Church Times: Why Lambeth 2008 had to look for a bail-out

The Anglican Consultative Coun­cil had a constitutional obligation towards the costs of the Conference, but had stopped putting money aside for the Conference since 2004, spending it instead on new offices.

The £1.6 million left over from 1998 and from setting money aside up to 2004 did not cover the ex­pected £2.5-million rise in the cost to £6.1 million. In the event, because of the shortfall in the number of bishops who attended, the final cost was £5.2 million.

“To commit expenditure in ad­vance of secure income was a practice that the directors of an entirely stand-alone company might have regarded as too risky. In doing so, it appears therefore that those involved have proceeded on the expectation that the Anglican Com­munion and in particular Church of England bodies . . . would not ultimately let the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Conference fail to pay its bills.”

The Commissioners were worried as early as May 2006 that they would be landed with the bill.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Christian Life / Church Life, Anglican Provinces, Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of England (CoE), Lambeth 2008, Parish Ministry, Stewardship

5 comments on “Church Times: Why Lambeth 2008 had to look for a bail-out

  1. pendennis88 says:

    “In its budgeting, the company apparently did not take into account the consequences of a decision taken by Dr Williams in October 2007 not to mount a fund-raising drive in the United States, because of the general situation in the Anglican Com­munion.”

    Does anyone recall this being discussed at the time? I would presume that it was based on some sort of calculus of the controversy that his showing up anywhere in the US would cause, and the questions he would be asked, at a time he was still forlornly hoping it would all blow over, at least until after Lambeth.

  2. Tar Heel says:

    Millions for litigation, but not one penny for indaba!

  3. badman says:

    #1 yes I do remember public statements at the time, from TEC, saying that they had not been asked to contribute. If asked, I imagine that they would have done. I think they were not asked because Canterbury did not want to look financially dependent on a province whose status in the Communion was being challenged.

  4. Northwest Bob says:

    Do you suppose there is any chance that Lambeth will miraculously receive the bailout money anonymously with some unspoken understandings in return?

  5. Harvey says:

    Side thought
    It seems as if the PB is not the only one to mishandle money (funding lawsuits leading to possession of empty churches) Even harder when ~40 % of the TEC flock leaves. Sounds as if she needs some realy money managers.