Support the Café

Search our Site

Episcopal Church proposed 2013-2015 budget released

Episcopal Church proposed 2013-2015 budget released

The draft proposed 2013-2015 budget adopted by Executive Council in January has now been posted on the General Convention website.

Here is the link

to the draft proposed budget.

Here is the link to the narrative.


That narrative says that council has proposed a budget that “responds to the changes facing us by funding the development of new kinds of resources for congregations, dioceses and provinces. These resources enable us to increase capacity, foster relationships, generate leadership, and imagine a new way of being the church together.”

The council also said that it heard from Episcopalians “that the church is participating in new ways of being church and should support new ways of doing ministry on a church-wide level. These new ways include changes in the role of church-wide staff, provinces and the emerging voices of other kinds of networks.”

Thus, the council said, “funding is reduced for mission that we were told was best done on a local level.”

At the same time, the budget includes three new line items that the council said in its narrative will fund “new work that we believe must be coordinated church-wide.” One designates money for a churchwide consultation on “the significant structural change we believe must be our faithful response to our changing context,” council said. The other two new line items call for an “Episcopal Co-op” to create church-wide arrangements for contracting certain administrative services and purchases, and a covenant with the Episcopal Service Corps to develop its ability to develop and plant new programs as a sustainable organization that empowers local ministry with a church-wide focus.

The council noted that it had provided “significant investment in the ministry of Communications, including the Episcopal News Service, as a primary resource for evangelism and to ensure Episcopalians everywhere have the information they need to create the networks necessary to do the work of mission. ”


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Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published).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

“Could not the formation budget exist not for creating a centralized Church Center office but for ensuring that networks are funded, grants are made possible, best practices and resources, etc are identified? I would hope budgets would exist for the whole church that would not be monopolized by a centralized office but dispersed for the use of the whole church.”

I’m with Dan on this. This is what I advocated for in the survey that went out last fall.

It pains me to say this but over the past two weeks – because of my varied work as a diocesan staffer – I’ve posed questions to church center staff members in four different departments and have yet to receive a reply from one of them. Not even a ‘Yup. Got it. Working it.”

That’s not to say there aren’t staff members who are are very responsive. There are and I’m grateful for their support.

I just agree that using the financial resources we share as a whole church for supporting relationships and sharing of information and best practices among provinces, dioceses, and churches that share mutual interests and ministry passions might offer a bigger bang in a world of diminishing bucks.

Heidi Shott

Jim Naughton

Kevin, I think you ask an excellent question. It would seem to me that if money is being subtracted from certain ministries in the churchwide budget, we ought to be able to make money available for those activities on the diocesan level by reducing the asking on dioceses. However, my sense (and it is only a sense, I can’t point to hard supporting information) that leaders at church center have been reluctant to do that because, in the absence of existing formation networks, conferences, etc. it isn’t clear that the money one would want devoted to formation would actually be spent on formation. I could be wrong about that. I do know that the PB and the chief operating officer opposed reducing the asking at the last executive council meeting.

In general it seems to me that the question might be: are we better off just reducing the asking and letting the chips fall where they may, or keeping the asking where it is and trying to manage a transition to a different way of performing certain essential functions–and then, perhaps, reducing the asking once that system is in place.

A little more to chew on–some of the dioceses with the largest budgets–Texas, West Texas, South Carolina–give less than half, and in some instances less than a third of the 19 % asking.

Kevin Montgomery

I’m definitely all for a wiser and more effective use of resources, esp. with finding the best level at which ministries take place. A lot of the formation-related ones might not necessarily be best handled at a central level while others do need to be, esp. ones that can provide resources for local ministries or that allow ways to bring people together across the whole church. A networked approach is one that should be actively explored, but every IT person I know will tell you that an effective network needs constant maintenance. My biggest concern, however, with the de-funding is that dioceses and parishes can’t make up the difference right now; so where’s the money supposed to come from to enable an effective ministry strategy?

Jim Naughton

We may be on roughly the same page, Dan. I think the issue with this particular budget is that the budget makers aren’t in a position either to invest in a centralized staffing that may be unwanted in the longrun, or to get the convention before it convenes, to endorse a plan for the creation of decentralized networks.

This is a problem throughout this document. You can’t really create a budget for a brave new world until that world has been created, and it isn’t up to the budget makers to do that. It’s up to General Convention and the people of the church.

That said, there are part of the budget that even as an interim or transitional document seem problematic to me, but more on that another time.



I think that is a valid point. But as I understand it, if money is not in the GC budget, then a particular item is not funded for use by the national church. Could not the formation budget exist not for creating a centralized Church Center office but for ensuring that networks are funded, grants are made possible, best practices and resources, etc are identified? I would hope budgets would exist for the whole church that would not be monopolized by a centralized office but dispersed for the use of the whole church.

I would hope we could have a discussion about a new vision of the purpose of the GC budget.

Dan Joslyn-Siemiatkoski

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