CLERGY STIPENDS

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 249, 18 July 1942, Page 8

CLERGY STIPENDS

Pooling System Urged At Synod BASIC PAYMENTS

Opinion Of Vestries To Be Sought Stating that the Church should give a lead in the campaign for Christian order, the Ven. Archdeacon J. R. Young, in the Wellington Diocesan Synod last night, suggested that available funds should be pooled to provide for the payment of basic stipends, to clergy. He moved the following motion: That Synod approves in principle of this method of allocating funds to provide for the payment ofl stipends for the clergy of the diocese. (1) That the assessments from all parishes and parochial districts, and the available balance from the general Church fund be .pooled. (2) That all vicars be paid a basic stipend (say, £3OO p.a.), with an additional grant (say, £5O p.a.) for married men, and an allowance (of, say, £25) for each child till he or she begins to earn or reaches the age of 20. (3) That travelling allowances be paid on a basis such as that suggested by a sub-committee of standing committee last year, worked out on the average mileage covered. (4) That assistant curates be, paid a minimum stipend (say, £225 p.a.) with an annual increase (say, £25 p.a.) and other allowances as in (2). That the finance committee be asked to bring down appropriations on a basis such as this for presentation to the next session of Synod. Bishop’s Amendment. After some discussion, the Bishop, the Rt. Rev. H. St. Barbe Holland, said that at that late hour and with a thinning House, any decision which was made would not really show which way the diocese wanted to vote. He moved the following amendment, which was carried: —

"That synod asks the standing committee to ascertain from the vestries their opinion on some method analogous to that suggested of allocating funds to provide for the payment of stipends for the clergy of the diocese, with a view to the presentation if found possible of a practicable scheme to the next session of synod.” Moving his motion, Archdeacon. Young said that it suggested the approval of a principle. Nothing would do more to prove to the people of the community that the Church was taking seriously its campaign for Christian order. Clergy did not do their work for what they could get out of it; they were provided with a living wage so that they could get on with the service of their fellows in the name of God. The adoption of his resolution would eliminate the possibility of their being accused of seeking preferment in church work for additional monetary reward instead of for additional opportunities of work and responsibility. The present system of payment was thoroughly unsound in principle, because clergy who ministered to wealthy parishes wore well paid and those who ministered to less wealthy parishes were less well paid. He suggested instead the family spirit of pooling resources and meeting the needs of all. Seconding the motion, the Rev. G. B. Stote-Blandy said: “I feel it is a tremendous opportunity to make people see that we really do mean to Christianize the world and to apply Christian principles to ourselves. If we are not prepared to start with ourselves, 1 don’t see that we have any right to open our mouths anywhere.” Opposition View.

Canon N. F. E. Robertshawe opposed the motion. There was a great danger than a man with a fixed stipend would feel that he was assured of his job and did not need to worry bow he did it, he said. Every man should have before him the ideal of fitting himself to become the Archbishop of Canterbury. Even now it was not entirely a matter of money; men would go to parishes where they felt happy. If a man had the ability and the will to work it should lie recognized. The bishop said he would like to see the subject dismissed, because there was a possibility of a terrific debate, but any decision at that late hour and with a small House would not have the authority that one nt another hour might have. The motion involved a terrific principle: To every man according to his need instead of to every man according to his work. Differences of remuneration, he said, di'd not mean differeueer; of standard of living. The bisliop’.s standard of living, when he was not entertaining, was no higher than that of other clergy: but higher remuneration made possible entertaining in a way Hint was necessary to the leader of his Church iu the diocese. With the approval of Archdeacon Young he move'd his amendment, which, he said, would keep the subject alive.