|
Finance
101. Finance should be the servant of the church, not its master. That is not the case at the moment. We have an expenditure driven budget, which divides roughly 80 / 20 between the cost of ministry and the remaining costs of the central church (ie its programmes, staff and administration). There is an annual struggle to meet that budget, and that struggle has been getting harder in the last two or three years as some Synods fail to meet their pledges.
102. However, we do not believe that the church is ungenerous. We are deeply impressed by the efforts of local churches to finance capital projects and by the increased giving to outside causes, particularly Commitment for Life. We note from our own research that the total income of local churches in 2002 was £61.5 million per annum. That is a very considerable sum for a small church, especially as half came from giving. However, less than half the total income (45.5%) was spent on M&M and ministerial expenses. The remainder is, of course, not disposable income that can be shifted from one place to another. Our suspicion is that a good deal of it has to do with property maintenance.
103. So, we see on the one hand a generous, some might even say a wealthy, church, and on the other hand a diminishing response to the needs of the M&M Fund. We find this puzzling and it leads us to question whether local churches understand how the M&M Fund works.
104. We suspect that
105. One piece of research concerns us deeply. The number of churches that contribute anything near the true cost of ministry is perilously small. In 2004 253 churches (15%) contributed £8.87m (45%) of the M&M total of £19.69m. Those churches are both fortunate and hugely generous. Many of them are large, successful and prosperous. We need a theology of generosity that both appreciates what they give to the whole church, and supports them in their generosity. It is a brutal statistical reality that large churches decline fastest, and yet these churches (on which the financial resourcing of our mission depends) can be deprived of ministry by deployment quotas. It is small wonder that some of them wonder if they could use their resources more effectively in other ways. We need to recall that egalitarianism is not always a moral stance.
106. Although many are confused about the church’s finances, the facts are stark and easily understood. Over 80% of our budget is spent on ministry (including training), and the vast majority of our ministers work in local pastoral charge. 86p in every £1 given to M&M re-circulates back to local churches. (Refer to Assembly Reports 2004 p.158) The remaining 14p funds the programmes of the church, like FURY and racial justice work, or supports administration, like the Finance Office which runs the payroll and administers the Ministers’ Pension scheme.
107. We understand that many people believe that the financial problems of the church would be alleviated if Church House were to be sold and the offices re-located. We investigated this as a serious possibility, inviting Biscoe Craig Hall to value the premises and give us their professional opinion. Two valuations were made. The first included the Regent Square Church site which adjoins Church House. The opinion was that development was not possible on the united site for a variety of complex reasons. Regent Square Church are continuing to explore other possibilities and are keeping us fully informed.
108. The second valuation was of Church House itself, for £2.2m. In Biscoe Craig Hall’s opinion that would not begin to cover the cost of re-location and the purchase / rent of new office space. Still less will its sale solve the church’s financial problems.
109. In the Steering Group’s opinion re-location was no longer an option, and we have therefore begun discussions with the Methodist Church about the possibilities of sharing premises. Our primary aim in this is not to produce short-term savings (although it will probably produce long-term reductions in cost) but to foster ecumenical working and creativity.
110. We have some broad observations to make.
a) We do not believe that the central costs of the church can be driven down much further without a dramatic reduction in the programmes of the church. Budget holders have pruned their budgets drastically in the past two years. We have stated from the start of ‘Catch the Vision’ that we would be addressing the programmes and staffing of the church in 2005/6, and we intend to keep to that timetable. However, we are putting the church on notice now, that unless giving increases considerably, programmes will have to be discontinued for further savings to be made. Hard choices are inevitable.
b) We believe that the church needs to get real about stewardship ( which the rest of the world calls fund raising). During 2005/6 we will be exploring the possibilities of appointing a professional lay Director of Fundraising for a five year period.
c) We need to move to an income driven budget. That will mean a major shift in self-perception, identifying projects and work that we believe we are called to do, and then raising the income to enable us to do so.
|
Executive summary, recommendations and resolutionsEXPLANATORY PAPERS:
|