Support the Café

Search our Site

Are we sure the budget won’t focus our mission?

Are we sure the budget won’t focus our mission?

by Benedict Varnum

In all the responses to the budget debate before Holy Week, I was surprised that I didn’t hear anyone wondering if the budget could be the right move.

It seems to me that many Episcopalians have been viewing the proposed budget in TEC as analogous to the Anglican Covenant: that there is an inappropriate effort to centralize authority where it has no place being centralized. In the Anglican Covenant debate, I know that I and others have a decent amount of frustration with the notion that we ought to centralize international Anglican authority in order for that central authority to place “clarity” into the diversity of our theological sensibilities. But I don’t think the analogy holds.

Episcopalians, who are not only tuned in to this problematic push for Anglican centralization, but also live in an America that is increasingly suspicious of ANY organized group (the Congress, either major political party, the Supreme Court, organized religion, organized media, Occupy protestors, Tea-Partyers, big business, super-PACS) may well have a good deal of extra energy for slamming a foot down on the brakes of anything that looks like a move towards greater organized, institutional authority. We’re struggling with our institutions. We’re not sure they can provide for us. We’re not sure they can hand us a good-enough reason to participate in them. We’re not sure we can trust their leadership. For some of us, it’ll be hard to untangle which parts of this are “America” tensions, which are “Anglican Covenant” tensions, and which are “TEC” tensions.

The problem I see is that in response to the proposed budget, and perhaps out of this emotional soupiness, a lot of anti-institutional anger has landed on “815 Second Avenue” (which doesn’t propose the budget) and the Executive Council, especially the Executive Committee (which does, and includes a few 815 folks). Some of this is, no doubt, appropriate and productive.

But how much isn’t? And, to the point, does it help us focus, or distract us from focusing, on the question of how we discern together as a national church whether streamlining our budget in this way will help us proclaim and live out the gospel of Jesus Christ? Many voices have been raised at the proposed budget, saying it could never could help us do so, but very few voices have offered an idea of what might. And I can think of at least a few reasons why the budget might have that in it after all.

Here we are, as a national church, at a budgeting moment, in a tough time for budgets. The national church has had a fierce conversation going for several years about how to become a more missional church. They have ideas; surely they want to try them. I have no doubt that the staffers feel the tension between opportunity and accountability even more acutely as our belts get tightened. We are a church that cheered on our presiding bishop when she explained that neither she nor our House of Bishops alone could immediately declare the position of the Episcopal Church to the international Anglican Communion after Gene Robinson’s confirmation in 2006 (because only General Convention speaks for the Episcopal Church), yet we also expect her to be the representative of our branch of Anglicanism to member churches in the Anglican Communion, and tend to be appalled when she’s not accepted abroad because of her gender or their disapproval of the theological positions that we arrive at (undertaking considerable wrestling and difficult discernment to get there).

Which is to say, even the top of our “org chart” (which is less of a “top” than her parallels in other Anglican Communion provinces are) is caught in tension between having a great deal of opportunity and responsibility on the one hand, and very little organizational authority on the other hand. My sense of the principle of “subsidiarity” is sympathetic to this: if we want clearer vision from the top, we have to staff it. We have to pay enough staffers that they have time to return phone calls and focus on things . . . and I’ll take a prophetic stance far enough to say we should pay enough staff that they can work 40-48 hour weeks, and not 60-80 hour weeks. Meanwhile, subsidiarity suggests (as this budget says) that other things need to be handled more locally.

I have no doubt that the budget was developed with input from some people who would love to streamline some processes so that they can pursue opportunities as they arrive, and that this budgeting was largely done in good faith, and not for mere power-gathering or political gain. We as a church get to have the conversation of whether we want to grant them that agility, or insist on our current model.

So far much of that conversation has been a fairly reactive discourse around what’s being cut. I have extensive thoughts as to what’s being cut to accomplish that streamlining, but they boil down to 1) some things must be cut to meet giving realities and 2) my background in formation as a youth, college student, parish seminarian working with youth, campus ministry intern, diocesan consultant for youth ministries, consultant for summer camp, and participant in national youth event planning through an Episcopal Relief and Development program show me very little that would be lost by acknowledging that the national office does very little youth or young adult ministry.

(The programs that likely will be lost with a much smaller national-level youth budget – Gather, EYE, annual conferences for campus ministers – are good programs; this falls under “1” above, though we might well have a conversation on what the network of diocesan youth coordinators who volunteer their time to these events would need to keep the programs running)

Add to that 3) the incredibly successful Young Adult Service Corps is (appropriately) being given additional funds to continue developing its work, and the budget reads to me the way it was presented in its brief explanatory document: an acknowledgment that different ministries are done more effectively on different levels, that the Episcopal Church does not – despite stereotypes – have all the money in the world, and that our funding is therefore being shifted to be used effectively. These statements can stir up our anxieties; it’s up to us to have a serious conversation about whether that anxiety is covering grief that we can’t do everything we used to be able to, fear that we won’t be able to do enough, confusion about how to do the work of the present moment and the road ahead, or a mistrust of anything centralized and institutional, now that the internet is letting us see a bit more of how the sausage is made.

But one thing I’ll say to that anxiety: my parish’s youth ministry will not vanish without a national church office. Neither will the youth ministry in either diocese I’ve been part of in the last ten years, nor at my sponsoring parish, or the parish I interned with during my postulancy. And beyond that, parents and families will continue to be among the primary spiritual and formative influences on their children, as they have been for generations.

Finally, I feel the most significant complaint that has been raised about the budget is that it is presented as a fait accompli – a budget we must pass . . . because the General Convention doesn’t present enough time to do anything else. This methodological critique may well point us not only to the greatest challenges, but also the new opportunities that the budget anxiety has made visible in the life of our church.

Because maybe that same interconnectedness and social technologies that let us cycle up our anxieties can offer us something else to do with that energy.

In considering how the church can do things differently, one of my go-to sources is the work of Clay Shirkey, who’s written several books (Here Comes Everybody and Cognitive Surplus) about how the internet has changed the ways people can organize themselves. Shirkey links the internet to the police forensic model: “means + motive + opportunity = outcome,” noting that the internet (like the printing press before it) has changed the “means” available to us. In the church, we have the motive and the opportunity; can we use these means to create new outcomes?

The internet and e-mail are allowing us to see more of the budget earlier, and more of the budget process . . . and it’s also revealing how little we DO see and how much more we might be able to. This strikes me not as any subterfuge on the part of the budget-drafters, but rather the fact of a pre-internet budget methodology without a seriously defined alternative – we haven’t figured out how to make use of technology to have the broader, more transparent conversation we feel might be possible now – but that’s not the budget-drafters “fault.” It’s our common growing-pain as a church, and our common responsibility to address.

In practice, I believe this looks like an effort by people with concerns to use their voices on the internet to identify each other, connect, and refine and then offer back a response to the budget (some of this is happening in comment threads here and here). There are websites out there for the price of a google search that will set up a conference call for free. In three hours, a dedicated person could set up a WordPress or Blogspot page as a central hub to link to all the blogs out there, and for an hour a week, 6 people could offer 6 summations of what’s going on. Facebook and our blogs could be used to channel the conversation to that central site. The comment board at Program, Budget and Finance could be used to offer reflections (a later post notes that they’re reading it, although they haven’t engaged commenters directly – a position I can see some logic to without too much trouble).

As a parish assistant rector, I’m hardly the closest member of the church to the structure of these issues. But I’ve seen the reactions. And I believe that the people reacting care about the church. But if that care can be organized into a voice in the conversation, it might be able to offer that more-challenging gift: construction, rather than mere critique. What if we took our internet forums and made them the place where our voices meet? What if those who worked on the budget so far and those who might want to work on it before General Convention made the effort to trust that we all care about the gospel and the Church? I believe that the energy and passion is there. Much of it has been spent in critique; the question I’ll have in mind as I watch the next few months is, can we find it in ourselves to construct instead?

The Rev. Benedict Varnum has an M.Div from the University of Chicago’s Divinity School. He is currently ordained as a transitional deacon, and anticipates ordination to the priesthood in early May. Benedict serves as Assistant Rector at St. Thomas the Apostle Episcopal Church in Overland Park, KS. Benedict has directed some continuing education focus towards an interest in Systems Theory and its applications in the life of the church on various levels.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jonathan Grieser

My point about papal infallibility was not that subsidiarity leads inevitably in that direction, but rather that the idea arose in a particular historical context in response to a particular set of concerns and that it has come to be deployed in other ways and contexts without attention to those earlier issues.

There’s no need, for example, to use it to describe the differing areas of expertise and authority of rectors and altar guilds, but when one does so, it introduces its own set of concerns and tensions.

Simply put, my question is this: Given that it has arisen relatively recently in the history of Christianity, are there other ways of thinking about authority and organization that are more authentic to the Christian tradition in all of its historical and geographical diversity? And are those other ways more helpful as we begin thinking about restructuring the church for the twenty-first century? Alternatively, since subsidiarity arose in the nineteenth century, might the twenty-first need new ways of thinking about structure and organization?

Benedict Varnum

I read your comments on your blog, Jonathan, and I’d take the opportunity to respond especially to your question:

“Given the historical context in which the notion of subsidiarity arose (a papacy making ever more grandiose claims to universality at the same time that its power was being challenged by the development of nation states, especially Italy and Germany) can it be an effective idea by which to determine the relative power of the central organs of power and local communities or individuals?”

The concern about where the principle of subsidiarity came from in its origins seems to be something of a “reductio ad Catholic” move, claiming that its association with the Catholic Church should somehow raise our suspicions about the use of it in Anglicanism (imagining someone making this argument about our worship and the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation might be an interesting analogy). I don’t find that particularly persuasive; here’s a bit of why:

Subsidiarity calls for us to allow the lowest organizational level that is competent (not the highest structural body) to make decisions. (In the Episcopal Church, it is worth recalling, the highest governing body is not Executive Council but the General Convention, and issues calling for the highest competent body will still need to be referred to that, even if in the future we determine the cost of GC warrants holding it every 4 or every 5 years, rather than every 3).

In the meanwhile, using the principle of subsidiarity to say that the national church should not have an office that tracks, say, every Episcopal college student, because that should be managed by more-local levels of governance, seems pretty non-controversial.

The questions that subsidiarity points us to are not “how much power do we give where,” but “what level is competent to accomplish what ministry?” Part of what the budget drafters would seem to have done by this budget is to acknowledge that there are some areas where it doesn’t feel that the national level of our church’s competence warrants protecting continued funding, especially in a time when some things will need to be cut.

(let’s be clear: this is competence not as a measure of the training or work of the staffers, but as a combination of opportunity, means, and motive; it would seem that motive is the strongest of the three, while opportunity and means are the limited)

Jonathan Grieser

I’m really curious about the deployment of “subsidiarity” both in the discussion over the budget and with regard to the Anglican Covenant. Mark Harris has pointed out some of the problems with the idea. I ramble on about it as well here:

Ann Fontaine

A note from General Convention Program Budget and Finance Committee – please add your comments to the Committee Blog as they will be collecting information in advance of GC 2012

Benedict Varnum

As a point of clarification, the title actually is mine (I amended it in the revised draft, which I only sent to the editorial member who had been communicating with me about the submission). And I raise that because Jesse’s right; I don’t think I have the answer to the question.

What I think we’re all after (myself, Jesse, Sharon, and a few other folks I’ve talked to who either work in the general church structure or are preparing statements to present to it at/before Provincial synods/General Convention) is a better conversation.

In a comment here I noted:

“Youth ministers (taken as a group) are among the most tech- and social-media-savvy ministers of our churches. What if they viewed part of their professional responsibility to be connecting to one another over these networks and sharing wisdom? I am entirely confident that a GC resolution to that effect would have a much more significant (and more immediate) positive impact on youth ministries than calling for a visioning process or keeping money in the previous triennium’s budget shape. It shares the wisdom we already have.”

I think we need to pay attention to the anxieties around the formation cuts, but not let that anxiety pre-commit us to an outcome (e.g., putting all the money back and getting everything the way it was).

What we need to be asking is what we can learn from the reactions. For example, we’ve had stories about dioceses (Sharon’s comment above) and groups (Kaze Gadaway’s article here that show us some of the needs. We can talk about what NEEDS to happen to address these; for example, a General Convention resolution exhorting dioceses to connect with their neighboring groups about where they can share needs, or (more specifically) a resolution asking each diocese to prepare a report on opportunities to connect locally for mission (this could be focused readily around the Marks for Mission).

That seems to be a possibility that goes beyond the youth ministry context; in my current Diocese of Kansas, there is a Kansas School for Ministry capitol campaign running to provide local ministry education for the dioceses of Western Kansas, Kansas, and West Missouri. An annual youth “Missionpalooza” event brings together young people to do mission work in urban Kansas City from the dioceses of Kansas and West Missouri.

This is the fruit of social technologies; in the 1800s, traveling 200 miles was prohibitive, and communicating regularly over that distance to share a project or information resource was difficult. Today, 200 miles can be done in a day trip (on occasion), and information can be shared immediately. Part of the consequence of this is that the duties that each diocese needed to perform for itself in the 1800s can now be shared. We can identify needs on more-local levels. Again, I believe that General Convention is a wholly-appropriate place for us to declare our intention to be better neighbors to one another.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café