I'm amazed that this would be announced at a time when diocesan, parochial, and mission budgets across the church are being slashed; parochial clergy and staff salaries are stagnant at best; our seminaries are struggling financially; unemployment is widespread; and the wealth disparity in the country is wider than ever.

I don't begrudge our bishops the need for support. No one argues about the stress they experience. But they are also generally the best-paid clerics of the church...

I don't see it as an either/or thing. I hardly think we need to be reminded that unhealthy bishops make for unhealthy dioceses with unhealthy parishes, making an unhealthy church. As an Episcopal church that relies on the direction and leadership of bishops, there is a need to make sure that they are healthy, balanced folks who stay healthy and balanced.

I suspect that those who will contribute to this campaign would not contribute to the General Fund of TEC. And the $15 million is an endowment, so it is the income that gets used, not the principal. Frankly, I'd almost rather see money going to something I know is going to make a difference then go to what often seems like simply an effort to sustain and support TEC bureaucracy.

Not to mention the fact that if the costs are not underwritten, bishops either don't get the help/care they need or their dioceses, and therefore the parishes within them, are burdened.

I checked and it is not April 1. Asking is certainly free but my extra cash will go to the Cathedral in Haiti or our development projects in Kenya.
I just find this in appalling bad taste.

The theology is screwed up. You don't go through a painful budget cutting process and then allow the programs that were cut to go out and run their own capital campaigns. That's only encouraging us to run to our own silos. You reap what you sow.

There are many gifts, but one body.... The Father sent his Son that we may be one, etc.

Surely the world and the church present us with more urgent opportunities to give than this rather self-serving effort. My tithe and offerings will go elsewhere.

Ditto to all of the comments thus far. I am so annoyed by the increasing process jargonese in TEC communiques, that I want to throw up. Given the ultra politicalization of episcopal elections in the past couple of decades [at least] perhaps we need to be paying more attention to the candidates who 'feel led' to seek preferment. I'm sorry to disagree with our wonderful PB on this one, but the obsession with infrastructure and reinventing the wheel really need to be stopped.

How about putting some money in support of seminaries, for a required course on how to be a bishop, so everybody knows what they're supposed to be up to?

Martha Blacklock

Sometimes we can be so prophetic and sensitive to the needs of the world. That's what drew me to TEC and makes me happy to be here. At the same time, there are moments when we can be so much like the other institutional churches that it's going to be difficult to prevent us from going the way of all the others (that is, in their decline/demise). What we really need is a whole lot of out-of-the-box thinking. Bishops, we can do better than this.

When we get past the initial incredulousness, disappointment, even disgust, does this not make our hearts ache? I remember once, a young woman, struggling to make ends meet, reacting to the pictures of beautiful new vestments for the bishop in her diocese, "Those cost more than I make in six months."

Recently there has been great use of a prayer attributed to Oscar Romero, but that was actually written by Roman Catholic Bishop Ken Untener. Untener was the same person who asked his diocese not to take any official action, or make any decision, without first asking, "What effect will this have on the lives of those who are poor?" With actions like these, how is it we plan to be friends with the poor?

I hope this initiative succeeds. I expect that it will. Campaigns like this don’t usually go public until most of the money is in hand. That said, lay people need to pay some careful attention to the way powerful organizations within the church use our money.

This initiative was made necessary because the Church Pension trustees decided that they would no longer fund the College of Bishops. I have no opinion about the wisdom of this decision. But I am aware that the Church Pension fund is sitting on top of an enormous surplus collected from congregations to finance the clergy’s 18 percent defined benefit pension program.

I have no opinion about whether it is wise to offer such a generous benefit program. It may be that looking forward to a secure retirement offsets other hardships that clergy undergo. But I am aware that most of the lay people who contribute to the congregational budgets from which clergy pension contributions are made will not enjoy such significant benefits themselves.

It is a little easier to make peace with the fact that you are paying for someone else’s retirement to be more secure than your own, when the significant surplus that has accrued over the years is used to help finance worthwhile initiatives within the church. I think the trustees of the pension fund will undercut support for clergy pensions if they start cutting back on support for such programs.

As I don’t begrudge clergy their pensions, I don’t begrudge bishops their on-the-job training and health and wellness programs. But, this campaign is being undertaken at a time when other priorities are languishing, at a time when other campaigns (most notably the one to save the Archives) have been postponed, and by an office—Pastoral Development—with one of the fastest growing budgets in the Church over the last decade or so. It is being undertaken at a time when various proposals are floating around the church that would reduce the length of General Convention, change its purpose, and increase the length of time between its meetings.

Because I work within the church and love it, I attempt, when conflict arises, to assume good intentions all around. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that some of our church’s leaders are more interested in counting lay people’s contributions than in hearing our voices. If I have arrived at that conclusion erroneously, I hope those leaders will examine the comments on this blog and on our Facebook page, and realize that I am not alone in doing so. Perhaps you have sent us a message that you did not intend to send. Nonetheless, you have sent it.

In my own setting, full orientation of new managers is seen as critical. As a part of that, each new manager has to schedule a meeting of at least 15 minutes with every other manager in house. That means, among other things, that I get at least 15 minutes one-on-one with each new manager to discuss how Spiritual Wellness is part of the hospital's fabric, and how I might be a resource for staff, as well as for the manager, in ways the manager might not have thought of. We see building relationships and thorough education in our "corporate culture" as mission-critical to our practice as a hospital.

As I look at the Convention Budget Priorities, I see several that this supports:

"Establishing and supporting collaborative efforts within and among dioceses and congregations to promote vibrant ministry in service to God’s mission"
Promoting partnerships with other dioceses and churches of the Anglican Communion, encouraging multi-diocese mission efforts that reduce redundancy and enhance relationships both domestic and foreign"
Exploring and discovering who we are as The Episcopal Church, within the comprehensive reality of our complex culture and in relationship to others"
Educating about Episcopal Church governance and polity, forming at all ages our Christian, Episcopal, and Anglican identity"
Inspiring and developing sound leadership at all levels of the church"
Assuring standards of accountability and measurement of outcome"

Perhaps it has helped in my situation that my bishop (recently retired) has been on the faculty of the Bishop's School, as well as remembering his own experience in it. He mentioned on a number of occasions how he thought this experience contributed especially to a sense of collegiality and to trust and good communications among bishops. Despite a few outliers, the House of Bishops has shown remarkable calm and collegiality through our recent Anglican/Episcopal turmoil, and remarkably little "partisan division." It seems to me that this in itself is necessary for almost all the other mission priorities of the 2009 Budget.

Now, I think it is a valid question why the CPG isn't funding it any more. Maybe they're (justifiably) concerned about what the single Church-wide health insurance plan for clergy and lay professionals is going to cost. Maybe they think it's just good policy to have this endowed, and so shielded from future financial stresses. But I still think this is worth supporting as in investment in continuity and good governance.

My apologies, siblings. "Execute" is Marshall Scott.

I love my bishops. I want all three of them to be well and have the support they need.

BUT...

I know people who have lost their homes in this economic crisis. I know people who have lost their jobs and can't find a new one. I know people who are struggling with health issues because they've lost, or simply cannot afford, health insurance.

The bishops aren't facing those things. They have jobs, health insurance, and homes. They will have their well-deserved retirement.

To ask the people in the pews to give sacrificially so that a select few, who already have the basics for security and well-being, can have *more* seems particularly insensitive and ill-advised.

I want to bring us back around to the Church Pension Fund. It is sitting on a significant surplus--donated by the laity. Can we justify pulling that kind of money entirely out of the system at this particular time? I don't know the answer, but I think the question is ripe for public discussion.

@ Jim, while I agree with your comments, please remember that the surplus was generated with funds donated by both the laity and the clergy, and as one who gives more than the full tithe, I do think forgetting that the clergy also give generously to the work of the church with our money is a mistake.

Gretchen Rehberg

The negative comments and even the commentary in this article all seem to have one cynical implication: that the bishops are indifferent to the needs of those hurting in the world. I highly doubt that this is true. I know that my bishop is DEEPLY concerned about those suffering.

Also, the truth that there are suffering people in the world does not make this an illegitimate cause. The implication is that if times were better, this would be ok, as if there aren't always hurting people in the world.

This is a fledgling non-profit with a very specific mission. If it just gained 501(c)3 status, then it is wise for the organization to announce a campaign to endow itself with resources for the future. Also, $15 million makes for a comparatively modest endowment.

I'm certain that much thought went into the campaign, with much concern and sensitivity to the current state of the church. In fact, building one's endowment during uncertain times seems like a VERY good idea to me.

The negative comments and even the commentary in this article all seem to have one cynical implication: that the bishops are indifferent to the needs of those hurting in the world.

Travis, not at all. And I point out to you that there is at least one bishop in this thread who has commented, and not positively to the initiative...nor cynically, either.

I'm more concerned that this announcement could be read cynically, as you suggest. And that means it has the potential of being unhelpful, most of all to our bishops, who are often on a razor's edge in the rough-and-tumble of ecclesiastical politics even at the best of times. A more apt description to the timing and tenor of this announcement is that it risks coming across to the wider church as "tone deaf."

More concretely, I have to wonder about the bishops funding an initiative for their own House when we hear little if anything publicly about their endeavors to tangibly help fund the General Convention priorities. These I think are most pressing, as our bishops are beholden to the financial decisions of General Convention (those pesky vows of obedience) just like the rest of our clergy are. Yes, they can go off and start a separate 501(c)3, as can we all, but priorities still matter, and they might offer a better context in making the case on building the endowment for the college. The press release doesn't seem to give them a mention.

In any case, I freely admit, with more than a bit of self doubt, that we bloggers do like to engage in "Monday morning quarter-backing" and, like you, I very much prefer to give our bishops the benefit of the doubt. Certainly I see evidence elsewhere that they are sympathetic to the financial struggles their congregations are experiencing. Would, however, that we hear more about the actions being undertaken in response. . .

Establishing an endowment for the College is probably a good idea but the timing of this announcement is awful! How about a "quiet" campaign for 1/2 the total and no further announcements until this has been fully subscribed?