So, time to make some hard choices (are there hard choices in a thought experiment?).
There is a great concept in economic theory, one which applies to most areas of life – it’s called ‘opportunity cost’. The idea is that in doing anything, there is a cost, even if the thing is free. The cost is the opportunity of doing some other thing at the same time. Doing one thing means not doing something else. And that’s even more the case when there’s money involved.
To put the parishes at the defining center of the Diocese is going to mean re-allocating resources.
At the moment, there are all sorts of organisations that do all sorts of valuable things, and that receive financial grants for doing so – Evangelism MInistries, Anglicare, Youthworks, Moore College, Anglican media etc.
I think the following 2 principles should be ruthlessly applied:
- Organisations only get funding for doing things that Parishes could never do (not things that parishes could do, but are not doing)
- Organisations never get funding for things they sell in an open market
The way Diocesan money is currently spent is found here. It’s not so difficult to work through it. But lots of money goes to the different Diocesan organisations. For some of them, that forms only a small part of their budget, but a large part of the Diocesan budget. And I suspect that much of it would breach those 2 principles.
I think it could better be redirected to the frontline ministry of the parishes.
In fact, the amount available next year will be substantially cut. It’s part of the GFC, and as one of Obama’s aids said, there’s no point in wasting a good crisis.
Hi Andrew,
Another stimulating post.
I’m guessing the same principal wouldn’t apply to parishes and regional grants because you’ve put the parishes at the defining center of the Diocese.
Oh Andrew, I admire your boldness – even for a thought experiment. But I want to see if I can goad you into deeper waters:
1. what % of current allocation would you give to the organisations you name above.., ballpark will do…
2. on what criteria / through what process would parishes receive this re-allocated funding?
yeah comment Andrew
in this imaginary world, where will the axe ruthlessly fall?
Really interesting Andrew… thanks.
Of course, funding Moore College IS supporting the parishes in the long term…
Mike,
good effort at a pre-emptive strike!
But since you raised it, here are some facts. As far as I can tell, MTC / MTC students get $2.6M, nearly a quarter of the budget. And again, as far as I can tell (I compared against 10 years ago), this hasn’t changed a lot, despite the fact that student numbers have doubled and fees have doubled (since I was a student) – and they are covered by fee help. I may be out with the figures, but I don’t think I’m way out.
Now, Mike is quite right, investment in MTC is an investment in the parishes. And MTC is something that the parishes could never do, and so satisfies the first of the criteria.
However, that’s a large chunk of the budget! And if MTC was much smaller (and much bigger – through multi-site) then maybe it wouldn’t need so much of the budget.
There’s no question of the absolutely crucial nature of the college, as I’ve said previously. But, what is the opportunity cost of funding MTC to the tune of 25% of the Diocesan budget?
The total given in grants to regional councils for direct grants to build parish outreach and ministry across the entire Diocese, and Archbishop’s special curacies is … $2.7M.
There are other questions to be asked – as far as I can tell, Youthworks gets nearly $1M, Anglican media council over $0.5M, Evangelism Ministries $270K – often for selling things. Normal business practice would be that their price structure should cover their costs, not subsidies.
But the figures are all there – what do you see? The fact is that there will of necessity be huge cuts t the organisations because of the financial crisis. What will be fascinating is whether it makes any actual difference to things on the ground.
Hi Andrew,
Don’t forget the millions of dollars that S.C. voted (2008) to parishes to assist with either refurbishment or building programmes- this surely was a recognition that parishes were the defining centre of the Diocese….how much was it again?
My memory says $20m but my memory might be faulty. However, whatever the amount, it was to enable the ministry of parishes. Yes it was a one off brilliant and godly decision in the light of monies earned in that year….but it was still given to parish ministries which surely demonstrates that parish ministries are still the heartland of diocesan thinking. You obviously wouldn’t want to demand that parishes’ needs be totally met by their own abilities to cover their own costs and not to seek subsidies?
I also think you are unfairly critical of Evangelism Ministries and your comment “often for selling things” is dismissive of the fact that E.M. raises most of its support and that it trains a number of evangelists each year, and that it has a significant role in evangelism and equipping for evangelism across the diocese.
While I realise your aim is to get us to think outside the square and that that is helpful, however, how do we do this in this public way without discouraging the ministries of many faithful, persevering, creative and committed Christian men and women?
Your maths (as I have told you before) is wonky. Since EVERY student at Moore is subsidized (even with Fee-help) double the students does not mean double the income. And the cost of having double the students is offset by having to have double the teaching staff and admin and so on.
My question to the parishes and regions is: is there going to be accountability for money flung in your direction? Does the grant system work?
Narelle and Mike,
thanks for your comments. I don’t know how to have this discussion without it getting heated, and yet it surely is a discussion we ought to be able to have. Opportunity cost is a reality. Whatever we do, wherever we spend the money, by definition we’re not doing something else, and all I’m really asking is to be clear on what it is we’re not doing by making the choices we have made.
Yes, Standing Committee did vote $20M from capital for one off building programs. I guess it’s enough to say that that decision looks different in the light of the GFC – but then hindsight is always 20-20.
And as I said in the original post, all the things that are done are valuable things – there’s no question of that. I don’t mean to be dismissive, even at the same time raising what I see to be genuine questions. As far as I can tell, no one means anything other than the best, and at the same time I think it’s possible to ask questions about decisions without attacking people – that’s the hope at least.
Mike, I didn’t actually say that MTC’s income had doubled – I have heard you. But isn’t it also true that both teaching staff and admin costs are scalable, so that it’s not actually the case that a proportionate increase is necessary?
Does the grant system work? That’s a great question, and perhaps if one thing is clear from this thought experiment, it’s that I’m completely in favour of increasing the accountability of Rectors. I do know that in our case, the grant system has been profoundly significant, has enabled us to plant 3 congregations in 4 years, and has directly contributed to the turnaround of St John’s. I’m pretty convinced that with real guidelines and accountability, grants can have the same effect elsewhere as well.
But the truth is that there’s much, much less available now, and so big cuts will be made, and we’ll all have to find a way to cope. But there is an opportunity in this – to rethink the way we approach the question of resource allocation, and that is what I have wanted to raise, and suggest some principles in regard to – which is why I steered away from specifics.
So, any thoughts about the principles in the original post?
I like the general principles, but there are many grey areas that we will need to work out how to assess before we get to Synod. I dread all the bleeding heart stories that I expect that we will get at Synod from people trying to protect their hobby horses.
How do we assess the effectiveness, faithfulness and fruitfulness of hospital chaplains, Moore College staff or SDS people? My gut feeling is that among them there are some doing a great job and others that are not. A time where we assess things and do significant pruning is therefore healthy for the future of these and other diocesan organisations.
The reality is that due to the cutbacks needed some good people will be out of work. Some of them will be our friends.
I hope that out of all of this we will see a growing sacrifical ministry mindedness
-that some people (who are ordained) from diocesan organisations that loose jobs will go and be rectors of one of those 26 vacant parishes listed in Southern Cross.
-that some will go and work in rural parishes that are crying out for people
-that some will go overseas as missionaries
-that some will go and work in other dioceses
-that some people who loose jobs will take significant pay cuts and work out creative ways to join church staff teams.
Andrew,
any thoughts on principles for diocesan income? I assume you’d resist parochial assesments?
also, (please forgive me if I’ve missed this in the conversation already) – what about property? If this is just a thought experiment, should the Parish be the sub-Trustee for the Diocesan Property Trust? Why not give Parishes Trustee rights? This has obvious implications for expenditure and income.
Diocesan-wide bodies aren’t alone in facing/having faced such stringencies. Christ Church St Laurence‘s school went bankrupt in the Great Depression.
Michael, thanks for the background.
Hi andrew,
I think michael raises a good question as to whether all grants money has been used wisely, and there would be some instances where a lack of support and resourcing around these grants has meant very little ‘measurable results’. This will mean accounting down to the parishes, but also accounting up to those who gave them the money ( rectors need training in spending money well!)
Yet for at least one of the regions almost half the grant money goes on non parish university chaplaincy. How would these ministries fare under your criteria?
Andrew – I am unafraid of heat! And it makes for exciting blogging, anyhow!
I know you didn’t ACTUALLY say that MTC income had doubled – but this is strongly implied by the equation you set up… and it is worth repudiating because these things tend to get a life of their own. Fee-help, by the way, incurs a very large administration charge, partly off-set by an increase in fees. But still: every student comes to MTC at LESS than cost.
Admittedly, MTC is trying very hard to become less dependent on diocesan funding, and this is probably a good thing for everyone. Shoulda happened years ago?
If my memory serves me correctly, the ‘New Capital Project” (remember that?) revealed the enormous amount of assets ($4 billion was tossed about) – a helluva of lot of it in property – that wasn’t effectively or easily deployed for mission. At Glebe we had a heritage stone wall around the church valued at $1.5 million…. I always regarded the wall as decidedly anti-mission.
Anyway, the principle is the same as you are trying to articulate here… how to redeploy resources to the front-line of mission – which you have argued as the parishes (and I broadly agree).
Property is / should be a great tool for a parish in developing its mission (heritage walls not-withstanding). But the missional return is often depressingly low, especially in the city / areas where property values are high / there are heritage concerns. This (as I understood it) was what the new capital project was essentially trying to achieve.
Again I think the parallel with “diocesan organisations” is there. They are / should be a great tool for a parish in developing its mission, but what is their “missional return.” You can’t measure bums-on-pews, so how do we begin to asses this?
(Freaking out in the big world of blogging ministers).
I am inspired, and I like David Clarke’s picture of all of the people who would lose their jobs in these organisations flocking to serve in small churches.
I would like to prod the Anglicare issue. I know many parishes are underwhelming in their efforts to help the disadvantaged in society. However even if all our parishes did the most fantastic things in the history of social inclusion, would it still be as effective without Anglicare to oversee things?
Firstly, you’d be expecting all parishes to have a group of people with very particular gifts to serve in the areas that Anglicare does. You’d also need people with these gifts to be concentrated in parishes where there are greater patterns of disadvantage (keep in mind that some of these parishes are struggling to even get ministers!)
Secondly, Anglicare provides a whole host of services that, parishes could do but would be less effective at because they would be decentralised. How would the average parish efficiently run an op shop? How would the average parish engage with government in policy debates? Anglicare does things that, yes – parishes can do, but they do it so much more efficiently!
So I’m all for parishes stepping up and caring for their communities like they are supposed to, but I don’t think that should mean the cutting back of financial support for Anglicare in these areas when they are doing them so much more efficiently and ensuring that their services are available in areas where the church struggles to serve.
Alison (who works for Anglicare :P)
Mike K, not quite sure about the income implications of property trusteeship for parishes, although I’d be reluctant to go down that track. It’s almost impossible for parishes not to respond to short term crisis by selling off the farm, always regretted by subsequent generations. Having a break on that strikes me as a good thing.
As for Diocesan income – no real thoughts. Fundraising for such a non-front-line thing is difficult; I think we do really well on that side, actually.
On the other hand, fundraising for Youthworks, Anglicare, MTC etc is much easier. One option would be to reduce their funding over, say 5 years, and at the same time, provide for them from head office a fund development officer (if they don’t have one).
But it’s the expenditure side I think that needs most work.
Shane,
love your style – accountability up (as well as down) is exactly what we need.
As you know, I am all in favour of grants being done in partnership with Parishes, including rigorous reporting, as well as the Rector entering into a mentoring program to help ensure the money is best used.
As for Uni chaplaincies, one of the interesting things is that they have been wildly successful at generating their own income from fundraising. In my judgment, those grants have done their job – ie. have helped establish self sustaining / self growing ministries, and it’s time to move on and do another job.
Given their success in raising their own funds, I find it hard to understand why the principle of reducing grants – which makes excellent sense elsewhere – is not also applied to the chaplaincies. (of course, if they were not able to be self funding, that would be another story. The decision would need to be made as to whether or not to continue to support them).
Mike J,
actually you’re making my precise point – every student comes to college at less than cost – and it is the Diocese that picks up that cost!
The question is, what’s the opportunity cost of doing that, and when you line them up, is that the best thing? And the question is even sharper considering the (surely) significant increase in income for the college, given the scalable nature of its staffing (any thoughts about that?).
I have a major problem with your strategy #2.
You don’t seem to have accounted for leveraging.
This is the way a number of the diocesan organisation take a $1 investment and double and even triple it in terms of the services they provide parishes.
You take away the grant on a supposed ‘user pays’ basis and parishes wont be left with the $1 or $2 made on the ‘open’ market. They will be left with no service at all.
Geoff,
nice analogy with capital – I think that’s exactly how the Diocesan organisations are best thought of.
What that means then is that at least part of their evaluation needs to be in terms of the benefit they are to parishes. Some of my mates have been surveyed on exactly these lines, which is great.
In the end, it’s the mission that will give you the primary criteria for evaluation – which is why a ‘80% of parishes growing at least 10% per year’ works, because it provides a nice clear set of criteria.
yes – that criteria works for the parish, but about the diocesan organisation?
Mike J is clearly right in arguing that Moore is serving the mission of parishes… but to return to my capital / property analogy, there is room for a lot of variation there: e.g. the difference b/w Glebe’s heritage wall and the community garden where GAPP /BBQ church and a host of other effective mission took place.
Isn’t it this judging b/w the diocesan “walls” and “gardens” that becomes crucial?
Jeremy,
thanks for your comment – could you give an example of this kind of leveraging?
In other words I think you need to define more clearly what you mean by ‘open market’ and ‘sell’.
Some questions to illustrate:
Are our theological colleges operating in an ‘open’ tertiary education market?
Is Southern Cross advertising an ‘open market’ when we are highly regulated/restricted in terms of whom we can take on as clients (ie non-Anglican denominations)?
How does Government grants/funding distort our markets? (Given that Govt policy can change on a whim)
All the diocesan organisations (and even parishes) operate in some sense in a market for services. The only exceptions are some of the property and legal compliance functions (and perhaps some of the services to run the Archbishops office such as the registry & public relations.)
RE: leveraging. I think all the orgs do it to some degree bar MTC.
It may not be wise to talk about specific examples – because it will distract the debate from the general principle to one or two specific examples???
Without going into specifics, I think I can illustrate the point by pointing out that Southern Cross advertising revenue is more than the grant we receive from the Diocese.
Jeremy,
thanks for clarifying. I’m still not quite sure why you say that parishes would be left with no service at all. The different organisations could still do their fundraising etc.
And if in fact the parishes don’t want what’s being provided, I think the burden of proof lies strongly on why it should then be subsidised.
Jeremy,
I’m surprised you are so keen on leveraging -isn’t that how SDS lost so much of the Diocese’s money this past year, and caused this problem?!
Alison,
Some diocesan organisations like Anglicare have at times themselves been underwhelming in their Christian witness and willingness to work with local churches. Some things like Anglicare Op Shops advertising our church activities has only started happening recently after several years of parishes complaining long and loud.
Anglican schools and ARV still often make major property decisions without any consultation with local parishes that will be impacted by their decisions.
David, aren’t ARV and the Anglican Schools Corp. different beasts from what we’ve been talking about, i.e. Anglicare, Anglican Media, Moore? Because I can easily imagine ARV and ASC making major property decisions with minimal parochial consultation.
Do they receive any funding from the diocese?
Alison,
thanks for your comments. I think those things would actually fit my criteria – mostly, they are not things that parishes could do, and so should be funded. Although, for example, I think there is money in the Diocesan budget for counseling ($114K).
This might be an example of ‘selling things’ (ie counseling services) on an open market like lots of other counseling services, and which I don’t really see why it should be subsidised. But there may be much more to it.
I think Alison’s point is more significant than simply being about things parishes can’t do. She points out that there are some advantages to pooling our resources to assist parishes in delivering services. We may be able to do things better together than we can on our own.
I haven’t done economics for a while, but I think she’s saying Anglicare has competitive advantage over parishes in the delivery of community care services that is largely a function of our economy of scale. Twelve counsellors working separately under the auspices of 12 different parishes may not have the same impact as they could if they worked in a single unit for a body like Anglicare for reasons such as:
working together helps provide support structures and professional development;
a continuous service can be provided even if some staff are on leave; and
administration and record keeping can be done more efficiently.
So, Andrew, how does the economy of scale achieved by pooling our resources (for services like theological education, or community care) and subsidising them through the Diocese rather than on a parish by parish basis fit with your vision of ‘parishes at the centre’?
Would the cost of doing these things within parishes instead of through Diocesan agencies actually increase the total cost (both in terms of $ and foregone opportunity) of providing these services?
Evangelism Ministries $270K – often for selling things
That’s just hogwash. Evangelism Ministries helps evangelism. Primarily by providing preachers who are expert evangelists. To help parishes. Selling things to help equip churches to do evangelism (like their “welcoming” course, or “just start talking”) are secondary. Oh – and as far as I’m aware, their courses have been brought in more income then they have cost.
If your grand plan is to cut things like evangelism ministry – you’re cutting off your own nose.
Mike
and perhaps if one thing is clear from this thought experiment, it’s that I’m completely in favour of increasing the accountability of Rectors
I’m not sure you’ve actually been that clear on this point. You have advocated increase accountability within a parish, but I can’t recall you saying how the rector is really accountable. To whom? What are the legal structures you will put in place? Will they be more accountable to the bishop or archbishop? That’s a major call, theologically interesting, and cuts against an earlier concern about increased centralisation.
Mike
Mike,
I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick. What I had primarily in view in the ‘selling things’ comment was the Youthworks children’s ministry resources.
Although it is true (at least when I was a student minister at EM) that the churches where the EM preachers preach are encouraged / asked to give a donation (honorarium) to EM.
It’s important to distinguish a goal – like increasing evangelism – from a strategy – like having a thing called Evangelism Ministries. And when you distinguish those 2 things, it makes sense to ask whether the strategy is achieving the goal. That’s not a given.
For example, how many of the student minsters trained by EM have actually gone on to lead the way in evangelism – in training, in resources, in preaching etc.
I’m just saying that for $270K per year, you could start 15 congregations a year for as long as the money lasts – does the fruit of EM stack against that? Or at least, can you see that it’s a worthwhile question to ask?
Rector accountability comes the same way all accountability comes – from setting goals, and then reporting according to those goals. How that then works out will vary form place to place, and it will be messy. But at least the issue will be on the table.
One thing is clear – law won’t do the job, it never does, which is why I have said almost nothing about truing to fix our problems with law.
I’m just saying that for $270K per year, you could start 15 congregations a year for as long as the money lasts – does the fruit of EM stack against that? Or at least, can you see that it’s a worthwhile question to ask?
Then say that. But from your original requirements, EM does something parishes generally can’t (they are specialists, not generalists), and they don’t sell it.
Mike
Not sure what you mean by EM doing what parishes can’t – you mean preach an evangelistic sermon?
You’ve got to be kidding, right?
Of course I’m not saying that.
However – we’re not all John Chapman are we?
Mike
That’s true – but neither is he any more – age gets us all.
One of the interesting things here is that we don’t really have another Chappo, and not for want of trying. (though Ian Powell is perhaps even better at connecting with an audience of strangers than Chappo – brilliant!)
But also, it’s worth reflecting on the model of evangelism embedded here. Is the ‘great speaker’ model still the way to go?
What I’ve been working on is a model which tries to empower non-professional ministers to lead people to Christ, not in a single conversation, but by working through a short book which the Christian takes the ‘seeker’ through over a couple of months.
Not either-or of course – and we have some guest services planned for July – but I think more culturally (and perhaps theologically) sharp.
So it sounds like your objection to EM isn’t that it does something parishes can’t (by offering specialised evangelistic preaching). Your objection is that you don’t like their current staff, and you don’t like their model of evangelism.
You’ve moved a long way from your initial reasons why various programmes should be cut.
No, just responding to your comments.
That’s why my first response was along the lines of point 1 in the original post.
Well – the question has to be who is the judge? That is: are EM (just to use one example) doing something that the parishes think is worth subsidising, even if it is something they can’t do.
Also, don’t bandy around that $270K – because if (for example) EM was disbanded, it would be to make a saving, not to release those funds. The funds aren’t there!
Well – the question has to be who is the judge? That is: are EM (just to use one example) doing something that the parishes think is worth subsidising, even if it is something they can’t do.
And excellent question! And though I have little knowledge of the inner workings of Synod (the great and illustrious body that it is) – isn’t the Synod made up of – well – parish representatives? And don’t they vote on the budget?
So can a case be made that the parishes have already voted that whatever the money is subsidising is worth subsidising?
problems problems everywhere.
True. I am waiting to see what Andrew might say about Synod! Synod is a very very large legislative body – and so it is hard for it to act as a genuine chamber of review.
Yes, 800 people on a committee makes for a difficult discussion! So it all arrives at Synod highly processed, and is not really tampered with. And if a discussion like this opens up the thinking a little bit, then that’s all to the good.
The fact is that the budget will be slashed from now on, as reported in Southern Cross (May 2009, p. 3). All the Diocesan Organisations will get much much less. And they will cope. What will be really interesting is whether it changes the outcomes on the ground at all – and if it doesn’t, it will be hard to make the case for grants to return to their previous levels.
Natalie,
I think the point you make is a really good one – and lots of the things that Anglicare does are things much better done by Anglicare, even if some parishes might be able to do similar kinds of things – like the disaster relief program.
But it seems to me that counseling services are at the other end of the spectrum. It’s now a standard kind of service, and people expect to pay for it, and I’m not quite sure why the Diocese would see that one of the best things to do would be to subsidise the cost of that for people. That’s doesn’t strike me as core to the mission of the Diocese.
There are now lots of good counseling services out there, and lots of Christian counselors. A not-for-profit organisation already has a financial advantage over them, since it doesn’t need to price for a profit. So for a church to decide to put money into is as part of its reaching into the community makes more sense to me. But it will bear that cost – the problem with the Diocese funding it is that that decision is taken out of the hands of the churches.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sure if that’s where the Diocesan grant is going – all I’m going on is the label on the budget, but this seems to me to be one of those good things that somewhat gets in the way of the best things.
@ David – I didn’t mean leveraging in the technical investment market sense. I just mean that funding Southern Cross brings new $$ into our Diocesan ‘economy’ through advertising revenue which then enables Anglican media to provide more (and different) communication services to parishes that they do not pay for, nor would otherwise get.
If Southern Cross need to be an entirely commerical product then its very nature/content would need to change and the parishes wouldn’t get the other services that we currently use advertising revenue to cross-subsidize.
maybe that is the future – but I hope people realise the full implications of what is coming.
At least in media, advertising-driven actually changes the nature of the product.
You can’t make the ABC entirely reliant on advertising revenue and expect it to remain the ABC… it will become Channel 10!
A commercial paradigm means a commercial product.
My essential point to Andrew is this: the suggestion that we decide funding on the basis of which organisations operate in an ‘open market’ is highly problematic.
The Sydney Anglican ‘economy’ by its very nature is not an open market but highly regulated and restricted (for good reason).
So – to apply this logic to the Youthworks Scripture resources example previously mentioned… the reason the Diocese funds that is to ensure it has a controlling say over the nature of the content… that it reflects the reformed evangelical ethos of the Diocese.
If this product has to be commercially viable then pressure will inevitably come to bear to appeal to the lowest common denominator, not across the Diocese, but across the Christian market as a whole.
No, just responding to your comments.
That’s why my first response was along the lines of point 1 in the original post.
Well, you did state your two principles, and used EM as an example of an organisation with a grant who is selling things, and suggested they shouldn’t get the grant.
When challenged on this, you questioned how the money could be spent better. Which is all fine and dandy – except it wasn’t the problem you first raised.
When pushed further, you questioned if what EM does really is something parishes may not be able to do themselves.
When I replied that specialised evangelistic preaching was something parishes can’t do themselves – you then questioned their whole approach to evangelism, and their staff.
Your questions/concerns are valid. However, the topic of conversation are your two principles, and if and how they apply to EM. If you want to remove funding to EM for other reasons – state it. Don’t hide behind your two principles.
Perhaps you need to expand your two principles to include some of your other concerns about EM.
Mike
Mike,
time to chill on this a little. You can tell a discussion is not working when you get to the ‘I said this’, ‘No, I said that’ point. And it’s definitely not working when it gets into attribution of motives – I’m not hiding behind anything.
In the original post, EM was one of 5 organisations I mentioned as an example of a different kind of policy – letting the Diocesan Orgs that don’t meet the 2 criteria sink or swim on their own merits, so money could be re-directed to the front line of the parishes.
I’ve got nothing against EM as such, was a student minister there in 1997, etc. I don’t have any other particular concerns – just thoughts, questions and so on, which I have expressed in the responses.
There’s no hidden agenda here – sorry.
Mike,
I think you’ve been a bit naughty – am I right that you are a student minister with EM, but haven’t done what you’re supposed to and ‘declared an interest’? You’ll notice that’s what Alison Moffitt did earlier on.
Andrew, I’m sorry I used Counselling as my example! I was using Counselling purely to identify some of the benefits of pooling resources to provide a service. I really wasn’t making an argument for whether Counselling should or should not be on the list of services provided.
My questions about economies of scale remain… should we pool our resources to offer services that could be done within a parish context (like research, for example) but which could be done more efficiently or to a better standard by a team serving multiple parishes? How do you reconcile economies of scale with your vision of parishes at the centre?
Get back to work you guys!
sorry – I didn’t mean to be a “bit naughty”. Yep, I’m a student minister there. Yep, I think they’re a good organisation.
However – I didn’t mean to hide anything. An accidental oversight. I only picked up the EM thing because I’m a little bit aware of the budget, the “inner workings”, and how it helps parishes. I think I’m right to assume that many people who commented have many interests in different parts of the diocese.
You also have to admit it is somewhat frustrating when you seemingly keep moving your goal posts. When we’re probing your argument, and trying to see how you want it to work in practice – moving the the discussion onto another topic just obscures your original points.
Mike,
no problem.
And I’ll try to keep the gaol posts a little stiller next time.
thanks – appeciated.
I’m looking forward to your next post – at the very least they have caused lots of lively discussion. Which is good 🙂
Mike
Sorry your grumpiness 🙂
And in case anyone doesn’t know (but I’m sure you all do) I am Managing Editor of said Southern Cross.
Should the grumpy bishop identify himself? I mean – they all look kinda grumpy to me. And kinda old. And come to think of it – what denomination and diocese is he/she/it from? After all – we can’t be too careful!
Mike
Natalie,
thanks for clarifying, and I hear your point about economies of scale. I’m sure that’s right.
But at the same time, I fear the way institutions generate a life and purpose of their own, and in the end the parishes get a bit removed from it all.
So, I wonder if counseling is at one end of the spectrum – onus of proof very much lies on the claim for support of it. At the other end are programs like disaster relief, which are never going to be done by a parish. And in the middle somewhere perhaps would be something like research.
And so my extremely tentative suggestion would be that one place for things in the middle is in the Regional office/s. It keeps those kinds of things close to the parish/action, and yet with space to do their thing.
Any thoughts?
Andrew, on the practical side of things – how would you get this through synod? I ask because in my time as a synod rep the first (and only?) time I saw synod vote down something proposed by standing committee was the budget because they believed not enough money was being allocated to Anglicare.
PS In the spirit of self-disclosure I don’t work for any of the diocesan organisations – although my wife does. I work for CMS.
Well, that’s the thing about a crisis – it represents an opportunity to not just re-think a little, but do a wholesale re-imagination of what it is we’re trying to achieve and how to go about doing it in a new situation.
So I suspect Synod will be be more open than perhaps previously, simply due to the current circumstances.
Andrew, I’d be interested if you have a response to my comments about making our revenue raising products fully commercial.
It is helpful to have my thinking stretched as I start my own planning for the new (commercial?) paradigm.
Jeremy,
sorry, I got a bit lost yesterday.
I hear the danger of succumbing to lowest common denominator pressures in going commercial. At the same time, I don’t think it’s necessary – Matthais Media operate on a fairly commercial basis I suspect, and they resist the temptation. Youthworks campsites likewise.
Could you charge parishes, say $2 per unit for Southern Cross? And if people don’t want it at that price, then what do we learn from that? It’s brutal, I know, but then that’s the world we’re in at the moment.
I guess what I’m saying is that for any of the Diocesan Orgs, if it can’t be done commercially (and even then, being not-for-profit gives an advantage), and it can’t attract fundraising, then there needs to be a really, really good reason to divert funds from the front line for it, whatever ‘it’ is. Criteria 1 above is an attempt to give some principle to that.
Cruel but fair?
Thanks Andrew. ‘Cruel but fair’ I can handle. Short-sighted is another matter 😉
I’d point out that Matthias Media are only able to remain viable because they are pitching their products to an international audience. One option for SC would be to increase our readership by moving beyond being merely Sydney Anglican. But as I’m sure you’d appreciate that would change the nature of the product.
As you said this is a thought experiment – Now given the purpose of Southern Cross is to ‘equip and build up the Sydney Anglican community around the Diocesan Mission goals’ – we have to ask whether the very purpose of SC will be undermined by making it an entirely commercial venture.
How can it be said the SC is ‘building up’ the Syd Ang community if a substantial proportion of parishes pull out because they decline to pay?
I think your strategy has an atomising impact as it foregrounds the short-term needs of individual parishes at the expense of the longer-term benefits to the whole.
Response?
[Thought experiment over]
As I have said elsewhere I am totally open to looking at a cover charge.
If I could be cheeky then Andrew – would you be up to be in a focus group to explore with me what cover charge the market will accept???
Well, I guess my next question is, why is that the goal of SC? Is not that the goal of the parishes?
Is there really much equipping and building up that actually take place through SC? Surely that’s far too ambitious?
The Sydney Anglican Community bit makes more sense to me – something to do with one big tribe, broader perspective.
But for me it comes down to just how valuable is that thing? Which comes back again to the mission. The case needs to be made that that thing – a sense of Sydney Anglican Community – really does make a significant contribution to the mission of 80% of churches growing by at least 10% per year.
Make that case, and I’ll be in the focus group!
‘Community’ was the key word there. I do wonder if you have overly defined parishes as entities that exist in isolation.
The primary way Southern Cross contributes to the building up of a community around Mission goals is by sharing ideas for mission *between parishes* and by encouraging laity through the sharing of mutual struggles, encouraging stories and otherwise motivational stories (I’m not saying Sc can’t do this better).
I don’t think its possible for most parishes to do this on their own. The exception would be the very few very large multi-congregational parishes: Figtree, Carlingford, Castle Hill. But even then being part of the diocese should engender a sense of generosity and neighbourliness to other parishes to *want* to share with them???
I suspect you are sceptical about Connect09. Is that fair?
Nevertheless I am sure you can appreciate that this kind of campaign (as a subset of the Mission) is impossible without a mechanism to communicate tactics/resources from the centre and between parishes. It is also critical that this inter-communication happens at the ‘lowest’ level possible which is not between rectors but at the lay level.
It is hard to imagine how this can happen without a genuinely ‘mass media’ form of communication.
Would you agree Andrew?
Can Anglican Media take some credit for every convert that occurs because a church has implemented a new ministry idea that they heard about through Sydneyanglicans.net or Southern Cross??
Not sure how you measure that though…