I'm writing this after watching the video that Andy posted on the church we long for. I would have laughed but I was too afflicted by the truth of it....
Still, I digress. We have money issues at our place. We don't have enough of it. Well, apart from the £230,000 we have sat in the bank that we cant bring ourselves to spend. That means we don't have enough money for current staffing levels whilst at the same time we are knocked back for any grant applications because they point out that we have £230,000 in our account. It's a reasonable point and a weird place to be.
In all this I have started to feel a might uncomfortable with our status as a charity and have come to the conclusion that I don't know enough about the charity commission and do not like the fact that we are in bed with them.
Now let me point out before we go any further, I think the charity commission is a good thing. They are not to my knowledge a bad body and I don't think they are asking us to do evil things.I just don't really understand why a church would benefit from affiliation with them.
I know at this point you're thinking, 'the woman's not been listening at the AGMs', either that or, 'they have a rubbish treasurer who hasn't picked up on the enormous financial kickbacks we could tap into'. Not so, I am aware that around £16,000 of our income will come as a result of our relationship with the tax man via our charitable status this year. And that seems to be it. Well, at least no other reason has yet been offered as to why we have adopted a constitution which is in line with the Charity Commissions needs. We cut a tax break.
Again in and of itself I am all for people giving us money, it's just that in opting for a constitution which will allow us this benefit we have agreed to make the Deacons the trustees of the church and they are accountable for the decisions and running of the church. At this point I become uncomfortable with the fact that my Baptist theology states that the members of the community will collectively make decisions and be responsible after having searched for the mind of Christ. When I have queried this discrepancy (I confess I have been late on the uptake of what was happening) the two responses that have come back seem to be a) I'll grow out of this opinion, b)£16,000 means it's worth it.
I am not sure it is. The community of Christ is a counter-cultural body, looking for different ways to live and spend and be in line with God's values. I'm not sure I want to strive then for another body's set of rules if they are not grounded in the seeking of Christ and the aims of the community to which I belong. I want all of us who have covenanted together to be responsible for good and for bad.
I am uncomfortable with changing church structure in order to get cash back and am a little alarmed by how out of kilter I am with others because of this. I have been in lots of meetings where the Baptist notion of the gathered body has been argued for and brought out to passionately defend (not least in our desire to keep excluding women ministers). It seems though that this theology may have a price and the tax man can set the tariff.
I agree with you on this one. If a church member came along and offered £16,000 per year to dictate church policy, we'd say no, wouldn't we?
ReplyDeleteIt's a tricky one, and I have to admit to still trying to think about it on and off (more off than on).
ReplyDeleteThe charitable status isn't all about getting money back from the 'Nice Mr Chancellor' as my treasurer terms him. It is also sometimes flipping expensive and restricitve.
From past experience it means that, for example, a church can only ever rent out its manse at >90% market value unless it can demonstrate that it is part of its work so to do (so if e.g. your minister retires you cannot let him/her stay there rent free/pepercorn rent but you 'might' be able to use it as part of an existing homelessness project).
It says one charity cannot benefit financially from another so, e.g. in order legally to let another congregation use your premises long term you need a bulding share agreement (which I think effectively ring fences each one's captial) and I think rent-free hiring is also legally problematic...
Then of course if you sell property it must be demonstrably at the highest value on the day... I won't tell you how many Section 34 (or whatever number it was) reports Dibley had to pay for against a collapsing property market.
Having said all that, it also prelcudes charities from agglomerating money for the heck of it, which I think is good as we all know churches with massive 'just in case' reserves. Charilty law only allows money to be agglomerated for a purpose and reserves to be proprotionate. That seems good to me.
Now, if you really want to get me going, it'd be trust deeds such that capital from sale of a church building can only be employed for cpaptial purposes... can't buy a manse, can't pay a minister, can't give it to homeless shelter, can't spend it for mission. There are millions of pounds that cannot be spent for this reason. Crazy.
Enough, this is toooo long.
Sorry Kez, but the LAST thing our church needs is letting everyone have a greater say in the decisions and running of the church - unless you're after a church in which absolutely nothing gets done because it's a huge talking shop where no agreement is reached.
ReplyDeleteOf course, God may speak to everyone so that they reach the same decision colectively but, omnipotent though God may be, I have doubts whether even his powers can stretch to getting a church to agree.
Case in point - our oodles of money sitting in the bank waiting to do good. How long have we had this and how much longer will we have it?
Antony
So, Antony, you're admitting that the whole Baptist idea of authority being found in the church meeting - the gathered body - is a farce?
ReplyDeleteLet's all get our Catholic on!
I've got to go with every member trusteeship, personally.
...but that's assuming first of all that we agree to ditch our charity status should it come into conflict with Jesus being our Lord.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should dismiss ideas out of hand just because they come a different denomination.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance I would prefer our infrastructure to run upon the lines of our political system in that the congregation elect the deacons to run the church. Important decisions would still be discussed and voted on by everyone but the small things - the stuff we get bogged down in over and over again - would be left to the smaller leadership. I feel the church would be more dynamic and that we might actually accomplish more. Less talk, more action!!!
Antony
There's nothing out of hand about it.
ReplyDeleteI believe God speaks through all manner of things and therefore when we meet we need to have an equal voice, and work together to discern what God is saying through us. (Baptist / congregationalist)
I don't believe that God has specially selected people whose role, as hearers of his voice, is ring-fenced.
(Papal / Presbyterian)
Things might go slower, but when looking to hear what almighty God may be saying, the time given to the process is always worth it. Plus, it will always take time to hear what the voiceless have to say.
I have reflected on this and come to the conclusion that this topic is, to be blunt, a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteDid God really intend us to be caught up with church infrastructure and hierachy? Did Jesus lay down guidelines as to how we should organise ourselves?
Or should we get with the program and concentrate on important stuff like, oh I don't know...how about poverty?
I love you Kez and appreciate your blogs but I can't believe that this is what is keeping you up nights?
Antony
P.S. This comment was not on Facebook so you can't delete your Facebook profile this time.
I do love it Ant when you get all beside yourself! I am interested in how much you say both politics matters and then when you don't like it, that it doesn't matter any more. How we are with each other, how we run ourselves and who we take money from and why matters a lot. And Ant...... I love you too.
ReplyDeleteHi Kez
ReplyDeleteWell I have managed at last to find and get onto this blog....but I'm not sure that I've got much further forward in understanding your rant against the present WBC constitution and/or the Charity Commission; which in my view have little or no influence on our spending decisions.
The Constitution
The WBC constitution adopted in Sep 2009...broadly follows the model draft provided by the BU.
The constitution explains (para 4.3) that all individuals, organisations, and activities (at WBC) are accountable to (WBC) Trustees (ie the CLT)and ultimately the Church Members Meeting.
In some churches in practice some weak CMM's might opt out of all decisions and leave everything to their CLT. Equally some overpowerful CLT's might assume to themselves decisions which should rightfully be taken to the CMM. Both these practices would be wrong in my view, and not accord with Baptist principles.
As ever the difficulty is in getting the right balance, so that important decisions ARE taken to the CMM, without overloading CMM with too many minor decisions which would cause (even more) paralysis and gridlock within churches.
This seems to me a pragmatic practical day-to-day way of trying to organise things. The difficulty is that often we will each have differing views of what are the important issues, and what are the minor details.
Finance and gift aid reclaims
I'm not aware of any finance issues past or present which have been/will be kyboshed purely because we have/dont have a particular constitution and/or Charity Commission oversight.
In practice our finance problems are usually caused by one or more of the following:-
- our income does not cover our expenditure
- we cant agree amongst ourselves whether to use our reserves to cover any 'overspending' and/or whehter we should cut back our budget to live within our means
-we cant agree whether there are other higher priority items on which to spend our reserves
- we cant agree whether to retain our reserves for some 'future' project that God may lay on our hearts in the near future.
In any individual case any of the above options MAY be the way God is wanting us to go...it is just that up to now He has not made it sufficiently clear enough to sufficient numbers of (members?)at WBC for us to reach a settled conclusion on the best way to proceed.
But in my view none of this is really a problem related to our past/present constitution...or the Charity Commission.
So until you can show me how/why the constitution and/or CC is the problem IN OUR CURRENT SITUATION then I'd prefer to accept the £16k per annum Gift Aid on offer so that WBC can make decisions as to what we feel led to spend that £16k on.
Brian Martin
chevetlane@hotmail.com
Hi Brian,
ReplyDeleteThanks for checking the blog out. I'm not sure I wanted to rant. In any case, my point is not that the constitution doesn't allow us to approach our members through a CC but more that we have a few trustees. Why is everyone not equally responsible? That's why we have a CC meeting. Within this we may delegate responsibility to a few but we would do this on the basis that the church body wish to do so not because we need to go through an outside non-Christian body saying so.
I am also unsure of the wisdom of accepting money that influences the way we run and structure ourselves and there's no question that it has. Many churches have adopted and reformed constitution not because they cared or needed change but in order to be in line with the Charity Commission and again the only benefit I see for us is the cash incentive.
Why are we a charity? On what basis? What is the reason for getting a tax break in the first place? We run as a Christian community because we are passionate about Jesus. I am not concerned about what the government think of this. It's also worth noting how the links of government seek to use churches through trying to create compliant young people in compulsory RE in schools and now seeking to link where possible partnerships in working, our own night shelter being an example.
How do we take the position of critical friend when they give finance and incentives for us to 'be good'? Further than that at which point to we take hostile stances when we believe governing powers to be out of step with Christ? The charity Commission are all well and good but I see no need for them and potential dangers. I also don't consider my faith to be a cause for charity in any sense and am wary of cash incentives.
You might be right about the rant part.
I want to rant . . .
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question should a church with quarter of a million in the bank be taking Gift Aid from the government? No.
An independent university study showed that 80% of church workers, work with the wealthiest 20% of people in the world. That shows that the collective wisdom of the western church is not being the counter-cultural body you are talking about.
In the UK the charities working with the bottom 20% are expecting serious government cuts.
How many upper & middle class churches take there £16,000 and give it ALL away blessing the poor in there local area?
I'm part of a community that lives with people who were once homeless. There are 18 people who eat 3 meals a day and we spend £7000 a year on food.
Half your £16,000 would feed us all for a year.
So, whilst you discern the will of God in your church meetings, sit on quarter of a million pounds and also take an extra £16,000 in taxes there are people in the UK needing a meal, shelter and warmth tonight.
more rant.
ReplyDeleteI need to be honest at this point and say I am a Christian. I am also willing to accept that I find it hard to discern the will of God.
So my discerning has to often come from the bible and again on many issues it is very tricky and I am still very lost most of the time.
The one area which I have found clarity and have chosen to act on is living with and being alongside those who are poor and homeless.
Here are a few highlights on why:
In the old testament the names for God was often:
Defender of the fatherless and widows
Protector of the poor
Rescuer of the poor
Provider of the poor
Saviour of the poor
Refuge of the poor
Jesus' arrived on the scene and told us to forget the institution, our power and our wealth and left us with a simple commandment:
Love the Lord your God & Love your neighbour as yourself.
Then he did a very straight forward talk leaving us with the Beatitudes as a set of ethical guidelines. (See http://wecan.be)
One of the wisest men I have met, said to me in lament with tears rolling down his face,
ReplyDelete"Think of your church council where the poor person, the hungry person, the sick person are never heard, where the rich and powerful always get their say.
Now imagine Jesus walking into that meeting, weeping, full of those peoples pain, anguish and hurt.
How would he react? Would he be calm? Would he quietly wait for consensus? or would his weeping bring the meeting to a halt? Would he allow the friendly deacon to take him out of the meeting for a quiet chat? Or would he cry out:
'Give away everything you own and divide it amongst the poor'.”
We already have the answer! Jesus did the discernment for us! He said it so many times but his Church chooses to 'hold another meeting' and ignore it.
The church in chorus say:
“It is much, much more complicated than that”
“We have to be responsible with our giving”
“The homeless man is going to spend our money on beer”
“Why can't she just get a job”
“Well he came to the communion service and stole money from Nora's purse”
“If we give her money today she'll only be at the door again tomorrow”
Jesus please forgive us. please forgive us.
Just writing this I can feel Jesus retreating in tears, leaving the church, going back to sit with with the homeless guy. The homeless guy will put his arm around Jesus saying, “I understnad, I know what it is liked not to be listened to.”
It is an abomination that a church can take £16,000 from the government whilst having quarter of a million in the bank. Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesars”. Why should the church - an unelected, rich minority get to decide how government money is spent?
Again I hear the cry, “That is outrageous, and it really is more complicated than that, and the law says we can have our tax back.”
Well you come and face my friend.
You explain why you have £16,000 of government taxes.
You explain how he should live on £65 benefit.
Why his food budget will go below £8 per week because the government can't pay more.
You explain why he watches the rich men's cars role up every Sunday.
Why all the churches in our area have cut their giving because the recession is affecting them.
I admit we never have much money, so we don't have to have the formal meetings or the decisions. We just try and:
Accept others without hasty judgement.
Show Compassion for those who are without shelter or food.
Be Generous with the resources we have been given by God and have an openness to what God may bring us in the person of a stranger.
"I saw a stranger coming and
I put food in the eating place,
Drink in the drinking place
Music in the listening place,
And in the blessed name of the Triune
He blessed myself and my house...
And the lark said in her song
Often, Often, Often,
Goes the Christ in the stranger's guise:
Often,Often, Often,
Goes the Christ in the stranger's guise."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous. I'm not sure why you've kept you're name off or why you think you need to.
ReplyDeleteI liked your comments although maybe there are perhaps some caveats to your points. The church in the western world has many many points to weep over. I agree with much of what you say but my deepest experience of living in church communities of various types has been that of genuine searching for the way of Christ. Even when it really doesn't hit the mark.
There has been massive diversity in this for me and much of it I have struggled with in standing in judgement or calling out that we're not seeing Gospel imperatives. And In my arrogance or foresight I think I have been right about many of these things.
I have also though been brought into complete humility when I have watched a community over winter work and labour hour after hour on top of their own jobs and family commitments to run a shelter for those with no homes. I have watched as people have befriended, taken in and nurtured some of the most unattractive and unsafe people in our societies, giving sacrificially and continually building relationships.
It is very hard in large communities to keep consensus and deep bonds but the searching for the mind of Christ in a gathered group then becomes not a cliché but all the more important in genuine desire to form deep bonds and give.
Like I said though I agree with much of what you say. It's not that we are affluent that I think we should not have the 16k this year, it's that I want no part of it when we form ourselves in structures so as to receive the cash. And yes you are right, under no circumstances should we be almost paralysed by having 230k in the bank. It's just wrong.