« AnteriorContinuar »
confronts the Church, will respond with reliable tokens of faith. The N. W. C. was not undertaken to ensure the "adequate support" of the clergy at home and abroad. It was undertaken to make it possible for every member of the Church to have a chance to add a definite pledge of faith, to that sacrificial life that is the real and only possible support of the Church. Sacrifice supports the Church. Money multiplies or widens the Church's opportunities.
Of course in digesting the preliminary "Surveys" of the Church's field of duty and opportunity, the Campaign made estimates in terms of money of what an adequate equipment of the Church might cost-provided the whole membership of the Church should be aroused to the opportunity of assisting. There was no idea of raising an Endowment fund, as Fr. Haydn seems to suppose in his statement (page 151) that "a great capital fund was to be raised during the three years. I cannot see how it can be asserted that "societies and individuals" were "drawn in by fair promises of help" and "found themselves with their backs against the wall" (page 152), unless someone completely misunderstood the idea of the movement. In all the literature of the N. W. C., I find no hint of inducements to help the movement, based on assurances of success and unconditional promises of help. To questions asked during conferences, I never heard any other assurances of help, than the general statement that apportionments for local needs would depend on the total results of the campaign. Any lists of local apportionments made in diocesan circles, were necessarily tentative and conditional. While the survey included all types of need, (whether of material equipment or of current maintenance) yet there was no doubt whatever from the first but that the real objective of the whole campaign was to lift
permanently the standard of habitual recognized obligation of the Church's membership to the Church's work. And most certainly there were no assurances that appropriations for permanent equipment would be given preference over needs for current maintenance. Very probably many a parish, in canvassing its members, had the added zest of hoping that if every member did his best, and the total amount warranted it, there might come a substantial addition to the local equipment. But those parishes which regarded this as the chief incentive of their campaign, only mistook the real object of the movement. The objective of the campaign was not a capital sum. It was the lifting of the whole standard of habitual recognition of Church obligation, whether by weekly offerings, special donations, or personal service and devotion. It is difficult to know how to discuss the movement with any parish official who imagined that the Nation-Wide pledges of his parish were given on condition of receiving a huge "plum." I have read most of the campaign literature, and find nothing that could be consistent with such bargains as this would seem to imply.
The object of the movement is clearly stated in a pamphlet dated April 20, 1920, ("Results and Status of the N. W. C.") officially issued: "The hope was and is that through a spiritual transformation the interest and giving would be raised to a higher level and remain there; and that the Church would no longer be struggling merely to maintain existence, but would enjoy the abounding happiness of expansion and service."
Fr. Haydn's criticism is greatly weakened by inaccuracies which a little care might have avoided. It is not true (as he says on page 152) that the Council "appropriated for 1920 in excess of estimated receipts even while heavily in debt." This would leave one to infer that the budget
for operating expenses exceeded the estimated receipts, leaving a large debt to heap up interest over a number of years. In "Ammunition" (N. W. C. literature published September, 1920) page 44, the budget for 1920 is detailed: Among the items are included the deficits prior to 1919 (amounting to $266,357) and the Nation-Wide Campaign expenses (estimated at $380,000). Deducting these items from the budget, there is left a total budget for operating expenses of $3,691,515.77.
Now the estimated receipts (published in the Church at Work, October, 1920) were $3,983,000, from N. W. C. pledges and Church school Lenten offerings. Counting other sources of income, such as legacies, the W. A. United offering, W. A. pledges, and interest on investments, the total estimate for 1920 receipts was $4,298,000. (Church at Work, October, 1920). Thus the budget for operating expenses was at least $200,000 within the estimated receipts from pledges and Lenten offerings, and over $500,000 less than the total estimated offerings. The budget was made, of course, before the total receipts for 1920 could be known.
Full publicity was given to the facts that the Executive Council, on assuming its duties, inherited deficits from the old management amounting to $266,357; and that to this was added the Nation-Wide Campaign expenses, which totalled $344,066.
These two items appear in the statement at the close of the Budget Summary in Bulletin No. 2 (1921). The first item, and an estimate of $380,000 covering the second item, earlier appeared in "Ammunition," page 44 (published September, 1920); in the Church at Work, October, 1920, page 8, col. 1, par. 3, these items also are indicated. And yet Fr. Haydn asserts that the indebtedness was (page 153) "a fact known only to a select few," late in
December, after both "Ammunition" and the Church at Work for October, containing these items, were published. Fr. Haydn says that late in December the Treasurer, Mr. Franklin, "admitted" that "the indebtedness was $749,500 on January 1, 1920 (a fact known only to a select few), that it had INCREASED to $1,368,000 under the management of the Presiding Bishop and Council."
What alarming folly do these capital letters proclaim and expose? Simply the fact that in addition to the deficits, certain temporary borrowings were made to meet expenses, because of belated payments of pledges. To add these borrowings to the previous deficits and proclaim, in horrified tones, that the indebtedness was increased to over a million, without a word about how, meanwhile, the debts were being handled, is to give too slanting a perspective of the facts. Bulletin 2 states that on January 12, 1921, $305,000 had been paid on account of loans, more than covering all 1920 temporary borrowings. Fr. Haydn may have written his article before he saw this, but he surely had opportunity to see the January Church at Work, where (page 6) the treasurer announces that the actual operating expenses for 1920 were estimated to be less than the budget appropriations by $300,000, showing an estimated balance of $115,000. He may not have seen the Treasurer's report in the March Spirit of Missions, showing, for 1920, an actual balance of $150,472.42 of income over expenses; also showing that with what was saved on the 1920 budget appropriations, it was possible to pay during the year loans to the extent of $470,000, including the payment of the surplus to reduce by about one-third the N. W. C. debt, as well as wiping out the temporary loans made on account of belated pledge-offerings. This left (with balance due on N. W. C. of $191,703.22; deficit prior to 1919 of $266,357.47, and
1919 deficit of $312,305.28) a total indebtedness of $769,958.65. Of this, the deficit for 1919 is included in the 1921 budget, with the hope of reducing the total debt to $457,653.37 by the end of the year. In view of this it is hardly fair to use language implying that the net indebtedness rose to a million, "at the rate of $25,000 per month."
The 113 per cent increase of income in 1920 over that in 1919 represents not a spasmodic effort, but a solid gain in lifting the standard of offerings throughout the Church; a gain that is bound to continue though the rate per year of income may be reduced considerably by the utterance of such misgivings as we are considering; or unless some extraordinary element of non-financial propaganda (to suppose what now seems highly improbable) might suddenly succeed in undermining confidence. And if we consider the men who actually serve on the National Council
such as Bishop Lawrence, Dr. Stires, Dr. Mann, and others, whose caution would prompt them to dissociate themselves from anything they might have reason to suspect of wildcat tendency-there is surely but meagre ground for the statement that "the Church is in the hands of promoters temperamentally unsuited to the
administration of funds."
Yet in one sense it might be emphatically admitted that the Church always has been, and always must be in the hands of "Promoters," who have had greater or less success in inducing people to believe that the supernatural is a reality, and a reality worth the investment of "all that we have and all that we are." The Apostles, at whose feet the earliest Christians laid their possessions, were such promoters. Their Divine Lord, who counseled his hearers not to "lay up their treasures on earth” but “in Heaven," and to "seek first the Kingdom of God," was the