With the Fall programs, and regular attendance in church, every member canvasses will be getting to their final stages””unless you use year-round canvasses. But, has your Vestry implemented a planned giving program to benefit your church? I had a phone message last week from a Rector informing me of a $50,000 bequest of which the church was notified. That is one Vestry with a pleasant task of dealing with the remembrance of its mission efforts. This type of task is one that comes from a planned giving program which starts with wills””have you remembered the Church in your will?
The receiving of bequests is the result of intentional teaching of the gospel and its message of abundance and thanksgiving. The Foundation is a resource to provide you with materials, speakers, and information to assist you in informing our members of this scriptural requirement. It would be a blessing to report to Convention that EVERY church in the Diocese had received an appropriate bequest. This will not happen without intentional instruction from our church leaders.
–Rick Harrison Smith, the Executive Director of the Episcopal Foundation, as quoted in the Aurora, the online newsletter of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California
Any orthodox Christian would be crazy to leave an estate gift now to a parish or diocese within the Episcopal Church–or to leave one in place if there’s opportunity to revoke it. One only has to see how the largess of those faithful Christians who preceded us is today being squandered and wasted to know the folly of making an estate gift to any Episcopal Church entity. Even supposedly “safe” parishes and dioceses can be turned, as we’ve seen again and again (think Florida, Colorado, Virginia, etc.) If you give money today in your estate to your orthodox Episcopal parish, tomorrow it might be spent funding lawsuits, or celebrating alternative lifestyles, or promoting a particular political view. And even if the gift is restricted, who is to say the restriction will be honored–when its plain that words mean nothing to those in charge of the Episcopal Church. There’s no reason to think that the terms of a bequest restriction will get more respect than the canons of the church, the creeds, or Scripture. When lucre is involved, there is every reason to assume that restrictions would be ignored. But say, for argument’s sake, that the restriction IS honored–all that does is loose up other monies to be used to undermine the Gospel.
There are so many good places to give one’s estate dollars, places with a track record of good stewardship and fidelity to the Gospel, that it’s hard to see any compelling reasons now to leave any money to the Episcopal Church, no matter what one’s affections may be today, or what one’s hopes might be for tomorrow. Before you give an estate gift to the Episcopal Church, ask yourself if today you would entrust that amount of money to Katherine Jefforts Schori, Louie Crew, or those like them. Because that’s about the best you could hope for the future of your funds.
“The receiving of bequests is the result of intentional teaching of the gospel and its message of abundance and thanksgiving. ….. of this scriptural requirement.”
Hmm I thought it was only the Pentecostals who taught a prosperity doctrine.
Jon R
If I was going to leave anything, I would do it in a trust, with a trust administrator that is designated, not the Church itself. As has been asked, Would you trust that much to ????
Another thing, What is “their” type #3? If you are going to critisize someone, do it directly, not with inuendo. “Their” type believe the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, as written, not twisted by Spong and company or interpreted by a theological nitwit, or driven by the GLBT heretics. True Christianity is inclusive, if you repent and follow Christ. It is exclusive, only if you follow the desires of man and satan.
My wife and I believe that tithing and sacrificial giving are gifts to us from God. Since we started truly tithing about ten years ago we have blessed financially in ways unimaginable before.
Our new continuing Anglican church and its rector were able to sustain itself at first with just four tithing families.
Growth has brought about the opportunities for more mission work and for a more realistic salary for our pastor.
When people tell me they cannot afford to tithe, I tell them “I can’t afford not to.”
We worship in a rented space and travel light, so all of our money goes to the preaching of the gospel, and not to fixing roofs, sidewalks and cleaning carpets (the landlord takes care of that).
Hopper, your dismissive view of restricted gifts–which constitute MOST estate gifts people give and are accepted on condition that they be used as given–merely underscores the peril of trusting the Episcopal Church to honor a donor’s wishes. An estate gift is one of the most generous and meaningful gifts a person can give, precisely because it is the ultimate statement of trust in an organization. If it is unrestricted, it is a statement of trust that the organization will be a good steward; if restricted it is a statement of trust that the organization will fulfill its obligation to honor that restriction. If that organization accepted the money but then demeaned the gift, as you do, as “attempting to control from the grave” that would say a great deal about the trustworthiness of the organization and its respect for its donors.
I was asked last fall to sit on a planned giving committee for my parish (Diocese of Southwest Florida). I initially did so, although with reservations, and, as events have developed, and my concerns about the leadership of ECUSA, my diocese and my parish deepened, I have withdrawn from that committee (and am in the process of withdrawing from ECUSA, the diocese and the parish).
Giving to any kind of charity implies a confidence that the recipient will use the funds in an appropriate manner. Restricted giving implies a particular interest in the use to which the funds will be put. #3’s comment about “controlling from the grave” slanders the multitudes who have given to ensure maintenance of buildings, preservation of endowments, support of particular ministries . . . But then, #3 probably also does not understand that the church does not exist only for those alive at any given moment. Chesterton wrote about how, in the eternal church, both our predecessors and our successors are in a sense real members, and participate in what we do in the here and now. But then, that is the problem with the revisionsists . . . they fail to understand anything but there own instant desires and changable feelings.
Some additional thoughts regarding #3’s posting, as I am afraid my last sentence was someone abrupt, and requires elaboration . . .
#3 wrote (in part) “I am not so bold as to believe that the decision as to who is and isn’t Chrisitan is one that is left up to me—or anyone else—to decide.”
This statement is unfortunate, and demonstrates the lack of clarity throughout #3’s post, because, in theory, it is not that difficult to determine who is or is not a Christian. As C.S. Lewis points out in “Mere Christianity,” a great deal of confusion arises from the fact that too many people use the phrase, “she is not a Christian,” to make a statement about a person’s character, or motives, instead of making a statement about a person’s beliefs. As Lewis further points out, in order to determine whether a person is or is not a Christian, one should determine whether that person holds the core historical doctrines of Christianity. I said this is easy in theory, but I recognize that it is difficult in practice, because there will be endless arguments about what the core historical doctrines of Christianity are. Nevertheless, just because something is difficult does not mean that it should not be attempted, and, if anyone should be equipped to make the attempt, it ought to be the leaders of the Church. (Which is why #3’s comment is actually worse than unfortunate, it is asinine).
In fact, all of us can make some pretty easy determinations as to whether someone is or is not a Christian. For example, my best friend from college is Jewish. He is most certainly not a Christian, and would be highly offended if I said that he really was in spirit, or some other such nonsense. He is also a fundamentally decent person, in many ways a much better person than I am. My observation that he is not a Christian is not (and cannot be) an observation on his character.
Other instances might be more (or less) difficult. For example, looking at history, Ben Franklin probably was not a Christian, John Adams probably was.
One can reasonably conclude that Bishop Spong is not a Christian, based upon his published views, without making any inferences about his character.
Similarly, depending on what one views as the core doctrines that identify Christianity, one could reasonably doubt whether KJS is a Christian, based upon her own statements about, for example, whether Jesus of Nazareth was and is the sole font of salvation. Whatever one thinks about her character, her doctrine is fair game.
Now # 3 questions whether Akinola, Schofield, or “their type,” are “truly Christian.” It might be helpful if Hopper explained the basis for this assertion. Could Hopper explain what historic doctrines of Christianity these individuals have recanted? Does Bishop Akinola deny the divinity of Christ? the Virgin Birth? the physical reality of the resurrection?
Or is Hopper actually attacking the character of this “type” of individual? Is Hopper really complaining that Akinola and the rest of the “type” don’t adhere to a general vague benevolent attitude to which Hopper subscribes, and which he (or she) attributes to KJS and the “host” of other leaders in the ECUSA (who are, presumably, of a different “type”).
I admit, I’m venting, because we know what the answer is. Hopper’s definition of Christianity is devoid of content, and based upon an emotional response to Hopper’s perception of character, not publicly articulated and professed doctrine.
Hopper (ironically?) writes:
[blockquote]Of course, when one group begins to believe that it alone is “correct†and “true†… well, we’re in for some hard times ahead. Here comes the Inquisition … of a fundamentalist nature … and it ain’t gonna be pretty.[/blockquote]
Certainly the GLBT activitsts ‘believe that it alone is “correct” and “true.” And The General Convention Church power elite are equally convinced that ‘it alone is “correct” and “true.” And, as a consequence, its Inquisition has been sent into Fort Worth, San Jaoquin and Quincy to root out the heresies there. And, of course, we have seen the Star Chamber proceedings against the heretical bishops who dissent from Spong and Company.
It should be know ever since the auditors’ reports detailing the problems at 815 in the Browning years, that bequests to that outfit are not accurately accounted for. I’ve seen no evidence that things have improved since then. If you want to leave your estate to finance lawsuits against clergy, parishes and laity and to promote any hairbrained social cause in the future, by all means leave it to The General Convention Church.
Perhaps it would be really ironic if, after he’s dead and buried and his “rather large” estate left to The General Convention Church, the latter is truly reformed and conformed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, and his estate were used to stamp out the novel gospel that he apparently supports.
It is also interesting that in one sentence he questions whether certain bishops of the Christian Church are “truly Christian” and then in the next sentence eschews such judgments.
I would add to the comment about Chesterton. He wrote that the Catholic Church is the most truly democratic institution precisely because it gives a vote to the dead. Their voice is still heard in some quarters.
RE: “Hopper, your dismissive view of restricted gifts–which constitute MOST estate gifts people give and are accepted on condition that they be used as given–merely underscores the peril of trusting the Episcopal Church to honor a donor’s wishes.”
Not to worry, though, RomeAnglican.
For if “Schofield” and “Akinola” were in charge of TEC moneys — whether national, diocesan, or parish — suddenly Hopper would be all for restricted giving. ; > )
As his pietistic comment inadvertently revealed, [i]the reason why he is opposed to restricted giving is not for any real principle or ethos against restriction, but because he likes and trusts the agendas, values, and worldview of Jefferts Schori, Beers, and the rest of the people in charge at the national level of the church.[/i]
The moment that that the agendas, values, and worldview of Schofield and Akinola were in charge of TEC is the moment that suddenly his “principle” against “restricted giving” would fly out the window.
My wife and I maintain a weekly pledge to our church. In spite of limited income and health problems we have been blessed with the financial means to meet our needs. If either of us dies before the other any money remaining after funeral expenses will be the propery of the living spouse and will probably be used to pay periodic medical expenses ( a fact of life for a great number of us ). We have enough Scriptural ground for us to base this action on.