Midwest Diocese Meets

I think the majority will be behind + Seraphim. He's the one as a long-term bishop. Again, + Job is a nice fellow, but please examine his past in NE. All the bishops are guilty for doing too little too late regarding the financial scandal.

(editor's note: You presuppose that one needs a "long-term" Bishop. What would be the disadvantage of electing a short term one, and then waiting 3-6 years, as we elect a minimum of 4-5 new bishops in that time. There are lots of vacant sees that need occupants, doubling our present pool of potential candidates. Secondly, to what are you referring about in the Archbishop's term in NE? Now is the time to speak openly, or forever hold your peace, as the saying goes....)

We need someone who is not from the current crop. I have some reservations with Job because there's a lot that's on his mind about this that hasn't come out. He's still got one toe in that old mentality.

But again, why do we limit ourselves to a current bishop? When they needed to get a new Supreme Court Chief Justice, where did they go? Outside of the court to bring in new blood to lead. Likewise we need to do the same here. Everyone of the guys on the Synod has some degree of taint and, to be honest, we don't trust any of them. We're confining ourselves to a selection of the lesser of a bunch of evils. And there's no reason for that, look at all possibilities of those within the Church.

Let us not only choose a new Metropolitan, but the people to choose a new bishop as well, what a concept!

Daniel,

The bishops, the central administration are praying for you, they really are.

The $50 assessment is a good idea for a few reasons. One of which is its a grassroots movement to trim down what is a tremendously wasteful organization, even more so lately, believe it or not. Its a reaction to people who got too big doing too little. You have to realize the situation. Look at the current numbers. The central administration uses about 5% of what it takes in on works of the Church, the rest is used to keep themselves running. What a tremendous waste that is, even you can agree. On this point, what the people are saying is that if this money is only to allow you people to tread water, then you can tread water with a lot less because you do nothing useful with what you have now – and we have the numbers to prove that. Look at the amount of overhead charged on all the appeals, its nearly criminal. Just think about it, $5 out of that $100 you give is used for works of the Church. The charities to which I contribute have a top amount of 8% for administrative costs. I don’t understand why this organization is completely backwards in that respect. It’s a sign that maybe we’re doing too little with too much and that it can be trimmed back greatly.

Second, it’s a value that people are placing on the administration. What we’re saying is that for what is done with the money and what is gotten in return, $100 is a lot of money compared to the value if the money is used at a lower level the value of that money is greater because the people handling it are closer to how it will be used. Does a Syosset dignitary need to be in the photo when handing over a check to a charity? That’s basically what you’re paying for, provided it really goes to where you wanted it to go to. In this day in age when people complain about $4.00 gasoline, you’re willing to throw away as much money as you do on the central administration of this church? It’s a terrible value, so we do not see the need to give more to an organization that is very, very poor is fiscal responsibility. People gave $100 when they felt it was worthwhile, now we know the truth, and there’s no value in that $100. We price the value of their function at $50. Don’t say that we need to support the work of the Church, we DO, but we don’t have to do it but supporting a valueless administration in Syosset.

Lastly, it gives the central administration motivation. In the current scheme of things, they can do nothing, absolutely nothing, and in fact have done nothing good for the Church, and they are assured of all their creature comforts and money. Its nuts. If we cut down the money sent in, it’s a shot across the bow that says, if you want more, the answer is growth, not choking those that are already here in a dying organization. They will be directly responsible for the revenue they deem is necessary, not making us responsible for a figure they feel they need for them to be comfortable. When we look at the MILLIONS robbed from us, we ask, what could we have done with that money and then we look at maybe we were sending too much in that we were fairly content with what we got out of them, meaning those millions did not need to go to the central administration anyway. It could be kept at a lower level and used wisely.

Dan, you are wedded to the classic liberal thinking that ever more higher authorities above you know how to use your money better than you do. In your case you feel that this necessary that the central administration takes the money and does what they want because you, at a lower level, can’t make good and Godly decisions. I disagree. I feel that the people who are closer to a problem know how better to use it. Local charities that help people and give visibility to our Orthodox faith. The central administration is looking at big items, when the real charity occurs at a level that you see every day that are nowhere on the radar of the administration. That’s a very powerful reason to use our money for Godly acts that have the greatest impact and value with regards to what our values are. In addition, those who handle the money who are closer to the sources of the money will treat the money with greater respect and result in less waste. They will carefully consider how its used, something the administration still hasn’t’ grasped. Hell, I don’t recall a 2007 audit yet.

You asked for a justification of that number. To that I have two responses. First, how do you value what something is worth to you and what will cause you to be parted, for a good reason, from your money? Why do we take bids on jobs? Let’s just go with the first one that comes along because he’s got a number. We don’t care how he got to it because he’s proud of his number and you like how it looks because he told you all the wonder things he can do with that money. What makes you say that one person asking for $100 to bring you a pizza is a bad value compared to one for $15? How do you make that call? I would say you go through an analysis, quick though it be, that says that $100 to bring you a pizza is a waste of money considering the ingredients, effort expended to make it, and the distance to travel to bring it, unless of course the meat on it was Kobe beef. Maybe you’re so wealthy that $100 doesn’t matter to you, your value of that sum of money is less than one who isn’t wealthy who looks for good value. If the $100 is a small amount to you then you have less value on it because you have a lot of those Franklins around. Other people value that $100 like it’s a child because they have precious few. This is how people place value on things. What they get and what it costs them to get it. We seek to optimize our value with our money. The central administration has a track record of being an horrendous value for the money paid. People have placed $50 on the value of what the administration does and their comfort with giving away $50 of their money for that value. The administration will have to make due until they have shown us there is more value, then more will come in.

Secondly, we turn your question around to you, what justification can you give for $100 a person? What justification for $2,600,000 a year to do what? That’s what I am really interested in hearing, maybe you can provide us with the reasons.

In reply to your objection to reducing the assessment to $50 I would like to share with you something that was expressed at the recent Midwest Diocesan Assembly. There are some bottom-line, necessary, positions for the national church in order to meet charter requirements and in order to operate at a minimal level. These can be met with a $50 per capita assessment. To go forward with all the old positions and departments in place but reduced in the amount allocated to them is to fail to rethink what is truly needed and effective at the national level. It is to stay in the same mindset, pattern and attitude that was so comfortable in Syosset and to hope that things can build right back up to an approximation of what they have been, excessive as they were.

Reducing the assessment to $50 ushers in a wonderful opportunity-- permission to (*think*), to determine what is best handled at the parish level, at the diocesan level, and then eventually at the national level. Parishes under-report membership or have had to drop or have failed to begin important ministries or have been unable to meet the guidelines for priest's compensation packages. When a $50 per capita assessment is in place these things can be rectified and the national church can think through and present to the faithful any petitions deemed worthy, with convincing evidence, if such exists. Many of the church's ministries are better done at the local or diocesan level.

Correction is manifestly in order, and funding the national church so it continues unchanged, though in reduced circumstances, is not going to effect correction. One need not think of this resolve to reduce the assessment to $50 as punishment or a knee-jerk response--it gives a base amount to fund the essentials of the national church and then thought and honest, tough evaluation can determine what, if anything, else is realistic and appropriate. As someone else has pointed out, growth will bring in more money for the national church and growth will occur with parishes able to expand evangelism locally through ministries they cannot now afford. The Synod of Bishops has written to all of us of the need to take up the cross, now, in moving forward. I submit that the humble acceptance of a reduced assessment to $50 per capita is one way in which the cross can be borne.

Different poster from the first Anonymous, Daniel, and I hope not guilty of forgetting the basics of winning friends and influencing people that you cite. Sorry if disagreement is being seen as being disagreeable. Of course we are one in the Body of Christ. I didn't intend to offend you, but to state reasons reasonably.