You can read about the other seven, predictably prosaic, myths in an article by the Diocese of Toronto’s Director of Stewardship here (page 4).
The eighth myth is much more interesting:
Myth: You can expect parishioners to pay for and maintain the buildings they worship in.
Truth: In every case where congregations have had sufficiently strong theological differences with their dioceses that they realigned with another Anglican province while still hoping to use their buildings, the dioceses have gone to court to establish that they, the dioceses are the legal owners. So far the dioceses have been largely successful.
Yet, even though they claim to own the buildings, Anglican dioceses contribute nothing to their maintenance or the initial cost of building them. You can only con people for so long: no amount of weeping and wailing by stewardship directors is going to squeeze more cash out of people who have already forked out millions of dollars to pay for something they thought was theirs but, according to a spiteful, hypocritical, grasping national church can be taken from them at any time.
Welcome to the Anglican Church of Canada, the Ponzi religion.
This statement:
“Yet, even though they claim to own the buildings, Anglican dioceses contribute nothing to their maintenance or the initial cost of building them.”
is not true.
Dioceses provide direction on matters related to insurance, building maintenance, legal advice, the planning and the development and upgrade of property. Churches often get a preferential rate because it is arranged through the diocese. Often they receive low interest loans, outright grants and financial assistance for Sunday school upgrades or ramps to ease the accessibility of seniors, etc. Churches receive important advice on matters related to human resource development and employment standards. They also receive assistance with congregational development and stewardship education. Larger dioceses bank land for future church plants and engage in a vigorous mission shaped church activity that is funded exclusively by a diocese (Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Eastern Newfoundland all have such programs)
It is highly misleading to suggest that diocesan offices are black holes as your comments imply. But then again, being congregationalist, no one elses opinion matters but your own – until something goes wrong.
Hello Eph,
None of the items you list actually contribute towards the maintenance nor the initial cost of constructing a building.
You should also remember that every Parish is required to pay an allotment to the Diocese which is based on the Parish expenses of the previous year. Which means for shrinking Parishes the allotment becomes even more burdensome. So it can be surmized that all of the items you list as coming from the Diocese is actually paid for by the Parishes. Thus the Parishes pay again.
The diocese is not some monolythic creature that exists to create chaos. The diocese is the people that comprise the church. The staff in any diocesan office exist in so much as Synod directs it to. In my experience, the programs offered by the diocesan centre assist ministry at the rock-face. In Toronto, the programs, services, professionals and events are supportive and valuable.
Please stop trying to cloud the issue with items that are not relevant to the topic raised in the article. That topic being that the Diocese does not pay so much as one cent for the construction or maintenance of Parish buildings. Y
Yet for some mysterious reason thinks that the buildings are owened by the Diocese (legal entity) and not the Parish (legal entity).
I make my donations to the Parish, in an envolope which is clearly marked as going to the Parish, and nowhere is there any indication that the money is being given to the Diocese. The Parish has its own bank account, issues its own cheques to pay its own bills (including maintenance and repair of the Parish buildings), and issues its own tax receipts. So please explain to me where is the legal justification for the Diocese having any claim to any of this?
I have to admit, I do know of one parish that received a $1.4M diocesan grant towards its building costs. It must must have been sheer coincidence that the bishop’s son was the rector.
Other than that type of odd – and sleazy – exception, what I said is true: dioceses don’t contribute to the financial upkeep of church buildings even though they claim to own them – you can’t be serious in suggesting that advice, accessibility, ramps and loans are the equivalent of paying a mortgage, utilities and repairs etc, surely?
Thank you for using the phrase “mission shaped church”: it made my evening.
One last point: I don’t think the “diocesan offices are black holes”.
They are more like the offices of the ecclesiastical Mafiosi. The diocesan assessment is the protection money, the free advice, ramps and loans are the favours which diocesan goons will expect returned, and the offer you can’t refuse was made to parishes that entered into negotiations over their buildings – those who did refuse had their legs broken.
Metaphorically, of course – in much the same sense that the ACoC believes in a metaphorical resurrection.