Episcopal Church Faces Budget and Structural Challenges
The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church (USA) opened its winter meeting today at the Maritime Institute in Lithicum Heights, Maryland. Immediately two widely differing plans for the next triennial budget of the Church were presented for its consideration. (The Executive Council has to approve a draft budget at this meeting to hand off to the General Convention's Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance, which will finalize it between February and July for presentation at General Convention.)
The first version of the proposed budget came from the Presiding Bishop and her Chief Executive Officer, the Rt. Rev. Stacy Sauls. It maintains the percentage which the Church will ask for in contributions from its member Dioceses at the current 19% for the next triennium (it had been reduced from 21% to 19% in the budget adopted in 2009 at Anaheim.) It also projects a reduction of $5.9 million in income over the period 2013-2015, and calls for a corresponding reduction in outlays.
The second version of the proposed budget came from the President of the House of Deputies, Bonnie Anderson. It calls for a reduced asking of 15% from the Dioceses, and would result in a budget reduction of $19.3 million, which Finances for Mission Committee Chair Del Glover admitted would lead to (further) "personnel adjustments."
Both the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies made opening remarks to the Council, along with CEO Bishop Sauls. (Bishop Jefferts Schori's remarks were not made from a prepared text, but are summarized in this ENS article.) Reading between the lines of each, and translating the Presiding Bishop's earlier prepared remarks about coming changes in structure, which may be viewed here, it is clear that the heads of the Church are not of one mind about how to deal with the challenges which it faces in the twenty-first century.
And those challenges are significant and substantial. They are summarized graphically in a presentation to the Council (zip file download is at this link) by Kirk Hadaway, who is the church official in charge of congregational research, and by Matthew Price, of the Church Pension Fund. Among other facts shown, 72% of Episcopal congregations were in financial stress as of 2010 (compared to 58% of other denominations for the same year) -- the highest level in the past decade, by far.
It is clear that there is momentum gathering for a proposal for structural changes in the Church, either to be presented at General Convention itself, or referred to its Standing Committee on Structure for analysis and a report to the 2015 Convention. There have even been hints that the Church cannot wait that long, and that a Special Convention might have to be called in the interim to make the cost-saving changes necessary if the Church is to adapt to the decline in its membership and finances. (Previously, I wrote about how the structure of the Episcopal Church as founded was not capable of carrying the modern superstructure which has gradually been imposed upon it. Those observations are even more relevant now.)
The problem is that there are, as always, at least two conflicting constituencies striving for consensus on how best to make use of the Church's dwindling resources. The first constituency consists roughly of the Church's clergy, but its political power is wielded chiefly by the Bishops, through whom all constitutional and canonical changes must pass. The second constituency is made up of the active laity, along with many clergy, who do not have the time for the national politics of a socially activist church, and who want to see more resources available to the Dioceses for strengthening mission efforts.
There is a third constituency as well, but its influence is waning. It may be said to consist of both clergy, bishop and lay activists who use the triennial General Convention as their springboard to launch ever more programs, Commissions, Committees, Agencies and Boards, and who then populate their creations in the interim between Conventions. This has resulted over time in a structure so top-heavy and convoluted that even Bishop Sauls complained he was having difficulty tracking all of them down when he began in his current position as CEO.
The Presiding Bishop appears to float above the contesting factions, mouthing reassuring platitudes about the mission of the Church in a modern age, but then confers privately with her staff and her Advisory Council to map out the moves that will actually determine the future of the Church. The resulting tension between her and President Anderson is sometimes palpable, as may be seen in the presentation to the Executive Council of the dueling budgets.
These are indeed interesting times for the leadership of the Episcoipal Church (USA). To this observer, who has been very critical of the quality of that leadership, the current deliberations at Lithicum Heights appear to signal that word has finally reached the bridge that the ship of the Church has struck some kind of floating object, perhaps an iceberg, and may be taking on water.
I say "perhaps" an iceberg, because there does not yet appear to be any open recognition, whether on the Executive Council or at 815, of just how much the disastrous policy of "sue first and worry about the costs afterward" has split the Church from its basic mission, has alienated thousands of churchgoers, and has certainly contributed to the severe decline in funds available for mission. The refusal to acknowledge facts extends through the entire House of Bishops -- as witness the remarks ascribed to Bishop Shannon Johnston of Virginia at his most recent Diocesan Council meeting (H/T: BabyBlue):
As I say: big changes are coming, but no one seems to have a clue what has brought the need for them about.
The first version of the proposed budget came from the Presiding Bishop and her Chief Executive Officer, the Rt. Rev. Stacy Sauls. It maintains the percentage which the Church will ask for in contributions from its member Dioceses at the current 19% for the next triennium (it had been reduced from 21% to 19% in the budget adopted in 2009 at Anaheim.) It also projects a reduction of $5.9 million in income over the period 2013-2015, and calls for a corresponding reduction in outlays.
The second version of the proposed budget came from the President of the House of Deputies, Bonnie Anderson. It calls for a reduced asking of 15% from the Dioceses, and would result in a budget reduction of $19.3 million, which Finances for Mission Committee Chair Del Glover admitted would lead to (further) "personnel adjustments."
Both the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies made opening remarks to the Council, along with CEO Bishop Sauls. (Bishop Jefferts Schori's remarks were not made from a prepared text, but are summarized in this ENS article.) Reading between the lines of each, and translating the Presiding Bishop's earlier prepared remarks about coming changes in structure, which may be viewed here, it is clear that the heads of the Church are not of one mind about how to deal with the challenges which it faces in the twenty-first century.
And those challenges are significant and substantial. They are summarized graphically in a presentation to the Council (zip file download is at this link) by Kirk Hadaway, who is the church official in charge of congregational research, and by Matthew Price, of the Church Pension Fund. Among other facts shown, 72% of Episcopal congregations were in financial stress as of 2010 (compared to 58% of other denominations for the same year) -- the highest level in the past decade, by far.
It is clear that there is momentum gathering for a proposal for structural changes in the Church, either to be presented at General Convention itself, or referred to its Standing Committee on Structure for analysis and a report to the 2015 Convention. There have even been hints that the Church cannot wait that long, and that a Special Convention might have to be called in the interim to make the cost-saving changes necessary if the Church is to adapt to the decline in its membership and finances. (Previously, I wrote about how the structure of the Episcopal Church as founded was not capable of carrying the modern superstructure which has gradually been imposed upon it. Those observations are even more relevant now.)
The problem is that there are, as always, at least two conflicting constituencies striving for consensus on how best to make use of the Church's dwindling resources. The first constituency consists roughly of the Church's clergy, but its political power is wielded chiefly by the Bishops, through whom all constitutional and canonical changes must pass. The second constituency is made up of the active laity, along with many clergy, who do not have the time for the national politics of a socially activist church, and who want to see more resources available to the Dioceses for strengthening mission efforts.
There is a third constituency as well, but its influence is waning. It may be said to consist of both clergy, bishop and lay activists who use the triennial General Convention as their springboard to launch ever more programs, Commissions, Committees, Agencies and Boards, and who then populate their creations in the interim between Conventions. This has resulted over time in a structure so top-heavy and convoluted that even Bishop Sauls complained he was having difficulty tracking all of them down when he began in his current position as CEO.
The Presiding Bishop appears to float above the contesting factions, mouthing reassuring platitudes about the mission of the Church in a modern age, but then confers privately with her staff and her Advisory Council to map out the moves that will actually determine the future of the Church. The resulting tension between her and President Anderson is sometimes palpable, as may be seen in the presentation to the Executive Council of the dueling budgets.
These are indeed interesting times for the leadership of the Episcoipal Church (USA). To this observer, who has been very critical of the quality of that leadership, the current deliberations at Lithicum Heights appear to signal that word has finally reached the bridge that the ship of the Church has struck some kind of floating object, perhaps an iceberg, and may be taking on water.
I say "perhaps" an iceberg, because there does not yet appear to be any open recognition, whether on the Executive Council or at 815, of just how much the disastrous policy of "sue first and worry about the costs afterward" has split the Church from its basic mission, has alienated thousands of churchgoers, and has certainly contributed to the severe decline in funds available for mission. The refusal to acknowledge facts extends through the entire House of Bishops -- as witness the remarks ascribed to Bishop Shannon Johnston of Virginia at his most recent Diocesan Council meeting (H/T: BabyBlue):
The Bishop continued, "Our diocese is under worldwide scrutiny ... In considering the return of Episcopal properties to the ministry of the diocese it is a big mistake to refer to this as a legal battle. It is about theology ... What is a stake is our polity, our ancient and defining order of being the church ... It is a matter of no less than our faithfulness ... And it will take more than the courts to settle things ..."It certainly will, Bishop Johnston, it certainly will. And you may eventually have to eat what were reported to be your next words:
"Despite the recent court ruling in our favor we simply do not know what the future holds ... We have reason to believe our properties will be returned. For nearly two years we have considered and discussed this positive outcome. We will be fully prepared for any eventuality ... just as we have been able to sustain our case ... I strongly believe that we will be able to do what it take over the next months and years to be faithful to the church's mission in respect to each of the properties involved. We do have what it takes ... We have the critical mass to move forward. In my mind there can be no doubt we can be up to the task ahead . . . .Bishop Johnston? You may want to review pages 11 and 12 of that presentation made to the Executive Council mentioned earlier. They show two maps depicting the changes in Average Sunday Attendance in each Diocese between 1995-2000, and 2005-2009. The first map shows the Diocese of Virginia among the group reporting growth between 5-10%. But the second map shows the Diocese of Virginia in the group of dioceses which lost between 10 to 25% in ASA. With what people, I ask again, are you going to fill the churches whose properties you just took back in your lawsuits?
As I say: big changes are coming, but no one seems to have a clue what has brought the need for them about.
No comments:
Post a Comment