Church Finance Matters
The Rev. Chris Dow (“Providence & Provocation: On the Jehovah’s Witnesses”) and I share a common problem regarding vestry meetings “consumed with worries about paying for building repairs and utility bills.”
Let me share my perspective as a member of several parishes over 40-plus years, including terms on vestries and as treasurer: the attitude of a vestry and clergy that regard financial responsibility and accountability as—at best—a tertiary concern that is usually the last item on a vestry’s agenda, will likely result in ongoing problematic and sometimes intractable financial problems (balance sheets in the red, and annual deficit budgets).
With few exceptions, parish ministry doesn’t happen in facilities that are owned and maintained by a benevolent landlord who covers all building/grounds expenses from his own funds. That means that budgets should be, at least, one of the top two (or perhaps top three) priorities that vestries and clergy must manage actively and responsibly. In my current parish, we are engaging in multi-year financial discussions and budget planning to ensure our continued ministry in this place at this time and for many generations to come.
Generally, Episcopal clergy and lay leaders in the U.S. are reluctant to speak clearly, persuasively, consistently and sometimes bluntly about financial issues and how those issues directly impact how we as individuals and collectively as a church carry out our ministry. Until clergy and vestries “grasp the bull by the horns,” this will continue to plague many parishes.
David Waller
Pasadena, California
Whose Moral Compass?
The January 2026 joint letter from 154 Episcopal bishops joined a national heterophony that finally drew down U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minnesota. While the Episcopal Church’s bishops are quick to denounce violence in the streets (at least on the part of the government) it is slow to confront the decades-old legislative quagmire that led to it.
The bishops urge individuals, rather than Representatives and Senators, to use their moral compass. The sad states of modern U.S. slavery and classism cannot be addressed as long as we condone breaking the law. It seems that the Episcopal Church has joined the secular cynicism which asserts that our broken and outdated immigration legal code cannot be remedied and therefore must be violated in order to answer the question “What would Jesus do?”
Without secure borders and a legal migration process, the U.S. cannot address the vile and shameful plague of sex trafficking. According to UNICEF, “The United States is a source and transit country, and is also considered one of the top destination points for victims of child trafficking and exploitation.”
Without a consistent legal definition of citizenship and enforcement at both the state and federal levels, U.S. consumers will continue to seek migrants without paperwork to do their dirty work. The fact that migrants and undocumented residents are willing to work for pennies on the privileged dollar does not excuse any U.S. citizen, particularly those in an upper-income bracket, from hiring persons at a discount rate to clean their homes, mow their lawns, and watch their children. No wonder the Minnesota Somali daycare fraud went under the radar. Americans, including Episcopalians, simply look the other way when it means a bargain.
If the bishops are patting themselves on their backs, they should now shift into the next gear of moving men and women of power, rather than restraining those who exercise the will of that power. ICE agents are the wrong target for our Christian witness. Our lawmakers must end the hypocrisy of an immigration system that both enables criminals and oppresses innocents. The bishops can be a force to that remedy.
Margaret Will
McArthur, Ohio
Forehead Ashing’s Origins
I grew up in the Polish National Catholic Church in the 1950s and 1960s, then in intercommunion with the Episcopal Church. The practice there, which was the common practice in Poland as well as in Italy, was that the ashes were deposited on the front part of the head, on the hair of those lucky enough to have hair. But since in those days women always wore hats to church, they received their ashes on the forehead. This strikes me as the more likely origin of the current practice in English-speaking countries than the interesting hypothesis of Neil Alexander regarding monastic tonsure raised in “This Ash Wednesday, Get Rid of the Cross.”
In any event, I always felt somewhat cheated that my Roman Catholic classmates were dismissed early from public school to get “ashed” and were visibly marked while I had nothing to show for my piety except some dirty hair. In retrospect, I think it was a valuable lesson. Good luck in eliminating the forehead marking.
Br. Robert Sevensky, OHC
West Park, New York
An Ashing Compromise?
I enjoyed the recent and timely article by the Rev. Matthew S.C. Olver (“This Ash Wednesday, Get Rid of the Cross”), including the historical remarks concerning the rite, but more salient is his juxtaposition of the gospel reading with the liturgical practice of the Book of Common Prayer (1979) for Ash Wednesday.
While I was in seminary (Bexley Hall, Rochester, N.Y.) the Very Rev. Prof. William H. Petersen was our dean and liturgics professor. His recommendation, and the custom of the seminary then, was to place a box of tissues, a bowl of water, and a waste basket near the exit of the nave and instruct the people that, while the ashes were indeed sacramentally relevant, one must not ignore Christ’s admonition as stated in the reading. For 35-plus years now, I’ve kept to that practice; however, I also include the additional Anglican attitude that “all may; some should; none must.”
I’m interested that Prof. Olver’s chief concern seems to be about how ashes are to be imposed. I would very much look forward to reading his thoughts regarding “Ashes to Go.”
The Rev. David Chalk
Canyon Lake, Texas
Reconciling East & West
I read the very interesting essay by Simangaliso Magudulela, “The Holy Spirit—Augustine, Aquinas, and Palamas,” with great pleasure. I had written an essay exploring the same idea, reconciling the differences about the procession of the Holy Spirit, while I was a seminary student in 1979-80.
I’ve got a copy of it packed away. It wasn’t as complete and detailed as that of Magudulela, and I would have enjoyed conversing with him about this very important topic. Thanks for putting it in The Living Church.
The Rev. James D. (Danny) Borkowski
Riberas del Pilar, Jalisco, Mexico
Dearmer’s Depth and Breadth
Dr. Arnold’s “A Defense of Percy Dearmer and His ‘British Museum Religion’” is not only cogent and rectifying; it bears witness to my 43 years of experience in parochial ministry. Dr. Dearmer’s love of beauty and authentic worship has been a guiding light wherever I find myself gathered with the people of God, in praise of the Holy One who makes all things new.
His respect for art, craft, and architecture shapes my way of thinking concerning the use of space set aside to give God what we owe. The breadth of his work and his willingness to collaborate (think Micklewaithe, Athelstan Riley, Ralph Vaughan Williams, and Martin Shaw) exemplified a thinker of depth and perspicacity, a quality needed in his day in the face of the Society of St. Peter and St. Paul and other continental influencers.
Archbishop Arthur Michael Ramsey, when he reordered the chapel at Lambeth, used Warham Guild principles for the appointments and vestments, making the space shout of Dearmer’s vision.
The Rev. William Willoughby III, Ed.D.
Savannah, Georgia
TLC Editors
