The 41st diocesan convention, meeting Oct. 10 in Punta Gorda, gave its congregations a little financial breathing room in 2010 and restored convention voting rights to its deacons.
Clergy and delegates approved an adjusted $2.8 million budget for 2010, lowering the apportionment rate parishes pay to the diocese from 10 percent to 9 percent of their yearly income.
The changes, approved earlier that week by Diocesan Council, were presented to convention by interim CFO Anne Vickers. Responding to concerns voiced about parishes still reeling from the recession, she said the drop in revenue will be largely offset by the discovery that $493,000 in income from eight congregations who were late in filing their parochial reports were not figured into the original budget.
The new budget, approved by voice vote, also increases the amount of apportionment revenue expected to be uncollectable in 2010. The revised budget also defers a previously planned $100,000 “2020 Grant” during 2010. The two congregations already receiving grant money from that fund will not be affected.
“Restores Deacon’s voting rights”. I truly love and appreciate the office of Deacon. I have served with several marvelous deacons. But, participating in the “councils of the church” is not part of their vows. I suppose if its all about rights and democracy, well… there you go.
Archbishop Duncan tried to implement a similar policy in Pittsburgh in the 1990s, but the deacons (most of whom, like then Archdeacon Greg Malley, were strong partisans of his) resisted such a move. While I can understand the desire to separate the servant ministry from church politics, wouldn’t it be better to promote a healthier atmosphere in church governance, rather than excluding part of the threefold ministry from it?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Theron,
If a “Diocesan Convention” is a “council of the Church” then we are all in deep dark serious trouble. They are business meetings. Part of the ministry of the Deacons is to be the voice for those who have no voice. Withholding the vote on who serves on the various committees and on the diocesan budget is effectively stilling that voice. If we are to allow the laity a vote in convention then why not let the deacons vote as well?
I’ve heard too many presbyters worry that the deacons will dilute their vote. That is a ludicris idea. The only things that deacons really have in common is that they love serving as deacons.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I was at convention and this has been coming for the last three years. Bishop Lipscomb has asked deacons to be servants and to give up their vote. Most agreed but a few refused to do so. This became another justice/rights issue. To oppose it meant that you wanted to keep deacons as second class people and repress them even though they are clergy….Sadly, the fact that deacons are not priests and priests are not bishop and that they are not equal in their roles was ignored. Another fact forgotten, is that faithful retired priest also do not have the vote because they are not leading congregation.
I was one of the few who opposed the vote for the reasons cited above…but this was going to pass and everyone knew it……there were not the votes or the voice to challenge it…
Just like at GC the vote and discussion had already been decided prior to convention….and the label of justice firmly planted. To oppose it meant you were against justice, fairness, and the rights of deacons and did not recognize them as full clergy.
It was a no win situation.
Creighton+
Why do lay people vote at convention?
They have a vote because convention is the diocese’ business meeting. It is a place where committee membership and budgets are approved. It is where changes to the diocesan constitution and canons are made. If the laity have a voice and vote at convention, then shouldn’t deacons? Some say that deacons should not vote because they are “servants.” The word “deacon” means both servant and minister. Deacons are the voice of those who have no voice at convention. They are there to remind us that by caring for the poor and the disposessed, they are caring for Jesus himself. In convention, one way of reminding the Church of those who have no vote is to vote for them. This is the vote that deacons have. They are there to speak for and vote for those who have no voice in the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Well, Phil, I see things differently. Priests and Vestries work together and certainly it makes sense to have lay people at Convention.
Deacons do not have the same ministry and responsibility. In a similar vein, many faithful retired priest are equally active in the Diocese and have no vote. If we are going to give the vote to the Deacons I believe we should allow retire clergy to vote.
But from my point of view, Deacons do not have the same responsibilities as priests or the laity, their roles are different. Frankly, I believe bishop, priests, and laity can speak just as well for those who are marginalized in the Church today as deacons…so I do not accept your final argument. It is the role of the Church at large to reach out to all.
In any case, I am the minority view point and easily out voted as I am in most cases here.
[blockquote]Frankly, I believe bishop, priests, and laity can speak just as well for those who are marginalized in the Church today as deacons…so I do not accept your final argument.[/blockquote]
We all share in all aspects of the ministry of the Church. As a deacon, I have responsibility for some aspects of leading worship. I have canonical responsibility over the lay readers, the lay eucharistic ministers, and lay eucharistic visitors. But deacons also have the specific ministry to the marginalized. We are there to remind the Church of what She already knows.
[blockquote] It is the role of the Church at large to reach out to all.[/blockquote]
If that is the case, then we don’t need deacons, priests, or bishops. Different ministries and orders in the Church have different foci within the Church. Deacons are a necessary part of the Church – they are necessary to the fullness of the Church. As such, they should have a voice in the Church’s business and orginzational affairs.
BTW, I don’t see why retired clergy are not allowed to vote. In Dallas, they are allowed to vote (as long as they are canonically resident). Retired clergy are not required to come to convention (and many do not come), but if they come, they are treated just like other clergy. Just because a priest or deacon is retired or not involved in parish ministry is no reason to silence his voice in convention. The vote is the ultimate voice in any business meeting.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Well, I thought I submitted a further response, but, it looks like I messed up. Anyway, the idea that the “office” of deacon should be present in the ruling councils is, to my mind, a strong one. The body of Christ is constituted, I believe, in the variety of gifts in the Holy Spirit. You are persuading me, Phil. So, how should their office, in such councils or conventions, be distinguished from that of the priests or bishops or the faithful baptized?
Perhaps this way of thinking, in which differences are maintained among the orders all the time, and not just when we vote by orders, is necessary? Without a doubt, a fundamental problem we are dealing with in the culture is the idea that voting, the people’s will, establishes truth, or at least, procedural justice. The bishops of TEC today don’t see them as stewards of truth, but as senators in a democracy (not a republic where there is rule of law).
There have been deacons who literally rebuilt the church (Francis of Assisi); who were gifted theologians and contributed much to councils (Athanasius). Sadly, though, in this time of a therapeutic, individualistic culture, all adding deacons to the mix has done, here in Colorado, is add another hundred people to bloated conventions where folks don’t seem to get the difference between doctrine and discipline–and the diaconate has been used as a way to create a 5th column for the left.
What I can say, as one who grew up in the Assemblies of God, one of the only growing denominations in America, and among the fastest growing in the world is, we didn’t have business meetings for 600 people. We had missions conferences, healing conferences, education conferences, Holy Ghost tarrying meetings, small group conferences, and cheesy movies on the rapture. Do groups that are organized for mission really bring together such massive groups for business meetings, much less to vote on public policy or doctrine every time?
Theron,
I believe that one of the biggest problems facing TEC is and has been the education of the laity. We send unformed, untrained people to seminary where their ideas are challenged and where they do not have a good grouding in the faith and they are swept away with what they are told – after all, they lack the ability to form a cogent theological argument against what they are told. Thus, poorly educated laity results in poorly formed clergy – deacons, priests, and bishops. This shows itself in the increassing number of “resolutions of substance” at diocesan and general conventions where people believe it is the job of the convention to speak about the amount of salt in our diet or whether phonics is the best way to teach reading. We, as a Church, have forgotten that both GC and DCs are supposed to be business meetings and not debating societies. If DC and GC both stuck to their charters then who votes would not be an issue. Voting by orders is important because we are an ordered church. I would hate to see the deacons vote as a separate order – such that we have laity, deacons, and then presbyters. Then the deacons could hold the votes hostage.
To me the solution is a long term one. Are the deacons in your diocese theologically untrained? Are they glorified social workers in a funny shirt? If so, the solution is to train them. (The same is true of the presbyters.)
Improperly trained deacons are the result of a poor opinion of the diaconate: “They’re just deacons, they don’t need to know (fill in the blank.” A bishop who truly honors the diaconate (and deacons who want to build up the diaconate in a diocese) will have high academic standards for deacons. I can honestly say that the deacons we train in Dallas are among the brightest and best. While I may lack the breadth and depth that comes with a three year seminary education, I do believe I am well grounded academically and theologically – are are the other deacons in Dallas that I know.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder