How NOT to Raise money for New Churches

I have been a member of the Sydney Synod now for ten years. One of the things I appreciate most about the Synod is that it is generally committed to following the Bible as God’s Word and to considering our theological commitments before making decisions. Which is why I am disappointed with the decision made by the Synod last year to impose a levy on every parish to raise funds to buy land for new churches in ‘greenfields’ areas.

A levy is a tax for a specific purpose. This levy has been charged at 2.24% of each parish’s Gross Operating Receipts meaning that it will raise $2 million in 2013. It is taken in 10 monthly installments (commencing in March) along with Parish Cost Recovery charges and is allocated to the Mission Property Committee. While the initial approval is only for one year it is intended to make this an ongoing charge.

I want to make clear that I am NOT disappointed because we are committed as a Diocese to planting churches in new growth areas. Nor am I disappointed that the Synod decided this project should have priority over many other worthwhile projects. What IS disappointing is that we chose to raise the funds by imposing a levy on the parishes.

Reflections on the Levy to Purchase Land for New Churches

On Wednesday night our diocesan Synod decided to impose a Levy (a tax for a specific purpose) on every parish in the diocese of 2.24% of Gross Operating Receipts in order to provide $2 million per year to fund the purchase of land in new growth or 'greenfields' areas of the diocese. (Another article from the decision is on the Sydneyanglicans website.) The money will be given to the Mission Property Committee to purchase land for new churches when it becomes available. While I agree that we should be seeking to buy (at least some) land in these areas, I think the levy was the wrong thing to do for a number of reasons:

1.  A Levy is a blunt Instrument. Although we might say that it is fair because each church pays an equal percentage, it cannot take into account the different situation of each parish – the fledgling versus the established; those that have significant incomes from rentals or trusts versus those that have large debts; those that have good numbers of relatively wealthy members versus those that have a large percentage of unemployed or working poor. There is currently NO provision to exempt or to help those churches that will struggle to pay the levy. While 2.24% might not seem like much it will represent at least $2,000 in the smallest churches and obviously much more in larger churches. All this is extra money that has to be put in the plate!

2.  It will hurt the smallest churches.  There were a number of comments from very small churches - some of which struggle to pay their ministers already (one admitted to only paying their minister 65% of the recommended / minimum stipend) that this could be the last nail in their coffin. Whether a small church is shrinking or growing, if they are struggling to pay their bills already, this will be a cruel blow. It is worth remembering Paul's words in the context of the appeal to the Corinthians for support for the churches of Palestine: 'Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.' (2 Cor 8:13)

3. It will have a negative impact on churches trying to grow. Almost every church has to increase its budget a few percent (perhaps 4 to 5%) every year to cover cost increases (salaries, power bills etc.) Churches that are seeking to grow are often seeking to increase their budget more - especially when they are creating new paid ministry positions or have some other special project. This can often mean an increase of 10% or more from year to year. The extra 2.24% on top of this will make it that much more difficult to reach budget (ie. pay staff) and has (anecdotally) already led some churches not to seek to grow their staff and in some instances not to replace staff that are leaving.

4.  Has the MPC considered alternative models for church planting and land purchases? The MPC did present some examples of what has been achieved, but they seemed to present a simple model of one church per suburb, with a large (350 seat) auditorium and associated spaces. + one residence. The question is whether this is a realistic or even an appropriate model. Should we aim for a few smaller and a few larger churches? Or space the church buildings out more and aim to plant smaller congregations in school halls in between? Or just build a school which will have a community church? Or a retirement village? The models they use will determine the amount of money they need. We at least need the MPC and others to do the research and consider alternatives.

5.  Taxing Churches to support an external ministry vision is un-Biblical. A key passage here is 2 Corinthians 9:7 'Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.' While Paul is trying to urge the Corinthians to give he also emphasises that it should not be under compulsion. Christianity is a religion of grace! Leaders ought to lay the vision and the need before the people and allow them to give out of a generous heart. I wonder if the apostles ever thought of getting Matthew or Zaccheus to use their skills as tax collectors to collect the offertories of the early church? What we ought to have is an appeal done properly with the full support and zeal of our diocesan leadership!

6.  We Need More Money than Can be Raised by this Levy.  We actually need to raise more than $2 million dollars per year to fund not only the purchase of land, but to support church planters, re-vitalise existing ministries, build new church buildings and much more. We haven't yet addressed the fact that our losses in the GFC mean we are now spending at least $2 million per year spread around the diocese (through the regional councils) LESS than we were five years ago!  I think we ought to aim for $5 million per year - and I think that is more likely to be raised through properly coordinated appeals than through levies.

And a late addition:

7.  It Puts Property Before People.   The levy is all about prioritising the purchase of land in new areas. Although we have recently lost much of the money that was being applied to growing ministries (through regional councils etc), our first response at raising new funding is not being applied to people but to property. I for one think it is a bad look!

I would love your feedback - anything here I've got wrong / misunderstood / overstated?

My Response to Draft Diocesan Funding Principles and Priorities for 2013 - 2015

At the Sydney Anglican Diocesan Synod in 2011 the leadership presented a draft of the funding principles they believe we ought to adopt over the next three years. This is a response to the major financial disaster that the diocese experienced after the GFC in 2009. The drafters asked for feedback. Here is what I sent:

SUBMISSION RE. DRAFT STATEMENT OF FUNDING PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIES 2013 – 2015

1. I agree that the significantly changed financial situation of the diocese gives us an opportunity to re-think the principles we adopt in budgeting and spending the resources which God has given us, however I disagree with many of the specific recommendations of the paper.

2. I suggest that any principles we adopt must reflect our theology – especially our commitment to the priority of local congregation - while not discounting the value of ministries which serve the network and those missional activities which seek to grow the Kingdom of God without immediate benefit to any one local congregation. I would suggest that we also believe that the Archbishop and his leadership team are servants of the diocese. The diocese is not defined by the existence and ministry of the Bishop(s). To claim that the ministry of the Archbishop is an “Anglican Essential” and should therefore be funded – as a first priority – by the parishes is inconsistent with our theology. If we were to define “Anglican Essentials” I believe we would choose the Word of God and the Doctrine of the 39 Articles and BCP rather than Episcopal Leadership and membership of the national church.

3. The document appears to start with the assumption that the parishes must pay more. The fact that net receipts of the parishes has increased does not mean that the parishes should be required to pay more, but rather that the parishes are already paying for the bulk of Anglican ministry in the diocese. The move to imposing a levy on parishes in addition to ‘parish cost recoveries’ is a significant departure from existing policy and should not be assumed. The change in financial situation: ie. The decrease in funds available to the EOS and the DE, does not in itself constitute a reason to increase diocesan levies on parishes. The case might be made that the parishes are already funding the bulk of Anglican ministry in the diocese and that they are best placed to make decisions about where their money can best be used for mission. The first assumption of those involved in the budgeting process should be the ‘zero levy’ option and this option should always be made available to Synod.

4. The financial difficulties now faced by the DE and EOS highlight some imprudent decisions by the trustees of these endowments regarding distributions. Trustees of both the EOS and the DE ought to take a prudent approach and aim to maintain – and if possible increase – the value of these Endowments over the long term. It would not seem unreasonable to assess this by comparing the real value of funds held at the beginning and end of the incumbency of each Archbishop. While diocesan funding ought to be considered holistically it does not seem prudent to merge the EOS and the DE, but rather that expenditure of each endowment ought to be spent on the highest priority items which fall within their purview. It would also be appropriate to make details of expenditure of the EOS open to review by Synod.

5. The position of Archbishop and membership of the national church may be considered Constitutional requirements or essentials and have a high priority in funding, but this does not require that they be funded by a levy on parishes. In fact these expenses (and possibly a number of others) should be the first priority of expenditure of moneys sourced from the EOS and DE respectively.

6. The decrease in real value of the EOS in recent years seems to be preciptitated – at least in part – by the EOS spending more than what is prudent. Such a situation would suggest that, notwithstanding recent cuts, the Archbishops ministry team may need to be further cut. There should be no assumption that funding shortfalls should be made up by levies on the parishes. Fundraising through voluntary contributions for specific ministries should be seriously considered. There is no necessity for the Synod to prioritise spending on regional Bishops / Archdeacons simply because the EOS does not have sufficient funds to maintain current numbers. Genuine consideration ought to be given to creative solutions (including Bishops who are also Rectors and to fundraising). Reducing the number of regions (and Bishops) should not be ruled out. If the Archbishop wished to supplement EOS funds with Synod funds the ministry case would need to be presented in an equivalent way to every other request for Synod funds.

7. The ministries which the Diocese as an organisation is best placed to conduct are those network ministries which:
a. serve the parishes and are best combined (eg. Insurance, property trust oversight, general legal services, Professional Standards Unit)
b. involve ministry recruiting and training (eg. MT & D, and to some extent, Moore College & Youthworks college)
c. involve the development of extra-parochial ministries (eg. tertiary ministries).
d. Involve the development of Diocese wide ‘helping ministries’ (eg. Anglicare)
e. Involve long-term forward planning activities (eg. Mission property Committee)
Other ministries (including support of new ministries) may be desirable to be funded by the diocese (as in the past through regional councils), but may be better funded through a diocesan ministry development fund sponsored by the Archbishop and funded through donations in response to presentation of the specific needs

8. There is no justification to extend the idea of parochial cost recoveries to cover ministries which are not obviously parochial costs. Notwithstanding the above statement, it is likely that a careful review of Secretariat functions may find additional costs that can legitimately be called ‘parish services’. The cost of running Synod could legitimately be argued as a cost to parishes, provided other organisations that are represented are likewise charged (colleges, Anglicare, Youthworks etc.)

9. Serious consideration should also be given to raising funds from non-parochial Anglican organisations in the diocese, including Schools, ARV, Hammondcare etc., where such organisations trade on the name ‘Anglican’ (or even ‘Church of England’) or where they appoint licensed clergy, invite the involvement of the Archbishop’s ministry team, have representation at Synod or use the services of the secretariat.

10. Serious consideration should be given to the Archbishop and bishops leading a fundraising effort to raise funds for mission activities which are not able to be funded by synod allocations. An obvious area would be support for the creation of new ministry positions. (To be determined in consultation with Regional councils).

11. As a matter of principle I believe that any specific ministry funded through Synod grants (which is not a parochial service ministry) should only be partially funded (with the rest made up by fundraising) and for a limited duration. Ongoing assessment of effectiveness of grants should be undertaken. It should be noted that some Synod allocations are to organisations which already incorporate this principle (eg. TEMOC).

Richard Blight
29th February 2012

Sorry for the abbreviations. Any explanation needed just ask in comments.

Synod Vox Pops

This video by Anglican Media gives you an idea of what attenders think about Synod.

AND Check out this post by Nigel Fortescue for a taste - in fact a highlight!



Synod Vox-pops from Sydneyanglicans.net on Vimeo.

Peter Jensen on 'Being Human in this Glittering City'

In the last week I have been attending the Annual Synod of the Sydney Anglican Diocese. One of the highlights is always the Presidential address given by the Archbishop. This year the address by Peter Jensen was on the topic of 'Being Human in this Glittering City'.

He began by suggesting that this 'glittering city' of Sydney began as an experiment in human nature. "One of the architects of the whole [transportation] scheme was the Home Secretary, Lord Sydney. For him, transportation was not a penalty in itself, and even convicted felons did not lose all the rights of an Englishman. He thought that after a relatively brief settling-in period under the rule of military authority, the new colony would be self-governing, run by morally improved convicts."

In what sense can humans be 'improved' or even 'perfected'? He then goes on to talk about the dream of improving people, including convicts and aboriginals; the education of the early children in the colony before making the point that our view of humanity will have direct implications for how we treat people - like the first Australians, Prisoners, the needy, the dying and the young.  He provided a reflection on the trial of so-called "ethics classes" as a challenge to Special Religious Education (Scripture) and challenged us to rethink our vision for Christian education. He then went on to speak about the financial situation of the diocese and - more importantly - the progress of our mission.

It was a great encouragement to think Biblically about human nature ('Anthropology' for the academics) and to make sure we stick to the gospel mission.  For me the address is the highlight of Synod. Well worth a read or listen!

The full text is available here.

The Audio Version is available here,

and the video is available in two parts on Vimeo, Part 1, and Part 2.

. . . . .