VICTOR L. GOLE, was baptised at Ann Street, Brisbane in 1917. Entered into the membership of the Church at North Fitzroy in 1920; at Hampton in 1929, and still in membership there. Was treasurer at Hampton for 25 years. Has been treasurer of Overseas Mission Committee in Victoria for past 15 years. A member and Deputy Chairman of the Properties Corporation, Chairman of Committee on Co-ordination. Immediate Past President of Victoria-Tasmanian Conference. For past 3 years on Conference Officers Committee, Conference Executive and Home Mission Committee. Has served on Nominations Committee. For several years auditor of Home Mission Department. Profession--Accountant and Company Secretary.

      So long as we live in a monetary economy it can be said with some conviction that what we are able to do depends very largely on how much money we have with which to do it.

      This applies broadly in every walk of life--in business, in economics, in social services, in cultural objectives. It also applies in the life and work and witness of the Christian Church. Recognition of this basic fact does not in any way deny the power of prayer, the merit of personal service or the stewardship of time and talents. It merely suggests that without the appropriate funds the work of the Church is hampered and its effectiveness retarded. Christian stewardship also involves the stewardship of material possessions or material wealth.

      In the business world it is said that satisfactory results can only be obtained from the successful marshalling and co-ordination of the three "M's"--men, materials and money. With slight modification this concept could also be applied to the work of the Christian Church. In any consideration of Brotherhood finance, three categories or responsibilities must be brought into account, although in varying degrees in different congregations of people.

      First there is the need to maintain the local ministry at as high a level of effectiveness as possible. This is the primary responsibility of the local congregation. It is basic to the broader work of the Brotherhood and has its own peculiar financial implications. No Brotherhood can be any stronger overall than the various links welded together in the complete chain of Christian enterprise.

      Then there is the support of the local congregation for specific local projects such as a new Church building, renovating an old one, school hall facilities, manse and so on. This again is largely a local problem.

      The third category is one which relates to the broader sphere of Brotherhood work carried on by elected Committees representative of Departments of work to which responsibility has been delegated by the Churches as a whole. This work in all its variety is something to which we are irrevocably committed as a Christian Communion. It is not something we can take up or cast aside at will, for it is the work of the Kingdom of Heaven.

      These three categories of financial responsibility must have a high degree of co-relation and this co-relation must be a dynamic rather than a static concept.

      If this high degree of correlation is not first of all established and then continually sustained, the natural consequence is likely to be reflected in the increasing difficulties in extending and developing the vital work of our Departments.

      The traditional pattern within which the financial needs of Brotherhood Departments has at least partly been met, is one which is dominated by the Annual Offering appeals of the various Departments There is a consensus of opinion which suggests that this is highly competitive exercise. But competition is the undeniable essence of our day and age. The natural question to ask is whether this competition between Departments for a fair and reasonable share of the resources of the Brotherhood is necessarily a bad

thing. Does it have the effect of stimulating the minds of Church members to a more active support of the work, or does it tend to deaden their conscious appraisal of the needs because the technique suffers from repetition and regularity? Is Departmental propaganda a costly indulgence because it is carried out independently by each Department? Would it be more effective and more economical if carried out in a more comprehensive and co-ordinated way at the Brotherhood level? These are questions to which a ready and precise answer is not easily found. It must be admitted that there is an intelligent arrangement between Departments as to the timing of appeals. There is no clash in Annual Offering dates and each Department makes its appeal to the Churches on a Commonwealth wide basis once in each year.

      This allows for a concentration of effort and a specific focus of attention on the appeal of each Department in turn, and avoids the babel of many tongues. If each Department seeks to extract from the total resources as large a share for itself as possible that is not necessarily a bad thing. At the same time it must be admitted that there are some growing needs which do not as yet have an Annual Offering date allotted to them.

      This element of competition is not by any means eliminated when an increasing number of Churches swing to a "budget" system and depart from the traditional Annual Offering approach. It merely takes a different form, for there is still the vital question of appropriation or allocation of local giving, to the various Departments, in accord with some predetermined plan.

      The main danger in this is that the method of allocation may become stereotyped and the total allocation for Departmental needs may become stultified. It could be said with justification that in the matter of Brotherhood finance there is no real competition between Departments in the accepted sense. What happens, in fact, is that each Department states its case to the Brotherhood at large and by one means or another tries to keep its case before the members so that support may be continual.

      A more intelligent approach is now being made by an increasing number of Churches to meet the three categories of financial responsibility already referred to. The use of a "budget plan" and the pledging by members for a definite financial commitment enables, first of all, an appraisal of the total needs and then a substantial measure of how those needs are to be met. About one half of the total number of our Churches in Victoria are now on the "budget" system. Such a system implies greater regularity of contributions to Brotherhood Departments than the Annual Offering approach because of the periodical allocations to Departments by the Churches from their resources, in accord with their predetermined plan of distribution. It would be a gross exaggeration to suggest that the "budget" system, as it stands provides a solution to the problem of Brotherhood finance. Nor could it be said that in the long term view the system provides an ultimate solution to the overall problem; unless, of course, some drastic changes of philosophy are effected in the operation of the system.

      There is, for example, no uniformity in the practical use of "budget" systems. There are on the other hand, wide differences in such matters as what constitutes a fair and reasonable allocation to Brotherhood Departments as compared with local needs. On what basis should the allocation to Departments be made as between Departments? If local needs are not fully met should the deficiency be made good from

what would otherwise be available for Departments? If offerings rise how should this increased prosperity be apportioned between local and Brotherhood needs?

      These are potent questions to which, so far, the "budget" systems, as practiced, offer no settled conclusions.

      The increasing financial needs of Departments and Committees and the disparity between the amounts received annually by one Department as compared with another, have placed some emphasis on the urgency to tap the resources of the whole Brotherhood to the fullest possible extent.

      What the Departments need to sustain and extend their work and make it truly effective, and what has been raised in recent years for Departmental work, are two entirely different things. Consequently all Departments have laboured under restricted budgets, and have not been able to go forward vigorously to perform the work in the fulness which is felt to be desirable.

      Statistics will show that our total membership is not increasing rapidly, so the solution does not lie in receiving the same or similar amount per head of membership. Rather does it require a larger contribution per head of membership. This in turn requires a much deeper understanding of stewardship if these financial needs are to be supplied and Departments enabled to pursue a more vigorous programme with confidence.

      But the matter goes a lot deeper than this. It requires a more objective understanding of the relationship between local and Brotherhood needs within the framework of the total local giving. All too frequently Brotherhood Departments get what is left (if any) after all local needs have been met in full. In many cases these local needs appear to keep on growing and in the concentration of meeting them the increasing needs of Brotherhood Departments are often overlooked.

      Budget systems already referred to may be regarded as a step forward from the traditional Annual Offering approach. They provide a basis from which may be developed something more effective.

      Although statistics are rarely, if ever, the solution to a problem they may be helpful in spot-lighting some aspects of the problem. Financial statistics in respect of Brotherhood Departments, especially on an Australia-wide basis, are not readily available. For several years past in Victoria the Departments have been submitting annual budgets .for presentation to Conference. These Departmental budgets are consolidated into a financial pattern in which they are ultimately adopted by Conference. They represent the expectations of each Department in regard to income and expenditure far the ensuing year. Although expectations do not always coincide with ultimate realisations they do form a guide, because they are based largely on the actual results of the previous year adjusted for the current period,

      If these Departmental budgets are analysed for the past several years they show a remarkably consistent pattern in the percentage of the total income which each Department has received from Churches, members, mission bands, auxiliaries and societies. Appendix 1 shows the breakdown in this income. Victoria may not be illustrative of the position in other States but it at least serves to indicate the disparity between Departments. It would hardly be suggested that each Department should receive, or in fact needs, the same amount, but some Departments may look longingly at the total amount received by others.

      Another feature of the analysis in Appendix 1 is that the rise in total expectations from year to year is not great, in fact quite modest. Inflation alone would demand a greater amount each year, merely to sustain Departmental work, let alone expand it.

      Unified promotion to meet the financial needs of Brotherhood Departments and Committees is by no means a new concept even in our own Brotherhood. It has been discussed spasmodically over the past ten years or more, but without ever getting anywhere near the stage of adoption as a real Brotherhood enterprise.

      It is necessary to have a clear understanding of what "unified promotion" really means.

      Unified promotion in our situation means a pooling of Brotherhood resources voluntarily contributed as an act of Christian stewardship, and then a sharing of those resources among Departments according to the fair and reasonable needs of those Departments. This is a simple enough concept, but a much more difficult practice. It raises a number of questions and problems, the answers to which will not necessarily be looked at in the same light by all Departments. Nor are those answers in any case easy to determine.

      In order to put unified promotion into its correct perspective it is necessary first of all to consider briefly some of the advantages and disadvantages of other methods of finance. The Annual Offering approach has some advantages which may be stated as follows:

      (i) It allows each Department in turn to have a period in which to concentrate on the propaganda of its own work and to tell its own story as convincingly as possible.

      (ii) The arrangement between Departments assures that each one in turn will have an "open season" for its own publicity.

      (iii) Material can be made available to Church ministers, secretaries, and boards of officers which, in turn, can be communicated by them to local congregations in a variety of ways.

      The disadvantages may also be stated as:

      (i) The period of concentration in emphasis is too short and, in any case, is not a continuing emphasis.

      (ii) The emphasis tends to be strongly Departmental rather than on a broader Brotherhood basis.

      (iii) The flow of funds tends to be concentrated into a relatively short period of the year. It would be better if the funds flowed in a fairly regular stream all through the year.

      (iv) The result of Annual Offering appeals is rather fortuitous. A number of things my affect the result either favourably or unfavourably in any year.

      The Budget System, while overcoming some of these difficulties tends to create others. For example it tends to "soften" the periodical emphasis on the work of the various Departments. Some congregations do not wish to be bothered with Departmental propaganda because they are already giving regularly through Budget appropriations. Budget appropriations for Departments can become stereotyped and unrealistic. Overemphasis on local needs sometimes obscures the view of the broader responsibilities for Departmental work.

      On the other hand a well-operated Budget system could ensure a more regular flow of funds to Brotherhood Departments and enable those Departments to budget their own income and expenditure more objectively, and to avoid financial tight spots. It could

also minimise the fortuitous circumstances which sometimes affect Annual Offerings.

      The basic problem at the present time is that Departmental finance is depending on two different systems which have very little in common. In fact, in some respects they run across each other and tend to make Departmental budgeting all the more difficult.

      It's not a bit of use talking about Unified Promotion without a willingness to recognise and accept all the implications inherent in such a plan. These implications, when accepted, impose a discipline on Departments, Churches and members of a nature quite different from anything operating previously in our own Brotherhood. Among these implications may be stated:

      1. The plan must be accepted by all Departments.

      2. The plan must be accepted by all Churches and Members.

      3. Provision must be made for capable administration of the plan.

      4. The plan, in its first year of operation, must yield at least the budgeted amounts for each Department or, alternatively, not less than the previous year.

      5. A fair and reasonable basis for allocating and distributing the total income must be determined in advance and be an integral part of the plan.

      Some elaboration of these points is desirable. The acceptance by all Departments is fundamental, otherwise unified promotion does not even start to work. There must be a sympathetic understanding among Departments of their mutual needs related to Brotherhood resources, rather than a competitive spirit which seeks to obtain the greatest measure without much regard to the needs of others.

      Similarly, without acceptance by Churches and Members unified promotion would be a myth. But acceptance without understanding would not achieve desirable results. The problem of education in this respect looms large, and unless solved satisfactorily over a wide enough area, will cause the plan to fall to the ground. Naturally the plan, no matter how well devised, will not work by itself. Some administrative group will need to accept responsibility for controlling and administering the detailed workings of the plan. Further reference will be made to this later.

      One of the main problems which must be resolved in this context of unified promotion arises from the nature of the income which several of the Departments are accustomed to receiving. A study of Departmental income reveals a diversity in the nature of the income and the purpose for which it is to be used.

      In some Departments, sections of income (not inconsiderable) are contributed for specific purposes. The Overseas Mission Department is a strong example of this, where, over the years, income has been received specifically for Dhond Hospital, Orphan Support and a multitude of special appeals of one kind or another. These gifts are made from various sources, and have attached to them the significant purpose desired by those who make the gifts. Other Departments have similar experiences.

      The question arises as to whether these "specials" should be eliminated as such and merged with the general income for all purposes of the Department concerned, or whether the special identity should be retained under a plan of unified promotion.

      The matter of special gifts could be a frustrating influence in a plan of unifies; promotion and if persisted with could create some

confusion. It would be better to look upon all fund raising as broadly for Departmental purposes, and to allow each Department, out of its allocation from the central fund, to make its own allocations to particular work within its own total programme.

      On the other hand, if the existing arrangement is changed there may be a loss of purpose in respect of many groups which adopt as a continuing responsibility, one or another of these special causes. There is no certainty that this loss of specific purpose would be reflected in the contributions by these same groups for general purposes of the Department concerned.

      If there is a loss of direct incentive, there could be a considerable loss in total revenue.

      In any case a plan of unified promotion represents a complete swing away from anything previously practiced as a plan for Brotherhood finance. If it should fail, or even falter in its early years, the plight of the Departments could be desperate. Each Department would expect to receive from the plan at least the amount of its previous year's 'income. Anything less than this, would simply mean curtailment of activity. The cost of activity cannot be cut as speedily as income declines, and consequently serious results would follow.

      To launch upon the Brotherhood a plan of unified promotion without first engaging in a thorough programme of education, directed to Church members, treasurers, departmental leaders and others, is likely to result in chaos.

      Too much emphasis cannot be placed upon the need for all to understand what unified promotion is and how it works. Lack of understanding will defeat the objectives and would almost surely result in lower total income.

      The enlargement of the financial resources of the Brotherhood can be achieved only if all members have a well-developed sense of Christian stewardship, a sense of responsibility for Departmental work as distinguished from local work, and a determination to lift the level of personal giving for ail purposes.

      It is certainly not a question of one Department or another obtaining a larger share of the available funds, but rather the enlargement of the total resources so that each Department, in taking its allotted share of the total, will have a considerably larger income than at present.

      There would be little logic in each Department undertaking the educational programme for its own benefit. Far better for this programme to be undertaken by the Brotherhood for the benefit of its total commitment of work in all departments of activity. It is essential, in this programme, to place the emphasis strongly on "Brotherhood" commitments rather than on "Departmental" commitments. Therefore there must be a high degree of co-ordination. In spite of this the specific nature of the work of various Departments cannot be submerged in an educational pattern which is so broad as to be practically meaningless. That is why the programme is difficult to formulate.

      Education is not a rapid process, nor is it a static process. It must be dynamic and continuing. The programme would need to be conducted on a large scale. It would need to be accepted by all Departments before being launched on the Brotherhood at large. It would need careful thought and direction as well as many willing participants to take the plan to the various Churches throughout the State. Each State could be responsible for its own programme and promotion.

      Inherent in the plan of unified promotion is the need for Church members to "pledge" themselves in respect of personal contributions. This in itself is a choice piece of education and a discipline which is somewhat exacting.

      If it can be assumed that the concept of unified promotion is acceptable to all Departments and that a suitable educational programme can be devised to place before the members, some consideration should now be given to the plan itself.

      The plan would be one in which the total membership of our Churches would be inspired to raise the level of personal giving to Departmental work, and to give for the work generally, rather than for specific sections of work.

      Two matters already mentioned now come into prominence:

      1. Annual Offerings.

      2. The Budgetary or Contributory plans operating in many Churches (over one-third in Victoria).

      Do Annual Offerings continue under unified promotion?

      It would seem that Annual Offerings departmentally would cut right across the principle of unified promotion. Care would need to be taken, if Annual offerings were dropped off, that total income did not decline suddenly and frustrate Departments in their programmes. This is a serious consideration and is again linked with the educational programme.

      Let attention be given first of all to Budget or Contributory Plans. There are many different practices in this matter among Churches, with wide variations in the basis of allocations to "Others" as distinct from the allocations for local work. These Churches are not much affected by any decision regarding Annual Offerings. The main problem here is to lift the level of total giving and to inspire a larger allocation to Departments generally, as distinct from local needs. Sometimes the over-concentration on local needs, made necessary by ambitious building projects, defeats the needs of Departments, and results in unduly small allocations for that purpose. Under a plan of unified promotion, "budget" Churches would discontinue the allocation to specific Departments, and make a total allocation to the financial pool from which all would benefit. This is a relatively simple transition. Those Churches which are at present servicing Departmental finances by Annual Offering Appeals could be prevailed upon either to swing to the Budget system, or alternatively, to take up several offerings each year for Departmental work, rather than one offering nearly every month for a specific Department.

      The emphasis is on the need to eliminate the Departmental approach in the Churches generally, and to substitute a Brotherhood approach to service the financial needs represented in our total Christian commitment.

      This is not quite such a simple transition, but should be possible if linked with the

      In the place of Annual Offering propaganda, each Department should plan to keep its work well before the members at intervals during the year, but this propaganda should be co-ordinated through a central administration, rather than put forward at random by each Department independently. In fact while each Department is quite entitled to put forward its cause so that the Brotherhood as a whole will be better informed of the work, the financial emphasis should not be dispersed over one Department or another, but concentrated on the overall Brotherhood needs as a complete commitment.

      It may be too much to expect

all Churches to swing to a budget plan. In any case budget plans need to be launched against a background of careful education both in regard to membership "pledging" and in the fair and reasonable allocations to "Others."

      But it should not be too much to expect that within the foreseeable future all Churches may be persuaded to adopt the budget plan. This in turn would facilitate the operation of a plan of unified promotion, for such a plan depends to a large extent on a unified background.

      Unified promotion implies that the total income for Departmental purposes will flow primarily to one central point, to be distributed to Departments from that point, on some predetermined formula. This in turn raises two other considerations.

      1. The formula on which the distribution to Departments should be made from that central point.

      2. A capable organisation must be set up to handle the whole plan efficiently.

      Each Department must budget for its own financial needs for each ensuing year. Departments can surely be relied upon to budget intelligently for a programme which is in harmony with what may be expected to be within the resources of the Brotherhood, and with regard to the budgets of other Departments. Therefore the budget estimates could form a reasonable basis for distribution of the resources to Departments. As budgets would be on an annual basis the formula may change a little from year to year.

      The administration of the plan must take care of the following functions:

      (a) The money must be receipted as it comes to the central point.

      (b) Banking must be attended to regularly--probably daily.

      (c) Each month, cheques to be drawn from the central point in favour of Departments according to the formula for distribution.

      (d) Receipts may need to be collected from Departments for these periodical distributions.

      (e) Cash Receipts and Expenditure books to be written up.

      (f) Financial statements to be prepared (probably monthly) to show income and expenditure.

      (g) Follow-up to be maintained with Churches throughout the State to ensure that regular remittances are received. Church treasurers should remit regularly.

      (h) Regular reporting from the central point may be necessary to inform Departments of the trend in receipts, particularly if they are not measuring up to budget.

      (i) Generally the whole plan needs to be administered as a continuing function. It is not a spare time job for someone on a voluntary basis. The Brotherhood will have to face up to the cost of administration.

      1. Budgeting for the work of the Kingdom of Heaven is just as important and just as necessary as budgeting for business or domestic needs, especially in matters of finance.

      2. Those Churches not yet operating a budget plan for Church finance should be encouraged to do so as soon as possible.

      3. The transition to the budget plan should be preceded by a strong educational programme in the use and administration of such a plan.

      4. It is probable that most Churches already using the budget plan have not yet really faced up to a fair and reasonable allocation for Brotherhood Departments. There are wide differences in the basis of allocation as practiced in the operation of budget plans.

      5. It may not be too much to suggest that Departmental allocations should approximate one-half of total local Church giving. In other words what we are prepared to give and use for ourselves, should be matched by an equal allocation for "Others."

      6. Pledging by members whether anonymously or otherwise is a fundamental of a successful budget plan.

      7. The present combination of budget plans and Annual Offerings does not provide a suitable background against which to project a unified programme for Departmental needs and education in Departmental objectives.

      8. Whilst each Department should provide the means of keeping its work and objectives before Church members all through the year, there should be a high degree of co-ordination in the educational programme.

      9. Financial appeals should be on a Brotherhood basis rather than on a Departmental basis. The emphasis should be on our total Christian commitment.

      10. This total commitment should be budgeted for intelligently year by year by Departments, and these Departmental budgets should be the basis on which Church members are asked to meet the needs.

      11. Probably the best long term method of handling Brotherhood finance is on a plan of unified promotion. Such a plan would need to be acceptable to all Departments and all Churches.

      12. Within this plan, giving for specific parts of Departmental work should be scrapped,

      and the emphasis placed on the work as a whole, allowing Departments to allocate according to specific requirements of the work. This in any case is more logical than the present position of having a multiplicity of "special" gifts which must retain their identity all through the system.

      13. To operate a plan of unified promotion effectively, a central administration would

      need to be set up in each State to receive the allocations of Churches to Brotherhood work, and to disperse regularly the allocations to Departments. These allocations should be on the basis of Departmental budgets already submitted.

      14. Brotherhood-wide education in Christian stewardship must be sustained. There is a long way to go yet, before our total resources in time, talents and material wealth have been fully tapped.

      In the meantime, Departmental objectives are frustrated to some extent.

      Every society of people, every professional body, every institution, every Christian Communion should re-think its basic ideas and practices from time to time, if for no other reason than to avoid a stultifying, paralysing mediocrity.

      A Christian Communion is irrevocably committed to a wide variety of work in the cause of the Kingdom of Heaven. For practical reasons the Brotherhood delegates to Departments and Committees the authority and responsibility for the effective conduct of the work. But the Brotherhood at large does not absolve itself by this process of delegation. Departments and Committees can only perform work to the extent to which the membership of the Churches support it. There is, therefore, the continuing obligation for sustained support, and this includes making available the adequate financial resources.

      Unified promotion to meet these needs would be a sign of maturity in our Brotherhood. But it is important to determine whether we have reached the stage of maturity in which a plan of unified promotion could function effectively and efficiently, before embarking on such a plan. The consequences of failure could be disastrous. Unified promotion is something about which it is possible to be extremely enthusiastic whilst at the same time being entirely unrealistic.

      All the implications must be carefully examined by a select Committee in each State, and this select Committee must be constituted by those who have a wide knowledge of Brotherhood Departmental work and a sound knowledge of finance. Each State could act independently in this matter and it need not necessarily follow that all States must reach the same decision about unified promotion.