This one is primarily for Episcopal insiders, that very small, and declining number of people who care about what happens in the Episcopal Church.
This week, Mark Harris broke the news that four boardmembers of the UTO (United Thank Offering) had resigned in protest of what seemed to them to be an attempt by The Episcopal Church to take over their assets, their good name, and their mission. The UTO is a longstanding tradition in the Episcopal Church. Begun by women at a time when women were shut out of the organization, leadership, and structure of the church, it collects money from individuals and parishes and gives a crazy high percentage of that money away in grants. It has almost no administrative costs. What costs that do exist are largely assumed by the Episcopal Church.
But apparently, in an effort to increase transparency and accountability, a committee consisting of UTO board members and Church Center staff have created new bylaws for the organization that, in the judgment of the resigning board members:
The revised bylaws document eviscerates the United Thank Offering. It is monstrous and the worst set of revisions ever seen by one longtime bylaws expert. Several Board members described initial reactions to the document as “Horror.” The Board President said the word “eviscerate” occurred to her as well.
Mark, a former member of the Executive Council, and also a former member of the committee that was charged with studying the relationship of the UTO to TEC, is following this story very closely and has offered comment on the new bylaws. His questions and concerns are very helpful.
In the course of the day yesterday, the President of the House of Deputies, and “the Leadership” (whatever that may mean) also offered their takes on the matter. You can read their pieces here.
Part of what seems to be at stake here is that the proposed bylaws remake the nature of the UTO board (it was previously elected from various Episcopal Church Women bodies) and put the power of final approval of UTO grants in the hands of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church.
Quite apart from another public relations disaster for the Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop, and its Chief Operating Officer, all of this seems to me to be quite contrary to the push for restructuring, and allowing grassroots organizations to thrive. To add another level to the grantmaking process is to make the process more cumbersome, more time-consuming, and more expensive. To take power away from the periphery and concentrate it on the center is to exacerbate problems.
The PR is awful; it’s embarrassing. To issue press releases under the aegis of “The Leadership” is laughable. They might as well call it the Politburo. It looks like all either the Presiding Bishop or the COO care about is money, property (a charge thrown out repeatedly by those involved in property litigation), and power. And because the UTO was largely independent, it had all of those things.
There is so little trust in the periphery for TEC; so little trust from ordinary members, from parishes and congregations. The UTO is one of those things that we could all agree on. We knew its origins; we knew that the money collected would go to amazing mission projects across the US and across the world.
Once again, instead of focusing on what we need to do, and what UTO has done in the past, we are focused on process, on power, on hurt. I’m really not sure we’ll have a UTO ingathering at Grace this fall. I certainly won’t be able to say with any certainty where the money will go.
How can you mess something up so completely?
But my prayer remains:
GRACIOUS GOD, source of all creation, all love, all true joy: accept, we pray, these outward signs of our profound and continuing thankfulness for all of life. Keep each of us ever thankful for all the blessings of joy and challenge that come our way. Bless those who will benefit from these gifts through the outreach of the United Thank Offering. This we ask through Him who is the greatest gift and blessing of all, Jesus Christ. Amen
I have no personal stake in the UTO matter, but after reading this summary and the related links, including Mark Harris’ most recent comments, I am puzzled by the hostile tone of some of the posts. The ECW was created at a time when women were excluded from any role in Episcopal Church governance. That is no longer the case today: we have a female PB, many female clergy, a large proportion of female seminarians and a great many vestries appear to be made up primarily of women and women are often wardens as well. So women are not only included in official church leadership, they are the leaders of the Church. So why is there a need for a separate women’s organization? At the parish level, the ECW sometimes seems to function as a clique that exercises a divisive influence on the parish. When groups like the ECW, the Altar Guild, the Garden Guild, the Bell-ringers Guild, etc. each controls its own fund-raising and jealously guards its resources, the general operating budget of a parish can be starved and the whole ministry of the parish suffers. Autonomy sometimes can be an advantage, but when the main basis for an organization is a distinction based on gender that no longer exists, it’s reasonable to think that autonomy is no longer justified.