A little over a week ago the Synod of the Church of England defeated an attempt to turn over locally-owned parsonages to a diocesan entity. It was rightly seen as an attempt to centralize control, and more importantly, add more power to the diocesan unit. As one press release from an organization opposed to the move stated:
“ANGLICAN lay people are preparing for an unholy scrap with their Bishop over Church of England proposals to transfer the ownership of vicarages from incumbents (vicars) to central church funds. Historically, the vast majority of vicarages/parsonages were paid for by donations from parishioners/patrons to house a priest to look after the spiritual needs of people in a parish. The legal ownership of the parsonage remained with the vicar, thereby giving him/her, and the parish, some security from interference from Bishops.”
I was somewhat surprised that, indeed, the laity caught wind of the move, recognized the seriousness of it, and bestirred themselves to resist it when it came to a vote. But resist it they did, and the new law was repudiated in a stirring fashion.
Now we come to the Diocese of Louisiana, whose convention is being held this weekend, and at which laypeople and clergy will be voting on one of the most draconian, money-grabbing, punitive resolutions that I believe I have ever had the privilege of viewing.
A brief overview of the resolution is in order, as it is a complete overhaul and reversal of the current system in place now.
The Current System
Currently, there is a mandatory assessment on parishes to cover the costs of the Episcopate and canonically required expenditures and a voluntary asking to cover the remainder of the budget [called the Program budget]. The costs of the mandatory assessment are spelled out in the canons and are: “those expenses as recommended by the Executive Board and approved by Convention for the Office of the Episcopate, for the operation of the Diocesan Center, for General Convention Assessment, and for those Commissions and Committees required by Canon Law.” For those confused by the rather vague words “General Convention Assessment” that is the diocese’s pledge to the national church. I am a bit confused as to how the diocese’s pledge to the national church is “canonically required”—the pledge to the national church is not, as far as I know, “canonically required” at all. But that’s the subject, I suspect of another article.
But it is important to note that of its nearly 1.6 million dollar budget, the diocese last year budgeted $99,000 for the national church pledge.
The Program budget—which a parish is not forced to support—consists of “such activities and amounts as are recommended by the Executive Board and included in the Annual Budget approved by The Convention.” The Executive Board assigns a “priority category” to the sections of the Program budget so that if the program budget is not fully funded by parishes, the highest priorities will be funded first.
Parishes who do not fulfill the mandatory assessment are subject to punitive sanctions. In the first year that a parish fails to pay up parishioners and clergy of that parish are ineligible “for election or appointment to any Diocesan Board, Committee, Commission or Office.” In the second year that a parish fails to pay up, parishioners and clergy of that parish remain ineligible for election and lose voice and vote in the Diocesan Convention. In the third year, the parish “shall be changed to Mission status and put under the direct pastoral care of The Bishop, who may then remove the Vicar and the Mission Vestry and appoint a new Vicar and Mission Vestry at his discretion.”
However, parishes who do not fulfill the voluntary asking in support of the Program budget are subject to only this sanction: “a Peer Review Committee composed of representatives from congregations of comparable size and budget shall be convened by The Bishop to meet with members of said Unit.”
This is a fair way for the diocese to fund itself. Parishes fund the primary needs of the diocese—and the diocese must convince the parish of the importance of its Program budget and priorities in order to get further funding in the nature of the “voluntary asking.”
A survey of the dioceses of the Episcopal church would reveal a variety of systems in place—although for reasons I will go into later, that variety is being whittled down. Colorado, for instance, has an assessment that is mandatory, but no sanctions if a parish does not meet such an assessment. Southern Virginia does not have a mandatory assessment—although the powers-that-be in that diocese are working feverishly to change that.
The Proposed System
The author of the resolution, the rector of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church, Metairie, begins with the theory that “the combination of the Assessment and Asking often exceeds the standard of the tithe” and that therefore “many Ecclesiastical Units strain under the weight of such a burden.” [To be as precise as possible, as nearly as I can determine, out of some 49 “Ecclesiastical Units” represented in the 2007 budget some 23 paid 100% of their “voluntary asking” and of that 23 some sixteen paid more than a tithe of their operating budget to the diocese. So the “many Ecclesiastical Units” appear to be sixteen.]
Therefore, the resolution asks that “the members of each Ecclesiastical Unit be encouraged to give ten percent of their income to their congregation each year, that each Ecclesiastical Unit be assessed ten percent of its Normal Operating Revenue for the work of the Diocese, and the Diocese give ten percent of its Normal Operating Revenue to the work of the national Episcopal Church.”
Make no mistake—this is a simple resolution that says “give the diocese more money” only in a far more subtle and careful way. If the 16 parishes that gave more than 10% continued with under their 2008 numbers giving the same amount, the diocese would stand to bring in about $120,000. And furthermore, if my calculations are correct, the diocese would dramatically increase the pledge to the national church; 10% of last year’s budget of nearly 1.6 million dollars would be approximately $160,000, an increase of some $60,000.
The way that the parishes are “encouraged” to pay up, however, is by simply applying the old punitive sanctions for not paying the small mandatory assessment to the now mandatory entirety of the budget. In other words, the entire budget MUST be funded—both the old “costs of the episcopacy” and the “program budget”, the entire assessment is mandatory, and the old punishments apply to every penny of the parish’s now mandatory assessment.
In a final twist of irony, the author of this resolution—having lamented about the “many Ecclesiastical Units” [some sixteen] which “strain under the weight of such a burden” [of the Assessment and Asking perhaps exceeding the standard of the tithe] two paragraphs earlier—than goes on to resolve “that those Ecclesiastical Units which are currently contributing more than ten percent of their Normal Operating Revenue to the diocese through a combination of Assessment and Asking be encouraged to maintain their fiscal 2008 gross amount of giving until such time as their operating budget grows to a point where the current offering to the diocese is a tithe.”
So much for the “strain under the weight of such a burden.” Those parishes which are currently “contributing more than ten percent of their Normal Operating Revenue” should continue to do so until their budget expands. . . . But wait, I thought the purpose of this resolution was to help out those parishes who are experiencing “strain under the weight of such a burden.”
Folks, if laypeople at least don’t see this canonical change/resolution as simply a blatant command for much much more money, and lots of punishment if they fail to comply, then they will deserve the threats and bluster that inevitably will come after the lovely event that we are all waiting on with such bated breath—that’s right, General Convention 2009. There’s a reason why this draconian canonical change needs to be instituted now—and that reason is coming to us soon—very soon some 17 months hence. This is, in fact, the golden time “between General Conventions” for dioceses to say “how about giving us more money.” The “motivation”, shall we say, to give more after the fiasco that awaits Episcopalians every-three-years may well be considerably lessened.
But let’s take this resolution one step further by taking one last deeper look at the numbers. I mentioned earlier that if the parishes that gave more than 10% of their operating budget last year voluntarily continued with that trend in the coming years, the diocese would indeed bring in more money.
But what happens if the parishes merely do what is canonically mandated [and under the new canon punitively enforced], and pay a 10% assessment. It appears that the diocese would actually bring in less money than in 2007, by some 47K. But wait—it gets worse. At the same time that the diocese decreased its take, the pledge “to the work of the national Episcopal Church” would still go up radically, meaning that the loss to the bottom line for the diocese would be significant.
If I didn’t have a naive and trusting heart, I would suspect that this is a classic bait and switch. If the diocese succeeds in selling the laity on “giving more money to the diocese” under the new system, the only institution that appears to actually be assured of receiving more money is “the national Episcopal Church”.
A Few General Principles
Let’s state just a few principles about diocesan funding and resolutions, just for the record.
1) Dioceses all around the Episcopal church know good and well that traditional laypeople do not wish to fund the national church’s values, theology, practices, lawsuits, or goals. This resolution appears to dramatically increase the amount of money for the “National Church Commitment” from $99,000 last year to closing in on $160,000—even based only on last year’s budget, which remember will increase should the diocese move to increase every parish’s giving to 10% and should the 16 parishes continue their giving level.
2) I expect that the Diocese of Louisiana is chock full of such traditional laypeople.
3) It is not by accident that someone in the Diocese of Louisiana wishes for the two budgets—one useful and needed and mandatorily funded, the other far more optional and subject to the Executive Board’s priority ranking, as well as voluntarily funded—to be mashed into one mandatorily funded budget, and increased to boot.
4) It is not by accident that someone in the Diocese of Louisiana wishes to institute draconian punishments for those parishes who fail to pay the growing and now-fully-mandated budget [should this resolution pass] or if some parishes wish not to further increase money paid to support the national church’s values, theology, practices, lawsuits, or goals. Someone wishes to decrease the options [not increase the options, note, but decrease the options] for funding the necessary and local parts of the church—that is, “the Office of the Episcopate”, “the operation of the Diocesan Center”, “General Convention Assessment” and “those Commissions and Committees required by Canon Law” because the entire thing is becoming mandatory under this resolution.
5) It is not by accident that this needs to happen prior to July 8-17, 2009.
6) Some dioceses which desperately need grants from the ERD and various other TEC funding instruments in order to recover from hurricanes have bishops who may—perhaps—be interested in showing a higher rate of giving for the pledge to the national church than has been hitherto shown. I’m not accusing the Diocese of Louisiana of this, but I am pointing out the political on-the-ground motivations for feeling the need to offer more of a “National Church Commitment.”
7) Some bishops have been known to work through clergy or laypeople to introduce resolutions and canonical changes that may possibly be unpopular and “test the waters” a bit without formally backing those resolutions through a committee.
Again, I’m not saying these latter two general principles apply to the Diocese of Louisiana or Bishop Jenkins—but it is wise to be aware of the politics at play on a national level. Generally speaking, bishops and dioceses all over the Episcopal church are looking longingly at their former “voluntary” giving canons and dreaming of the day when they can get gullible, kindly laypeople and clergy desperate to save the institution to vote in more power for bishops and dioceses and less autonomy and freedom for parishes.
Why at this point in TEC’s history is that longing and dreaming being expressed?
A simple reason. Bishops have realized in the past four years to their sorrow that they have a large contingent of laypeople who do not wish to fund the national church’s values, theology, practices, lawsuits, or goals. [Some of those people have signed An Affirmation of Faithful Stewardship too.] And every three years, the Episcopal church as a whole delivers another blow to its image, via the General Convention.
It seems clear that many bishops have decided to make us deliver the money.
From my perspective as an outsider—one who may not see the full story, admittedly—this resolution needs to be defeated in entirety. Then it needs to be stamped upon, ground into a fine powder, and thrown into the fire.
There does not need to be a compromise—for even a compromise resolution indicating “need” for greater budgets or different configurations and deleting the draconian punitive consequences [for now] or tweaking it here and there will absolutely be used against laypeople at the next convention that rolls around. I can hear the speeches now: “Brothers and sisters, at our last convention we all agreed that the diocese needs more money, and that something must be done to heal our wounded budget and ease the strain on those excellent parishes who are forking over voluntarily their shekels to the Mission and Ministry of the Episcopal Church. Now, we need to make good on our statements of last year—passed overwhelmingly, good people—by instituting further changes, and “encouraging” other parishes to step up to the plate for further “voluntary” giving to our Beloved Diocese.”
I will watch the Diocese of Louisiana’s convention with great interest. That diocese has some wonderful resolutions to support. The resolution on giving is not one of them.
[UPDATE: Eddie Swain of the Diocese of Southern Virginia has offered his reflections; Theron Walker, rector in the Diocese of Colorado, has weighed in as well.]
22 Comments •
Sarah,
I’ve received quite a bit of email on this resolution myself. It wasn’t until I actually sat down and read it all the way through that I realized just how terrible this would be for the Diocese as well as the smaller churches. In seeking to increase the burden on the smaller parishes, it is effectively diminishing the value of the widow’s mite. As a general rule the smaller parishes don’t have large endowments to fall back on and rely strictly on pledge and plate giving. It is hard enough to bring new members into a church who has lost its identity without now forcing those who are seeking to remain faithful to increase their burden.
As for the parishes spending 10% on inreach, I’d be shocked to find one that doesn’t do this already.