Restricting Funds

From a priest in the Diocese of Kentucky:

“I have worked hard to teach that restricting our pledge is not the appropriate way for sending a message to the diocese. If anything, it only hurts the least among us.... Healing is taking place in Trinity Church...but to vote yes on the revision of Canon 16, with its perceived punitive measures, may only reverse the healing.... And it could also have the effect of further polarizing an already hurting church.”

Is this what really happens when parishioners and parishes restrict funds? Our parish restricted funds going to the diocese after General Convention 2003. At the end of the year we found that we were able to fund two of the four months of assessment that we had pledged and we sent that amount to the diocese. Since 2003 we have not had sufficient funds to send in our assessment, but if we had, and had we withheld that money, would the least among us have really been hurt?

Let's face it - that is pure baloney. In response to the shortfall in giving our diocese let go a communications staffer and a priest from what many perceive as a bloated staff. We were told at the time that the communications staffer was relocating for another opportunity and the priest is now serving as the Canon to the Ordinary in another diocese.

Some churches redirect their giving from the diocese, to, guess what - to the least among us. These parishes give directly to mission.

Further polarization? If the diocese is really concerned with polarization maybe they should genuinely consider repentance of the polarizing acts of General Convention 2003 and a return to full and faithful participation in the Anglican Communion.