We have a system of funding the ministry of our diocese that is, in my judgment, broken. It is a system that can, and I stress the word can here, lead to resentment and distrust. We have an “asking” that is graduated based on the size of a parish’s budget. So some allegedly contribute a lower or higher percentage than others based on their respective size. I say “allegedly,” because not every congregation meets its full asking. So, the percentages do not mean that much except to potentially create resentment. I know what clergy do. I have sat in those chairs like you for 26 years. You get the convention report and you know where your parish stands, so you check to see where the other guys are. And if your parish has met its full asking and some other parish has not, you are resentful. It is hard not to be.
And often the larger parishes resent the fact that they contribute a higher percentage than the smaller ones do. And since there are no consequences for not contributing what you are asked, the system is set up to be fundamentally distrustful. A few years ago some leaders of the Diocese improved the formula and it is definitely better now. But that improvement did not fundamentally address the brokenness of the system.
My friends, we must create a system that makes sense and is fair to all. It has to be a system that requires a sacrifice from all of us for the good of the Body. It has to be a system that is not onerous in its percentage. It has to be a system with mutual accountability. It has to be a system that leaves no room for resentment and mistrust.
If we do not address this soon, we will not have the resources to fund diocesan ministries. Ministries we need in order to be a healthy, growing diocese.
This is an excellent call to get back to basics. For too long GA has been obsessed with fundamentalism, inclusion, and small churches. I hope this is a new beginning.
Well written. A friend who was there says that Bp. Benhase was brilliant from start to finish. May it continue. Keep DioGA and DioUSC in your prayers.
Pb, will you define fundamentalism for me, please? I’ve visited Diocese of Ga.
churches and didn’t find what I define as fundamentalism. We have many healthy large churches, as well.
Fundamentalism was the straw man that was set up as an excuse to maintain small churches in rural areas. The mission of the diocese was to provide these churches so that thinking people would have a place to worship. I can not define fundamentalism but it was perceived to be the problem for which the diocese had the answer.
The translation of what I see is “some parishes are not giving enough money to the diocese.”
Honestly, my advice to those orthodox Episcopalians staying in Georgia is the same as mine to those of us in DUSC — defund the parishes as much as possible, since that is the only voice that is now heard.
Funding a diocese in order for it so support its incompetent and angry revisionist staff and revisionist bishop and giving lots of money to the national church to fund its lawsuits is just a bad idea all around. And the only way to prevent it is to direct as much as one’s funding as possible to other non-parish Christian ministry.
The only way to have “influence” over the agenda and program of a revisionist diocesan house is to take away its money.
Parts of central and northern Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina have various forms of non-denominational ministries that are based on literal interpretation of the KJV translation of Holy Scripture, as seen through the lens of modern Calvinism. They tend to believe that they’re the only ones who are right, and that everyone else is going to… That’s the kind of fundamentalism for which traditional types of Anglicanism (evangelical and Anglo-Catholic) provide an alternative.
I’ve read Bp. Benhase’s address again. Maybe I’ve been drinking grape Koolaid, but it doesn’t strike me as coming from a revisionist.
I do know that the diocese is not wealthy. A friend who was at the convention says that there were severe budget cuts all around, including youth programs. She also says that Bp. Benhase and the diocese are worth watching, and praying for. I’m going to give him the benefit of doubt, while keeping my eyes on them.
#6 Agree. I was actually delighted to hear that the Bishop had moved on from the oft stated mission as alternative Christianity and had goals for the diocese other than just being there.
RE: “Maybe I’ve been drinking grape Koolaid, but it doesn’t strike me as coming from a revisionist.”
Right — because coming into south Georgia and “sounding like a revisionist” wouldn’t be very clever. Nor did he “sound like a revisionist” in the walkabouts.
He just *is*. And we know this by his actions — partnered gay clergy on staff, same sex blessings, and more. I’m sure he’ll talk well, however. Don’t want to scare the customers.
When someone moves South and begins peppering his very first speech with “y’ll” you had better be very wary. Normally one uses his own language to speak his truth. There is an old saying: Savannah and stupid are not synonymous.” We shall see.