Trinity Church, Copley Square, Boston, has purchased a $3.6 million condo on Beacon Hill for their rector, the Rev. Sam Lloyd III.
This has raised a few eyebrows, coming just as concerns are increasing about the gap between rich and poor, and as other Episcopal churches are struggling to make ends meet.
(Also, coming as it does after the Episcopal Church came under some misguided, yet oddly specific, criticism after the 2012 General Convention, due to our purported ‘lavish bottles of wine‘.)
However, the treasurer of Trinity points out that the price of the new rectory is entirely paid for out of Trinity’s sizable $30 million endowment, and additionally, this expenditure takes no income away from the extensive charitable work the parish already does. It should be viewed as an investment for future generations of clergy, rather than an expense.
The Boston Globe has more here.
What do you think? Is this a case of unfortunate optics, or something else?
All Content © 2017 Episcopal Café
My question would be how much they paid for the rector's rental housing per month. This decision looks like bad public relations for the Episcopal brand, which is often attacked as not very spiritual.
I don't see a church for and of the comfortable will attract people. The poor wouldn't need as much ministry if the well-to-do shared their wealth.
Why do they need a two-car garage when it says the rector wants to walk to work?
Gary Paul Gilbert
My question would be how much they paid for the rector's rental housing per month. This decision looks like bad public relations for the Episcopal brand, which is often attacked as not very spiritual.
I don't see a church for and of the comfortable will attract people. The poor wouldn't need as much ministry if the well-to-do shared their wealth.
Why do they need a two-car garage when it says the rector wants to walk to work?
Gary Paul Gilbert
For heaven's sake read the article. The previous rectory with its five stories is now church offices. It was huge even when Dean Lloyd's whole family lived there.
Having a rectory is certainly no opulence and re-purposing the previous one made sense.
The first sentence seems to imply that the condo was purchased for Sam personally. Is this a fair statement of the purchase? Might it be more accurate (and less inflammatory) to say "has purchased a condo as its new rectory. The current rector is the Rev. STL3"?
I'm a member of Trinity but have no inside information on this; this is an honest question about perceptions that might be created by language.
3.6 million doesn't buy lavish in Boston, it buys comfortable. Good for them, and good that they have the funds to purchase what they need in such a place, one of the priciest in all the world.