DIOCESAN CONFERENCE 2005

INTRODUCTORY TALK

THE BIG PICTURE

We live in exciting times - in our country and in our Diocese. We are proud to be South African; we are proud to be a part of this diocese. We have much to be proud of: we might be a small diocese geographically, but there is nothing small about us.

Our Diocesan Office has a budget of R 3.8 million, but when you include the parishes our income climbs to R 30 million and we touch the lives of about 40, 000 people. When you add in our Parish based institutions like Ipelegeng, our outreach programmes like that at Randfontein and the Boitsoko Home Based Care Centre, our Children's Homes and Old Age Homes, and our Schools our total annual income climbs to R 200 million, our assets to R 800 million, and we impact the lives of close to 60,000 people.

We have inherited a rich legacy of work for the kingdom - built by the faithfulness of our parents, grandparents and those who have gone before us. Our inheritance is the fruit of vision, hard work and sacrifice and it is incumbent on us to continue that work and sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom. Much of our legacy lies in buildings - buildings that make it possible to do the work we do. But while buildings are still needed - we need to build at least 6 new churches in the next year or two - it is not our primary challenge.

Our primary challenge is, in the words of our diocesan vision, for the church to become "a vibrant Christian community". Indeed, Rodney Clapp, a senior editor at InterVarsity Press, goes as far as saying that there is no meaningful place for Christians in a post-Christian world simply as decent human beings, but only as "unapologetic followers of the way ... as a community called by the God" to live the gospel. And that cannot and will not happen unless we have full-time leaders equipped to lead us into faith and into community.

That is what this report is really all about. It is not about money, though money comes into it - it's about community and ministry, and about building upon the legacy of faith that we have received. Dr Gugushi said at a Synod many years ago: "If you pay peanuts you get monkeys." I'm not for a moment suggesting that our clergy are monkeys, but there is an important principle here, one we all know only too well - sometimes from bitter experience: "You get what you pay for." And it is of deep concern to me that we are struggling to raise up sufficient vocations of the calibre we need to ensure that the work of God will prosper.

A number of years ago I got into a discussion with a senior lay leader of one of our Pentecostal mega-churches. He was highly critical of us, and especially for the way we treat our clergy. When I responded and said that I thought that the more than R 1 million a year that they were paying their senior pastor was excessive, he responded by asking me what sort of salaries the heads of some of our major corporations were earning. When I said that I did not think that it was possible to make such a comparison he replied: "You're right. Their job is only concerned with the success of their organization. Yours is about the eternal salvation of your people."

I'm not for a moment endorsing his justification of mega-salaries, but I've never forgotten his words because he believed in the importance of the church at a level that few of us do. For him, the church was not an optional extra for those who like that sort of thing. Nor is it on the periphery of the real world, providing employment for people who can't cut it in commerce. For him, the work of the church is the most important work that could be done, a work of vital significance for everyone because it has eternal consequences.

The real question before us today is whether we believe that to be true and, if so, whether we are really willing to invest in it - with our time, our talents, and our income. If building a vibrant Christian community is truly a part of our vision, then quality clergy are not an optional extra. They are central to our goal and we will have to invest in them. Studies throughout the world, and in other dioceses in this country, have conclusively shown that quality, full-time clergy are essential to spiritual growth and a sense of community. And the one or two apparent exceptions within our own diocese, where parishes have grown under a part-time, self-supported priest, do not refute this, but rather simply reinforce the need for high quality clergy and the need to pay them what they deserve.

FRANKLIN REPORT

Someone recently said to me that there is nothing really new in the Commission's preliminary report. It's all been said before, he said. While I don't altogether agree, I guess that there is some truth in what he said - over the years the clergy package has increased with (or ahead of) inflation, but nothing else has changed much over the years, so the findings, inevitably, will not be all that different. But the report nevertheless raises some very interesting points:-

  1. Fifteen years ago, many parishes paid allowances; today all parishes pay allowances. The 3 parishes that are not at present paying allowances have paid allowances in the past and all will be willing to do so in the future.

  2. The second is that while there is a wide divergence in the total clergy package paid, the differences are evenly distributed along a gently sloping gradient. And that gradient reveals wide variations in the allowances paid by parishes that are very similar in size, geography and wealth.

But even if it is true that there is nothing really new in the Commission's findings, the same cannot be said of their recommendations. In essence they are making only two recommendations, both innocuously simple, but with enormous ramifications.

The first thing they are saying is that there are significant differences in our understanding of the role of our clergy. These are not simply differences in the understanding of different parishes, but deep differences of opinion within all the parishes surveyed. If I understand the report correctly, it is saying that we will never reach any meaningful agreement on clergy stipends until we have a clearer understanding of who, and what, we want our clergy to be.

Their second recommendation, and the one from which all other recommendations flow, is that, instead of pretending that parishes do not pay allowances and that all clergy are paid the same stipend, we should simply acknowledge and accept the reality - that all parishes pay allowances and that these allowances are in fact an integral part of the total clergy package.

If we accept this recommendation, it would have a number of positive consequences:-

  1. It would legitimate the status quo and obviate the need to radically restructure the whole basis on which our clergy are paid.

  2. The diocesan portion of the clergy package would then become a "minimum" stipend which would be supplemented by a parish allowance that reflected the unique situation of each parish and the skill, giftedness, and effort of each clergy person.

  3. If allowances are accepted as part of the clergy package, they would need, like all salary packages, to be reviewed on an annual basis, and probably on the basis of some form of performance assessment. This would need to be carefully devised to be fair, but it would promote transparency and honesty both between the parish and its clergy, and among parishes.

  4. Because remuneration will be linked both to clearly understood expectations and to performance, ministry will be more focused and effective and conflict will diminish.

There are, however, two potentially negative consequences:-

  1. The first is that it will foster competitiveness among the clergy;

  2. The second, that It would disadvantage smaller and poorer parishes that could not afford the same allowances as the larger and wealthier parishes.

My own belief is that if we accept the recommendation we will have taken the first step towards managing those consequences. Because, my friends, the truth is that, because we are already paying allowances, there is already competition among the clergy, and smaller parishes are already being disadvantaged. But because we pretend that we have a common stipend, we ignore the reality of those consequences. By accepting the recommendation we bring the negative consequences to the surface and can begin to manage them.

The Commission recognizes the fact that poorer parishes are disadvantaged and are proposing a voluntary "stipend augmentation" fund to address the problem. I guess it is really an "allowance augmentation" fund. We are asking you today to discuss the concept of an "allowance augmentation" fund only in principle. At this stage we do not need to discuss percentages or how such a fund would be administered. The question is simply, "Do we need an augmentation fund and, if we do, would we really be willing to contribute to it in addition to our existing diocesan gifts?"

THE BIG PICTURE

With that question, I want to take us back to where we started - the big picture. This Commission, as I have said, is not simply about money. It is about ministry and about faithfulness to God. It is about living our God-given vision and about what is needed if we are truly to mobilise our resources and become all that God would have us be.

We have inherited an amazing diocese - a powerhouse of peoples, buildings and income that already impacts the lives of 60,000 people. The challenge for us is how to increase that impact, so that it changes lives to the glory of God - our lives and the lives of others. If building a vibrant Christian community is truly a part of our vision, then quality clergy are not an optional extra. They are central to our goal and we will have to invest in them.

The real question before us today is to what extent we are really willing to give ourselves and to invest in the building of God's kingdom.

(Do you want to see related pages, the whole site or the non-frames Sitemap?)