 |
Review of Ministry & Mission Fund1. Remit 1.1 In July 2005 General Assembly considered the Catch the Vision report and passed the following resolution “General Assembly instructs the Treasurer to conduct a review of the Ministry & Mission Fund and report to the 2006 Assembly”.
2. Conclusion 2.1 This review has attempted to identify the present problems with the Ministry & Mission Fund and establish a more satisfactory way going forward. There is a need for strategic planning and a better understanding of what the fund is for and how it is spent. Several matters, that are being addressed elsewhere, have an impact on future budget requirements and how Synods raise their contributions. Thus this review ought properly to be seen as an interim report until these are resolved and the recommendations of this report are brought to fruition.
3. Summary of Recommendations
3.1 It is recommended
that: 1. The process of setting
the budget in consultation with Synods should follow the principles originally
outlined in the Plan for Partnership with a revised timetable. 2. Communication generally should be improved and, in particular, local churches reminded that Ministry is the first call on their funds.
4. Reason for the
review 4.1 The recent pattern of setting the Annual Budget has placed a target requirement of income to be raised by the Church through the Ministry & Mission Fund. This has been represented by a percentage increase on the previous year’s pledge from each Synod. However the experience over recent years has been that many Synods have not been able to pledge their target figure. Furthermore some Synods have then been unable to meet their pledge although it must be recognised that they may still be net contributors to the cost of ministry. The overall result has had the following outcome:
2003 2004 2005 £’000 £’000 £’000 Target 19,454 20,077 20,375 Pledge 19,305 1 9,843 19,903 Actual 19,312 19,691 19,878
Shortfall of actual against target
142 386 497 Clearly this is unsatisfactory and underlines the ineffectiveness of the present process.
4.2 The effect of the shortfall would have been to deplete the balance of the general funds of the Church in these years had it not been for legacies and other income, which it is not possible to anticipate or budget for accurately. The balance of these funds in 2004 was £14649k., but £4958k. was invested in property and £4557k. lent to Retired Ministers Housing. After some other dispositions only £5741k. remained, which would have been available from the sale of short-term investments to meet immediate cash flow needs. This is just three months requirements for revenue expenditure and excludes any capital needs.
4.3 Looking longer term it is necessary to increase our giving or face a reduction in expenditure. Although this could be achieved by savings in the central costs of Administration, Assembly Programmes and Training, there is a limit to this. Eventually a reduction in the number of stipendiary ministers would be necessary over and above any adjustments made by General Assembly through maintaining the ratio of ministers to membership.
5. How is the Ministry & Mission Fund spent?
5.1 Although there is some income from other sources, including legacies and from restricted funds, nearly 90% of expenditure of central funds must now be met from M & M Fund contributions. A summary of this expenditure for the last four years shows:
2002 2003 2004 2005 £’000 £’000 £’000 £’000
Ministry 15,575 15,626 16,167 16,209 Training 1,760 1,658 1,777 1,626* Programmes 1,334 1,319 1,307 1,526* Administration 1,644 1,447 1,437 1,619 Totals 20,313 20,050 20,688 20980
• £225k. being the central cost of Youth and Children’s Work Trainers in 2005 is shown under Programmes. The equivalent cost in previous years being under shown under Training.
6. Communication
6.1 It has been obvious for some time that the understanding of how the Ministry & Mission Fund is spent should be improved. The format of the Annual Accounts has been changed a little but this falls a long way short of meeting the requirement. This has already been recognised by General Assembly in 2005 by passing Resolution 31 “General Assembly resolves that a report showing how the Ministry and Mission Fund contributions have been spent should be sent to each year to every local church.”
6.2 In the meantime several Synods produce a “simple guide to M & M” to help local churches. Hopefully this report will give a further insight into several of the essential aspects of the finances of the Church prior to the production of the report envisaged by Resolution 31.
6.3 There is always the opportunity for individuals (with the gift aid possibility) and local churches to make one off contributions to the M & M Fund when they are able. However this is not widely known and should be communicated. There is also the need to produce new Stewardship material, see Section 11 Advocacy and Stewardship below.
6.4 Although the remit is a review of the Ministry & Mission Fund it is worthwhile going back to the main guiding principle of the Plan for Partnership. That is that Ministry is the first call on the funds of local churches. This needs fresh emphasis.
6.5 The information flow between Church House and Synods could be improved especially in relation to the budget setting process, see Section 9 below, where a better dialogue with Synods is envisaged with a revised timetable.
6.6 It is vital, of course, that the correct vision behind the M & M Fund is communicated. The United Reformed Church has always set its face against any idea that stipendiary ministers should be deployed on the basis of which congregations can pay the most. Instead in the community of the Church we follow the New Testament principle that each Christian gives, not least financially, according to their means. They give in gratitude for the overwhelming love of God not in order to secure some particular benefits. Such giving by individuals will mean that some congregations will be in a position to give very much more than others to the M & M Fund.
6.7 The local councils of the Church, where every congregation is represented, have the responsibility for seeing how the resources made possible through the M & M Fund, including the valuable resource of our stipendiary ministers, are best employed. In thinking about ministerial deployment, the report Equipping the Saints stressed the need to look at all available resources, including Non-stipendiary Ministers and recognised Local Church Leaders, and not to behave as if paid ministers are the only proper form of congregational leadership. In its response to that Report, General Assembly endorsed this. It underlined the need for decisions about deployment of paid ministers not to be made on the basis of history or on the basis of every congregation having a proportionate share of a diminishing number of paid ministers; instead deployment decisions should be made on the basis of current and fiuture mission opportunities.
6.8 It is, therefore, recommended that Communication generally should be improved and, in particular, local churches reminded that the Ministry & Mission Fund is the first call on their funds.
7. The true cost of Ministry
7.1 It will be seen that the majority of spending is on Ministry which is currently running at 75% of all expenditure. The bulk of this relates to supporting the stipendiary ministers.
7.2 The direct cost of stipendiary ministry for 2006 is: Stipend £19788 National Insurance 1908 Pension contribution 3097 Total £24793
7.3 The true cost of ministry borne centrally should include the remaining costs of Ministry, Training, and the majority of the cost of the Finance Office. In 2004 these amounted to £3,419k or £5036 per minister bringing the cost from the M & M Fund to £29829 per annum. In addition there are those items of expenditure borne by the local church – the manse, car or car allowance, book allowance etc. – which probably makes the full cost of ministry £36000 per annum.
7.4 Using £30000 as a guide figure for the costs borne centrally, it will be seen that the shortfall of £445,000 in 2005 is the equivalent of 15 ministers. However in the short term only the direct cost of ministry of £24793 can be saved, and thus the shortfall is the equivalent of 18 ministers or about 1 1/2 per Synod.
8. Training
8.1 After Ministry, Training is the next highest individual spend. Whilst the training of stipendiary ministers for pastorates still dominates there are many other requirements. These are illustrated by the growing number of the people employed by the Church in other tasks. Lay leadership, pastoral assistants, youth ministry, schools ministry are all emerging and may be more relevant in many local situations.
8.2 The need to be clear about the various types of ministry which are now required in the changing world is obvious. Perhaps an answer to the question – what is Church today? – will help. Certainly it is not just found in church buildings.
8.3 There is a current review of the training needs of the Church and how these should be met. It is to be hoped that this will, in the longer term, reduce the current level of expenditure incurred centrally.
9. Historic approach and current methodology
9.1 There are two aspects which we have attempted to cover in the review
9.2 The Plan for Partnership, when it was first agreed by General Assembly in 1980, gave a summary of the principles and process of the Ministry & Mission Fund. Looking at these there are several points worth noting:
1. The total requirement of the central fund shall be placed before Provinces (now Synods), a Provincial contribution accepted, and each Province will then be free to determine in its own way the contributions required from its local churches in order that the provincial total shall be guaranteed. In using the word “guaranteed” it is meant that each Province will do everything within its power to meet the agreed financial contribution. In this context it should be noted that the church “guarantees” the stipends of ministers, and must therefore have assurances that the funds are available. It has always been the policy of the United Reformed Church that the provision of stipends shall be the first charge upon the finance of the local church.
2. Central Maintenance of the Ministry Committee will make available guidelines and figures to show how the total requirement could be apportioned amongst the Province.
3. Possibly by July and certainly by September in each year, the MoM Committee would consider the first draft of the budget for the year after next.
4. The total requirement of the central fund would then be placed before the Provinces.
5. The Provinces would be asked for their preliminary response and then further discussions would take place during the autumn.
6. By March/April, on the basis of the guaranteed contributions from the Provinces, the budget for the next year would be completed and the General Assembly asked to approve it.
7. It would be understood that the Provincial total for each year would be freely renegotiable rather than, say, having to accept a percentage increase on the previous year.
9.3 Since 1980 both the process and timetable have changed. The concept of agreeing the budget by consultation has been largely lost and replaced by an expenditure driven process with the setting of a target for “the total requirement” adjusted by a percentage increase over the previous year for each Synod. This has led to the impression in some places that the Ministry & Mission Fund is a tax. A more important reason may be the way Synods sometimes make allocations insensitively or without understanding the local situation, giving the impression that the concept is numbers led.
9.4 It is anticipated that in the new governance arrangements the new Council meeting between the biennial General Assemblies will have the power to set the budget each year. On this basis the timetable could be improved if the budget were agreed in the autumn immediately prior to the actual year. This would enable much more up to date figures to be used when budgeting for expenditure. It would also enable a more meaningful dialogue between Church House and Synods based on the best information available on the contributions to be expected. The current situation suffers because of the extended timescale resulting often in very imprecise figures on both income and expenditure.
9.5 Although it was envisaged that each Synod would be responsible for making the offer of its contribution, the principle of apportionment has been there from the outset. Historically, the figures produced for sharing the overall costs between Synods have normally been on the bases of membership, ministerial deployment and population. From these Synods have, through a consultation process, been able to determine what they believe to be a fair offer. In 2002 the then current basis was re-examined and various ways of assessing the apportionment were considered. The conclusion was reached that the basis used was sound and did not require adjustment. However the responses by Synods since that time has not been consistent with the target set by General Assembly. This means that the apportionment has now become skewed.
9.6 It is, therefore, recommended that the process of setting the budget in consultation with Synods should follow the principles originally outlined in the Plan for Partnership with the revised timetable suggested.
10. Methods of raising the Ministry & Mission contribution
10.1 Synods use various methods to raise their M & M contribution. Most rely on the work of District Treasurers and M & M conveners. Thus the approach can vary considerably within the Synod. When the United Reformed Church was formed in 1972 churches were generally assessed based on their income and expenditure accounts. To an extent this has remained the system in some Synods. Although this could be said to follow the principle of “ability to pay” it really only mirrors the historic giving pattern of that congregation. It has the disadvantage that churches can fail to show some income because they consider it is not for revenue expenditure. This difficulty in obtaining full financial information means local funding from investments and other income is not always being taken into account, resulting in an inequality in the challenge offered to churches. This is further distorted by the degree of importance placed upon personal giving within different churches. Some churches may have adopted TRIO and the call from General Assembly to give 5% of net take home pay whilst others may only be raising their minimal requirements.
10.2 Some Synods have introduced a Synod wide system for M & M, generally based on membership figures. This, of course, is a disincentive for making church members which can be seen in some churches where the number of adherents is considerable and average church attendance is higher than membership. However there is anecdotal evidence from the sample of church accounts obtained in 2003, that where a Synod wide system is used there is a better under-standing of the cost of ministry, the average giving per member is higher and Synod pledges are met.
10.3 In the light of Resolution 41 passed at General Assembly in 2005, “General Assembly resolves, subject to any legal constraints, that as from General Assembly 2007, there shall be one level of council between the General Assembly and the local church, the thirteen ‘new Synods’.” it would be beneficial for Synods to have discussions together on the alternative approaches to raising M & M and their relative effectiveness.
10.4 It is, therefore, recommended that Synods investigate ways to improve their method of raising their Ministry & Mission Fund contribution.
11. Advocacy and Stewardship
11.1m It is considered that Advocacy is not being taken seriously enough within the Church. General Assembly resolved in 1979, and has subsequently reaffirmed on more than one occasion, that members should give 5% of their take home pay. However the Church Life Profile in 2001 indicated that only 38% of regular church attenders gave 5% or more. From this it is estimated that the average level of giving in the Church is probably in the region of 2% of net income.
11.2 The review group feel strongly about their personal commitment to giving at least 5% of their take home pay to the Church and would like to invite members of each Council as the report is discussed to give it their active support. If the estimate that the average level of giving in the Church is only 2% is correct, the potential for resources for both additional Ministry and enterprising Mission projects is enormous.
11.3 The Advocacy courses, funded at Windermere by the generosity of some Synods, have not been well attended and one had to be cancelled through a lack of response. Perhaps this suggests that courses in the South are needed too. Or is this confirmation of the need for greater understanding of advocacy and stewardship and commitment to it?
11.4 Furthermore a gathering of over 100 delegates at a Swanwick Consultation in February 2005 were asked two questions. “Did they recall a sermon on stewardship” and “How many present belong to churches which regularly engage in a Stewardship Campaign”. There was a minimal response. Yet this is a constant theme in the gospel where the proper use of all God’s gifts is core. Whilst it might be considered that the best advocates of giving, both financial and in service, are ministers it is a shared leadership task with the elders too having a key role. Ministers and elders together are best placed to influence directly the responsiveness of local congregations.
11.5 There is plenty of evidence of generous giving at the prime festivals when the need is well expressed. To give advocacy and stewardship adequate attention it is proposed that there should be a Stewardship Sunday throughout the Church to remind congregations of their response to the gospel in the use of their gifts and money. To this end it is also proposed that suitable worship and discussion material should be produced.
11.6. All other initiatives are less immediate and a matter of choice. Whilst there is an attraction in having a fundraiser to focus attention on the importance of giving at the end of the day it is the regular advocacy at local congregation level that alone will sustain giving. The question does, of course, arise about the potential for further giving as congregations get smaller and more and more are pensioners. The diminishing membership of local churches throws a greater burden on the remaining members even when there is no overall increase in the central budget. Moreover, the pattern of less regular attendance results in lower giving unless members and adherents use the envelope scheme or contribute by standing order. Yet again, it is appropriate to point out that a much slower decline in the number of church buildings in use in the United Reformed Church than in numbers of members leads to an increasing burden of maintenance costs on the remaining members.
11.7 As the Church undertakes more community based mission work it requires additional funding. The nature of these projects means that they are often too specialised and time consuming for many of our local churches to undertake. They require the use of particular skills for which an employed person is needed. Initially they are not self-funding, and may never be so, yet they are part of the vital outreach of the Church. It is in this area that we do see the benefit from a fundraiser so that resources from outside agencies may be attracted to support the work.
11.8 It is recommended that all who consider this report be invited to add their active support to give 5% of their take home pay to the Church.
11.9 It is also recommended that Advocacy should have a higher profile within the Church and that a Stewardship Sunday, with suitable worship material, should be introduced.
12. Strategic planning
12.1 The Plan for Partnership envisaged a frame-work within which the M & M contribution should be considered. This would demonstrate the needs over the next period and the immediate requirement for the coming budget year. However this would be predicated on the initial offers made by Synods prior to any expenditure being budgeted. As already noted this practice has not been followed in recent years.
12.2 The production of a strategic plan was thus envisaged as an essential element. In the absence of a current strategic plan, we give some estimated figures of what the immediate future requirements might be, assuming the only increases would be in stipends and salaries with no inflation of other costs.This hardly captures the imagination and suggests very much a business as usual approach based just on financial needs. Catch the Vision anticipates a much more positive future and this should be reflected in our plans.
12.3 It is recommended that the Church develops a five year Strategic Plan with an annual plan for the coming year which will help the budget process.
13. Accountability and Value for money
13.1 There is a concern in local churches over the ever increasing amount expected to be contributed to M & M. This leads many to question central spending and whether we are getting value for money. Inevitably this raises the additional question of accountability generally for the use of resources in the church.
13.2 With regard to pastoral ministry accountability is achieved to an extent now by the sharing of leadership with elders. There are more formal review procedures in place in many situations – that is both of ministerial and church performance. Additionally the present ministerial self-appraisal system leaves a lot to be desired because it lacks objectivity. However this is being addressed and proposals will be brought by Ministries in due course.
13.3 Given the principles behind the M & M Fund, there is no expectation that every church ought to be giving a sum in line with the costs of the particular form of ministry it is receiving at the time. When a District or Area Council provides high quality ministry to a congregation through a Non-stipendiary Minister, for example, that congregation’s reasonable contribution to the common fund is likely to exceed the direct cost of their minister. Nevertheless where churches contribute much less to the M & M Fund than the true costs of the minister they receive, other churches are effectively subsidising them and can feel a sense of unfairness. If not addressed, this can lead to resentment and damage to the peace and unity of the Church. It can be a particular problem where bigger churches are contributing large sums to the M& M Fund but do not see the reasons behind the deployment of ministers locally. The accountability for decisions about ministerial deployment needs to be clearly established between local churches and their District/Synod.
13.4 It is difficult to determine the correlation of the M & M contribution to the level of ministry received in every case. However from an analysis of the M & M pledges for 2006, only 236 churches will contributed over £25,000 making a total of £8.5 million or over 42% of the M & M Fund. One would have expected more churches/pastorates to at least meet the cost of ministry.
13.5 Additionally many churches employ workers alongside their stipendiary ministry for which they, presumably, have a support and review structure. This wider use of skills locally, such as Youth Leaders and Pastoral visitors, should be encouraged. However the employment of other workers should be on the proviso that the local church makes its full contribution to the M & M Fund.
13.6 It would be an advantage to link the deployment allocation, the actual number of stipendiary ministers serving and the contribution to the M & M Fund at Synod level. This would enable Synods to be aware of their overall position in terms of the cost of ministry, their M & M contribution, and the extent of resource sharing amongst them. Furthermore within Synods there would be recognition of the resource sharing amongst churches/pastorates undertaken in order to meet the obligation to provide ministry.
13.7 It is, therefore, recommended that there should be a system monitoring the deployment allocation and M & M Fund contribution across Synods.
13.8 On the assumption that churches will increasingly exercise accountability over the use of their resources locally there remains the need for this to improve elsewhere in the Church. Accountability is easier to achieve when it is close to the activity. This suggests that responsibility for all non Church House based staff, other than those appointed by General Assembly, should be with Synods or local boards of management. For CRCW’s and Ministers in Special Category Ministry posts this principle is already recognised through the work of local management committees and Synods, although central bodies remain involved to promote best practice across the Church and help with quality control. Generally none of these roles is income generating and are currently costs on both Synods and the M & M Fund. Whilst some could be classed as the mission element of the Ministry & Mission Fund many are really administration. For all of these roles there should be adequate oversight and accountability locally. Those responsible should agree the work programme with its budget requirements; support the activity and assess results; counsel and encourage. Exceptionally, the stipends for the ministers concerned and for CRCWs would still be paid centrally.
13.9 It also has to be recognised that although the allocation of CRCWs and Special category ministers is within agreed formulae by General Assembly, the need is determined locally. Furthermore, apart from the reserved two places for CRCW’s in each Synod, their numbers appointed reduces the overall available number for stipendiary ministers for deployment by Synods in pastoral ministry. Thus there is the potential for tension between the claims of local churches for pastoral ministry and the need for mission in the community. This can only be satisfied by local dialogue and agreement.
13.10 The advantages of this whole approach to accountability are:
13.11 It is, therefore, recommended that all CRCWs, Special category ministers and staff employed locally, with the exception of General Assembly appointments, should be accountable to Synods or local boards of management.
14. Paying for non ministerial costs
14.1 It is suggested that a different approach would be sensible for those costs currently borne by the M & M Fund that are not directly attributable to supporting the Church’s recognised ministries. Clearly every church should make some contribution to belonging to the wider Church. How this is determined then becomes an issue. A distinction could be drawn between the cost of providing ministry and the other costs and the M & M contribution seen as a two-tier obligation. Membership is used in many Synods as the basis for the M & M allocation and this could be the formula for non-ministerial costs.
14.2 The M & M contribution in LEPs can be a complex issue especially bearing in mind the great variety of arrangements that exist. It does cause some dissatisfaction and frustration locally and often makes the agreement of a satisfactory figure for M & M difficult.
14.3 Again the one issue that always emerges in LEPs is the cost of providing ministry as opposed to other costs. Generally there is a distinction between them as the Church providing ministry expects a full contribution for doing so. However other costs are shared. How the other costs relating to belonging to the denomination are met seems to vary. If the M & M Fund is seen as a two-tier obligation, i.e. the contribution to pastoral ministry and to other expenditure, this should help resolve the situation especially if a similar view is taken by other denominations. Then the other costs could be borne in proportion to the respective memberships.
14.4 A two-tier common scheme would have several advantages
Against this there are some disadvantages which would need to be overcome
14.5 It is, therefore, recommended that an attempt should be made to establish a common two-tier scheme with guidelines for dealing with non-ministerial costs for general application.
|