This sounds about right. Faith doesn't come into the thinking of the senior CofE. After over three decades of regularly attending CofE churches I have got so fed up of being seen only as a resource to be used/abused after undertaking many of the roles withina parish church that I have stopped volunteering within the church I now attend. Similarly I am now very careful about my church giving, reinforced by my seperately being a trustee and treasurer of a small but tightly focused charity - and don't get me started on the hypocrisy, incompetance and disconnection of the bishops, archbishops and many senior clergy.
I was a charity trustee for 16 years. I learnt 3 things: overheads shouldn't exceed 12%; results achieved should be clearly available; volunteers should be obviously shown appreciation.
As a Churchwarden, otherwise unemployed because of medical retirement, not on benefits (but might get a small pension after Jan 1st from my job), but apparently worth £34K p.a. to the C of E, and knowing that Jesus Himself said that a workman is worth his pay, ever since I knew that the C of E wanted to promote LLF, and the bishops and Archbishops who support it, the £10 Billion in their kitty and offering to use parish share money to pay 'reparations' to a certain demographic for historic 'wrongs', I withheld my tithe. My voluntary role, though it ought to be a paid role, could be considered my tithe by 'saving' the C of E money, and what little I do give goes to better causes, and as G-d the Father put me into this role, He could just as easily remove it. I serve my local Fellowship and stand by my Alliance-supporting vicar (just arrived), and see the church as my 'office'. Yet, what is happening in the hierarchy is "false weights and measures", and Scripture tells us that G-d *hates* that! Maybe each parish should decentralise and return to the pre-Canterbury days of self-sufficiency after the Reformation. I feel the Goat Queue is going to be *verrry long!* Merry Christ-Mas!
The Church of England might have been just about self-sufficient after the Reformation - thanks to Henry VIII allocating a fraction of what he'd helped himself to at the Dissolution. But royalty & later parliament (who still ultimately control these things) have always been careful not to be too generous to the church of their time. Perhaps for political reasons - probably also so there's enough for the future. If the C of E ever used up its endowment I somehow doubt that any government would step in rescue it.
I'm a Roman Catholic and I feel the same. If our church starts giving "reparations" for supposed wrongs nothing to do with any living person, my giving would be drastically reduced and redirected towards charities I can trust, in order to send a message to the hierarchy. I expect a lot of people would do likewise, making that message one they cannot ignore.
@@philiphumphrey1548 The horrid thing is, though money ought to be, imo, a useful but secondary consideration, it is often the 'heart of the matter'. The C of E, even with a still-dwindling Communion in England, and the schisms it is experiencing, is still rolling out 'Generosity Sunday' as part of a greater project to raise capital over a week. They call this 'stewardship' and is, to me, a cynical attempt to *guilt* people into giving more. The 'Widow's Mite' and Paul's exhortation that we give according to our conscience (as long as we are honest about it - the Ananias and Sapphira Incident in Acts comes to mind), without the burden of Judaic tithing, often gets misused in this matter. I wondered once if it had to do with the Bank of Iceland (offshore accounts, which felt of hinky doings by the C of E) crashed (pre- Covid), wiping out the then huge assets of £1.2 Billion, gave impetus to increase the drive to replace it. Now, the C of E has *£10 Billion* (and just how? By 'investments'? And which ones, exactly - oil, gas, diamonds, opium trade, gun-running, selling indulgences?🤔) just *sitting there,* and they have their hands out again, while letting parishes and Dioceses financially burn. I know the RCC has its own problems, so I won't point them out - you know them so well. But we serve the same Lord, no matter our basic style of worship, according to Scripture - or we should - and that includes our hierarchies being financially honest. But in this world, even in the Church Politic, *money talks!* Shalom and Merry Christ-mas, brother.
@@philiphumphrey1548As I understood it the "reparations" being offered by some church institutions are things like scholarships, rather money handouts? Generosity to the poor & needy has surely always been a Christian imperative. All the more so when the church's wealth, which its living members benefit from, has sometimes been accumulated via the suffering of others?
I don’t want my money being spent on things I find non biblical. I only attend a CoE *because* of my vicar. I’d likely attend a different church if she left.
@ I don’t have an issue with women preaching. Some people do, I don’t, it’s not expressly forbidden unlike many other things which the church seems to be fine with these days. Especially when not enough men are joining the church.
Yes, it is.1Tim 2:12, 1Cor14:32-35, 1Tim 3:1-7. I agree with you that it is a shame that there aren't men willing to step up. Deborah in the OT was a judgement on Israel and a shame that there wasn't a godly man to lead the people.
@@solidflyer286There maybe fewer roles for boys & men in church these days - eg since the decline of men + boy choirs. New styles of worship & safeguarding jitters might have something to do with it - books written about it (eg David Murrow). As a guru once said "'Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets" - stating the obvious really!
Thanks a lot for this - and for the links. I have printed the whole Civitas report by Esme Partridge - it is free to download. The Telegraph articles are great - and so are the comments after them! As a rural Vicar in Wiltshire has pointed out (Revd Heber-Percy on the Save The Parish website), human affairs tend to gravitate towards the centre and collect (or congeal) there - the term in physics, he says, is "centripetal force". [This does not go in a straight line, if you look it up in wiki, which has a pretty diagram for physics illiterates like me.] To balance or offset this tendency, centrifugal forces need to work continuously to pull things away from the centre. For Churches, this means continually dragging the gaze of everyone back to the Parish - and in my opinion the same is true for secular matters under any system (capitalist, communist, welfarist, fascist, distributist, environmentalist, Old Testament, etc.) In the UK we have secular Parishes, in the USA they have Counties (very small units with charming names), and I am sure most other countries have similar local cells which go to make up the whole, though I don't know what they are called in the relevant lingo.
Thank you for a fascinating discussion - I've watched several of your videos and am always impressed by the good quality both in terms of production and the content of your ministry. Regretably I'm a Canadian ex-Anglican whose parish was pretty much drummed out of our diocese (our rector's wife was Swiss and being fluent in German he ended up going to a congregation in Switzerland after the bishop made it clear that he was NOT pleased with our parish as we wouldn't adopt his rather more extreme than most dioceses' LGBT teachings. Roughly 2/3 of our congregation also left most outside of the Anglican Church of Canada (the rest were merged into a neighboring parish whose was one of the most "liberal" in the diocese). And now last year our old church is being run by the diocese as basically a private chapel for services pretty much any time except Sunday. It is a tragic situation but a sign of our times I suppose - in our time we gave fairly freely but not once our Bishop told us we either had to fully embrace his teachings (which I emphasize were well beyond the ACC's synod teachings) or leave the church. Amongst other things it caused all three of my then teenage children to leave the church (even though I pray for them daily all these years later) I know I must forgive the now former Bishop but given the impact on our family it is only with difficulty I can. That said I will always remember and cherish Holy Communion at Westminster Abbey when we were there in June 2016 (roughly 2 weeks before the Brexit referendum) as one of the high points of my spiritual life. As the rector said "this may be a national treasure but we are also a working church"
According to Oxfam's web site 10% of its employees are administrators, but another 25% are fund raisers & running shops. Just 65% goes to the front line workers, projects etc. It has 6 x as many active volunteers as employees. How many people in the C of E (employees or volunteers) are active fund raisers? How many people make regular contributions? How thoughtful & active are parish clergy in encouraging donations?
HR has nothing to do with parochial clergy? Not my experience in parish ministry in the last diocese I worked in. The Bishop used HR to do her .... work.
According to the Derby Diocese web site the bishop is responsible for 220 clergy. Surely any bishop would need a bit of professional help to deal with all the HR-type issues that inevitably come up with such numbers?
Interestingly - according to "NGO Monitor" the Church of Sweden's income significantly exceeds its expenses - thanks to EU & government grants? Also it seems to get directly involved in international & political issues?
@@chrislambert-shiels5291 The church owns large areas of land and forests. It does not get EU money. The church is not established (like the C of E) but is governed by politically elected people. Priests and bishops have no power. Politicians are more interested in supporting their own agendas than worshipping God.
It concerns me that we have so many more paid positions in the CofE these days than was the case half a century ago. Work which was formerly done by volunteers is now done by paid people. I surmise that the reasons for this are a combination of fewer willing volunteers and higher legislative requirements (Health and Safety etc.) requiring qualified professionals to do work where previously a volunteer just "did the best they could" and an insistence from on high that it must be seen that the proper people are being engaged to ensure that everything complies with an increasing regulatory framework. Then, of course, once a Diocese has an army of personnel, an HR department is needed, with more qualified people to ensure that the Church is compliant with employment law and contracts of employment, etc., are appropriately drafted and duly signed off. I think it is very similar throughout the voluntary sector.
The Common Fund/Parish Share is an entirely voluntary contribution by the parish to the ministry of the Diocese, but if you don't pay it the Diocese will basically threaten you with closure, or refuse to give you a priest. I attended a Diocesan meeting to be told that " if you can't pay all your Common Fund, on time, for the foreseeable future, your church is not sustainable." This is effectively demanding money with menaces... The Church Commissioners have plenty of money when it comes to trendy causes, just not for parishes.
46:00 “leave it to god” funny how often god picks the old divinity school chums of those on the nominating committee. He sure does work in mysterious ways.
They are, in Jesus' opinion, all goats destined for the outer darkness of hell if they don't corporately confess their sin of ambition and avarice, repent and cry out for G-d the Father's mercy, *publically for real, and right now!* G-d doesn't choose them for this...
Jesus didn't say, "go start an institution and be employed in my name" He said, "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” I'm personally done with religion, and C of E. But I love Jesus and always will.
Amen to that -- completely agree, we've just left the CofE and are now going to a congregational church which is not "business" oriented, but is "family of God" --- so glad for Makin Review, which opened our eyes ! You could say that the "spirit of Babylon" is GROWING in the CofE whereas the "spirit of Zion" is DECREASING ! Organised Religion is always a business -- FAITH is NOT !
The problem in addition to the raw cost of these uncessesary paper shufflers is that they have to justify their existence. Indeed each officer will have admin support or assistants, will need offices, expenses and their salaries are usually more generous than clergy stipends. This means that at the very least the produce verbose reports that require reading at the very least or at the worst, policy that impacts on the work of parochial clergy and PCC's, not usually to make their lives easier or the mission of the church more effective.
The Telegraph bar chart is a total muddle - it's not clear if it is showing parishes (who donate the Parish Share) or dioceses (who pay clergy etc) - somehow they are both shown as expenditure? And it doesn't separate front-line Parish salaries etc from Diocesan ones - so illustrates nothing really!
Esmé Partridge (currently working on her PhD, so "publications" are her lifeblood) seems to be selective in her quotes & woven a story out of it. Many of the comments on the Telegraph article reviewing it are pretty puerile, to put it kindly!
The Telegraph isn't as bad as The Guardian! They *absolutely hate* religion, meaning Christianity, being a Communisocialislamic rag, not really fit as cat litter tray lining, and very expensive at that...
Doesn't money sent to the Diocese (quota, parish share or common) pay & house the Parish clergy? Could dissatisfaction with sending money to the Diocese actually reflect dissatisfaction with the clergy allocated to the Parish? How many parishes cover their clergy's stipend, pension, housing, car expenses etc by their giving?
Our church has always put more than asked into the diocesan kitty. But we are one of only two in our whole diocese that manages to do this. We are told that this is so that we can fund work done in poorer parishes. This argument obviously has a shelf life. The majority of us are evangelical in our church but we have a terrified vicar and a noisome minority of trouble makers who have a disproportional influence. Our poor vicar is convinced that his job is to pastor them all and this means keeping them pacified. I can see an exodus of Evangelicals in coming years and then there will be one less church paying it's way. It's all very bleak.
In our diocese (in the last year accounts are available): 65% of expenditure was on clergy salaries & their pension contributions, housing, moving expenses etc. Another 6% went on ordinand training, retired clergy housing etc. So about the same as Oxfam as regards overheads v mission. And some of the so-called overheads are administering church schools - are the nay-sayers suggesting the church relinquishes those? Church building experts - ditto.
Sounds like a job for Elon Musk. He removed 80% of the staff at Twitter (including most of the moderators) without any adverse effect on the company. In my personal experience too many bureaucrats don't reduce the administrative burden on the shop floor, instead they create unnecessary work to justify their own existence. Diversity and similar roles could be entirely eliminated and not be missed in the slightest.
I don't disagree with you! I take the view that the Church of England has some overdependence on bureaucracy. We need to get closer to it's original purview. Local Dioceses have their ways to deal with matters but HR and Diversity Officers should only have specific roles but there should be fewer. And more focus on more clergy. There are some areas where it's a very unfortunate thing to have not enough Priests in Churches. St Martin's in Knowle in Bristol is awaiting it's next Priest ! So we're in interregnum at the moment in time! We might be fortunate in this instance. We will end up with a Priest in February of next year! Until then, we are waiting. I serve in the Church Choir - and I have served in this capacity in two other churches in Hengrove and Redcliffe over 40 years. It would be a great shame if this goes down this path. I don't see it improving quickly.
It's no different to my local Cricket Club. They now have paid people to prepare the wicket, serve behind the bar, check the kit to ensure it meets Safety standards, do the accounts and, of course, handle the safeguarding formalities for the Youth Section. This was not the case in times past when the players (of whom I was one) did all this themselves, but I think it is born largely of a heavier regulatory framework, and perhaps an understandable insistence by the insurance company that is must be dotted and ts crossed.
Well, something is! Apostasy, perhaps? However, on a more practical note, it does suit the Government to treat the Church of England as a large charitable corporation, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as its Chief Executive. This was very convenient after the Report on John Smyth. The public wished the Government to be seen to “do something about it” so, under the pretence that the Church of England is simply a large charitable foundation, under the control of the Government, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as its Chief Executive, subject to Government directives, the Government instructed Justin Welby to maintain certain fictions. Firstly, that the camps where the abuse took place were run by the Church (they were not, they were run by a Trust more connected to the Public School system, than to the Church). Secondly, that the Church of England was a sort of charitable corporation with the Archbishop of Canterbury as its Chief Executive (it is not - it is the mystical body of Christ and the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York are joint Primates, having joint spiritual charge of the souls of those under their care). So, these fictions were found to be very useful - the Church pretended to have run these camps (although it did not) and Justin Welby pretended that he was the Chief Executive of the Church (although he was not) so that, on the “buck stops with me” principle he could resign, taking no personal responsibility for the abuse, but very grandly assuming responsibility on high principle for something for which he was not, in actual fact, responsible. This is the modern Church of England - love it or loath it, this is what it is. A sort of branch of the Government charged with the responsibility of assisting the Government in pursuing its “woke” agenda.
Working on the "bullshit baffles brains" principle are we ? 1) The camps were supported & assisted with finance by the church 2) Smyth "cherrypicked" parts of the Bible to support his atrocities - something that many senior clergy were aware of. 3) Welby himself had a conversation with someone who expressed their concerns about Smyth's behaviour in 1978. 4) The church appears to have completely ignored the Ruston Report from 1982 - where these concerns were raised. 5) The church actively "exported" the Smyth "problem" to southern Africa - even assisting with financing of his "ministry" there (personal donations from Welby as well). 6) The church is now busily - "covering up - the cover up" - RIGHT NOW - with many parish churches even failing to acknowledge that these crimes even occurred - & not even mentioning the issue to their congregations - sweep it under the carpet & it'll go away attitude ! 7) There is a major schism coming in the CofE -- about time too !
@ I think that we do need to be careful here. For example, it was established, I seem to remember, that a well known charity delivering aid abroad had some members on its staff who were guilty of abuse of various kinds. Yet many good and honourable citizens made donations to that charity, in good faith. Making a donation to a charity does not result in the donor assuming responsibility for the way in which that charity conducts its affairs. That is the responsibility of the Trustees of that charity. What you seem to be suggesting is that Justin Welby and other members of the Church of England made donations to the charity which ran these camps with a view to funding the abusive behaviour of John Smyth. That is a very serious allegation. Now, as to “cherry picking” the Bible to justify corporal punishment, it does need to be kept in mind that, at the relevant time, most Public Schools condoned the use of corporal punishment, so that the fact that these camps did administer corporal punishment would not, in itself, have rung any alarm bells. Both the teachers at the schools which recommended these camps and the parents of the boys who attended them, would have expected that, if a boy was, for example, caught smoking or drinking alcohol, for example, contrary to the rules of the camp, he might receive some form of punishment, very likely, corporal punishment - the same as he would have received if he had been at school. Of course, what we have here is sadist who administered corporal punishment to a degree which would have horrified the teachers and parents had they been made aware of it. As to the schools wishing to “hush it all up” and send John Smyth well out of the way, that does seem reprehensible, of course. However, the teachers and parents would have considered only the interests of the boys concerned. They did not wish to have a scandal, because the teachers did not wish their school to be associated with a scandal and the parents did not wish their son to be associated with a scandal. However, what is clear enough is that, if the teachers and the parents had all decided that they did, in fact, wish to “make a fuss” there is absolutely nothing which Justin Welby could have done to stop them and it was not really his decision, one way or the other. A cynic might suggest that the reason why the Church of England is to be fixed with responsibility is that it has plenty of money. The Trust has, I suppose, long since been wound up and the Trustees would not be responsible beyond the assets of the Trust in their hands. So, the Church of England must be found to be at fault - otherwise, there is no one with funds to be sued. The same cynic might also suggest that the lawyers are all now rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of huge fees flowing from the cases which might now be brought against the Church of England. A cynic might suggest these things - I, of course, would not presume to pass any judgment in the matter.
This sounds about right. Faith doesn't come into the thinking of the senior CofE. After over three decades of regularly attending CofE churches I have got so fed up of being seen only as a resource to be used/abused after undertaking many of the roles withina parish church that I have stopped volunteering within the church I now attend. Similarly I am now very careful about my church giving, reinforced by my seperately being a trustee and treasurer of a small but tightly focused charity - and don't get me started on the hypocrisy, incompetance and disconnection of the bishops, archbishops and many senior clergy.
I was a charity trustee for 16 years. I learnt 3 things: overheads shouldn't exceed 12%; results achieved should be clearly available; volunteers should be obviously shown appreciation.
As a Churchwarden, otherwise unemployed because of medical retirement, not on benefits (but might get a small pension after Jan 1st from my job), but apparently worth £34K p.a. to the C of E, and knowing that Jesus Himself said that a workman is worth his pay, ever since I knew that the C of E wanted to promote LLF, and the bishops and Archbishops who support it, the £10 Billion in their kitty and offering to use parish share money to pay 'reparations' to a certain demographic for historic 'wrongs', I withheld my tithe.
My voluntary role, though it ought to be a paid role, could be considered my tithe by 'saving' the C of E money, and what little I do give goes to better causes, and as G-d the Father put me into this role, He could just as easily remove it. I serve my local Fellowship and stand by my Alliance-supporting vicar (just arrived), and see the church as my 'office'.
Yet, what is happening in the hierarchy is "false weights and measures", and Scripture tells us that G-d *hates* that! Maybe each parish should decentralise and return to the pre-Canterbury days of self-sufficiency after the Reformation. I feel the Goat Queue is going to be *verrry long!*
Merry Christ-Mas!
The Church of England might have been just about self-sufficient after the Reformation - thanks to Henry VIII allocating a fraction of what he'd helped himself to at the Dissolution. But royalty & later parliament (who still ultimately control these things) have always been careful not to be too generous to the church of their time. Perhaps for political reasons - probably also so there's enough for the future. If the C of E ever used up its endowment I somehow doubt that any government would step in rescue it.
I'm a Roman Catholic and I feel the same. If our church starts giving "reparations" for supposed wrongs nothing to do with any living person, my giving would be drastically reduced and redirected towards charities I can trust, in order to send a message to the hierarchy. I expect a lot of people would do likewise, making that message one they cannot ignore.
@@philiphumphrey1548 The horrid thing is, though money ought to be, imo, a useful but secondary consideration, it is often the 'heart of the matter'. The C of E, even with a still-dwindling Communion in England, and the schisms it is experiencing, is still rolling out 'Generosity Sunday' as part of a greater project to raise capital over a week. They call this 'stewardship' and is, to me, a cynical attempt to *guilt* people into giving more.
The 'Widow's Mite' and Paul's exhortation that we give according to our conscience (as long as we are honest about it - the Ananias and Sapphira Incident in Acts comes to mind), without the burden of Judaic tithing, often gets misused in this matter. I wondered once if it had to do with the Bank of Iceland (offshore accounts, which felt of hinky doings by the C of E) crashed (pre- Covid), wiping out the then huge assets of £1.2 Billion, gave impetus to increase the drive to replace it.
Now, the C of E has *£10 Billion* (and just how? By 'investments'? And which ones, exactly - oil, gas, diamonds, opium trade, gun-running, selling indulgences?🤔) just *sitting there,* and they have their hands out again, while letting parishes and Dioceses financially burn.
I know the RCC has its own problems, so I won't point them out - you know them so well. But we serve the same Lord, no matter our basic style of worship, according to Scripture - or we should - and that includes our hierarchies being financially honest. But in this world, even in the Church Politic, *money talks!* Shalom and Merry Christ-mas, brother.
@@philiphumphrey1548As I understood it the "reparations" being offered by some church institutions are things like scholarships, rather money handouts? Generosity to the poor & needy has surely always been a Christian imperative. All the more so when the church's wealth, which its living members benefit from, has sometimes been accumulated via the suffering of others?
I don’t want my money being spent on things I find non biblical.
I only attend a CoE *because* of my vicar. I’d likely attend a different church if she left.
“she” lol
@ I don’t have an issue with women preaching. Some people do, I don’t, it’s not expressly forbidden unlike many other things which the church seems to be fine with these days. Especially when not enough men are joining the church.
Yes, it is.1Tim 2:12, 1Cor14:32-35, 1Tim 3:1-7. I agree with you that it is a shame that there aren't men willing to step up. Deborah in the OT was a judgement on Israel and a shame that there wasn't a godly man to lead the people.
@@solidflyer286There maybe fewer roles for boys & men in church these days - eg since the decline of men + boy choirs. New styles of worship & safeguarding jitters might have something to do with it - books written about it (eg David Murrow). As a guru once said "'Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets" - stating the obvious really!
Thanks a lot for this - and for the links. I have printed the whole Civitas report by Esme Partridge - it is free to download. The Telegraph articles are great - and so are the comments after them! As a rural Vicar in Wiltshire has pointed out (Revd Heber-Percy on the Save The Parish website), human affairs tend to gravitate towards the centre and collect (or congeal) there - the term in physics, he says, is "centripetal force". [This does not go in a straight line, if you look it up in wiki, which has a pretty diagram for physics illiterates like me.] To balance or offset this tendency, centrifugal forces need to work continuously to pull things away from the centre. For Churches, this means continually dragging the gaze of everyone back to the Parish - and in my opinion the same is true for secular matters under any system (capitalist, communist, welfarist, fascist, distributist, environmentalist, Old Testament, etc.) In the UK we have secular Parishes, in the USA they have Counties (very small units with charming names), and I am sure most other countries have similar local cells which go to make up the whole, though I don't know what they are called in the relevant lingo.
Well said Rev Dan. Rev George’s is our vicar and he is great. Fr Clive ( RC priest).
Thank you for a fascinating discussion - I've watched several of your videos and am always impressed by the good quality both in terms of production and the content of your ministry.
Regretably I'm a Canadian ex-Anglican whose parish was pretty much drummed out of our diocese (our rector's wife was Swiss and being fluent in German he ended up going to a congregation in Switzerland after the bishop made it clear that he was NOT pleased with our parish as we wouldn't adopt his rather more extreme than most dioceses' LGBT teachings. Roughly 2/3 of our congregation also left most outside of the Anglican Church of Canada (the rest were merged into a neighboring parish whose was one of the most "liberal" in the diocese). And now last year our old church is being run by the diocese as basically a private chapel for services pretty much any time except Sunday. It is a tragic situation but a sign of our times I suppose - in our time we gave fairly freely but not once our Bishop told us we either had to fully embrace his teachings (which I emphasize were well beyond the ACC's synod teachings) or leave the church. Amongst other things it caused all three of my then teenage children to leave the church (even though I pray for them daily all these years later) I know I must forgive the now former Bishop but given the impact on our family it is only with difficulty I can.
That said I will always remember and cherish Holy Communion at Westminster Abbey when we were there in June 2016 (roughly 2 weeks before the Brexit referendum) as one of the high points of my spiritual life. As the rector said "this may be a national treasure but we are also a working church"
According to Oxfam's web site 10% of its employees are administrators, but another 25% are fund raisers & running shops. Just 65% goes to the front line workers, projects etc. It has 6 x as many active volunteers as employees. How many people in the C of E (employees or volunteers) are active fund raisers? How many people make regular contributions? How thoughtful & active are parish clergy in encouraging donations?
HR has nothing to do with parochial clergy? Not my experience in parish ministry in the last diocese I worked in. The Bishop used HR to do her .... work.
According to the Derby Diocese web site the bishop is responsible for 220 clergy. Surely any bishop would need a bit of professional help to deal with all the HR-type issues that inevitably come up with such numbers?
Incredibly like what has been happening in the church of Sweden the last decade. Parishes merged, massive increase of bureaucracy.
Interestingly - according to "NGO Monitor" the Church of Sweden's income significantly exceeds its expenses - thanks to EU & government grants? Also it seems to get directly involved in international & political issues?
@@chrislambert-shiels5291 The church owns large areas of land and forests. It does not get EU money. The church is not established (like the C of E) but is governed by politically elected people. Priests and bishops have no power. Politicians are more interested in supporting their own agendas than worshipping God.
It concerns me that we have so many more paid positions in the CofE these days than was the case half a century ago. Work which was formerly done by volunteers is now done by paid people. I surmise that the reasons for this are a combination of fewer willing volunteers and higher legislative requirements (Health and Safety etc.) requiring qualified professionals to do work where previously a volunteer just "did the best they could" and an insistence from on high that it must be seen that the proper people are being engaged to ensure that everything complies with an increasing regulatory framework. Then, of course, once a Diocese has an army of personnel, an HR department is needed, with more qualified people to ensure that the Church is compliant with employment law and contracts of employment, etc., are appropriately drafted and duly signed off. I think it is very similar throughout the voluntary sector.
So they accuse us of prejudice, based purely on their own prejudice? These are surely the people Jesus warned us of.
No, heresy is killing the Church of England.
Time for Holy Orthodoxy Dan! ☦☦☦
Pragmatism is a form of heresy, especially when it replaces God's Word as the basis for governing standards. So both.
The Common Fund/Parish Share is an entirely voluntary contribution by the parish to the ministry of the Diocese, but if you don't pay it the Diocese will basically threaten you with closure, or refuse to give you a priest. I attended a Diocesan meeting to be told that " if you can't pay all your Common Fund, on time, for the foreseeable future, your church is not sustainable." This is effectively demanding money with menaces... The Church Commissioners have plenty of money when it comes to trendy causes, just not for parishes.
Yes quite agree Dan..a good man at the front..full of the Holy Spirit..makes all the difference in the world
Happy Xmas Dan
46:00 “leave it to god”
funny how often god picks the old divinity school chums of those on the nominating committee. He sure does work in mysterious ways.
They are, in Jesus' opinion, all goats destined for the outer darkness of hell if they don't corporately confess their sin of ambition and avarice, repent and cry out for G-d the Father's mercy, *publically for real, and right now!* G-d doesn't choose them for this...
Jesus didn't say, "go start an institution and be employed in my name" He said, "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
I'm personally done with religion, and C of E.
But I love Jesus and always will.
Amen to that -- completely agree, we've just left the CofE and are now going to a congregational church which is not "business" oriented, but is "family of God" --- so glad for Makin Review, which opened our eyes !
You could say that the "spirit of Babylon" is GROWING in the CofE whereas the "spirit of Zion" is DECREASING !
Organised Religion is always a business -- FAITH is NOT !
Unchanging in an ever changing world = the Holy Orthodox Church ☦☦☦
The problem in addition to the raw cost of these uncessesary paper shufflers is that they have to justify their existence. Indeed each officer will have admin support or assistants, will need offices, expenses and their salaries are usually more generous than clergy stipends.
This means that at the very least the produce verbose reports that require reading at the very least or at the worst, policy that impacts on the work of parochial clergy and PCC's, not usually to make their lives easier or the mission of the church more effective.
The Telegraph bar chart is a total muddle - it's not clear if it is showing parishes (who donate the Parish Share) or dioceses (who pay clergy etc) - somehow they are both shown as expenditure? And it doesn't separate front-line Parish salaries etc from Diocesan ones - so illustrates nothing really!
Esmé Partridge (currently working on her PhD, so "publications" are her lifeblood) seems to be selective in her quotes & woven a story out of it. Many of the comments on the Telegraph article reviewing it are pretty puerile, to put it kindly!
The Telegraph isn't as bad as The Guardian! They *absolutely hate* religion, meaning Christianity, being a Communisocialislamic rag, not really fit as cat litter tray lining, and very expensive at that...
Doesn't money sent to the Diocese (quota, parish share or common) pay & house the Parish clergy? Could dissatisfaction with sending money to the Diocese actually reflect dissatisfaction with the clergy allocated to the Parish? How many parishes cover their clergy's stipend, pension, housing, car expenses etc by their giving?
Our church has always put more than asked into the diocesan kitty. But we are one of only two in our whole diocese that manages to do this.
We are told that this is so that we can fund work done in poorer parishes. This argument obviously has a shelf life.
The majority of us are evangelical in our church but we have a terrified vicar and a noisome minority of trouble makers who have a disproportional influence. Our poor vicar is convinced that his job is to pastor them all and this means keeping them pacified.
I can see an exodus of Evangelicals in coming years and then there will be one less church paying it's way.
It's all very bleak.
In our diocese (in the last year accounts are available): 65% of expenditure was on clergy salaries & their pension contributions, housing, moving expenses etc. Another 6% went on ordinand training, retired clergy housing etc. So about the same as Oxfam as regards overheads v mission. And some of the so-called overheads are administering church schools - are the nay-sayers suggesting the church relinquishes those? Church building experts - ditto.
Sounds like a job for Elon Musk. He removed 80% of the staff at Twitter (including most of the moderators) without any adverse effect on the company. In my personal experience too many bureaucrats don't reduce the administrative burden on the shop floor, instead they create unnecessary work to justify their own existence. Diversity and similar roles could be entirely eliminated and not be missed in the slightest.
I don't disagree with you! I take the view that the Church of England has some overdependence on bureaucracy. We need to get closer to it's original purview. Local Dioceses have their ways to deal with matters but HR and Diversity Officers should only have specific roles but there should be fewer. And more focus on more clergy.
There are some areas where it's a very unfortunate thing to have not enough Priests in Churches. St Martin's in Knowle in Bristol is awaiting it's next Priest ! So we're in interregnum at the moment in time! We might be fortunate in this instance. We will end up with a Priest in February of next year! Until then, we are waiting.
I serve in the Church Choir - and I have served in this capacity in two other churches in Hengrove and Redcliffe over 40 years. It would be a great shame if this goes down this path. I don't see it improving quickly.
There is a lot of admin, poor process. Most charities have that in common.
It's no different to my local Cricket Club. They now have paid people to prepare the wicket, serve behind the bar, check the kit to ensure it meets Safety standards, do the accounts and, of course, handle the safeguarding formalities for the Youth Section. This was not the case in times past when the players (of whom I was one) did all this themselves, but I think it is born largely of a heavier regulatory framework, and perhaps an understandable insistence by the insurance company that is must be dotted and ts crossed.
Well, something is! Apostasy, perhaps? However, on a more practical note, it does suit the Government to treat the Church of England as a large charitable corporation, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as its Chief Executive. This was very convenient after the Report on John Smyth. The public wished the Government to be seen to “do something about it” so, under the pretence that the Church of England is simply a large charitable foundation, under the control of the Government, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as its Chief Executive, subject to Government directives, the Government instructed Justin Welby to maintain certain fictions. Firstly, that the camps where the abuse took place were run by the Church (they were not, they were run by a Trust more connected to the Public School system, than to the Church). Secondly, that the Church of England was a sort of charitable corporation with the Archbishop of Canterbury as its Chief Executive (it is not - it is the mystical body of Christ and the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York are joint Primates, having joint spiritual charge of the souls of those under their care). So, these fictions were found to be very useful - the Church pretended to have run these camps (although it did not) and Justin Welby pretended that he was the Chief Executive of the Church (although he was not) so that, on the “buck stops with me” principle he could resign, taking no personal responsibility for the abuse, but very grandly assuming responsibility on high principle for something for which he was not, in actual fact, responsible. This is the modern Church of England - love it or loath it, this is what it is. A sort of branch of the Government charged with the responsibility of assisting the Government in pursuing its “woke” agenda.
Working on the "bullshit baffles brains" principle are we ?
1) The camps were supported & assisted with finance by the church
2) Smyth "cherrypicked" parts of the Bible to support his atrocities - something that many senior clergy were aware of.
3) Welby himself had a conversation with someone who expressed their concerns about Smyth's behaviour in 1978.
4) The church appears to have completely ignored the Ruston Report from 1982 - where these concerns were raised.
5) The church actively "exported" the Smyth "problem" to southern Africa - even assisting with financing of his "ministry" there (personal donations from Welby as well).
6) The church is now busily - "covering up - the cover up" - RIGHT NOW - with many parish churches even failing to acknowledge that these crimes even occurred - & not even mentioning the issue to their congregations - sweep it under the carpet & it'll go away attitude !
7) There is a major schism coming in the CofE -- about time too !
@ I think that we do need to be careful here. For example, it was established, I seem to remember, that a well known charity delivering aid abroad had some members on its staff who were guilty of abuse of various kinds. Yet many good and honourable citizens made donations to that charity, in good faith. Making a donation to a charity does not result in the donor assuming responsibility for the way in which that charity conducts its affairs. That is the responsibility of the Trustees of that charity. What you seem to be suggesting is that Justin Welby and other members of the Church of England made donations to the charity which ran these camps with a view to funding the abusive behaviour of John Smyth. That is a very serious allegation. Now, as to “cherry picking” the Bible to justify corporal punishment, it does need to be kept in mind that, at the relevant time, most Public Schools condoned the use of corporal punishment, so that the fact that these camps did administer corporal punishment would not, in itself, have rung any alarm bells. Both the teachers at the schools which recommended these camps and the parents of the boys who attended them, would have expected that, if a boy was, for example, caught smoking or drinking alcohol, for example, contrary to the rules of the camp, he might receive some form of punishment, very likely, corporal punishment - the same as he would have received if he had been at school. Of course, what we have here is sadist who administered corporal punishment to a degree which would have horrified the teachers and parents had they been made aware of it. As to the schools wishing to “hush it all up” and send John Smyth well out of the way, that does seem reprehensible, of course. However, the teachers and parents would have considered only the interests of the boys concerned. They did not wish to have a scandal, because the teachers did not wish their school to be associated with a scandal and the parents did not wish their son to be associated with a scandal. However, what is clear enough is that, if the teachers and the parents had all decided that they did, in fact, wish to “make a fuss” there is absolutely nothing which Justin Welby could have done to stop them and it was not really his decision, one way or the other. A cynic might suggest that the reason why the Church of England is to be fixed with responsibility is that it has plenty of money. The Trust has, I suppose, long since been wound up and the Trustees would not be responsible beyond the assets of the Trust in their hands. So, the Church of England must be found to be at fault - otherwise, there is no one with funds to be sued. The same cynic might also suggest that the lawyers are all now rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of huge fees flowing from the cases which might now be brought against the Church of England. A cynic might suggest these things - I, of course, would not presume to pass any judgment in the matter.
Who cares?
You don't, that's obvious. Merry Christ-mas, though.
GOD !!