4 - 1997
The future of the church
Power to the Parishes
Cut costs in the church - but how?
by Traugott Koch
The mainstays of the Protestant church are its parishes. Traugott Koch suggests that the parishes should found sponsorship committees to help finance individual livings for priests, but also contribute to cross_parish tasks. This could ease the pressure on central church funds which depend on church tax revenues. _ Traugott Koch is emeritus professor for the Old Testament at Hamburg University.
Nobody would dispute that the church is no longer able to finance many things by church tax revenues alone. Moreover, we can expect things to stay that way in the foreseeable future, so that the need to cut costs will be become even more pressing. Funnily enough, there is no frank discussion on which cost_cutting scheme to follow.
The need to economise is accepted like a fatal blow nobody can avoid. If there were a frank discussion, it would already ease some of this paralysing pressure. Like the mildew of resignation it lies on virtually every parish debate, particularly on young theologians. What to do if a whole class of budding priests feel they face definite unemployment?
So, which approach do the churches use to cut costs and axe jobs? Well, it’s that of the public_communal administrative and territorial reform: the principle of compensatory justice, e.g. of equality. Jobs are evenly cut according to quantitative demand aspects. That’s the whole approach. Doubtless, it’s very simple. Probably in a public administration reform it would not be different. But for the church and under a church law that defines the church as the congregation, it shouldn’t have to be like that _ unless you treat the congregation like an administrative unit that is subject to directives "from the top", from a superior authority. And, in fact, that’s the overriding impression, "Them up there decide and we have to do what they say." The results are fatalism and resignation. On the other hand, we should consider the following: Could we not see the unavoidable cutbacks as an opportunity to enhance the presence of the church, even in view of dwindling church tax revenues? Our motto could be: Power to the Parishes!
Here’s my suggestion: As far as possible, any living for a priest in a parish ("parish living" in the following) should be maintained and paid by mixed funding. One part of funding should be centrally managed church tax revenues and the other should be funds of a local (parish) sponsorship committee. This would imply the following:
- With exceptions (to be resolved), any living for a parish priest would only be halffinanced by church tax revenues on becoming vacant. If a parish wanted more, it would have to raise the extra costs out of the funds of its own sponsorship board.
- Cross_parish church livings for social welfare purposes (for example such as the living of a priest for AIDS patients in Hamburg) could be subsidised by church tax revenues, if a sponsorship board guaranteed to pay 50 per cent.
- In places of social conflict or problem areas, which are de facto without a parish and where consequently no sponsorship board can be set up, other parishes could play patron to the necessary sponsorship board so that one could proceed as in (1).
- All supraregional livings, especially those with administrative functions, primarily livings from the central church office, would be the first to be reduced. The synod of a regional chruch would set a good example by resolving to convene only once a year in future. Theme synods would be abolished (enabling them to finance two new parish livings).
In order to realise the ideas mentioned in (1) to (3), there is doubtless a need for a regulative framework. Here are my suggestions:
All sponsorship boards would be interconnected with the local parish councils and sponsorship boards co_financing jobs should have a say in choosing suitable candidates _ in concurrence with the responsible superintendent.
From advertising a vacancy to appointing a candidate, the relevant sponsorship board and parish council would be advised by the superintendent or a parish priest appointed by the superintendent.
All this preconditions that every priest is equal regarding ministry and mission. There is no such thing as a "half"_ministry or a "50 per cent" mission. #2$Only#1$ the salary can differ depending on the volume of the living. How else would we be able to curb impressions of discrimination due to a "minor living"? There is no such thing as a "full_time" or "part_time" priest. If a parish realises that its priest takes his ministry and mission seriously when performing his ministerial tasks, calling on parishioners, doing pastoral work and teaching confirmation candidates, and if everyone who comes, feels he takes them seriously, funding from the sponsorship board will soon materialise.
In any case, this suggestion will serve to maintain more livings and curb job cuts. And it’s quite alright that there will be competition for church livings. One could probably use a similar _ sponsorship board_based _ approach for other jobs within the parish (deacons, church musicians, nursery school teachers, vergers, etc.) There are two fears I would like to quell:
- Some people may say that only very pious, rich parishes will be able to afford such an approach. My answer: We can’t be certain that it is so. But even if it were or is: Why should it stay that way? Who could have anything against it? After all it would ease the pressure on central funds (from church tax revenues). After all, it would generate at least one more living. Are you against it for egalitarian reasons? Why shouldn’t one embrace diversity?
- People could object that a rich industrialist would then be able to afford a priest of his own.
Apart from the fact that the regulative framework would preclude this, industrialists who absolutely want a priest of their own, can take their pick nowadays _ we’ve already got too many unemployed theologians.
Maybe some of my ideas are not favourable. So why not make other suggestions? We could do a lot by starting a frank discussion on cost_cutting measures, thus easing the pressure of resignation. A frank discussion implies that any claim can be disputed and any suggestion criticised. But if you criticise, you have to come up with a different way of solving the problem.
Reprint from Lutherische Monatshefte. Sept. 1997, slightly abridged and translated for publication in this magazine.