Once upon a time, in an Anglican Diocese far, far away (crunching literary genres horribly), the Synod of that Diocese lived its life and mission with no endowment at all – what decision making process for its budget did it employ? It meant that parishes paid for everything, starting with the costs of their own ministry, and also:
- the essentials of being an Anglican Diocese (essential in the sense of ‘you have to do these’) – an archbishop, General Synod assessments etc
- some highly desirable things, considered so desirable that it was worth worth adding to the financial burden on parishes to do these things, and thereby reducing their ministry – a theological college etc
However, there were also other desirable things – good ministry activities which were proposed to be funded by the parishes but undertaken centrally – but not so desirable as to further burden parishes, and so they didn’t get funded.
Notice how the thinking goes, in this sad little Diocese with no endowments but clear thinking – there are parish expenses, and in addition, necessary central expenditures, plus some other discretionary expenditure, which are screened according to criteria – namely, whether the proposed centrally funded activity was so important that it complete successfully with the alternative expenditure at the front line of the parish. And all of it is paid for by the parishes. In other words, the issue was central expenditure versus parish expenditure. That was the decision; not very sentimental, but that’s how it goes.
The result was that this poor Diocese had a very honed budget – it stopped precisely at the point where it decided that the next proposed activity proposed was not more important than front line parish work. That was the exact amount that the parishes sent into head office.
But then, a wonderful thing happened. This sad Diocese got a donor – who gave exactly the same amount as the central activities cost (about $8M) – call them Mr D and Mrs EOS Dowment.
What did it do? It did the only thing that made sense; it accepted the donation gratefully, and released the parishes from all their contribution, except for the expenditures that were incurred directly on behalf of the parishes.
Why? Because it had already decided that those were the activities that were worth diminishing parish ministry for, and no others. That’s what it already figured out. (For those who understand economic theory, it had done its marginal cost / benefit analysis).
It was a tough Synod meeting when this decision was made. Lots of people came up with new ideas, and wanted to add to the central expenditure beyond the donation. That’s great, and in order to justify it being included in the budget beyond the donation, they would have to make the same argument – that it’s worth taking those resources from the parishes. That was the core issue, that was the only issue. The issue was not how important the activity was as such; it’s how important it is as compared to parish ministry expenditure, because that’s where the money was coming from. (Again, for those who understand economic theory, this Diocese understood the opportunity cost of funding those additional central activities).
And then an even more wonderful thing happened. Those donors increased their donation – they were doing very well on the market.
What happened? Some of the previous suggestions (that had not been funded) were now able to be implemented, other ideas were suggested, and again, the same process ensued. The only issue was, is the suggestion more strategically important than parish ministry? Or perhaps with the increased donation, some money might flow directly from the center to the parishes to support new ministries. So the budget again went up, but as before, since there was a donor, parishes were only paying by way of reimbursement for those expenditures that are directly incurred on their behalf.
Then tragedy struck – a PFC, a personal financial crisis, and the donation plunges – what happened? They were a thoughtful Diocese, that didn’t get carried along with rhetoric and emotive appeals; they understood that it was pretty clear, they simply unwound the process.
The only thing that made sense to do was to keep paring down the central activities until they got to a specific point – not the point of saying that an activity was important, because they were all important!
Rather, they unwound precisely to the point that they were sufficiently important relative to front line parish ministry, that it was worth reducing the resources given to parish ministry for the sake of this central activity.
That was the only relevant discussion.
It’s the one discussion another Diocese seems unwilling to have!
Advertisement
It was a bizarre evening. Why your 2013 amendment was struck down escapes me entirely. Perhaps you should have included a rider (“*if it works out OK, we’ll keep doing it that way into the future”)!
I don’t think the rider would have worked – have to be willing in the first place to discuss the real issue rather than the manufactured one. It’s a funny thing – I think I visited your mythical diocese when I was younger – or maybe it was in another life? The rich will continue getting richer and the poor will simply have to shut the doors as each new impost breaks the backs of those carrying the burden. Or maybe there are rich churches who might fund poor churches? Hmmm – what were you saying about generosity the other day?
I wonder what the truly essential elements are in a centralized diocesan structure?
“namely, whether the proposed centrally funded activity was so important that it complete successfully with the alternative expenditure at the front line of the parish. ”
How do you propose that be determined, Andrew? By whom? By what criteria? How is any dispute over this to be resolved?
And what is your response to the argument that a diocesan endowment should be spent on those things that will assist future generations?
Well, I’ll save Andrew some time on that last one.
If an endowment is used as described, then by definition we should be using it for the present generation. Unless we got given it last week, of course. After all, the clerics of a generation ago could have stuck it in a twenty year term deposit and told us to open the bank book in 2011 as seemed best to us.
There’s a weird argument running around in various guises that says ‘that which was stashed away by past generations must be saved for future generations’ which means it will never get used. For instance, the asset value of Bishopscourt. We can’t possibly sell it now because it will get more valuable in the future.
If that’s not enough, then: the greatest gift we can give future generation is a strong and healthy church to grow up in – so let’s spend it all on the present mnistries. (I’m being a little facetious, of course.)
We could hang onto it until the 2nd coming where it will be supremely useful talent, and am i the only one who wishes we had more time to study the papers before Synod so that we can make a considered and prayerful response.