Welcome to Stand Firm!

Dissecting The Diocese Of Upper South Carolina Budget

Friday, November 9, 2007 • 9:00 am

The membership must be wondering if the capitulation to 815 is symbolic of the choices this bishop will make as the future unfolds.  Is the enormous increase in the budgeted pledge to the national church symbolic of the current relationship of the diocese/bishop to the national church/presiding bishop?  Sources in the Diocese state that the bishop has made repeated appeals for this increase and convention delegates stepped right up to the plate sweeping aside the one amendment offered. Giving to TEC goes from $272,974 to $412,396—an increase of $139,422 (51%).  Yes, you read it right.  No typos.  The next largest dollar increase was $26,121.


You may recall that the Diocese of Upper South Carolina voted on their budget (or Statement of Mission as their bishop calls it) last week.  I took another look and while the numbers add up they don’t make much sense.  South Carolina is my home state and if it grieves me to see them make such terrible choices, I can only imagine how those who must live with this budget feel.  After contacting a few friends in the Diocese, here are some comments worth noting:

The Annual Convention delegates have increased the budget (Statement of Mission or SOM) by 2.7% to $2,846,709. Congregation quotas, which make up 98.3% of the income, are projected to increase by 2.5%. These percentages would be normal inflationary amounts if these were ordinary times, but these are times of struggle in The Episcopal Church. 

The membership must be wondering if the capitulation to 815 is symbolic of the choices this bishop will make as the future unfolds.  Is the enormous increase in the budgeted pledge to the national church symbolic of the current relationship of the diocese/bishop to the national church/presiding bishop?  Sources in the Diocese state that the bishop has made repeated appeals for this increase and convention delegates stepped right up to the plate sweeping aside the one amendment offered. Giving to TEC goes from $272,974 to $412,396—an increase of $139,422 (51%).  Yes, you read it right.  No typos.  The next largest dollar increase was $26,121.

Giving to TEC will now amount to 14.7% of the money contributed by congregations (unless the membership have a moment or two of clarity).  2.6% of member contributions go to the national church treasury unless the member has worked out an alternative arrangement with their congregation.  Yes, that was a hint.

A member of the Diocese put it this way:

One distressing thing about this is how little the bishop paid attention to the unified message from the same delegates in their regional Convocation meetings to prioritize the SOM. According the the Diocese’s own summary analysis, the delegates ranked the national church pledge pledge fifth from the bottom out of 75 specific line items. It makes the claim that we have a grass-roots process ring a bit hollow. It will be very hard to convince veteran delegates to participate in that process next year.

The second largest category dollar increase—$45,902—goes for salaries and benefits for all personnel (including the bishop). This is a 6% increase across the board.
2008 stipend and housing will now be as follows:
-Bishop $125,564
-Canon to the Ordinary $87,980
-Canon for Youth $48,649

The next highest dollar increase is a new item—The Millenium Development Goals of the United Nations for $19,927.

A large increase in the travel allowance for the Canon to the Ordinary (from $6,500 to $18,000) was not explained in Convention.

These increases in expenditures total $216,751 but the total increase of the SOM is only $75,935. How did they balance the budget you ask?  Good question and the answer is pretty depressing:

The difference of $140,816 almost exactly matches the reduction in giving to mission churches ($140,000). Expect the following explanations to be given. $100,000 was realized by removing the failed All Soul’s Mission in Columbia. No new major church plant was discussed at Convention. St. Philip’s, Greenville, did not renew a request for $22,328. The remaining $17,672 was from reductions to existing mission churches—some very historic. These churches struggle from year to year and it is a shame that the guidance and message from our diocese has not helped reverse their losses. A promising new infusion of leadership and people at St. Augustine’s, Aiken, was not enough to open the way for their request for a boost in support with a near-term goal of becoming self-supporting. They were reduced $7,073—the fourth largest reduction in the SOM.

The mission pictured in the Statement of Mission is of a diocese that has become quiescent toward the direction of the national church in divisive issues, is giving full financial support to TEC, is taking pretty good financial care of its staff, is making token efforts in mission with Hispanics in our area, but is cutting off its historic missions and not pushing forward with new church-starts in a time of noteworthy population growth in several of our population centers.

Seems pretty clear who Bishop Henderson expects to make up that 2.5% increase.

It brings to mind an image from my childhood.  My mother believed that Black Draught and castor oil (yes, it’s as disgusting as it sounds) cured everything.  Mom would tell me there were no choices - just hold my nose and swallow.  The bishop might want to consider that the times - they are a changing.  People are much more vocal these days. 


26 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

All is well™.

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

[1] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 11-09-2007 at 09:46 AM • top

I noticed that the income from investments will increase from $ 15,000 to $ 25,000; a 66.7% increase.  I presume that the “investment income” actually refers to withdrawls from endowments. Why are they doing this?  With the increase in giving to 815 it would appear to me that KJS, DBB; et al are reaching out into everybody’s pockets.

[2] Posted by Piedmont on 11-09-2007 at 12:32 PM • top

For the life of me, I can’t understand why there is such anger at the Bishop.  If the same delegates “prioritzed” the budget at Convocation meetings before the Convention . . . why didn’t those delegates step up to the plate and fight the budget as it was presented?!?!  I know that what the bishop (and likely, other diocesan officials) did was despicable . . . it thumbed the bishop’s nose at the diocese’s own design “grassroots” prioritization process.

But, in the end, in a democratic process, the delegates had the final say.  If the delegates approved the budget as it was presented without crying foul . . . then, well, they get what they voted for.

I should say that my comments are predicated on the assumption that the results of the “grassroots” process were made public prior to floor debate.  Certainly, those results are public now.  If those results were kept secret during floor debate . . . and the bishop presented the budget with claims that it was put together as was promised . . . then, that is another story.  And, at this point, it would be time to find out how to petition for a re-convening of the Convention . . . with a resolution to impeach the bishop if at all possible.

Otherwise, the delegates got what they voted for, and they have to take the final and ultimate responsibility for the budget regardless of how badly the executive may have manipulated the process.

[3] Posted by Eddie Swain on 11-09-2007 at 12:40 PM • top

Hmmm. FYI - the priest in charge of St. Augustine’s, Aiken, is a Trinity grad ordained out of Dio of Pgh.

[4] Posted by tired on 11-09-2007 at 12:43 PM • top

My friend has told me a lot about this diocese. They seem to do what the clergy and bishop tell them to do. Sheep being led to pay for . . . Well, God only knows. It is sad. Good money is being thrown away!

[5] Posted by Sir Highmoor on 11-09-2007 at 12:45 PM • top

I “think” +Henderson is one of the “alternate-type” bishops who answered KJS’s call for “volunteers” to assist the bishops in orthodox dioceses. 

I for one, have NEVER believed that is the reason for asking for these ‘volunteers”..  I do believe, these are “caretaker-bishops” in waiting for when she deposes the orthodox.  Now that’s just me.

Now, suppose the Diocese of SC tried to secede, after Mark+ is consecrated.  Wouldn’t the diocese of “USC” be in fine shape to “assist” in SC? 

Paranoid perhaps, but just askin.
Grannie Gloria

Of course if anyone can find out if +Dorsey is NOT on the list, i’ll be glad to apologize,
GG

[6] Posted by Grandmother on 11-09-2007 at 12:55 PM • top

I have decided I want to take a months’ vacation next year in Europe.  Now all I have to do is go home and tell my wie she needs to work a second job for the rest of the year so I can afford to go.  I am sure she will be glad to oblige.  After all, she does want to see me happy.

[7] Posted by DaveG on 11-09-2007 at 02:57 PM • top

“wife” that is.

[8] Posted by DaveG on 11-09-2007 at 02:57 PM • top

Grandmother
Click on the link national church/presiding bishop and it will take you to the article where the original 8 Episcopal Visitors are announced.  One of those is, in fact, +Henderson.

[9] Posted by JackieB on 11-09-2007 at 03:18 PM • top

Eddie Swain—Your scenario might make sense where delegates have a fair chance. Previous reports of the dynamics of the convention have the bishop exerting maximum pressure for the national church pledge with a vote by brightly colored cards. My source says the pressure was overwhelming. The delegates gave the bishop what he wanted very badly. This is not to let them off the hook; only to explain why they failed.

[10] Posted by Bull Street on 11-09-2007 at 06:27 PM • top

Jackie, you must know that this diocese is comprised of some of the weakest individuals of any in ECUSA.  I know of no other way to say it.  BTW it also has about 20 exceptional folks who I call my friends.

[11] Posted by Lee Parker on 11-09-2007 at 08:46 PM • top

Maybe it’s a South Carolina thing—what the heck is “Black Draught”? (Help this Michigander out…)

[12] Posted by DavidSh on 11-10-2007 at 09:25 AM • top

David - It is a vile tasting stuff.  I wasn’t aware they still sold it but found it on the net.

[13] Posted by JackieB on 11-10-2007 at 09:43 AM • top

Lee - I have quite a few friends in that area.  As to your contention of weakness - I think it is more like they are still asleep.  And you may be amazed to know how many people are still intimidated by a bishop.  Shame that.
Hey - Bull Street - does the name have anything to do with Bull Street in Charleston?  I used to live there!

[14] Posted by JackieB on 11-10-2007 at 09:46 AM • top

Black Draught, Coal Rollers, Castor oil, Lydia E. Pinkum’s Vegatible Compound for “women’s special needs at that time” were all rites of passage for our parents, when the grandmother would announce one Saturday morning that the time for the Spring Cleaning was at hand.  It would get out those poisons from the system that had accumulated during winter.  On extreme circumstances the high colonic would also be necessary.  Seems that most of our ancestors survived and even thrive on it. Come to think about it, maybe this is what ECUSA really needs.

[15] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 11-10-2007 at 11:50 AM • top

Jackie, I think he means Bull Street in Columbia, location of a historic building designed by Robert Mills (architect of the Washington Monument and many historic SC courthouses).

[16] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 11-10-2007 at 02:57 PM • top

Q: Isn’t the Canon to the Ordinary the person that acts as the relocation officer for placing priests into churches and don’t they do a lot of traveling to meet with one another to accomplish/line-up/clearing-house aspect of the placement?

[17] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 11-10-2007 at 10:49 PM • top

Hi my friend Jackie.  I don’t but it any more.  It is a revisionist group.  I can name only one clergy in the state who has stood up for Jesus through this mess.  His name is George Gray and he is in Spartanburg.  Can you help me with another?  No Upper SC has weak clergy and lay people.  IMHO.  They do know what is going on.

[18] Posted by Lee Parker on 11-11-2007 at 09:07 AM • top

I should have said upper state.  Sorry.

[19] Posted by Lee Parker on 11-11-2007 at 12:43 PM • top

If I may just add - pressure to pass the “bishop’s” budget was in full swing at the convocation meeting in August when the canon for the ordinary came (at least to our convocation) to answer questions regarding said budget.  When questioned on the amount allocated the national church, he replied this was something the bishop felt very strongly about & when further questioned basicly said the same thing in different words.  Obviously this was the only answer we were getting.
Jackie - I agree with you. From observing my parish the pew sitters are asleep, not wanting to be bothered with anything happening “out there”.

[20] Posted by johnd on 11-12-2007 at 11:40 AM • top

johnd, so succumbing to the “bishop’s budget” is what?  How can you feel pressure if you are asleep?  My old parish is not asleep and neither is my old (your) diocese.  This is calculated.  Please note that I am not attacking you or your post but I am simply offering my opinion as I have no fear of the ECUSA hierarchy and I don’t understand why anyone else does.

[21] Posted by Lee Parker on 11-12-2007 at 01:08 PM • top

We are not totally without guidance and direction…don’t be so quick in your judgments.  There are other fine priests in Upper SC and also delegates (I have one for many years) who have tried in vain to direct our funds into the proper channels.  We are outnumbered, out voted and somewhat demoralized; but we are still in the arena and we are still trying to do the right thing.  Yes we questioned why our decisions and priorities had been totally disregarded…and the answer was quite obviously, because they could.

[22] Posted by ewart-touzot on 11-12-2007 at 01:42 PM • top

ET please note that I am not quick to judge as I have been in this diocese for 20 plus years.  I am also not qualified to judge.  The Andrus thread touched my heart in that I further realized that ECUSA is a more of a PAC verses a Christian church.  This PAC if you will, one day try to tell me that I can’t worship in a biblically centered church.  That is the essence of my comments.  It is not judgment but first hand observation.  A clergy or lay person who does not object to this budget approves it whether they had a vote or not.  These are the same dollars which are being used to sue orthodox parishes and go to the fund to charge all orthodox clergy.  I do not buy the asleep argument any longer.  Its a cop out argument.  Again please note that this is my opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours.  I again ask the question, please name one clergy in Upper SC which will stand up for the orthodox.  You see the PAC is being funded strongly by upper SC.

[23] Posted by Lee Parker on 11-12-2007 at 02:17 PM • top

Jackie—Someone beat me to it. I was going to say that Bull Street is very near the diocese headquarters in Columbia.

Lee Parker—You have plenty of reason to be riled up. In fact there are several solid priests in the diocese, but they don’t want to stand in front of a steamroller. George Gray, bless his heart, doesn’t care about the steamroller.

[24] Posted by Bull Street on 11-14-2007 at 07:32 PM • top

Thanks Bull Street at least there are four of us.  You, George, Sarah and myself.  A quick story.  About 20 years ago I worked in a company in which I believed there was a moral issue going on regarding a fiduciary relationship.  I respectively confronted my boss.  He lied and would not change his policy.  I walked out without a job and plenty of debt.  Trust me I’m no saint but all of us have been charged with preserving the faith.  You either fight for the high ground or walk.  There are no free passes left.  If the Andrus thread doesn’t convince you of that, nothing will.

[25] Posted by Lee Parker on 11-14-2007 at 08:25 PM • top

“You have plenty of reason to be riled up. In fact there are several solid priests in the diocese, but they don’t want to stand in front of a steamroller.”  One more thing Bull Street ( I probably know you).  I don’t believe they are solid because they want stand in front of the steam roller.

[26] Posted by Lee Parker on 11-14-2007 at 08:47 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.