CHURCH FINANCE.

Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18067, 9 July 1930, Page 8

CHURCH FINANCE.

PARISH ASSESSMENTS. QUOTA SYSTEM CRITICISED. ANGLICANS SEEK REVISION. k Considerable opposition to the system by which every parish is expected to reach certain sums each year for missionary purposes was voiced at the session of the Waikato Diocesan Synod this morning. Rev. G. T. Beale (Stratford) moved: “ That the present system of quotas for the Diocesan General Fund, the Maori Mission and the Board of Missions be abolished and that each parish be given detailed information of the needs for which money is required, and that it be left to the rural decanal boards and the Taranaki .Archdeaconry Board to decide the matter with the parishes.” “ Commercial Tendency." Mr Beale said the question of quotas had always been a thorny one. Last year the results showed that quotas had not been a success. It might be contended that there were causes which contributed to the non-success of the system. Such an outlook was a passive policy, and he would not be a party to any passive policy in extraparochial matters. The quota system had to be purely voluntary, and in practice it was looked upon as a debt owing. There was a tendency to commercialise parish finance.. At all costs they should allow the spiritual side of Church work to predominate, not the commercial side. A list of quotas set out in a bold demand reminded him of an income tax demand. Support to the motion was accorded by Rev. E, H. Atlcey , (Putaruru). A full explanation of the system of quotas was given by Mr A. B. Whyte, Diocesan secretary. The. Vicar-General said last year the quotas were arbitrary and were arranged by the two archdeacons. The results were not satisfactory, and standing committee had decided to fix the quotas according to a definite principle. The view that the problem would not be solved by referring it to the rural decanal boards was expressed by Mr F. A. Swarbrick (Te Awamutu). One possible way of arriving at" the quotas was on the basis of parish population. The present system tended to penalise a well-organised parish with a good population. Canon E. H. Strong (New Plymouth) said some person last year had placed £2O in one of the mission boxes, resulting in an increased quota for the parish- This quota had to be aimed at for this, year, although there was no reason to believe that another £2O would be forthcoming in the same manner. Order Resented. “ I recently received a very peremptory order from the Diocesan office pointing out that the quota on a certain Sunday’ had not reached the amount expected, and that I must go around and collect the balance,” the canon added. “My duties as a parish priest do not include the collection of taxes. (Applause.) I would never dream of doing such a thing. It is for these reasons that there is general unrest about, and why I will support the motion.” He concluded by expressing sympathy with the archdeacons in their efforts to discover a fair and equitable system. Archdeacon G. H. Gavin (Waitara) said the clergy greatly resented the suggestion from those in authority that if the moneV was not forthcoming the clergy were not doing their job. (Hear, hear.) He supported the abolition of quotas, and appealed for a sense of honour so that efforts would be made for free giving to all the funds mentioned. The archdeacon added that the system of quotas in operation now was about as equitable as it could be made to be. , . Mr J. G. Wynyard (Te Awamutu) queried if the rural decanal boards would handle the quotas any more practicably than the business men on standing committee. The dean did not agree with the contention that the present system was well nigh perfect, but he did consider that highly organised parishes were penalised, lie moved an amendment: “ That before the quotas are finalised the archdeaconry and rural deanery r boards have an opportunity of discussing the matter and sending in their reports to standing committee.” Parishioners in Ignorance. Canon J. L. A. Kayll said he felt the quotas eliminated all interest in the objects for which the appeals were being made. Detailed information of the needs for which the money was required was not given. He did not see why one parish congratulated for raising a certain sum and another parish ignored for not reaching the quota, but exerting greater effort. The trouble was that parishioners knew nothing about the extreme financial stress and unsatisfactory living conditions associated with the missions. Rev. P. Cleary drew attention to the unbusinesslike methods of collection. The money was expected to be contributed on certain flays which were quite unsuitable. The whole system lequired reorganisation. The amendment was then put and lost. In reply, Mr Beale said if the pre-' sent system was continued he was satisfied that was the most equitable. The motion was lost narrowly on a show of hands.