When money is tight, there are only 2 options – cut back expenditure, or find additional sources of income.
For the Sydney Diocese, money has never been tighter. The losses incurred in the GFC continue to rumble down the pipe-line. Until now, the response has been to cut back. And that’s been exactly the right thing to do – central activities can be important, but they are not the front line.
The current proposal is to stop cutting back, and to find more income, and there is only one place that can come from – taxing the parishes.
It’s included in a document you can read here, for the pre-Synod briefings this week (the particular report starts on p. 83).
It looks harmless enough – a suggestion for a set of new principles for the Diocesan budget. What stands out is the fact that 2 groups of costs are to be shifted away from being covered by central income, and onto the parishes.
One calculation suggests this could amount to $2-2.5M!
The reasoning for this shift is unconvincing.
Although it’s not argued for in any detail, there are a couple of hints that the basis of shifting these costs to the parishes is the fact that they are necessary for us as a Diocese. But that’s not a reason, it’s a logical leap, a fallacy – the fact that they are necessary simply means they should be the first expenditures we make (from funds available to the Synod from the Diocesan endowment), not that the parishes should pay.
If we had no central funds available at all, then it would make sense that the parishes should bear the cost. But we still do have central funds – not as much as previously – but still nearly $5M in 2012 for the Synod, and more from the Endowment of the See (the Fund that currently pays for the bishops).
The only legitimate argument that the parishes should pay is that the particular item of central expenditure is more important than front line parish ministry.
So here’s the thing – our conviction (up til now) has been that the parishes are the centre of the Diocese. It’s front line ministry that matters most. We don’t hold the view of other Dioceses, who see great significance in the office of bishop, a central bureaucracy etc. Our commitment is to evangelism, preaching, prayer, pastoring, the local church in missional mode.
If this proposal is adopted, what we’ll be saying is that to the tune of around $2M, front line ministry is less important than centralised programs.
Surely we can’t say that?