A Rant from Western Kansas takes a wrong turn but still has rant power.

The Bishop of Western Kansas, Bishop James Adams has written an open letter to the church, to wit:

An Open Letter to The Presiding Bishop, House of Bishops, Executive
Council, and Deputies to General Convention,

I really do not know anymore what is coming next. How things are done
and not done are as haphazard as people's ideas; or so it seems. Now I
read that the "New" Diocese of Fort Worth passed a $632,466 dollar
budget for a part-time bishop, a little over 19 priests and 62 delegates
who represent way less than a thousand people, and $200,000 is from the
General Convention budget! First, I did not see that in the GC budget
that was passed in 2006. Where did it come from? Did the Executive
Council pass it, which we would not know since the last several
meetings' minutes have not been posted? I hate to beat a dead horse but
how can there be $200,000 to give away when budgets are being cut and
people let go? If there is $200,000 available, then why was there not
more for the Domestic Missionary Partnership to use in the poorest
dioceses of the Church? Why did money get initially cut from indigenous
ministries to pay other budget items?

This action leads me to ask the following question. If I, as a Diocesan
Bishop, left TEC (which I am not saying I am) with 10 of my churches,
could the other 21 get $200,000 to carry on? Since our entire budget for
the year was less than $400,000, it would go a long way to let this
Diocese be in a better financial position. I am compelled to ask such
things because it does not appear that anyone else is and we are about
to spend 10's of millions of dollars on another General Convention to
set a budget. Can others apply for general budget funds? I know that we
can not. So, what is the secret? Just asking,

In Christ's service,

The Rt. Rev. James M. Adams, Jr.

Bishop Adams' rant is for cause, of course. Dioceses across the church are dealing with financial issues that have very little to do with where they stand on issues of the day and very much to do with issues the church on all levels has mostly turned its back upon.

Most dioceses and the Episcopal Church as a church did no better than other denominations in signaling the greed of bankers and borrowers both, in demanding oversight of the sale of credit and the corruption that follows, or training the people of the church to greater financial wisdom on a personal, corporate, political and ecclesial level. Where were we all when the hubris of the nation was greedy for all that play money could bring?

There have been some great educational materials available on the use of money, but very little in the way of conversation about using them. The Rector of all Lewes put me on to two that have been particularly helpful in adult Christian education here in the parish in the village by the big water. Simpler Living, Compassionate Life, a Christian perspective" and "Money and Faith: the search for enough" both edited by Michael Schut and published by Morehouse Publishing, are filled with important texts, short essays, and good teaching tools. Both were important resources for a discussion group on "Cash, Crash and Christ" held the first eight weeks of the year. (It was nice to have a long Epiphany season to work with.)

So when the Diocese of Western Kansas, whose total budget appears to be some $400,000, is dealing with the same need to stretch the dollar as all our dioceses do, the question is perfectly legitimate: "Where did it (the $200,000) come from? Did the Executive Council pass it, which we would not know since the last several meetings' minutes have not been posted? I hate to beat a dead horse but how can there be $200,000 to give away when budgets are being cut and people let go?"

With the possible exception of the dead horse concerning the minutes of the two past meetings of Executive Council, the other questions need to be addressed. About the minutes: The minutes of meetings are posted, I believe, only after they are approved officially at the meeting following. If there are additional corrections, the posting possibly is delayed on that account. (On this I am only guessing.)

However, having been at the meetings of Executive Council and having read the ENS reports of proceedings most of the important matters have been reported on. Here is what ENS has to say about the funding for the continuing dioceses, (San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh and Quincy). (They are by the way not "new" Dioceses at all, but the continuing dioceses.) "

"Make available up to $700,000 of undistributed accumulated income and appreciation in calendar year 2009 from one or more of nine named trust funds established to support missionary work or mission work; provide financial assistance during 2009 in the Diocese of San Joaquin and other similarly situated dioceses for clergy salaries and other expenses; join the Presiding Bishop in recognizing the current members of the San Joaquin and Pittsburgh standing committees; commend the efforts by dioceses to exercise their pastoral and fiduciary responsibilities in regard to the ownership of properties and funds(AF075). (from HERE.) I believe the funding for Fort Worth comes from this source. The Bishop's statement, "$200,000 is from the General Convention budget!" is incorrect. It is by act of Executive Council and draws on monies not otherwise committed to use.

The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society does indeed take on domestic missionary work all the time, and the Domestic Missionary Partnerships and indigenous ministries are part of the regular ongoing budget of the DFMS. The gathering of funds to help continuing Episcopal Church dioceses was not anticipated, I believe, in the budget of the last General Convention. It rested with Executive Council to approve emergency and short term funding for these dioceses and it did so from trust funds.

Why were these funds not immediately applicable to the Domestic Mission Partnerships or indigenous ministries? Because those programs rely upon the general budget derived from the diocesan offerings and general investments. Ought there be more monies for those partnerships and ministries? Perhaps so, but that is something General Convention takes up regularly. Both these efforts are long established missionary efforts of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society.

We do spend a lot of money on General Convention, but the Bishop of Western Kansas is no doubt aware that passing the budget is not all General Convention does. It also approves the programs and mission priorities of this church, including how to support domestic dioceses in need of long term missionary assistance. It is perfectly legitimate to ask if General Convention is the way to do all this, given its expense and to ask if meeting in a residential campus setting might work and without the frills of various sorts. But that is unrelated to the immediate funds provided for those distressed dioceses that suddenly find themselves without episcopal leadership, funding that is not frozen or in the hands of others, and without many of the buildings in which they worshiped or worked.

The rant is real and I think from a place of considerable financial stress. Its aim is off. The Bishop will I hope bring the long term concerns for adequate funding of dioceses in long term need of support to General Convention. Need based on the rotten economy might move the GC to a change in its budget priorities. No doubt some of the continuing dioceses will also need some support over the three years covered by a GC budget as well. This is a fine convention in which to raise the domestic missionary agenda of the church and its support of dioceses in need.

Meanwhile this is no time to pick on the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (you know, the one that is part of the Episcopal Church) or San Joaquin, Pittsburgh or Quincy, or on Executive Council for supporting them.

Bishop Adams' rant missed the mark, but the voice of financial distress that will more and more be heard in the church needs to be heard now. It's not the church issues this time, it is the hubris of the nation and our acquiescence that we need to rant about.