The Episcopal Church’s Executive Council began its last meeting of the 2007-2009 triennium here by hearing reports about efforts to relocate the church’s archives, cultivate major donors, and respond to extreme poverty around the world.
The meeting at the Wyndham Portland Airport Hotel is taking place in the seat of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine. Council will hear about the mission and ministry of the diocese and of Province I on the evening of April 22.
Council began its meeting April 20 with an organizational plenary session, followed by private conversation. During the plenary session, Council members heard updates from the church’s Mission Funding Initiative, the committee investigating a long-term strategy for the Archives of the Episcopal Church and the work of Episcopal Relief and Development.
“Anderson told Council that ‘we are united by our commitment to serving the transforming mission of God; mission is the bedrock of all we are, do and say as the people and God.'”
Surely a misprint (“and” for “of”), one hopes.
From the article:
“There are some hopeful signs of movement around the communion,” Jefferts Schori said. “I think our challenge is going to be how to encourage our own members to recognize that we’re interested in having a diversity of opinion in this church and that there is room for those who dissent with [she means either “disagree with” or “dissent from”] decisions of General Convention and those who feel pushed to one end of the spectrum.
“One of our biggest challenges is the fact that conservative members of this church now feel that they are on the extreme right end where [she may mean “when” or “whereas”] they used to be closer to the middle. That’s a perception, but it’s a real perception [that] causes significant amount of distress and reactivity.”
“That’s a perception, but it’s a real perception….” Yes, we take your word for it that a perception is indeed a real perception, but we can’t help noticing (I mean, it’s a real perception) that you couldn’t quite bring yourself to say “That’s a perception of what’s real.”
The air must be very thin in that tall Ivory Tower that the PB and her acolytes occupy. Very thin indeed.
1.[blockquote]Discussions at the meeting also showed “evidence of room for conscientious dissent on each of the three moratoria and I think that represents some significant movement.”[/blockquote]
Is she suggesting that there is a green light for SSB and LGBT Bishops?
[blockquote]There are some hopeful signs of movement around the communion,” Jefferts Schori said. “I think our challenge is going to be how to encourage our own members to recognize that we’re interested in having a diversity of opinion in this church and that there is room for those who dissent with decisions of General Convention and those who feel pushed to one end of the spectrum.
One of our biggest challenges is the fact that conservative members of this church now feel that they are on the extreme right end where they used to be closer to the middle.[/blockquote]
This may come as a shock to KJS but the folks she calls “conservatives” used to be moderates. Many of the conservatives have already left TEC. By the way, the remaining conservatives don’t think of themselves as “extreme right”, the liberals think of them as “extreme right”.
That quote must be incomplete… Here is what I suspect followed:
[blockquote]”I think our challenge is going to be how to encourage our own members to recognize that we’re interested in having a diversity of opinion in this church and that there is room for those who dissent with decisions of General Convention and those who feel pushed to one end of the spectrum[u], while we continue to block their legislation at General Convention, interfere with their clergy succession, sue those who leave, defy the communion, shun dissenting moderates, and otherwise pursue our progressive agenda.”[/u][/blockquote]
Yes, indeed, those pesky perceptions.
; – )
These guys are plainly going to bring to fundraising the same savvy and common sense they’ve brought to parish growth and development. To announce to the world–and to the donors you’re talking with–that you’ve targeted them, that you think they’re good for the gifts, and to even say what you think they’re worth, is the height of amateurism, not to mention rudeness and presumptuousness. Basically it appears that 815 paid for some wealth screening and got all excited about how much “giving potential” there was. Of course that has nothing to do with whether people are willing to invest in an organization in systemic decline, even if they have some respect for what you do. If they want to raise some major gifts, 815 needs to show donors how they are being successful in their mission, how well they take care of the monies that have been entrusted to them through the years, and give the potential donors reason to trust the current leaders. You can’t destroy the organization you’re leading, abuse and distort donor intent in how you handle your affairs and then expect folks to give, especially when there are so many other worthy charities out there that aren’t spending gazillions on suing other Christians and that aren’t so horrendously bloated in their bureaucracies. The Number One deterrent to giving to an organization is if the organization is in financial or legal turmoil, as the Roman Catholic Church discovered during the sex abuse scandals. But even setting those hard facts aside, 815 has just told every savvy donor out there (and most major gift donors are savvy) that they are absolutely clueless in how to raise major gifts. You simply do not treat your potential donors like they are nothing more than pockets to be picked–even if behind closed doors you have to do that research and make financial determinations about where it’s best to focus your energy.
Moreover, they have also just sent out a giddy message that they’ve got all these OTHER donors, worth millions (half a billion even) that are really great prospects. Why, then, should anyone else give them a dime?
This is not the stuff of rocket science: it’s very basic, common-sense stuff. Truly these folks are clueless.
Resolution A069
Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 76th General Convention fully fund Mission Funding Initiative to raise $250,000,000 over the next six years; and be it further
Resolved, That the General Convention request the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance to [b]consider a budget allocation of $5,000,000 for the implementation of this Resolution.[/b]
EXPLANATION
In 2003 the Standing Commission on Domestic Mission and Evangelism made the following statement:
The Episcopal Church is rich in undeveloped economic resources. At both local and national levels the Church needs advice on how we might creatively use our assets to underwrite and enable our vision.
In 2005 the Executive Council accepted a recommendation from an appointed task force and established the Mission Funding Initiative, which was subsequently ratified at the 2006 General Convention. Planning has since proceeded, and the Mission Funding Office has prepared case statements for several capital funds. Mission Funding needs expanded staff capacity to develop relationships and cultivate donors. Our vision for mission has too often been too small. We think in terms of small efforts of church planting and are disappointed when our small vision reaps even smaller rewards. The Good News is life-giving and life-changing. The church should invite those who have been transformed to make gifts that will change the very nature of the church and fuel our church planting and mission development for fifty years. Churches are often hesitant to create sophisticated mechanisms of fund development. Our hesitation misses opportunities. With modest and relatively passive means of fund development, the church has received much. With diligence, intention and action, the church can build capacities to do what God is calling us to do: build up the church and proclaim the Gospel.
The Mission Funding Initiative will allow us to create a major fund development center for The Episcopal Church that could serve all parts of the church. It needs a budget adequate to the need and opportunity.
Resolution A114 is similar to this one.
A114
Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 76th General Convention fully fund Mission Funding Initiative to raise $250,000,000 over the next six years; and be it further
Resolved, That in order to ensure that the office of Mission Funding is adequately funded for success, the Standing Commission on Stewardship and Development calls upon each diocese to increase its payment to the General Convention budget by 1% of its annual assessment for each year in the 2010-2012 triennium, as a supplement designated for support of the Office of Mission Funding; and be it further
Resolved, That the General Convention request the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance to consider a budget allocation of $5,000,000 for the implementation of this Resolution.
$5 million is an appropriate amount to spend for such a campaign. But given the problems of the organization (setting all theology aside), one has to wonder where the $250 million figure came from. First of all, it’s unlikely there will be donors “outside the family.” That’s because those likely to give to the Episcopal Church are almost certainly going to be Episcopalians. Second, those donors have a choice about where in the organization their gift will go: to a parish, to a diocese, or to the national church. Unless a particular program captures the fancy of a donor because of their background (an advertising exec who really wants to fund a massive ad effort, for example), most donors want to get the feedback of helping actual people–and that’s usually not at a headquarters level. The parish reports are not irrelevant to this campaign, as those major donors are likely to be within those charts already. And there’s nothing in those charts to suggest a huge willingness by donors to invest in the Episcopal Church–not at the parish level or the diocesan level, so probably not at the national level either. And goodness knows, they’ve been asked.
There has to be a positive vision in order to raise large amounts of money. Right now the vision of the Episcopal Church, most would agree, is largely negative–negative toward those who are orthodox or negative toward other Christians. We are defining ourselves by what we are not (not Catholic, not fundamentalist, not conservative, not Baptist, not with large families, etc.). Add to this all the vitriol, the lawsuits, and so forth, and you get a very unattractive place to invest large amounts of money in.
Another problem. Conservatives give more than liberals: it’s simply a fact, and one every fundraiser knows. Kick out all the conservatives, and you hurt your fundraising ability. Plus the more your “church” begins to appear no different than the Democratic Party, or another social agency, you then are compared with them when it comes time for a donor to give money–because you no longer distinguish yourself by your beliefs. It’s a corner into which the Episcopal Church leadership has painted itself.
It will be an interesting campaign to watch. Normally campaigns don’t go public until more than sixty percent of a goal is already in hand. The folks at 815 either already have some very large gifts in hand, or they have decided to be very public earlier than is the norm, or they just don’t know what they’re doing.
Hmm, I get the perception they need more jack for lawsuits. But it’s just my perception, of course. Those endowments are gonna last forever and ever, right?