“They had everything in common” Acts 4.32
a report of the Deanery Synod meeting on 22nd February.
Have the theological principles of giving been lost? This was the question Keith Robinson, General Secretary of the Diocese, asked us. The Diocese isn’t them’ it is us’, we, the people in the pews, make up the Diocese. Statistically there are 3.5 million people in the 277 square miles of the Diocese of London and 479 churches. There are 140 people in training for the priesthood and a further 76 exploring ministry in various courses; 68,000 adults are listed on church electoral rolls, there are 148 church schools, serving 46,582 pupils; 48 churches are in the middle of major building projects and 23 have projects in the pipeline. [Did that include us, I wondered, for the Diocese was sympathetic to our need for extension and the plans we have so far put before them.]
Financially the diocese doesn’t look so healthy. In trouble in 2003 they balanced the books for 3 years but have been knocked back by the clergy pensions bill. Common Fund hasn’t delivered the money needed and so the decision has been made to reduce the stipend increase to 2%. London is low in the league of clergy stipends. He reiterated, though surely everyone on Synod must realise, that the government does nothing to support the church – it all comes from within – from us. London and Southwark are the only two dioceses in the country recording growth in numbers and Southwark is doing well financially too, so why is London lagging behind? What prevents churches from giving to Common Fund? About half the parishes pay in full, of the rest some don’t and some can’t. Some parishes pay more so that poorer parishes can have the benefit of clergy they can’t afford – it is vital to have churches in the poorer areas as well as the affluent but to do this giving needs to increase by 9%. It seemed from the questions raised from the floor that it hadn’t been made clear to parishes that their contributions to Common Fund would have such an immediate impact on clergy stipends and Keith Robinson clearly intended to take that back and make sure the message got across. I felt some unease that our PCC had reconsidered how much it was giving to Common Fund with a view to reducing the amount and concentrating instead on our building / expansion projects. Was this a narrow-minded approach? Were we contributing to the reduction in our own clergy stipends and, looking at London as a whole, were we in danger of contributing to the closing of less affluent parishes where the need for a priest might be very great?