What a sad refelection on whoever was supposed to be in charge and making sure this never happened in the first place. Please help me to understand how anything short of irresponsibility (or worse) could have brought this about.

I am concerned at our seeming propensity for debt, often to maintain the church of 50 years ago, which has long since vanished. And of the debt that we carry, so much of it appears to be for buildings and other fixed assets, versus things like feeding the hungry, or assisting those struggling to deal with natural disasters. At least if we're going to go into debt, let's do so for something useful.

Eric Bonetti

I don't see this as either/or. Some people, myself included, find education and worship useful. They will continue to be necessary and useful, alongside caring for the poor. We just don't know how to do that yet, on an institutional level, though I think in one place or another there are examples of how to make the shift needed today, so many, in fact, it's hard to imagine which to choose. There will still be a need for educated clergy, but one thing that will most likely go is the stipend and benefits, because we have failed to build value into what a priest does, except by trying to make clergy CEO's and administrators instead of clergy. That's all I have to say on the subject.

Lois, I don't believe anyone said that it had to be service OR education and worship. Instead of either/or it can be both/and but maybe not in the way it has been or was in the past. We need inspiring worship and deep prayer which means that we need educated clergy. We do not need to keep doing things the way we did them fifty years ago simply because "that's the way we always did it" and we need not neglect the great commission in order to do them. Maybe New York City is not the best location for a seminary at this point in time. Does the church in New York reflect the broader church and its need? As wonderful as General Seminary is, many folks would say "NO". Perhaps they have a point worthy of listening to rather than simply reacting against. It would serve us if we all listened deeply at this point and paid attention to the signs of the times.

The fiscal dilemma of my alma mater, [GTS ‘67] has been a ticking time bomb for nearly half of a century. There is enough blame to spread broadly for those who wish to indulge in fault-finding. Now the historic Chelsea Square close leaves a seminary footprint approximately one third of its original state, encroached upon by new ultra-expensive development and purchase of its two oldest buildings. Sadly a much deserved monument to Archbishop Tutu is being sold as well.

In fairness the current Dean was hired to clean up the mess at any cost, given his skill and reputation in this field, and he seems to be achieving this with great but necessary pain to generations of students and graduates. The alternative would have been speedy foreclosure by the institutions holding the indebtedness. Without addressing the opinions of respondents on this page, it is a valid question to ask whether GTS will be able to survive not necessarily its fiscal dilemma [Brodsky’s pockets are deep], but rather the type of presence and witness in the city which it once had and in an upscale and somewhat hostile neighborhood. Furthermore, the question of what that should be, is both a conundrum for the seminary and The Episcopal Church itself.

Some will remember the proposal to move the Executive Council to the Close [in the 1980’s or 90's?], with a new national conference center as well, retaining its offices in the midst of a seminary community. How ironic and tragic that that planning was abruptly halted by the church’s power[s] to be. Had it been feasible, Chelsea Square would remain a vibrant church center and the sale of 815 could have addressed the financial challenges, while relieving the national church of that albatross. Crying over spilled milk, perhaps; but who will discern the lessons to be learned from this mess, or will we continue to ignore those lessons?

Hi Lois. I agree wholeheartedly--education and worship are vital, both for clergy and laity. I'm also a proponent of caring for our own: Our clergy need to be paid a living wage, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is to see that happen.

To that, I'd add that effective stewardship involves living within our means; debt should be incurred with the greatest of reluctance, whether it's to rehab the Tutu Center and do geothermal projects, or to add a parking garage to the national cathedral. And if we are to incur debt, let's do it not for capital expenses, but to serve others in times of crisis. I'll give my last dollar to pay debt incurred to help someone in Haiti who's struggling to survive after the earthquake, or to feed the homeless, but I see little value in paying for a HQ building in Manhattan. The church is far more that its assets, and it may well be that the best thing to happen to the church could be divesture of some of its creaky, days-of-the-dinosaurs assets.

One further observation: Even in today's tight economy, the church is far from poor. The 2010-2012 budget for the church is $141,271,984.00, or according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, enough to provide housing to 5,101 families in need during that time. I am not suggesting that we should only put our resources towards serving others, but let's not lose sight of the vast sums of money that flow through the church and the ways in which that money might be used.

Eric Bonetti

There are serious inaccuracies in the recent story in Chelsea Now, but because the Seminary is in ongoing negotiations with investors, we are not at liberty to address each and every detail. It must be emphatically stated however that GTS is NOT selling the Desmond Tutu Center. A Letter of Intent has been signed that involves separating the guest rooms from the rest of the complex—with only the guest rooms and hotel being purchased by outside investors and with GTS retaining a beneficial interest in the ongoing profits. Hoffman Hall, the large conference rooms, the breakout rooms, and our historic refectory are not being sold and will remain under the sole ownership of General Seminary. Leveraging the “hotel” portion of the Center has always been a part of General’s comprehensive financial initiative, The Plan to Choose Life. Thanks to the hard work of so many, the first three phases of the Plan have succeeded. Our total debt has been reduced from approximately $40 million to $11 million and we have significantly decreased our operating deficits. The Plan has also nearly doubled our endowment which now stands at approximately $20 million, up from $11 million. As importantly, out of a contingency we set aside, the Plan has built up an operating reserve of about $5.5 million. Once the investors have finalized an agreement we will be glad to share all the details. –Bruce Parker, SVP at GTS

It is unfortunate that rather than working with local elected officials and Manhattan Community Board 4, the General Theological Seminary seems to prefer secret real estate deals with big real estate developers, recalling the controversy a few years ago over the renting out of rooms at The Tutu Center to people not affiliated with the seminary or any conference held there.

As a letter from CB4 in January 2010 to the Rev. Ward Burleson Ewing, Dean & President at that time, says:

http://tinyurl.com/7fypkyt

"CB4 works to represent the interests of all of its constituents – residential, commercial and institutional. In order to do so we depend on mutual trust, transparency and honest communication. Unfortunately, we find all three to be lacking in our recent relationship
with GTS."

There seems to be a pattern here of not working with the neighborhood of
Chelsea, mirrored perhaps in the inability to reach out to LGBTs in the neighborhood, such as General not taking a public stand on marriage equality in New York State while the issue was being debated in Albany. General could have joined Union Theological but chose not to. General could also make clear on its website, now that same-sex couples have won the right to marry in New York, whether sames-sex couples are welcome to rent space for wedding receptions. The Riverside Church has made it very clear on their site that they welcome same-sex couples and have much experience serving them.

I hope I am missing something here.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Bruce Parker's response details the financial successes being experienced by GTS. I think that most alums understand the distinction between the Tutu Center and its adjoining lodging space. However, I think that the definition of what constitutes the Center independently of the lodgings is a real stretch. That part of the Tutu Center in negotiation is alleged to be in process of sale as a boutique hotel in trendy Chelsea.
CB4's complaints and positions underline what I termed the hostile relationship between GTS and its neighbors, but I was not taking sides on that one.
At the end of the day, my question in my previous posting remains, namely, what type of ministry and program for what kind of church is envisioned or not.

Gary, I don't know if you are missing something or not. But here's my perspective: I graduated from GTS in 2005 (M.Div.), and what I remember in my three years then and in subsequent years is GTS's plans being consistently shot down by CB4. Had CB4 been more willing to negotiate and compromise on the 9th avenue building, some of these more recent financial undertakings would not have become so pressing. I remember that CB4's objection then was that the proposed 9th Ave. building would be out of keeping with the historic flavor of the neighborhood. Fair enough. But I was just in Chelsea a few weeks ago (first time since graduation) and all I can say is that Chelsea has changed so much that such a building would have been right in synch with the neighborhood. More importantly, though, the subsequent sales and renovations of the seminary's buildings have totally maintained the historic nature of the buildings (at least so far). My point is, you can't have it both ways.
I love General, and I hate to see it change. But we all know that change is necessary to growth, however you define "growth."
With regard to Marriage Equality, I admit to ignorance on the public stances on the part of both Union and General. (I myself am a vocal supporter of Marriage Equality, although my diocese [Albany] is certainly not.) Nevertheless, long before the Marriage Equality Act was realistically in the picture, General allowed same-sex couples in committed relationships to co-habitate on campus grounds, recognizing that they were in a unique situation because the state prohibited them from marrying. Heterosexual couples, on the other hand, were not allowed to cohabitate unless they were married. My same-sex brothers and sisters were fully embraced and supported by the GTS community. As far as I'm concerned, with regard to the support of the GLBT community, GTS's actions have spoken as loud as, if not louder than, words.

Thank you, Ann! I knew gay priests who were treated badly by their fellow seminarians when they went to General. That was in the eighties. Integrity USA had to fight to change things. The institution was unable to provide financial aid to a gay seminarian, who had to work around the seminary doing gardening. On paper the seminary was relatively liberal but they had no money to back up their liberalism. Under Dean Ewing, things changed very much for the better, I hear. As for the housing policy, Integrity and other LGBT activists had to lobby hard to get that policy changed for same-sex couples. That General had to be lobbied to liberalize its housing policies, whereas it finds itself in Chelsea, which traditionally has lots of LGBTs and progressives is disappointing.

Community Board Four is made up of people appointed by the local elected officials, who are all very progressive and fair. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Senator Tom Duane, both of whom are gay, are great elected officials. Christine Quinn is the first lesbian to to serve as Speaker of the City Council. Tom Duane was a sponsor of the marriage equality bill, as was Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, before being pro-LGBT was fashionable. My point is that the local elected officials are not lacking in virtue and I would tend to respect whomever they appointed to Community Board 4.

I think that an institution should work better with the elected officials to maintain the quality of life in a neighborhood. Working with developers is not good public relations.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary Paul Gilbert

I got my facts wrong on who appoints members of Manhattan Community Board 4. The Borough President of Manhattan, Scott Stringer, appoints them. The City Council Members within the district of CB4 choose no more than half the nominees to be considered by the Borough President. Christine Quinn, the Speaker of the City Council, is one of the Council Members within CB4. Members of the community who are known by community leaders and neighborhood elected officials to work for the betterment of the neighborhood have a good chance at being appointed. If they believe they are not being adequately represented by the current members of CB4, residents of General ought to consider contacting their city council members, assemblymember, and state senator to let them know why they should be considered for membership.

Gary Paul Gilbert

The bylaws of Community Board 4 say:

1. Members
Manhattan Community Board 4 shall consist of not more than fifty members appointed by the Manhattan Borough President, one half of whom shall be appointed from nominees of City Council members elected from council districts which include any part of Manhattan Community District 4 No more than twenty-five percent of the Members shall be city employees. No person who does not have a residence or a business, professional, or other significant interest in the District shall be appointed to as or shall remain a member of the Board.

I know little about the affairs of General Theological Seminary, but a couple of things about current developments make me wince.

The idea of the seminary being involved in "luxury condominium building" seems wrong. All the NYC housing development I've seen in the past decade has been Luxury Housing in Manhattan and Long Island City. The main middle-class housing in Manhattan, Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village, was recently sold to a developer who promptly tried to make luxury renovations and raise rents, trying to rid itself of long-time residents. Fortunately, the developer bought the project on credit and went broke. (I don't know the current status.) Point: the Powers-that-Be seem to envision a city composed of only the rich -- no provision for the artists, workers, teachers, public employees who make the city run. The church should be critiquing this, not buying into it.

Second, the seminary's attitude that it doesn't answer in any way to the community around it. General has always seemed a pseudo-monastic block in the middle of the neighborhood, but they're making their separation from the world official. This echos developments in the Anglican Communion, with its current campaign to put Primates in charge, and in the national church, where reorganization is being treated as a top-down affair. Stonewalling got a good name in Greenwich Village where it was a revolt; Anglican authorities at many levels are reminding us of its less appealing meaning, top-down power refusing to respond to those who support them.

If General doesn't want to deal with the community, maybe it should move to somewhere in the country. (If primates and metropolitans don't want to work with the national churches and their people, maybe the latter should consider not funding them.)