If there were fewer bishops and their administrative costs, a diocesan convention could choose to reduce the assessment, which would give local congregations more resources to support their clergy and conduct local mission opportunities. It is therefore useful to discuss a merging diocesan church that would take the heat off of congregations which are facing reduced membership and financial support. Let's face it, as resources decline it is harder to pay the diocesan asking. While it may be true that assessments have leveled off for some, simply leveling off doesn't cut it. What needs to be cut is the assessment itself.
How might we do this? Perhaps we can learn from the merging of the dioceses of Quincy and Chicago. Sure, it is true that Quincy needed to merge by default because after the split in the diocese they didn't have enough congregations to remain autonomous. This is the code word for having enough money to support themselves. In addition, add the diocese of Springfield to Chicago. They have 36 congregations, 5229 baptized members and an average Sunday attendance of 1045. In this scenario one bishop would serve the state of Illinois instead of the three they have now. Think about the financial savings in bishop's salaries and administrative expenses. One bishop could make 50% more money than he does now and money is still saved. Then there could be a reduction in parish assessments.
The ELCA bishop of the Central States Synod covers the entire states of Kansas and Missouri. Having served as an interim in one ELCA congregation, I know for a fact that congregational giving to the synod is far less than Episcopal congregations in that same geographical area. The reason for this is that we support four bishops and their staffs in four dioceses in the two states.
Therefore, consider the merging of Western Kansas, Kansas, West Missouri and Missouri. Western Kansas has 30 congregations, 1680 baptized members and an ASA of 731. Kansas has 46 congregations, 11,469 baptized members and an ASA of 4057. West Missouri has 50 congregations, 11,105 baptized members and an ASA of 3811. Missouri has 44 congregations, 12053 baptized members and an ASA of 4160. Think of the overhead saved if these four dioceses merged. Think of the thousands of dollars that would be saved that could be applied to priest's salaries and local mission. This "merged" diocese would then be about the same size as Chicago. This could happen throughout the church.
Bishops might complain that they can't get around to every congregation each year for confirmation. The answer to this dilemma is simple. General Convention could vote to give priests the authority to confirm.
On occasion this blog has called for a reduction in the House of Bishops. If we take a look at the rest of the 2011 Episcopal Church Statistics, we can find good reason to support the notion of diocesan mergers throughout the church. We are simply too small to support as many bishops and their staffs that we have now. Rectors and Pastors, just think about what you could do for local mission in your community if we didn't have to support as many purple shirts and their staffs. And you might have enough left over so that the vestry could give you a healthy raise.
While everything that Bob wrote in this blog is true, I have to object. If the only reason to merge dioceses is to reduce assessments, this will be just one more quick fix on the Episcopal Church's long path of decline. Our congregations are not in decline because they are paying too much assessment. They are screaming for lower assessments so that they can afford to continue what they were doing before that isn't working. We need much more radical change within our congregations--not quick fixes, but major adaptations to the new ministry & mission environment in which we exist. Yes, our congregations can use more money--but not if they are going to use it to continue the old status quo.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Bob, glad to see a lid taken off for conversation to occur. Another thing that congregations can do immediately is to use barter deals to get goods and services, a small response to Bill Fasel's concern. I used barter deals in Philadelphia, Wichita and KCK, saving thousands of dollars that would otherwise have been assessed as expenses. When I say thousands, I am talking in one situation, over $1,200 per month for six years. . . .
ReplyDeleteSome wise thinking, Bob. Of course we need systemic transformation but sometimes nuts and bolts practical economics facilitate the process, free us up to prayer and really discern not bandaid only. Big dioceses could practice better stewardship of resources, for example, by having conventions for one day only.And by listening to people who are called to other ministries than parish ministry—in places that pay their salary.
ReplyDeleteFrom my Orthodox buddy and former Episcopalian, Dale Simison:This makes so much sense. As a model take a look at how the Orthodox Church is organized in America. Our diocese is the diocese of Los Angeles and the West. The territory the Archbishop is responsible for is about the same geography as Province 8 of the Episcopal Church. The last time we saw the Archbishop was about 2.5 years ago. No one seems to have missed seeing him, especially the clergy. It is either annually or semi-annually the clergy all meet with the Archbishop someplace in California. Annually there is a convention, usually in California. Regarding confirmations, that isn't done in the Orthodox Church as to become a member of the Orthodox Church one must convert from either Roman Catholicism or a Protestant denomination. The Orthodox Church is just that the Orthodox Church, it isn't a denomination of a greater Christendom.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, less is better in terms of institutional organization.
Thank you, Bob. This Bishop agrees with you. The confirmation issue is easily solved. I would have been happy to give that authority to the priest. I never saw that as my primary function. It can also be solved by what we did in Arizona which was to have Regional Confirmations on Saturdays in different parts of the state between Easter and Pentecost. Not everyone liked this, but they were well attended and great celebrations which did not make confirmation the reason for the visit by the bishop. Rather, it was a celebration of its own. I must confess that this practice was abandoned when I retired and things went back to "normal". Go figure.
ReplyDeleteWilliam is on to something. Shrinking churches and dioceses is the real problem; high assessments is a symptom of the real problem. The desire for lower assessments comes from less income available to parishes because of membership shrinkage. Until pecusa will address why congregations are shrinking (hint:it has to do with the Gospel), these kinds of ideas really only perpetuate the real problem.
ReplyDeleteBill, I agree with you regarding the notion that merging dioceses won't stop the Episcopal Church's long path of decline. Congregational renewal is one part of a turn around that is necessary for our church to survive. However, even if the church were growing, we still need to merge dioceses and reduce the number of bishops and their staffs.
ReplyDeleteThe 50 year decline of the Episcopal Church is a reality. Increased numbers of clergy and ever expanding diocesan programing has not stemmed the tide. The parish community is still the frontline of ministry and should be resourced first rather than stressed in support of non-productive judicatories. To think that bishops and dioceses will willingly merge is naive. The quickest method to merger and to allocating precious resources to congregational level is to vote out mandatory diocesan assessments and to vote in voluntary giving from the parish to the diocese. This would level the playing field in a hurry.
ReplyDelete