active members, eagerness to find an excuse to unenroll them, "they come Christmas and Easter, they are costing us money, take them off the membership list!" District had to make a rule, which currently stands at "two years of zero attendance and zero giving before you can take them off the list."

They also changed the assessment to a percentage of the local church's own budget. This pushes as much as possible off budget ("please make a special donation for Vacation Bible School" and endless other special appeals) but does seem like it would better reflect a local church's actual financial ability. (Which doesn't stop some from resenting the inactives.)

How would the church have any idea what if any income or savings individual members have? Or did that refer to church's own income and savings?
The income and savings are those of the church as an entity not the riches of the individual members.

Whether we pay to central funds who pay ministers, or the congregational approach of paying them directly the question of folk paying their way is the same, those in the latter it may be more visible on paper.

One of the issues as well as the pound a week folk is that even well committed people don't revise what they give as costs or even their income increase. So what was a reasonable offering then, is not touching needs 20 years later.

I don't like having to talk money, but people need information about needs and a reminder. However, unfortunately - along with pleas for volunteers and time commitments - those who hear the call are the ones already giving and/or who can't afford more but are left feeling guilty. Whereas the ones who could and should do more the message seems to bounce off.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
@PD

The UCCan recently implemented a national payroll, in that congregations have to pay the payroll service who then pay ministers. It put an end to years of incompetent treasurers who would foul up deductions (often income tax) and get their ministers in trouble.

We have a Minimum Pay Scale, like you do, and congregations can pay more if they so desire. Presbytery can and will step in if a congregation falls bellow the minimum. Strangely Presbytery has large and unfettered oversight powers which (thankfully) mostly aren't used. General Council also mandated a Sabbatical policy, ministers get 3 months Sabbatical per seven years of service in a charge.

Our minister just came back from Sabbatical and I'm pushing that in the future we have a sinking fund for Sabbatical costs. That way we'll have the money in hand; it works out to $200/month. It's also a great selling point to put in the Classifieds section of the national church magazine. It says a congregation is organized, with it and appears to be a good bunch of people to work with. For those reasons we'll very likely be setting up the sinking fund next financial year.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The question to ask is why people who have money aren't giving more of it to the church. There's no point asking for more money without considering whether people appreciate what they're exchanging that money for. Why are people attending in the first place? If people have low expectations of church life, low expectations of their own spiritual transformation, and perhaps a certain ambivalence towards the clergy, they might not feel that a great deal more money is warranted.

Of course, maintaining the status quo and even managing decline can be expensive. But it's difficult to get people fired up to increase their giving in the service of these particular aims.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
People don't want to give more if they perceive that what they are getting for it is less (eg. clergy numbers being cut).
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
@ Sober Preacher's Kid

I know what you mean about parish treasurers and the deductions. One of our parishes is in slow motion train wreck mode with that right now, but at least the IRS caught it before it got too far. They will get fined a few hundred bucks and hopefully will be more careful in future. Bishops and by extension dioceses have very little power to intervene until a parish vestry screws up, and then does nothing about it. At that point we can intervene because the vestry has screwed up on its fiduciary responsibility, but it is always a bit of a "nuclear option."

One of the bright ideas currently circulating with us is ending the 'self-employed' option for clergy in our denomination. This would mean that the congregations would have to do the whole withholding, deductions, payroll service thing, but it would eliminate an awful lot of stress caused by mistakes.

One thing that we have had to take a militant line about is part-time clergy. We now insist that everything is set down on paper before a parish calls a minister to be a part timer. We had one or two charges that were expecting full-time service for part-time money with the result that ministers were being run into the roud rather too often. We have a very simple formular which basically states that a parish with 80-100 communicants needs a full-time rector, whilst a parish with 40-50 communicants can get away with someone who works about 20 hrs/week for the parish. I would expect a parish with 55-60 communicants to contract for about 25 hours a week with their clergy. However, the method is extremely crude and a large number of adherents in a parish can skew it quite a bit.

PD

[ 08. August 2012, 15:32: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
quote:
People don't want to give more if they perceive that what they are getting for it is less (eg. clergy numbers being cut).
This is the exact situation of our parish church at the moment. We're in a pastoral vacancy but still have to pay full share to the diocese (Southwark). Not exactly the best time to start asking people to contribute more to the system...

If I were them (and I am them) I'd be looking for charities etc outside the CofE to give more to, not to the system.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
@PD

See, this sort of thing is just administration, it has little to do with the mission of God and therefore can be outsourced. Except when it isn't done correctly, people get hurt.

I suggest that train-wreck parish investigate a payroll service. The plethora of small-business solutions are perfect for a church treasurer who is a little overwhelmed by the IRS. My bank (one of the Big 5 Canadian banks, of course) has a national partnership with ADP, who have a set of offerings for businesses with 1-49 employees.

A church isn't any different from a small business with a main street office where the owner knows his mission and business model but can't be bothered with payroll. The rising small-business sector means there are lots of good options available in the marketplace.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
In a job-creation part of my previous RL I dealt with a number of very small NGOs and small businesses and, as part of my responsibilities, had to verify that deductions were being made and minimum wages observed for those employees paid for by Her Majesty. I soon saw that many of them were using the payroll services SPK mentions and those that weren't were being run ragged either by the drudgery of a half-day to a day a week of doing payroll, or a terror-infused quarterly bout of paper-work hysteria. After a month of reviewing books, I was unable to understand why anyone would do it themselves with a payroll service available. I heartily recommend the phenomenon, especially for churches where volunteer burnout and/or incompetence is always a challenge.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
It may be a generation thing. My mother and grandmother had stable working careers (both now retired) with a single employer. They thought a paycheque was just that, a paper slip you got biweekly. They didn't think about deductions, payroll or income tax.

Those are the people you are asking to be your volunteers as treasurer. They just don't know the rules. They were never exposed to them. They don't realize that the modern pay world is outsourced, electronic and deposited directly to one's account. The days of paper cheques and manual deductions done in-house are over.

My working experience has been with repeated job changes and pay by automatic direct deposit. I know the rules and the field a little more because I've been around a little more. For instance, pensioners in Canada often have to pay income tax by instalments because their source deductions are inadequate. Each payer (OAS/CPP, pension, private savings) doesn't know about the other sources and doesn't deduct enough. There is an easy fix, you fill in a single box in the TD-1 form to request more deductions at source, but people like my family haven't seen a TD-1 in years.

Get a payroll service. ADP, for example, has specific market options for firms with 1-49 employees. My congregation has four people on our payroll: one full-time minister, a half-time secretary, a part-time custodian and a part-time organist. We're average. Our church is in the ADP market segment I described. This segment is served very well with abundant market options. Need, meet market.

On an especially church note, we even pay pulpit supply ministers through the payroll service. Pulpit supplies are still liable for the UCCan's benefit deductions if they work enough (the thresholds are low), plus taxes of course. Payroll takes care of all of that and has the records on the supply minister in question. If PD's places have a favourite visiting priest who supplies often, this can work well.
 
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
Now, SPK. you poke a sharp stick, albeit unintentionally, into one of my current peeves.
Upon retiring from fulltime ministry, I began to collect my Canada Pension and Presbyterian Church in Canada Pension. I still collect both. Then, when requested to, I returned to work as halftime stated supply, working 22 1/2 hours per week.
So now, I must pay into Canada Pension, which will one day give my current pension a bit of a bump.
I can not, however, be a member of the Presbyterian Church's benefit plan, nor pay into its pension plan, even though any other ordained clergy other than retired are automatically enrolled in both, provided they work at least half time.
(Had I chosen to upon retiring, I could have received a reduced pension to continue to be part of the church's benefit plan; I fail to see how my not doing that should bar me from being enrolled while once again working!)
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Sorry, SF, didn't mean to poke you with a stick. As a person with insurance knowledge, the PCC and its insurer likely see it as adverse selection against its retiree plan. If the PCCan's retiree plan is like the UCCan's, the retiree plan is less generous because those 65+ are covered through provincial senior drug benefits. So there is an incentive to remain in half-time supply and get better coverage, particularly if you are under 65. This could deprive the retiree plan of members and reduce its pooling power.

So they closed off that "loophole". Personally I feel drug benefits in Canada should be public like they are with the NHS, but they aren't.

When I said pulpit supplies, I meant Sunday Pulpit Supply, not a full-time supply minister or interim minister.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Would you like to go to Church in Devon too, boys and girls?

(animated film voiceover sounds awfully familiar - same guy as did the SoF Christmas Nativity, perhaps?)
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]

1. Apology .....

2. A church in the back streets with a congregation of 20 or 30 faithful but generally elderly and far from wealthy souls might well be a light in a dark place for the Gospel. Their building might be crumbling - but it might also be the one place of beauty and stillness in the neighbourhood, and replacing it with a utilitarian shed would destroy that; their priest might spend very little of his/her time in traditional church duties, but s/he might spend a long time in prayer and reflection, holding up the parish to God, and will certainly be available to all and sundry.
1. Apology accepted. Sadly I've heard the same kind of stuff about the work of other denominations compared unfavourably to the anglican church's cure of souls, far too often from the cofe. In some cases it's nothing short of arrogance, given the incredible divide between where that particular fellowship and priest are "at" and the needs of the local people.

As for visiting a local church with its parsonage next door, in my part of town there are 3 churches in a group with no contact listed (the parishes are in vacancy).

Where I moved from (rural, coastal) in some cases there were groups of 4 or more parishes with one incumbent based miles away.

2. I accept that is true - and I have seen it at first hand. The converse is also true - small backstreet churches - acting effectively as social clubs for an "in crowd" - with more concern on maintaining the building and tradition, than they are helping those who come to their doors.

Again I've seen this - and experienced it as well. An unwelcoming cofe church effectively shut the door on church involvementfor me and my young family. I wasn't the first, nor was I the only one in that parish to suffer in the same way.

[ 08. August 2012, 21:37: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Would you like to go to Church in Devon too, boys and girls?

(animated film voiceover sounds awfully familiar - same guy as did the SoF Christmas Nativity, perhaps?)
Been there, done that. Missing it though ......
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Hearing the recommendation to hire a payroll company instead of letting an untrained volunteer do payroll, I hear in my head the probable response -- "a payroll company costs money, volunteers are free." End of topic (in many minds).

And in fact, if the church can't pay it's parish share or repair the bulding, where will it come up with money to hire out working on payroll?

Maybe higher up the chain could offer free training for the volunteers? Yes, I know -- "and where will the hierarchy find the money to do that in an era of budget cutbacks?"
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Hiring a payroll company may cost a little, but a lot less than the church will pay in fines when the Revenooers come calling because of missed (or untransferred) deductions or sloppy bookkeeping.

Locally, the canons now require the books to be audited by professional auditors -- mostly, these people are willing to promise to return the cheque to small parishes as a donation. that's because big, bad Canada Revenue Agency is tightening up the rules for charities, to ensure that all donations are actually used for charitable purposes. And the cool thing is that churches are not exempt from the normal and reasonable demands of prudent financial management and accounting.

See, as they used to say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Unless your volunteer is an accountant, the chances are next to nil that she knows and understands what she needs to know about the tax system, the associated systems, employement law and the rest of the stuff. Honest and sincere she may be, but that's not going to help when the feds (in your case) come calling to ask where the money deducted for Social Security went because it didn't end up where anyone could count it.

There actually comes a point when a congregation is too small or too poor to continue as a financial group -- time to get a volunteer priest and meet in someone's house, perhaps.

John
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0