The Dioceses of New Westminster, having alienated and driven out its conservative congregations, is hard pressed financially:
One major reason was that in 2002, when some congregations and clergy walked out of our Synod, our Diocesan budget was reduced by 28%.
Consequently, it has hired fund-raising consultants to help replenish its coffers.
Not all the parishes received the news with unmitigated rejoicing:
• A majority saw the case as a diocesan wish list without a solid business plan and for that and a variety of other reasons they did not support it.
• The proposed revenue split between parishes, diocese and national church was not supported.
• The interviewees had a variety of opinions about why they and others did not support a financial campaign at this time.
• A common view was that the church is no longer the place where churchgoers give first. There is constant competition for donor dollars.
• The church must become more efficient in using donor dollars. Regular reporting on how revenue is used and evaluation of programs and initiatives supported by those dollars must be improved. The church can no longer rest on its laurels and just expect to receive gifts.
• 18 of those interviewed believe there are still wounds from the split that happened ten years ago and it is too soon to start a campaign of this magnitude.
It tears at the hearstrings for me to report that:
It was Compton’s finding that there was not sufficient support to launch a 19 million dollar campaign over 4 or 5 years.
Still, I’m sure the consultants were paid handsomely.
Sell St. John’s Shaughnessy and there will be plenty of money to pay the bills until Ingham retires. Simple, effective and no need to drone on about mission.
I have made this point more than once at the parish level. There has been a lot of internal pressure to move the Diocesan Offices there if New Westminster insists on keeping the building open (many parishes are not amused), but as yet there does not seem to have been any response from the top.
I would imagine that the fall in income would accelerate anyway, tho, even if they didn’t lose large numbers of people.
Consider: if you are a member of that church, in good standing, faithful, principled, you would probably want to donate financially to help build churches and fund activity locally.
But if you are such a person, and you are not brain-dead, what message have you received over the last couple of years? You have been told:
1. Any money you donate belongs, not to the church you give it to, but to diocesan officials.
2. Any building you help buy doesn’t belong to you. You have no rights over it. The diocese will close it and sell it to people you really object to, just out of spite.
3. Any mission work locally you contribute to may be shut down out of spite.
4. Any principles you have may be deliberately outraged, in a sudden burst of trendiness, just to show you who’s boss.
So why on earth would any sane person give money? To anything associated with the church? You have NO certainty that you aren’t paying for something you would deeply regret.
It doesn’t matter what your principles are; you’d have to be crazy to spend your money that way. It wouldn’t be a good use of your money. If you were motivated enough by a cause to give to it, you’d be demotivated enough not to do so, by the thought that it was futile!
It isn’t liberals who give money, time, and found churches and institutions. It’s people who want to establish permanent things.
And that feeling, even if not articulated explicitly, must cause a fall in donations, a fall in commitment, a fall in everything.
No-one can prevent splits happening. But in seizing the property, the diocese must have maimed itself, by ensuring that its supporters won’t donate to it. Even if they support it, they can have no certainty that their money will not, next year, be diverted for other purposes.
This is an example of how God’s judgement tends to work. He takes the strengths of evil men, and makes them work to their downfall.
They are doing a major fundraising campaign like Toronto did in 2010 and 2011. They are hardly running out of cash. They are being visionary, even missional. This is a practical step to build God’s Kingdom – it is hardly a sign of desperation, rather it is a sign of hopefulness. I wish them well in their endeavour.
Hiring consultants is reasonable and practical; even to be encouraged. They will raise more than they can ask or imagine – hey that’s my line!!!!
New Westminster is not doing a fund raising campaign. It tried to push this through earlier in the year, but got such a strong push back (not the least about its plans to endow a professorship at the Vancouver School of Theology while pouring money into what almost everyone except the diocesan leadership saw as keeping non-viable parishes afloat) that it was in danger of being voted down. Michael Ingham was forced to postpone the synod and do a rethink. This is the result.
And all the diocese’s pigs have been fed, and are ready to fly.
Fascinating to hear the denial, tho.
Getting people to part with their coin is difficult. The money is not coming from the faithful as it is. It will require outside sources, but this is not cancer research it is a church in turmoil.
Here is Toronto’s figures. According to the 2011 Financial report it cost $4,110,985 to raise $1,646,599.
I think CRA has rules about expendatures like that.
And the pledges don’t match the actual receipts. So a few backed out?
Some vision and what a mission, lining the pockets of staff. They should have stayed in bed.
Stev L.,
Get your facts straight, Toronto has raised over $40-million on a pledged campaign over five years. Read the results for yourself in the November issue of The Anglican: http://www.toronto.anglican.ca/about-the-diocese/news/the-anglican-newspaper/
In case you are not familiar with capital campaign methodology, donors make pledges usually between three to five years. For tax purposes you do not report monies not actualized, only those redeemed. But you need to report all your expenses as they happen. While it may appear that costs are through the roof in year one – over the course of the total pledge period, donations vastly out pace expenses.
Campaign expenses are always front loaded. The fact that Toronto only paid 10% is a fundraiser’s dream come true and is nearly 50% less than the CRA best practice of aggregate expenses of 20%. I
I just reported what their financial statement said.
In Case You Are Not Familiar
Ahh a good dose of condescension to start the day.
There is something seriously amis with a church that can’t run itself on its regular offerings. It shows that there is a problem that needs attention.
We have no quarrel our fellow Christians in the Diocese of Toronto. Their generosity in supporting the Stewardship drive is admirable.
My concern is that the money will be administered by a leadership that can’t tell right from wrong.
Kate,
You can’t build a physical church building on regular offerings. Most of us don’t buy a house by paying the whole thing off at once.
St. George’s Burlington (formerly Lowville) just broke ground. Designated offerings and mortgages both do exist.
Besides, I was speaking of regular operating expenses, not extraordinary ones, like being sued out of a building and needing to find alternate accommodation.
I wonder if this failed campaign kick-start was orchestrated to convince the diocese to sell more property and “consolidate” small parishes.