Counting (part 4)
His forces are beyond number (Joel 2:11)
The Church of England is in trouble. Of course one might reasonably ask when we have not been in trouble. In the last 80 years church attendance has declined by about 80%, while in the same period the church in Africa has grown by about 800%. And the decline continues. You may have heard positive messages about church numbers. There is some talk of growing churches. True but they do not match the decline elsewhere. There is also talk of many who worship and do not get counted in the statistics, so-called fresh expressions. True too but again the numbers are small and do not represent a new revival. Cathedral numbers have increased a little over the last few years, as has the attendance at other minster-type churches. Sadly the headline figures (I saw 5% once) are rather misleading. To get the big increases you have to pick exactly the right two years to compare, as the numbers fluctuate significantly. Not only that but it is not a helpful statistic anyway. Cathedrals have independent funding. They are warm, replete with clergy, blessed with musical marvels, and so are most likely simply sucking in those who can no longer cope with the freezing local church buildings or the choir-less worship. Worse than that the statistics show no increase at all in those under-15. Growth in Cathedral worship is probably the exception that proves the rule. In the last throws of an ageing worshipping community the central hubs bloom for a while before fading at the last.
But that's not the current problem. The latest effect of lockdown is the catastrophic collapse of the charity sector. All the major summer fundraising events that were to bring much needed cash into the coffers to be spent on cancer research, hospice care, and so on, have been cancelled. The government may step in, but it is unlikely to be enough. A collapse in household income has an uneven effect on spending. Unnecessary outgoings, like unplanned giving, are, quite sensibly, one of the first things to go. And giving to support a friend running a cancelled marathon does not usually even reach the point of being stopped. It never gets considered. There are beautiful examples of marathons on the balcony and climbing Everest up the stairs but these are of course limited in effect.
Traditional churches run on two streams of giving. One is online giving from bank account to bank account, the other is physical giving into the collection plate. Both may be planned, but during the lockdown only one is happening. In the long term, it might prove a good thing that giving into the collection plate stops, for it is, in many ways, the mark of a shrinking church. Indeed in my darker days I have suspected it may be a cause of the shrinking church. The argument is complex but in its simplest form, public giving into a plate handed around a congregation is for insiders only. If you are an insider it's an important part of normal worship, returning to God a small part of what he has given to you. If you are a guest, however, it is embarrassing (who ever carries cash anymore?), off-putting (I didn't think I had to pay to go to church?) and degrading (If God needs my petty cash, is he really worth worshipping?). Any group activity that excludes the outsider necessarily shrinks the group.
Unfortunately, in the short term, there is a rather more immediate problem: the giving in the collection plate makes up about a third or a half of the income in smaller churches and this income has stopped, while the outgoings have not.
The major cost of any Church of England church is called The Share. It is the amount paid to central funds that is then used to pay for clergy costs (about 85-90%) and central costs (the other 10-15%). Virtually all of it goes to paying people's salaries. This Share makes up about 90% of a rural church's outgoings. In larger town churches the percentage is often lower even though the amount is higher but it's still by far the largest cost. Now, clergy have to be paid, as does everyone else in the diocese, so the costs are static while income has dropped by 30-50%. What will happen no one yet knows. Will we all learn to give online? If not will the church find a way to tighten it's belt by 30%? One for careful prayer and considered thought by us all, I suspect.
You might reasonably ask what this has got to do with Joel and counting. Well, it's this: The Share is calculated by counting people. It is all very complex and the maths is not ideal, but roughly speaking local churches are required to count all those who attend regularly and can be expected to give appropriately. Like Betham's Utilitarianism, the first seems easy to assess - you just count heads. Actually it's not because counting heads does not tell you who is 'regular', but you can get a reasonable estimate. The second is much harder. As it costs about £1000 a year per worshipping household to support one full-time clergy under the current system, can someone who contributes £5 a month be reasonably assessed as able to give appropriately? Well, it depends of course on what they can afford. The parable of the widow's mite teaches us to be very careful not to judge. But that's not the problem. The difficulty is that the whole thing treats people as things. It counts them and then puts in a bill for their membership.
So is there a better way? Well, I know one Diocese that does it the other way round. It explains the costs and then allows the local church to set their giving. Of course if they cannot afford to give enough then there may no longer be enough to support a local vicar. But at least they were given a chance to find a way, at least they were treated like people. It looks like a sure way to a shrinking church, of course, but we've got that anyway. However, it hasn't proved to be so. And here's one possible reason why: the church grows when God blesses it, not when we are clever managers. If our count is the sin of David, the treatment of people as things, then I, for one, am highly doubtful that God will bless us. What do you think?
The Church of England is in trouble. Of course one might reasonably ask when we have not been in trouble. In the last 80 years church attendance has declined by about 80%, while in the same period the church in Africa has grown by about 800%. And the decline continues. You may have heard positive messages about church numbers. There is some talk of growing churches. True but they do not match the decline elsewhere. There is also talk of many who worship and do not get counted in the statistics, so-called fresh expressions. True too but again the numbers are small and do not represent a new revival. Cathedral numbers have increased a little over the last few years, as has the attendance at other minster-type churches. Sadly the headline figures (I saw 5% once) are rather misleading. To get the big increases you have to pick exactly the right two years to compare, as the numbers fluctuate significantly. Not only that but it is not a helpful statistic anyway. Cathedrals have independent funding. They are warm, replete with clergy, blessed with musical marvels, and so are most likely simply sucking in those who can no longer cope with the freezing local church buildings or the choir-less worship. Worse than that the statistics show no increase at all in those under-15. Growth in Cathedral worship is probably the exception that proves the rule. In the last throws of an ageing worshipping community the central hubs bloom for a while before fading at the last.
But that's not the current problem. The latest effect of lockdown is the catastrophic collapse of the charity sector. All the major summer fundraising events that were to bring much needed cash into the coffers to be spent on cancer research, hospice care, and so on, have been cancelled. The government may step in, but it is unlikely to be enough. A collapse in household income has an uneven effect on spending. Unnecessary outgoings, like unplanned giving, are, quite sensibly, one of the first things to go. And giving to support a friend running a cancelled marathon does not usually even reach the point of being stopped. It never gets considered. There are beautiful examples of marathons on the balcony and climbing Everest up the stairs but these are of course limited in effect.
Traditional churches run on two streams of giving. One is online giving from bank account to bank account, the other is physical giving into the collection plate. Both may be planned, but during the lockdown only one is happening. In the long term, it might prove a good thing that giving into the collection plate stops, for it is, in many ways, the mark of a shrinking church. Indeed in my darker days I have suspected it may be a cause of the shrinking church. The argument is complex but in its simplest form, public giving into a plate handed around a congregation is for insiders only. If you are an insider it's an important part of normal worship, returning to God a small part of what he has given to you. If you are a guest, however, it is embarrassing (who ever carries cash anymore?), off-putting (I didn't think I had to pay to go to church?) and degrading (If God needs my petty cash, is he really worth worshipping?). Any group activity that excludes the outsider necessarily shrinks the group.
Unfortunately, in the short term, there is a rather more immediate problem: the giving in the collection plate makes up about a third or a half of the income in smaller churches and this income has stopped, while the outgoings have not.
The major cost of any Church of England church is called The Share. It is the amount paid to central funds that is then used to pay for clergy costs (about 85-90%) and central costs (the other 10-15%). Virtually all of it goes to paying people's salaries. This Share makes up about 90% of a rural church's outgoings. In larger town churches the percentage is often lower even though the amount is higher but it's still by far the largest cost. Now, clergy have to be paid, as does everyone else in the diocese, so the costs are static while income has dropped by 30-50%. What will happen no one yet knows. Will we all learn to give online? If not will the church find a way to tighten it's belt by 30%? One for careful prayer and considered thought by us all, I suspect.
You might reasonably ask what this has got to do with Joel and counting. Well, it's this: The Share is calculated by counting people. It is all very complex and the maths is not ideal, but roughly speaking local churches are required to count all those who attend regularly and can be expected to give appropriately. Like Betham's Utilitarianism, the first seems easy to assess - you just count heads. Actually it's not because counting heads does not tell you who is 'regular', but you can get a reasonable estimate. The second is much harder. As it costs about £1000 a year per worshipping household to support one full-time clergy under the current system, can someone who contributes £5 a month be reasonably assessed as able to give appropriately? Well, it depends of course on what they can afford. The parable of the widow's mite teaches us to be very careful not to judge. But that's not the problem. The difficulty is that the whole thing treats people as things. It counts them and then puts in a bill for their membership.
So is there a better way? Well, I know one Diocese that does it the other way round. It explains the costs and then allows the local church to set their giving. Of course if they cannot afford to give enough then there may no longer be enough to support a local vicar. But at least they were given a chance to find a way, at least they were treated like people. It looks like a sure way to a shrinking church, of course, but we've got that anyway. However, it hasn't proved to be so. And here's one possible reason why: the church grows when God blesses it, not when we are clever managers. If our count is the sin of David, the treatment of people as things, then I, for one, am highly doubtful that God will bless us. What do you think?
 |
| Holiday money, some now with no value |
Comments
Post a Comment