- 87 -



when it was insisted that the discussants should choose from only

what had been deemed to pass all three, they did so by separating

into three schools of thought on 'Ministry' and two schools on 'Other'.

         Under Ministry the choices were:

              (i)   potential income as at present assessed;

             (ii)   75 per cent on potential income and 25 per cent on the

                     numbers of clergy and other pastoral staff (items 4.2.2.1 & 4.2.2.2

                     combined), (this choice would effectively create two

                     subdivisions containing 50 per cent and 17 per cent of

                     the gross share); and

            (iii)   potential income less the deduction for quinquennial

                     expenditure on buildings included under item 4.2.1.3.

         Under Other the two choices were:

              (i)   potential income as at present assessed; and

             (ii)   potential income less the quinquennial expenditure;

- in other words, two of the three that had already been chosen for

Ministry. It was pointed out to the group that these choices could

easily lead to them allocating both divisions on the same basis, that

that basis could be a continuance of the extant method of potential

income (for which, of course, the majority have an expressed predilection),

and that that would negate the value of making the division; but they

nevertheless confirmed that they did wish to consider the share as

being composed of different parts. Judging from the tenor rather than

the substance of what was said though, it may be that what most

really sought was not differential allocation, but differential

presentation - a format which would make it clear to parishes that

the greater proportion of their increasing shares was for provision

of clergy, a cost which, until recently, parishes have not had to

bear.

Previous Contents Next