CHURCH FINANCE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 2692, 12 October 1889, Page 6 (Supplement)

CHURCH FINANCE.

Mr T. Wei.ls read the following paper at the Lay Conference, in Auckland : —•

Before going into my subject let me say that the term parish will in this paper include parochial districts, unless where the restricted sense is manifestly intended. In addressiug myself to this subject I ask the conference to remember that vital religion is a personal matter between the individual and his God, entailing certain duties absolutely untransferable, and that to find funds wherewith to carry on the business of the Church is essentially a laymau's duty. No excuse, such as the common one that the parson does not do his duty can reJieveus of ours. In thi> spirit I propose to treat my subject. And now, what is to be said in my thirty minutes. I will modestly endeavour to do two things, viz ; to point out some drawbacks, and make some suggestions. With some diffidence I comply with the Executive Committee's request to read a paper on this subject. I understand the "Committee wish it done by a country member, and this will account for their passing over so many city churchmen, much better qualified than I, for this important task. Permit me to apologise for its imperfections. DRAWBACKS. Of the drawbacks of our present system, I will mention four which stand in their baneful effects in the following order :— 1. A want of that vitality, zeal and determination in our religion that would keep our thoughts and actions more nearly abreast of our professions. 2. A want of allegiance to the Church and its duly constituted authorities. 3. A miserably narrow congregational spirit rampant throughout the dioeese ; even good churchmen, so-called, with few exceptions, think only of, and only for their own parish wants, ignoring their diocesan and provincial responsibilities.

■i. A want of a more systematic method on the part of the Synod and the parish vestries in dealing generally with Church finance. EFFECTS OF THESE DRAWBACKS. These drawbacks must bo so patent to all here present that proof, even if time permitted, would bo superfluous. Yet we talk and arrange our Church business as though these drawbacks did not exist. The majority of our so called churchmen think ouly of the Church as a christeuiug, marrying, or burying institution ; or an institution to bo appealed to for aid when they are in trouble. They fotget that even for these purposes its existence must be maintained ; or if they do not forget they meanly shirk their liability, and leave the whole burden of maintainance to a few of their co-partner?. In another great section, the men attend church occasionally, contribute their odd coins, but, for the most part, delegate by default their Christian family duties their regular attendance at worship, and their interest in tho Church maintenance to their female relatives. How would their secnlar concerns prosper on these lines ? Call a parish meeting, and what happens? It is numerically a good meeting if ten per cent of the congregation attend, and these will mostly be the worthy few on whom the burden of maintenance falls; the duties of vestrymen, Sunday school teachers, lay readers, sick visitors, and other like workers. And these few, be it noticed, mostly form the congregation on wet Sundays. Tho bulk of the people disregard the notice, know nothing of the business, and are too apathetic to ascertain. They are enly interested when finding fault with the parson, the sermon, the choir, the instrument, the draughts, the lights, the dust on tho seats ; quite ignoring the faet that if all others treated the Church as they do, there would be neither parson, choir, nor lights. Again, in the parishes it ia no uncommon occurrence to find parson and parish practically troating the Synod with contempt ; utterly ignoring its resolutions, and withholding thoir allegiance from the Tery authority they helped to set up. and to support which they stand pledged to their Maker. What does it concern tho con-

gregationalists if half the diocese is without ministrations so long as their accustomed full services ara not curtailed, or they are not compelled to make persoual or parochial saeri/ioen. With all this the Synod appears powerless to grapple. Year after year it meets, deliberates, passes resolutions, culls upon the parishes to support sundry funds, (which they do or do not as it pleases them) and thus many of the best devised plans of the Synod are marred. Ought not the Synod to be able to protect itself. In the matter of finance, both in the Synod and the parishes, it would be difficult to devise a more unsatisfactory hap-lmard system than that generally in vogue. Under it both Synod and pariah have but a vague idea what tho amount at their disposal will be until it is actually received. As regards tho Synod's finances, if all the parishes help, the Synod's requirements will be met; certain country clergy will get aid, and certain out-districts will be visited, but if all the parishes do not help, then the Synod's schemes are marred, the aid oannot be given, or the Home Mission work done. The same in the parishes ; at the annual parish meetings stipends are voted and other expenditure authorised, on no defined plan. If the money comes in, all well, but if not, as often happens, a species of parochial composition is made, by giving—the parson, generally —a dividend instead of the full amount promised. .SUGGESTIONS KOtt THE FDTUKK. I come now to the more difficult task of making suggestions as to how we may work to a more stable state of things. With great diffidence I submit the five following propositions, viz. : — 1. Authority to Assess : That the Diocesan Synod be invested with authority to assess parishes, and to enforce such assessments. 2. Purpose and Mode of Assessment : That assessments for dioc-jsan purposes be made annually by the Synod in session, and that these rank as a first charge on the funds of the parishes. 3. Parochial Estimates : That parochial estimates of receipts and expenditure, including the diocesan assessment, be considered pnd adopted by the parishioners at their annual meetings in January. 4. Diocesan Clergy Endowment : That a diocesan clergy endowment bo raised for the purpose, maiuly, of assisting the out districts, and, secondly, subsidising parochial efforts. 5. Diocesan Building Endowment : That a diocesan church building endowment be raised, from which loans are to be advanced, to be repaid without interest. N.B. No parish to be permitted to borrow a greater sum than its previous year's ordinary income. As to proposition 1 : Authority to Assess. —A comprehensive, reliable, and workable scheme of finance is a necessity to any board of directors, if they arc to Ido good work. It is equally necessary to ' the Synod and its executive. Before the I Church's business cau be well administered, we must put the Synod in the j position of saying that certain sums can i reasonably be levied in tho several i parishes for diocesan purposes, and that 1 the then submitted appropriations are I the best uses to which these levies can be put. This is practically the process \ followed by the Wesleyaii conference with i SH JCOSS, ! Proposition 1 : Purpose and Mode of i Assessment. -As to the purpose ami scope of the assessment, it should cover the amount required for the Home MNsion, Melanesian Mission, Pension Fund, ! Diocesan Synod expenses, and tho Synod's general votes. The Sunday offertories I now asked for bj the Synod for these purposes would not then be required. As to the plan of the assessment, the Standing Committee should prepare an estimate of diocesan requirements, and a draft schedule of assessments for the enI suing year, and submit the same to the j Synod. When considered and agreed t">, these would become the appropriation and assessment for the ensuing year, as from the first of January following. Tho 1 amount would be payable in four quar- ' terly instalments, and the parson and i vestry bound to sec them lirst paid. To I induct the scheme, the present aid given i to these funds and the amounts contributed in loyal parishes might form the basis of calculation. Proposition 3, Parocial Estimates: It would bo necessary to hold s-tnUitory meetings of the various vestries in December for the purpose of framing a draft estimate for the ensuing year of parochial receipts and expenditure, including the diocesau assessment. The draft; would be submitted for the consideration of tho annual meeting of parishioners in January, who would adopt it or ainend and adopt it. There would thus be a well-considered statement of the parish publicly placed before the congregation, and something definite to work to. The parson, vestry and all church-workers should impress upon the members that each aud everyone was morally bound to contribute to it to the best of his ability. A minimum subscription should bo collected from every member, the indigent sxcepted. This would entail a house to house canvas, but I would remind oi»y church oflicers that this is now done in mauy country districts where, to keep the Church going, subscriptions in addition to offertories and seat, rents are so collected.

DIOCKSAN CLERGY ENDOWMENT. As this is new and very important I purpose to deal with it more fully. The creation of Buch an endowment is a matter of vital importance, and should bo proceeded with at tho first opportunity. Oneo started, might we not hope that to help the impoverished country clergy, and to spread the truths of the Gospel before the isolated settlers some generous Edward Costley might arise ? Again, would not the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Society for the Propagation of the hplp, if asked ; they have helptd otlier Dincescs. The following are a few of the facts as to the help promised for Diooesau oloray endowment by the Society for Promoting Chri~tiau Knowledge alone, duiinj; tho past few years : —In ISSI, to the Diocese of Riveriua £1000, to meet £4000; in 18S5, to the Diocess nf Colombo £2000, to meet £SOOO ; in ISSG, to the Diocese of Brisbane £2000, to meet £SOOO ; in 1888, to the Diocese of Ruperts Land £2000, to mee £6000. lAm informed also on good authority that besides tho grants I have mentioned, and which I have learned of f torn the published reports of the Society, a grant of £2000 towards about £6000 was recently voted to Bishop Barry of Sydney, and that he also obtained help from tho Society for tho Propagation of the Gospel. Again, did not these great societies contribute to a similar endowment raised in this diocese by Bishop Selwyn ? Ido not wish to raise the old question as to whether the present beneficiaries are rightly or wrongly in possession of it, but to appeal to their high sense of Christian love and self-sacrifice and to ask them to say to the Synod, "we give it to you to form the nucleus of a truly diocesan clergy endowment. We will have no more of it while some of the country clergy arc in positive want." The cause is worthy of auch self-sacrifice. With so noble a start, if the diocese were visited on behalf of this fund by say two able city laymen and the archdeacons in their respective districts, and with the] help of the before-mentioned societies, good work, even in these hard times, might now be done. The income from this fund should be distributed among the various districts by way of subsidy, which, for this purpose, might be classified by the Synod thus : Class 1 : Parishes properly so-called. Class 2: Well-settled parochial districts. Class 3 : Sparsely populated districts. These subsidies shoald be paid on the amounts raised by ofl'ertories and subscriptions only, and in the proportion of say 2s, 10s, and 20s in the £ on the amount so raised in classes 1, 2 and 3 respectively. As in the case of the diocesan assessment, the standing committee should prepare and submit annually to the Synod

a draft subsidy sheet, based on the offertories and subscriptions of the previous year. The classification of the districts would stand until amended, but the subsidies .should be voted annually by the synod.

Proposition 5 : Diocesan Building Endowment.—lt is ,i matter much to be desired that we had a fund from which loans, without interest, in aid of church building could be made. The Wesleyans have ably led the way in this matter, and I trust the Church will soon follow. The task of from time to time, as population increases, providing the necessary church accommodation falls very heavily on the parishes for some years, and no portion of this burden is so galliug and hard to bear as the money to raise at the seven or eight per cent interest. Whether we raise this endowment or not, borrowing for building purposes, except to a limited extent, should be discouraged ; and no parish should be permitted to borrow under any circumstances n greater sum thau its previous year's ordinary income. The trouble referred to in the last paragraph, and many others equally well known and much moro serious, furnish ample justification for this restriction. I havo finished with the rive propositions for amendment. There are several other rarittors I should like to deal with did timo permit, but I must only stay to say a word on two points, PENSION FUND. The pension fund, which has been before tho Synod and tho epecial committee for the past two years, is only second in importance to the diocesan endowment, aud demauds tho best consideration, of every churchman.

Again, with regard to the cost etc., of management of the various trust funds, I can merely draw attention to the fact — vide Church Gazette of Ist Dec. lastthat eleven trusts whose incomes in the aggregate amount to £7,930 cost, in management £!>9O being, say, £8 13s per cent. The cost ut the ordinary commercial rate of o per cent would amount to £:W9 and would show a saving of £2!) I pur .inimin. This may be tho most economic.il ni'iuagcinent possible but it appears clearly lo bo the duty of tho Synods who appoint these trustees, to ask for an explanation, and, if necessary, to instruct them to put it on .such a footing consistent with security and efficiency. My propositions may sound like bondage, but they are in reality a step towards more freedom. Our Church indeed trust.-*, mid may .she ever continue to trust, in the devotion ami loving voluntary support of her sons ; bsifc will any such feel Ihoir liberty curtailed or their voluntary giving to God imperilled by the Church settiug before them, in proper order, its necessities, and requiting that theso necessities bo cou«ileru.l uud methodically dealt with ? Is system inconsistent with voluntary gi.'ing of cither moral support or substance!" I umw not; on the contrary, place, the Church'* uccessilics iu detail publicly before out , people, and shew that they ere nvoiwitiej, aud appeal to their love to God an 1 His services, and the result will bo a great improvement ou the present state ot* things. Let me, iu passing, say a few words on Voluntaryism. No word in connection with our Church is more misunderstood iu- misapplied. Our Creator has let'i with us the awful responsibility of denying his existence, or admitting it, and worshipping him. Having accepted tho latter position, wo uciso tu bo volunteers, and become wh.it tiro variously torni'jil sous, Huldiuru, surviu.t', etc. It theii only remains for us to choose tho par.ioular communion of Church members we elect to work in, and then to support it to the best of our ability with our service aud substance. Less than this in tho man who says I believe in God tho Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit is dishonourable and sinful. It is fuiliug tj " retider unto God tho thiugs that are God's," and will surely meet its duo reward. Even from a wordly point of view what can be more mean aud contemptible than to embark with others in an undertaking aud then leave the whole burden and venture with your co-partners. And yet how frequently this is done. Surely it must bo from a want of realising the position. Wherein lies the difference between such conduct and a direct breach of tho command, "Thou shalt not steal." If tho system of finance herein proposed wore in vogue, the plea of ignorauce oould not bo set up. There is no "royal mad " to sound finance iu Church matters any more thau iu secular. Before we can get. on the right road we must show that, as churchmen, we have a Christian business ou hand; that we havo a zealous concern for its maintenance ; that we are prepared to support it to the best of our ability with our time, talents and substance ; to sink self for its general good ; aud last, but uot least, to give a loyal support to tho resolutions of its authorities.

A sound and satisfactory state of finance under the circumstanced of this diocese, can ouly be possible with a general recognition among our people. 1. That religion is a personal mutter between the individual and his God, carrying individual privileges and- individual responsibilities, both absolutely unassignable. 2. That every person is bound to return to tho Giver of all good things a portion of his talents and substance according as God has blessed him, or brand himself a hypocrite. 3. That the parishes and parishioners jointly and severally, owe a like support to the Bishop of ihe Diocese and the Synods of the Church. These principles practically represcut the lines on which this conference can assist in getting these principles generally recognised and adopted, it will help to the solution of a great problem.

May God in PIU infinite wisdom guide our deliberations, un.l accept our unworthy effortN to set forth a high ideal of our duty in His service, to show His love for the cheerful giver, and to point to ihe neces-it.y for all things being done decently, mid in order.