There is no ‘Us vs Them’—There is only Us!

I don’t really know how this rumor of us versus them started in the conversation about the Diocesan assessment.  Sometimes it is hard to tell who “us” is in the debate and who “them” is.

I could try to go through the variations and argue the case for Us in each one, but that would only give credence to the rumor.  Let me say this, I am not aware of any “Us” view among the larger parishes that feel ‘frustration at how they believe they are viewed by our smallest congregations – with mistrust, envy, dislike’.  That the rumor gets repeated does not make it so.

Does that mean there are no actual frustrations?  Of course not and left to fester that monster of frustration, as I have described it, will prove corrosive for all of us.  That’s why shining light on it, naming it, enabling honest discussion of it is cleansing, liberating, and holy.

That we may have differing views on the same issue is not divisive.  That we express those views candidly is not, by definition, disrespectful or hurtful. And it is also true that real needs in congregations both small and large not addressed, are unlikely to get better.

There is only us—and together we are the Body of Christ.

Our discussion of assessment formula options lives into the organization development and transparency goals of the Beloved Community as defined by the Special Convention resolution of May 2008 because it is an honest debate, above board about how best to respond to the economic crisis we all face together as the body of Christ. That there are differing ideas for achieving the same goal of serving God and living into the mission of the church is healthy and, with God’s help, the solutions we come together around by Convention 2011 can serve our goal of church vitality.

The discussion of the fiscal issues facing the church for congregations large and small is healthy because it is breaking down the barriers to better communication between us, between congregations and the Diocese, and in the pews of every congregation and program about our fiscal problems and how we can best use the resources of our stewardship.  It is setting the table for area ministry and our willingness to actually work together beyond our parish campus boundaries to achieve shared goals—imagine that.

My own views on this are not new, but I have learned much from discussions with others.  I first wrote about the problems of the smaller congregations before Bishop Marc was called.  In an article for our parish newsletter later shared beyond the parish I said I felt the Diocese was at risk of failing both large and small congregations by not focusing more on church vitality, growth and average Sunday attendance.  Those goals were later incorporated using slightly different words in the Beloved Community resolution in 2008.  You can read my Open Letter to the Next Bishop which I re-posted here when I started this blog.

For me one of the great frustrations in the rumor of us, in the perceived feeling of lack of respect if alternative views are expressed, and the most outrageous suggestion I have heard is that this “us versus them” allegation is somehow a large parish opposition to ethnic ministries.  That is total nonsense.  The plea for action to create more vibrancy and sustainability for the smaller congregation and by implication the ethnic ministries was being raised by the larger parishes in the pre-Bishop Marc discussion of parish finance.

My one regret–I confess openly—is that I did not take up this cause more forcefully when I was Rector’s Warden and a Vestry member years back when the issue surfaced pre-Marc.  I urged more inter-parish collaboration.  I urged the larger parishes to partner with the smaller ones and ethnic ministries—a “buddy system” that while I did not call it this would have been, in fact, an area ministry strategy perfectly consonant with the Beloved Community resolution and goals.  But Bishop Swing just was not interested in tackling this problem on his watch and so nothing came of it.  It was a mistake—a big mistake—and I should have been more pesky about it during the boom time in the economy when we had more options than we now have to deal with it.  At the peak we had four full-time ordained priests and a non-stipend Deacon in addition to lay staff.  Now at the bust in the economy and with Steven’s retirement St. Timothy’s will have one priest.  But we remain full of hope, full of the joy of “us” and ready to listen for what God’s plan is for our future.

So now what?

Considering whether ‘business as usual’ is still working for us under these changed conditions is hardly heresy. And each of the Diocesan faithful from the Bishop down to the people in pews is looking for answers to our prayers to solve the stewardship challenges we face.  Whether the strategy we choose is managed top down by the Dio staff or bottom up by congregations working together in area ministry matters much less than having that shared vision well executed to do the work of the church.

We are one Body in Christ.

Read Full Post »

The Monsters Under the Bishop’s Bed

Bishop Marc’s pastoral letter aptly states our widely shared goal to “foster the sense of Christian community within the Diocese of California”.  But he muddles the message when he tries to define the “central assumption” of the call for a change in the Diocesan assessment as the big parishes versus the small congregations and ethnic ministries.  That is nonsense as is the statement that the large parishes are frustrated “at how they believe they are viewed by our smallest congregations – with mistrust, envy, dislike.”  There is a sense of frustration in the pews, but that frustration is with the Diocese not with the small congregations or ethnic ministries.  But frustration is only one of the monsters under the Bishop’s bed.

Like our childhood fear of those monsters lurking under our beds at night, the sour economy has forced us all to shine light on the monsters under the Diocesan bed to show the faithful that through prayer and honest collaboration our problems can be solved with God’s help. But when he looks under the DioCal bed, the Bishop is finding things he did not expect and may not like, but the light reveals them anyway.

What are the Monsters under the DioCal Bed?

• Recession Ravages Church Income. The biggest monster is the recession that has ravaged the pledge income of the church across the board and a slow, weak recovery that will not allow a ‘business as usual’ approach to the mission and ministry work of the church.  Both the Diocese and its parishes are forcing this scary monster to face the light.  In truth, ‘business as usual’ even in the boom times of the economy was not working so well for the Diocese with a growing number of small congregations and ministry programs struggling and unable to secure pledge income or other revenue to be self sufficient.  Support from the Diocese was enough to keep them dependent and on life support, but not sufficient to enable them to thrive. The longer the Diocese let these financial issues fester the worse they got.  This problem has nothing to do with the large parishes and everything to do with the ineffectiveness of Diocesan congregational development strategy and execution.

• Assessment Formula Threatens Congregation Viability. Another monster under the bed is the Diocesan Assessment formula which is progressively graduated like alternative minimum income tax rates so congregations with more pledge income pay a larger assessment.  Until the recession hit the parishes hard we all muddled through.  An earlier spat over the assessment formula resulted in a cap on the assessment.  This worked to keep the monsters under the bed quiet but the recession ravaged parish pledge income and forced lay-offs of both ordained and lay congregation staff threatening the viability of even the strongest parishes in doing the work of the Church.

The larger congregations that raised the assessment formula issue anew could have taken the easy way out and quietly just underpaid their assessment if pledge income fell short asking for forgiveness after the fact rather than permission in advance.  They did not do that because it put the missions and ministries the Bishop’s pastoral letter suggested they did not care about at greater risk.  Instead they went to the Finance Department and said again “we have a big problem and we need help to solve it”.  Out of that honest confession came the Finance Department Working Group assessment revision proposal.

• The Beloved Community Raises Expectations.  The Bishop characterizes this as a contest between large congregations and small missions and ethnic ministries.  That is nonsense. For many years, our Diocese has not been very effective in spreading the Good News as measured by average attendance and a thriving pledge base—and this monster under the bed we must face candidly.  This is not a problem Marc created, but now he owns it.

Congregations large and small have time and again asked for help from the Diocese to grow mission and ministry programs, but the answer is always the same—we’re behind you, way behind you!  The result is a growing perception problem for the Bishop that the Diocese does not listen to the ‘views from the pews’ and has a patronizing ‘we know better’ attitude about priorities.  That may be unfair, but perception is often reality.

The monster under the bed for the Bishop is that he succeeded in persuading the congregations to believe in the Beloved Community concept of reaching out and working together—we get it, we like it!  But having raised our expectations about community he must change the ‘business as usual’ style and performance of the Diocese to enable the Beloved community to be more than Dio-speak that leaves the congregants asking—‘what did he just say?’

• The Monster of Frustration Among us. My belief is that people of goodwill across the diocese will tame the Assessment monster through dialogue and discussion before the Convention in 2011.  Legitimizing the dialogue opens the door to new ideas. And that will drag the monster of frustration out from under the bed for all to see.

What is the monster of frustration?

The hidden monster of frustration is the difference in views between the diocese and the congregations.  The diocese prefers a traditional top down strategy where the assessment produces enough revenue to cover both the DioCal administrative budget and its mission and ministry programs.  Under this top down strategy the Diocese calls the shots but the congregations put up the money.  The congregations, on the other hand, want to live into the mission and ministry work of the Beloved Community to do the work of the church through Christian joint action.  They want to thrive and grow and believe the Diocese should help them achieve their goals.  The congregations have an ‘out from the pews’  bottom up strategy view based largely on the belief the Diocese should believe in their Beloved Community, enable and empower them to do the mission and ministry work of the church, and not frustrate their efforts.

So what?

So, the Department of Finance Working Group proposal is a compromise loosening Diocesan control by separating the DioCal budget into a mandatory Administrative budget and making the mission and ministry budget voluntary so congregations can target their spending to fund mission and ministry programs.   That compromise goes too far for some who fear the priorities of the parishes will be different than those of the Bishop and Staff so their fear is sometimes mistakenly cast as large parish opposition to the ethnic ministries or missions.

The Bishop is exactly right that we must shine light on this fear through dialogue and prayer to see the beauty in this beast.  That is the beauty of the Beloved Community vision and goal of the congregations working together with a strong commitment to and capacity for supporting the mission and ministry work of the church including ethnic ministries.  That joint action can shape and define the Beloved Community much more effectively, powerfully, and sustainably than dependence on the Diocese alone for subsidy.

If we believe in the Beloved Community we must live into it. My concern is that the Finance Working Group proposal does not go far enough to create an area ministry framework that enables the congregations to create sustainable mission and ministry programs including ethnic ministry that can thrive.  By encouraging shared ministry collaboration as the true meaning of the Beloved Community we breathe life and love into each of these mission and ministries that is true discipleship and evangelism at work.

That is why I have offered a strawman alternative to the Department of Finance Working Group proposal that is more parish-driven, more directly focused on mission and ministry including ethnic ministry needs, and creates a self-help framework for living into area ministry to develop shared programs that shape the definition of the Beloved Community in fresh new ways.

The strawman seeks a mission and ministry strategy for the diocese that is sustainable and empowering not a business as usual dependence on subsidies.

My strawman proposal does not make it easy on the congregations. It requires them to enter into participation agreement as binding contracts to assure other congregations that joint action will deliver the committed resources to support the agreed mission and ministry programs.  My proposal encourages true area ministry with its work products as shared programs, mission congregations, and large parish support for an expansive ethnic and social ministry to meet the broad needs of the Diocese.

I share the Bishop’s belief in the concept of the Beloved Community.  But right now that concept is too ‘squishy’, too vague to be meaningful for the faithful.  It is Dio-speak, but I believe the way to that goal is to engage, empower and enliven the people across the parishes to roll up their sleeves and do the work of the Church rather than wait for the diocese to tell us what to do.

The Beloved Community is true discipleship listening to God and doing God’s work by living into to the lesson Christ taught us to “love one another as I have loved you”.   If we can do that everything will be just fine.

Encouraging Diocesan Discussion

The Bishop’s best contribution to this Diocesan Assessment discussion has been to lay out a careful, deliberate process and time line for consultation, collaboration and consensus-building.  His prudence in this process is smart and encourages broad discussion of the issues across the Diocese.  We should applaud the Bishop’s leadership in this approach because as he said in his pastoral letter:

“These perceptions and real stresses are not new to the diocese, but I believe have become more acute with the needs our congregants and communities face. It became apparent to me that the most needed response was not just a new assessment formula, but rather a coming together between people representing different contexts of church life, and an honest exchange about those settings of life and ministry.”

“We are now at the stage of extending the work of this task force for broader diocesan input, and shall begin this process with an extended lunch period at diocesan convention for small-group discussions. I’m pleased that many members of the task force will be present to help lead small group conversations at convention and beyond, and I’m grateful for their ongoing support. The process for diocesan conversation will continue beyond the convention with the goal of arriving at a revised formula by March 2011, at which time the revised formula will be presented to the Finance Committee.”

Read Full Post »

Bishop Marc’s Pastoral Letter

Pastoral Letter from Bishop Marc Andrus

To the good people of the Diocese of California:

Since becoming your bishop in 2006, one of my primary foci of energy and attention has been to foster the sense of Christian community within the Diocese of California. I have been seeking to strengthen our community because the movement from isolation to communion is the direction of the Christian life; it is the way we follow Jesus the Christ to extend Christ’s love to those in our neighborhoods and workplaces. This pastoral letter is offered to support our ministry, and to provide context for recent efforts on diocesan stewardship.

While writing this pastoral letter to you on the eve of September 11, I remember the moving accounts of those at our cathedral who found thousand of San Franciscans streaming to Grace, filling that great space in the wake of the terrible loss in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We are in the midst of what some have called the “long emergency,” experienced by those out of work, those trying to cope with failing schools, deteriorated roads, access to health care, and the devastation felt at a deep level of great ecosystems like the Gulf of Mexico. The crowds that found their way into Grace on 9/11, and to many churches around the diocese, are in desperate need of God and the communion of God now. I know you share the precious goal I have of offering Christian community, and it is in this context that I write about an important matter in our common life as a diocese.

This past spring I received some communication from clergy and lay people in several of our congregations regarding the assessment formula approved as part of the budget at Diocesan Convention in 2009. Representatives of these congregations were meeting to come up with an alternative to the current assessment formula. Among reasons behind the effort to arrive at a new formula were assumptions about our smaller congregations, especially our missions and ethnic congregations.

The central assumption about the mission congregations was this: these congregations are largely static or declining, and numbers of them that are being kept solvent by the diocese should be shut down and sold. At the same time, some representatives of the congregations that originated this revision effort, all from our larger congregations both in terms of attendance and annual budgets, expressed frustration at how they believe they are viewed by our smallest congregations – with mistrust, envy, dislike.

These perceptions and real stresses are not new to the diocese, but I believe have become more acute with the needs our congregants and communities face. It became apparent to me that the most needed response was not just a new assessment formula, but rather a coming together between people representing different contexts of church life, and an honest exchange about those settings of life and ministry. The remainder of this pastoral letter provides an update for you about a process set in motion a number of months ago to support diocesan conversation about stewardship.

To begin the process, I felt that it was important to have a small-scale and representative conversation on stewardship needs and capacity that could be broadened to include more and more people, representing more and more of our congregations. Jim Forsyth, diocesan controller, helped me formulate a plan to establish an initial task force for this purpose, and Jim took our recommendations to the diocesan finance committee for help in implementation. I made suggestions at the outset of this effort regarding a list of participants who could be representative of small, large and mission congregations, and soon the taskforce was underway, headed by Shelton Ensley, president of our Executive Council. In addition to the representatives of our congregations, Shelton, Executive Council vice president Roulhac Austin, Jim Forsyth, and diocesan treasurer Bob McCaskill participated in the task force.

The task force worked diligently over a several month period, meeting every week. They reflected on the contexts of ministry in mission, small and large congregations, and produced a draft assessment formula that I think is very useful as a starting place for the expanded conversations that are to follow. Let me be clear; the assessment formula that the task force put forward is for the diocese to use in conversation – it is not being presented to diocesan convention in the form of a resolution. By our canons, amendments to the assessment formula must be submitted to the finance committee by April 1 before the diocesan convention in that year.

We are now at the stage of extending the work of this task force for broader diocesan input, and shall begin this process with an extended lunch period at diocesan convention for small-group discussions. I’m pleased that many members of the task force will be present to help lead small group conversations at convention and beyond, and I’m grateful for their ongoing support. The process for diocesan conversation will continue beyond the convention with the goal of arriving at a revised formula by March 2011, at which time the revised formula will be presented to the Finance Committee. Details for how convention input will be used, as well as additional opportunities for input, will be shared at convention.

For 2011, I proposed to the Executive Council that the 10% rebate on assessments that was enacted last year be repeated this year in order to give relief to those congregations experiencing budget deficits, a request the Executive Council was pleased to ratify. The 10% rebate will be a proposal coming from the Executive Council to the Diocesan Convention for approval.

Let me close by saying that I am confident that we will reach a new understanding of diocesan stewardship over the next few months through our expanded conversations together; and, that this will be expressed in a new assessment formula in support of the life of the diocese. Even more, I have confidence that we will continue to become a manifestation of the Beloved Community, by the grace of God and for the sake of God’s world.

With gratitude for our life together, I am

Faithfully,

The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus
Bishop of California

Read Full Post »

Contra Costa Deanery Town Hall Meeting

Contra Costa Deanery August 24, 2010 Town Hall Meeting Notes

The meeting was billed as a town hall and more than 60 showed up at the Church of the Resurrection in Pleasant Hill for a discussion of a proposal to change the Diocesan Assessment formula.  I posted the documents earlier so you can read them for yourself.

There was tension in the room but not acrimony.  There was iced tea served as refreshment on this hot August night.  There was an eagerness for more information and a TEA party kind of skepticism among those in attendance.  This was a Main Street kind of crowd at its finest.

St. Timothy’s Danville has been the skunk at the diocesan lawn party for having the temerity to say that the parish could no longer afford or rationalize the level of its diocesan assessment given the state of the local economy and the cuts to parish staff and programs already endured and yet to come.  As you can imagine this has seriously irritated the Bishop of California.

In fairness, St. Timothy’s has conducted this act of ecclesiastical disobedience transparently, openly, and on the table giving the Diocese plenty of notice that it was considering the action, exploring options and praying over its decision. We could have chosen the more politically correct route of accepting the assessment and then underpaying—hoping for dispensation.   Instead, St. Timothy’s decided to be honest about a policy choice to conserve cash reserves by reducing its payment on the diocesan assessment from the current formula to 10% of expected income as if it were a tithe.  And in so doing, St. Timothy’s provoked the process of reconsideration of the Diocesan assessment formula now being discussed across the entire diocese.

Town Hall Discussion Focus

But the Town Hall meeting discussion that followed was about governance, transparency, and participation in the work of the church through the Diocese.  The sponsors of the meeting opened it up with what, at first, sounded like defensive denials about the process underway.  Shelton Ensley, chair of the Diocesan Executive Council had circulated documents in advance and the crowd cheered his commitment to transparency and openness. Roulhac Austin, vice Chair of the Executive Council and Sylvia Vasquez, Rector of St. Paul’s Walnut Creek attended as members of the Finance Department Working Group that put together the Assessment Formula proposal.

Steven Strane, Rector at St. Timothy’s told the crowd that he has heard many false rumors about the action proposed, the work of the Department of Finance and the hidden agendas of those involved.

What rumors you ask?  I know, you are shocked that there is politics in the work of the church, but there it was named, framed and exposed to sunlight.

• The rumor that this was an attempt by the large parishes to close down the small weak ones,
• That this was an attempt by the parishes to gut the Diocesan staff and budget to save their own,
• The rumor of conspiracy against the social and ethnic ministries of the Diocese.

You could tell that some in the audience had heard these same rumors.  The act of putting them on the table and naming them as false and inviting honest, open discussion of each took the steam right out of the issue and turned the discussion to the broader issue of how do we do the work of the church in a time of such economic uncertainty. After about 45 minutes of clearing the air and exposing the hidden agenda suspicions we got down to discussion of the subject on the table.

Framing the Broader Diocesan Issues for Further Discussion

By the end of the next hour of dialogue the issues were framed largely around the following questions:

• Good Start But Needs More Participation Across Parishes. The proposed change in the Diocesan Assessment from the Finance Committee working group is largely the work of involved clergy wrestling with the issues of finance and assessment formulae without much involvement from the laity and needed input from more parishes. The proposal creates a mandatory administrative budget and a voluntary ministry program budget for the Diocese.  In short the sense of the crowd was this is a good start but we need more discussion.  That has been the view of the Bishop and he is correctly sensing the views from the pews on that point—so more discussion, transparency and participation were called for before a decision is made.  Convention 2011 instead of Convention 2010 is better timing.

• Imagine the Possibilities of Our Financial Life Together in New Ways.  The potential and risk of creating a voluntary program ministry budget across the Diocese excited the crowd.  It was daring all admitted, but do we trust each other enough to make it voluntary?  It opened the doors to exciting new ministry possibilities but we are not sure the Diocesan staff is on the same page as the parishes about those possibilities and priorities. It shifts both the control and the burden from the Diocesan staff to the parishes for ministry programs—we like that but can we get our parish act together and will we put our money where our mouth has been to support the programs?

• Is this Jailbreak or Following Jesus? It was too bad the Bishop was not in attendance for this meeting to listen to the aspirations and exasperations of the crowd.  There is a growing TEA Party movement in the Diocese of California.  It has nothing to do with electoral politics.  It has everything to do with perceived relationships between the parishes and the Diocese, between the more liberal San Francisco part of the Diocese and the more conservative suburban parts, between the thriving parishes and the declining ones, between the social and ethnic ministry activists threatened by the youth ministry and growth ministry protagonists.  These issues are not new but discussion of them on the table is new.

Change is always threatening, but the current economic realities are forcing reconsideration of many conventional ways.  If we see the decisions to be made as a zero sum game—us-vs-them, or Diocese-vs-parishes choices we risk being distracted from the mission of the church.  And worse, we risk missing the opportunities that come from defining this “beloved community” as something the parishes really believe in instead of some ambiguous Dio-speak with no meaning and no substance behind it.

The Bishop’s TEA Party

There are risks for the Bishop of California in this process, but there is also great opportunity for him as well.  I was struck by the absent presence of the Bishop in the room.  There is a discomfort with the Bishop right below the surface.  There are rising expectations of change in the way the Diocese works with parishes.  Tonight the Contra Costa Deanery crowd feels the Diocese has a ‘we know better’ attitude that frustrates many.  The rumor that the assessment formula debate is a proxy for going after the Diocesan staff is born of such frustrations.  While the rumor may not be true, in fact, it lives in the anxiety it creates among all as the manifestation of their dis-ease with how the Diocese works.

Marc did not cause these problems but he owns them.  He inherited the bishop’s hat in a time when the economy no longer permits kicking the issues down the street for another day. My sense was that everyone in the room wanted to help the Bishop, help the Diocese, help the church succeed in its mission.  There was no lack of commitment apparent.

The Bishop’s problem in that room is hard to describe and even harder to resolve.  It is the perception right below the surface that Marc is among us but not one with us.  He must fix that or he will have a full blown TEA party on his hands.

Read Full Post »

Finance Working Group Diocesan Assessment Revision Proposal

This is the transmittal memo from the Finance Working Group to the Executive Council proposing a compromise revision of the Diocesan Assessment formula to address the concerns of St. Timothy’s and other large parishes:

To: The Executive Council of the Episcopal Diocese of California

From: The Dept. of Finance of the Diocese of California

Re: Proposed New Assessment Formula: A Starting Point for Conversation

It has been four years since Bishop Marc became leader of our beloved community. Since his consecration, we have shared profound and unsettling changes all around us in terms of the pace of life, technological interaction and dependence and Christian engagement in general. Missions and ministries are changing to meet 21st  century models, sometimes away from the neighborhood-based, homogeneous congregations of old. The diocese has 18,500 congregants, not the 50,000 we hoped for in 2005. We no longer employ an executive officer, assistant bishop, assistant secretaries, development or stewardship officers. As the body canonically responsible for proposing the assessment formula to convention, the Dept. of Finance feels the time is ripe to revisit our shared purse and how we spend it, to reevaluate how we, as a Diocese, financially support each other, both through the communal work the Diocese does on our behalf and through congregations’ support for each other. The foundation for the new assessment formula is rooted in fulfilling our spiritual call to do God’s work in the world, to mirror and share His generosity with gladness and zeal. The proposed changes don’t make sense without our faith in each other as members of this beloved Diocese.

How the Work was Done. The Department of Finance organized a committee, the membership of which was blessed by Bishop Marc+ to pursue this work, and they came forward with this work which the Dept. of Finance considered and put forward for further conversation. The committee included: Shelton Ensley, chair, Bob McCaskill, Roulhac Austin and the Rev.s Phil Brochard, Tommy Dillon, Paul Fromberg, Terri Gotzinger, Leonard Oakes, Jason Parkin, Lauran Pifke, Chris Rankin-Williams, Steven Strane and Sylvia Vasquez. This group represents each deanery and large, medium and small congregations. The committee presented its consensus to the Dept. of Finance whose membership includes Betsy Munz and Peggy Greene, both of whom also support wider discussion of the assessment formula.

Ultimate Goal. Executive Council will take up the conversation about the assessment formula and go about soliciting input from its own members and growing the circle to include deaneries and other constituents with the hope of reaching its own consensus about what the assessment formula should be going forward. The hope would be to conduct these discussions and negotiations, to refine or revise this input and have a multi-year assessment formula ready for consideration at the 2011 convention to be effective in 2012.

New Budget Model. Chief among the changes proposed is how the budget is presented to vestries, deaneries and to convention. From now on, the budget will be presented as the Ministry and Mission Budget (MMB) which reflects where we want our pastoral and outreach ministries of the Diocese to flourish and grow. The MMB includes ministry development, mission congregations, ethnic and multicultural ministries, area ministries, youth and young adult ministries, campus ministries, and the work of the various commissions of the diocese. The second budget piece is the Diocesan Administrative Budget (DAB) which reflects our largely fixed costs of doing business as a diocese including the salary, pension and other benefits of the Bishop and his staff, utilities, occupancy costs, communications and the like. We are doing this so people can see where and how our assessment dollars are being used.

We are splitting apart the administrative and the ministry aspects of the budget because for an organization to grow generatively, there must be some greater mission that calls people to generosity, empowerment and action. We want a process that will empower congregations to directly determine funding of the MMB. Each congregation is invited to respond, not only with an amount of support, but also with its designation to specific ministries or categories.

For purposes of background, the current assessment formula is 5% of the first $62,000 of income as defined in the congregation’s parochial report and 20% of the balance, yielding a blended rate of 16.89% of all income. For a hypothetical parish with income of $250,000, the assessment for 2010 is $40,700.1,2

Proposed New Assessment Formula. Beginning in 2012 a new assessment formula is proposed, to be fully realized over six years. This new formula will include three categories of payments:

∗ Five percent minimum assessment on the first $62,000 of income PLUS

∗ a declining percentage assessment on income over $62,000 PLUS

∗ an increasing voluntary contribution on income over $62,000.

One-half of the voluntary contribution will be allocated by its congregation to go to several defined programs within MMB. See “What are the MMB funding opportunities?” below.

We propose a phase-in of the formula over six years because we are stretching ourselves to change the way we work together as a community, but we cannot do it in a healthful, sustainable way overnight.  The consensus is that 6 years gives all of us enough time to evaluate how the voluntary giving is going, to educate ourselves about giving and to make adjustments along the way. For instance, if the voluntary giving is not in general what we’d hoped for, we then have the opportunity to examine why: does the mission emphasis need to change or is there an educational component that needs to be addressed? Do we need a longer time horizon or different end goal? In fact, the assessment formula, the DAB and MMB will be reviewed annually to assure appropriate ministry, mission and administrative funding.

1. Assessment of 5% on the Minimum.

The MMB and DAB are both funded by this first category of assessment of 5% on the first $62,000 of

Total Operating Income (TOI) as that term is defined in the parochial report. The $62,000 represents the amount it would cost a parish to hire a full time priest at the diocesan salary minimum for a newly ordained person. Although the actual salaries of clergy vary widely, we believe that 5% of this minimum is a way to have each congregation pay to support the work of the diocese. Every congregation must pay this amount.

2. Decreasing Assessment on Income over $62,000.

This assessment is based on a percentage of each congregation’s TOI in excess of $62,000 and supports both DAB and MMB budgets. This percentage will decrease each year over six years:

Year 1              17% on the amount of income over $62,000

Year 2              16% on the amount of income over $62,000

Year 3              15% on the amount of income over $62,000

Year 4              14% on the amount of income over $62,000

Year 5              13% on the amount of income over $62,000

Year 6              12% on the amount of income over $62,000

For purposes of illustration, in year 6, with 5% on the first $62,000 and the assessment of 12% on the balance of income, the blended rate across all congregations of roughly 10%. For our hypothetical parish, in year 6 the assessment will be $25,660.

1  This assessment amount is based on the current formula.  However, it does not reflect the 10% assessment rebate given by convention to congregations and funded by prior years’ reserves.

2  The Diocese pays to support the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA). ECUSA asks all dioceses to contribute 21% of their income, but the amount of the contribution is up to the discretion of the diocese.  The Diocese of California gave ECUSA $715,000 in 2010, approximately 21% of our income.

3. Increasing MMB Contribution on Income over $62,000 for Mission and Ministry. Unlike the assessments which support both DAB and MMB, this assessment is a voluntary one directed solely to MMB and based on a percentage of each congregation’s TOI in excess of $62,000. This percentage will increase over each of the next six years:

Year 1        3% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Year 2        4% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Year 3        5% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Year 4        6% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Year 5        7% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Year 6        8% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Each congregation will be asked to designate which MMB funding opportunities it wishes to support with ½ of its contribution. Reservations have been expressed concerning whether the voluntary contributions will in fact be made and whether or not the diocese can operate on the revenues generated in years 5 and 6.

The MMB Funding Opportunities. We are going to begin this new model of generosity by asking congregations to select from five categories of current mission and ministry work in the diocese. These are:

• Mission Congregations: support congregations moving from mission to parish status and churches with specific development needs

• Outreach Ministries: Episcopal and ecumenical agencies, networks, diocesan committees and chaplaincies that represent collective efforts to minister to others.

• Diocesan Support Ministries: resources for congregations through commissions, committees and divisions that work to enable congregational potential.

• Ethnic and Multicultural Ministries: promoting ministries that cross the cultural, racial and ethnic boundaries of our society and show us more fully the face of the Church.

• Outside Diocesan Support: supporting the work of the Episcopal Church, Millennium Development Goals and missionary work.

We are asking congregations to declare in writing their selection of ministries and missions that they support, ministries and missions that reflect their own vision and core values. This also provides direct feedback to the diocese on the work it is doing on our behalf.

If a congregation does not pay all or a portion of the voluntary amount, we are asking it to disclose the reasons why. This mechanism creates an opportunity for mutual communication in a non-combative way and adds to mutual accountability and transparency between the Diocese and congregations.

The Budget Implications. The obvious question is: do we know the budget cuts that we will face with these assessment formulas?  The answer is some cuts will be needed, just as necessary cuts in spending affect every person, family, parish, mission, institution and business in the country right now. While the specifics of the budget are proposed by Program and Budget and ultimately approved by convention, we know we can get the savings needed to support the year 1 budget without cutting program and mission. Given our changing diocesan profile and emerging new models for congregational life, the work of our beloved Diocesan community can and will flourish with this funding.

Read Full Post »

Proposed New Diocesan Assessment Formula

The Case for Change: what is being proposed, how we trust and pray it will unfold

Following are the reflections of the assessment formula review committee on their thinking about the assessment formula review process and how they addressed some specific concerns about the changes proposed:

Why does the church always have to talk about money?

Money is a gift from God, another instrument within the Kingdom of God. Within this divine culture, money is best used for the sake of God’s mission in the world. As members of the Church we use our money as a tool for achieving the goals of God’s culture: making peace, proclaiming God’s love, welcoming people into our fellowship, encouraging discipleship, living in prayer and daily offering our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God. Secrets and resentments about money are destructive of our common life as a church.

Why does my parish have to pay into the diocese?

The congregations and the diocese depend on each other for their existence, just as our diocese and the Episcopal Church USA depend upon each other for existence. The Bishop and his staff provide leadership, guidance and counsel to the people and congregations of the diocese, promoting spiritual and financial health, growth and management. Diocesan staff coordinates ministries and mission initiatives that reflect the needs and aspirations of the people of the diocese, working locally, in area ministries and extending beyond the Bay Area. In order for the mission of God to be expressed in the work of the diocese, congregations give generously.

Is there a theological basis for this arrangement?

In the early Church the sharing of goods was the source of the early Church’s koinonia. The word koinonia describes the early Church’s fellowship and work in community. Koinonia suggests a way to abundantly share resources within congregations and between congregations in the diocese. Koinonia means mutual support in the work of ministry. A congregation supports the mission and ministry of the diocese, which in turn must support the congregation. Giving strengthens the koinonia of the congregations of the diocese, as each gives to support the needs of the others and discovers common purpose in ministry. This happens best when relationships between congregations are honest, open and mutual and if the relationship between the diocese and the congregations is transparent. We need to focus our energy on our common work of fulfilling the mission of God. The primary goal of generosity in the Church is to empower this work. Congregations must consider their participation in the larger work of the diocese, evaluate their sharing in that work, and consider how their sharing must change.

How will we build relationships that are transparent and communicate openly?

To support more open and transparent communication from the diocese , the proposed budget will now be separated into the Diocesan Administrative Budget (DAB) which identifies the fixed costs of doing business including the salary, pension and benefits of the Bishop and his staff – roughly 65% of the budget – occupancy cost, utilities and the like and the Mission and Ministry Budget (MMB) which reflects the programs, ministries development and missions we support as a diocese to invest in the work and health of congregations, their members and their communities. It includes ministry development, mission congregations, ethnic and multicultural ministries, area ministries, youth and young adult ministries, campus ministries, and the work of the various commissions of the diocese. The diocesan staff works diligently to manage the resources received with integrity, creativity and in a spirit of abundance.

What is the budget for the diocese? How much of it is received through assessments?

The total proposed budget for 2011 is $3,807,960. Like every family, small business, corporation and governmental entity, this is a necessary reduction from 2010 but it will not significantly impact ministries or mission. Assessments on the congregations in the diocese account for $3,027,960 or 80% of the total. The remainder comes from endowment income and miscellaneous sources. By comparison, the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) asks each diocese to contribute 21% of its income to the national church.  The Diocese of California gave ECUSA $715,000 in 2010, approximately 21% of our income.

Why are you separating out the administrative and the ministry parts of the budget?

An organization that spends all of its energy on maintenance will not thrive. For an organization to grow generatively there must be some greater mission that calls people to generosity, empowerment and action. We want a process that will empower congregations to directly determine funding of the MMB. Each congregation is invited to respond, not only with an amount of support, but also with a designation to specific ministries or categories.

What is the proposed new assessment formula?

A new multi-year assessment formula is proposed that will be fully realized over six years. This new formula will include three categories: Five percent assessment on the first $62,000 of income, a declining assessment percentage on income over the minimum and an increasing voluntary contribution percentage over the minimum.

What is the 5% assessment on the Minimum?

The DAB and MMB are both supported by this first category of assessment of 5% on the first $62,000 of each congregation’s Total Operating Income (TOI), as defined in the congregation’s parochial report. The $62,000 represents the amount it would cost a parish to hire a full time priest at the diocesan salary minimum for a newly ordained person. Although the actual salaries of clergy in congregations vary widely from this amount, we believe that 5% of this minimum is a way to have each congregation pay to support the work of the diocese. Every congregation must pay this amount.

What is the additional assessment?

This additional assessment is based on a percentage of each congregation’s TOI in excess of the minimum and supports both DAB and MMB budgets. This percentage will decrease each year over six years:

Year 1  17% on the amount of income over $62,000

Year 2 16% on the amount of income over $62,000

Year 3  15% on the amount of income over $62,000

Year 4  14% on the amount of income over $62,000

Year 5  13% on the amount of income over $62,000

Year 6  12% on the amount of income over $62,000

What is the MMB Contribution?

Unlike the assessments which support both DAB and MMB, this contribution is a voluntary one directed solely to MMB and based on a percentage of each congregation’s TOI in excess of the minimum. This voluntary percentage will increase each year over six years:

Year 1       3% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Year 2       4% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Year 3       5% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Year 4       6% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Year 5       7% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Year 6       8% Mission and Ministry Contribution

Each congregation will be asked to designate which ministries and missions it wishes to support with up to ½ of its voluntary contribution.

Reservations have been expressed concerning whether the voluntary contributions will in fact be made and whether or not the diocese can operate on the revenues generated in years 5 and 6.

What are the Mission and Ministry Budget funding opportunities?

We are going to begin this new model of generosity by asking congregations to select from five categories of current mission and ministry work in the diocese. These are:

• Mission Congregations: support congregations moving from mission to parish status and churches with specific development needs.

• Outreach Ministries: Episcopal and ecumenical agencies, networks, diocesan committees and chaplaincies that represent collective efforts to minister to others.

• Diocesan Support Ministries: resources for congregations through commissions, committees and divisions that work to enable congregational potential.

• Ethnic and Multicultural Ministries: promoting ministries that cross the cultural, racial and ethnic boundaries of our society and show us more fully the face of the Church.

• Outside Diocesan Support: supporting the work of the Episcopal Church, Millennium Development Goals and missionary work.

Why should churches be allowed to designate half of their MMB Contribution dollars?

This allows members of congregations to connect personally with the ministries they support, and it allows congregations to select ministries that reflect their own vision, mission and core values.

What if my parish can’t accept its total MMB Contribution?

If a church is unable to accept its MMB Contribution in total it will submit in writing the reasons why. The Rector or Vicar and the Senior Warden will sign this explanation. Copies will be sent to the Bishop, the Department of Finance, the Department of Congregation Development, the Executive Council and assessment formula review committee for appropriate action.

Why are you taking six years to make this change?

We are stretching ourselves to change the way we work together as a community and we cannot do it in a healthful, sustainable way overnight. This slower pace of change gives us the opportunity to review our progress and make adjustments along the way, if necessary. In fact, the assessment formula and the DAB and MMB will be reviewed annually to assure appropriate ministry, mission and administrative funding.

Does this mean that the assessment formula will continue to change?

We hope so. From time to time the fair balance in giving from congregations to the diocese must be recalibrated so that each community is giving in terms that allow the greatest amount of generosity and the greatest support for the congregations. Otherwise congregations will be pressured to generosity that defeats the normative value of koinonia in the diocesan family

How do groups in the diocese request funding under the Mission and Ministry funding opportunities?

Requests for funding from MMB will not change. Each ministry that wants funding for the next budget year will submit in writing to the Program and Budget Committee its purpose or mission, its goals and plans for the coming year, and a progress report on how it is reaching its goals. A brief explanation of its proposed funding request, along with the percent of the total budget it is requesting from diocesan support will also be included.  The Program and Budget Committee then recommends the budget to the annual convention for its vote.

How will ministries and mission initiatives be held accountable for their funding?

A year-end financial statement will be required for any ministry receiving financial support from the MMB.  The financial statement will be presented to the Program and Budget Committee and to the Audit Committee at the same time as funding requests are due, whether or not renewed funding is being requested.

Will the ministries in the MMB funding opportunities remain the same every year?

No. We hope that new mission initiatives and ministry opportunities will arise in the diocese as a result of this process. The vision of being bound to one another can empower congregations to come together and envision possibilities for ministry. When two or more congregations capture the excitement of a single vision, great things can be accomplished. Joint projects can be submitted for consideration beginning in the spring of 2011. The Bishop and Executive Council can also add new work to the MMB funding opportunities.

Will the ministries in MMB funding opportunities continue to be funded year after year?

No. Diocesan mission and ministry must continually be evaluated in order to discern its contribution to the goal of pursuing God’s work in the world. If work has ceased to be generative for the whole, then it must be retired for the sake of the mission and ministry of the diocese.

Can’t my parish just accept 100% of the MMB Contribution but spend that money on local outreach?

Every congregation can give as much as they want to local outreach, but it will not be reflected as a response to the Contribution for the MMB. Only the funds you commit to the MMB Contribution will be counted toward your response to the MMB Contribution request.

Can we give our financial support directly to the ministries in the MMB?

No, all giving must go through the Diocesan Treasurer’s office. The Treasurer will manage all receipts in such a way that they are pooled, and expenses will be paid out of the pool which will provide an ability to manage cash flow. Congregations will not receive credit toward giving to the MMB if they send contributions directly to specific ministries.

Does this system promote the integrity and generosity of the givers?

We hope so! There are different ways that we try to help congregations give to the MMB funding opportunities honestly, lovingly and transparently. For example, a church receiving financial support from the MMB will not be allowed to specifically itemize its gift to itself. The goal is to build koinonia in the diocese and we trust that congregations will take up giving in this spirit.

Who considered these changes? These changes were considered by and proposed for further conversation by the Dept. of Finance including Bob McCaskill, Treasurer, Shelton Ensley and Roulhac Austin from Executive Council and Peggy Greene and Betsy Munz based upon the work of the Assessment Formula Review Committee: Shelton Ensley, chair, Bob McCaskill, Roulhac Austin and the Rev’s. Phil Brochard, Tommy Dillon, Paul Fromberg, Terri Gotzinger, Leonard Oakes, Jason Parkin, Lauran Pifke, Chris Rankin-Williams, Steven Strane and Sylvia Vasquez.

Read Full Post »

Signposts of Transformation Mission

“We believe that building relationships between congregations and the diocese increases the quality of ministry in both.

We want to understand more clearly the way that money is used to carry out the work of ministry in the diocese.

We want to increase fellowship with each other: congregation to congregation and between the various groups in the diocese and the congregations.

We want to imagine our financial life together in new ways.

We are seeking to articulate a new paradigm of funding that leads to a formula for assessing congregations.

We wonder whether or not we are at a place in our common life where we can trust a formula that includes a portion of giving that is voluntary.

We wonder how discretionary giving – congregations selecting specific areas of mission and ministry in the diocese to support financially – would fund ministries in the diocese.”

With these words, the Executive Council of the Diocese of California invited the Deanery Presidents and Vice Presidents to gather the faithful in a process of discernment and dialog about the implications for changing the formula for the diocesan assessment to submit to the Convention in 2011.

This is a big deal.

It is a big deal that it is happening at all given the long contentious history of this Diocesan equivalent of the alternative minimum tax on the parishes to support the work of the diocese.

It is a big deal because it represents a fair and deliberate process for considering alternatives that materially address the concerns of the largest parishes in the Diocese that the assessment was sapping their resources and discouraging the mission growth of the church in order to subsidize a growing number of weaker parishes who were no longer self-sufficient.

It is a big deal because St. Timothy’s Danville was the protagonist for change by action of its Vestry to challenge the current assessment formula and in so doing force the issue to a head, but instead of a censure St. Timothy’s or other canonical action against it, the Diocese formed a finance working group that included St. Timothy’s and others to consider the issue and propose options.

The proposals going to the Deaneries for discussion and feedback represent the results of that collaborative working group, and if, approved by the Convention, will reform both the finances and the participation of the parishes and laity in the work of the Diocese of California.

Transformation Mission Scenario

Transformation Mission is one of the four scenarios of the future I envisioned as part of 20/20 vision process.  It has the potential to be either liberating or exasperating. See Discernable Futures Scenarios Category.

Here is its plot line:

Financial pressures on the Diocese of California worsen.  Average Diocese daily attendance flat for years declines with revenue stagnating. The mission of the church is weakened by financial problems and half the parishes are not self-sustaining. To avoid conflicts and restore Diocesan finance a transformation mission strategy emerges from dialogue of clergy and lay leaders.  The bold plan consolidates 79 parishes to 35 in five years.  Using an area ministry strategy, larger parishes absorb small ones, manage transitions, serve multi-site congregation needs and end Diocesan subsidies and cutting costs to balance budgets. Executive Council uses surplus property sales to create a Diocesan Mission Growth fund for endowment income for shared program ministry costs by parishes.  The transformation mission strategy restores a sustainable Diocesan finance base, builds its endowment and focuses its mission to double average attendance in five years with stronger programs, shared staff and collaboration.

The ugliness of transformation mission was caused primarily by ignoring the financial and other problems the Diocese faced until they got so bad the cure was almost worse than the disease.  The better outcome is the collaborative— ‘we can work together’ approach envisioned by the Finance Working Group and the actions of the Executive Council to bring the parishes together around a shared action plan for the financial issues and a shared vision for the Diocese’s healthy growth and Holy focus on its spiritual future.

It is a good sign.

Read Full Post »