When Is a Church Not a Church? When It's a Debt Collector

The Episcopal Church (USA) has two primary sources of income: according to its latest audited financial statements for the calendar year 2013, it received a little over $27 million from its member dioceses, and it received half as much again, or $13.8 million, from the federal government. (Its total income for 2013 from invested funds was $8 million.)

The money ECUSA received from the federal government was in connection with the services provided by Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM), an office within the Church organization at 815 Second Avenue in New York that assists the State Department in relocating refugees throughout the United States.

As I noted in this earlier post, the Church is very dependent upon Government reimbursements for its EMM expenditures in order to balance its books. For calendar 2014, for example, ECUSA reported a supposed operating surplus of $2.4 million, but that claim ignored the fact that as of the end of 2014, ECUSA had spent nearly $3.5 million more through EMM than it had yet received back from the Government.

So we have a national Church that depends for approximately one-third of its annual budget on money from the U.S. Government. Nevertheless, this still does not tell the full tale. Buried in a Note (#13, at page 27) to the audited financial statements is this remarkable statistic (with my bold added, for emphasis):

In connection with its cooperative agreements with the United States Government for refugee resettlement, the Society acts as the collection agent for travel loans made to refugees by the International Organization for Migration. In return for these services, the Society retains 25% of all loan collections as a recovery of its administrative costs incurred. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012 , there were $11,339 and $9,961, respectively, of refugee loans outstanding. Such amounts are not reflected on the accompanying consolidated financial statements, and the Society does not guarantee the loans.

Those two numbers ($11,339 and $9,961) need to have three more zeros tacked onto them, because the audited statements' numbers are all expressed as thousands. So let me make it plain:

As of the end of calendar 2013, ECUSA had undertaken to collect for the U.S. Government a total of $11,339,000 in loans made by the Government to refugees for their expenses in being brought to the United States for relocation.  Given that EMM assists approximately 5,000 such refugees each year, and assuming that the loans are outstanding for an average of three to four years before they are fully repaid,  that would work out to about $1,500 per refugee if they all received travel loans (and I have no way of knowing if they did or not; the loan amount per refugee would be higher if some of them paid their own way here).

And -- most significant of all -- ECUSA will retain 25% of everything it collects from the refugees to pay for its "administrative costs", or (if all loans outstanding at the end of 2013 are collected) a total of $ 2,835,000 to its bottom line -- a figure, however, which is not reported in the audited statements.

Not all of that $2.8 million for loan collection will come into ECUSA's coffers in the space of a year -- the loans are paid back over a number of years. To find out just how much ECUSA earns each year from this unusual source, we have to go to the triennial budgets, with their figures for what was actually earned.

From the Presiding Bishop's annotated budget proposal for the 2013-2015 triennium, we learn (p. 2, line 13) that the Church earned a total of $2,163,008 from its debt collection efforts during the 2010-2012 triennium, and incurred collection costs for that same period (p. 5, line 87) of just $983,442. As a debt collector from 2010 through 2012, therefore, the Church added a total of $1,179,566 to its bottom line, or approximately $393,189 of pure profit per year.

And from the latest year-end statement of operations for calendar 2014, we learn (line 13, column 4) that in just its most recent year, ECUSA took in a total of $933,218 from the refugees it assisted -- some $223,218 over budget, and attributed in the note at the far right to "Exceptional performance by the Refugee Loan Collections staff." At the same time, its loan collection expenses for 2014 (first page, fourth line from the bottom) were just $548,343, for a net surplus from debt collecting of  $384,875 -- so the profitability of refugee loans continues at almost the same pace, thanks to the staff's extraordinary efforts.

Does that claim of a "$2.4 million surplus" in 2014 still look the same to you? Was it achieved, in part, on the backs of the refugees whom the Government paid ECUSA to assist?

What in the world is a church doing in the debt collection business, and pocketing more than twice its actual costs of collection while doing so? Would that not be considered excessive, even for a loan shark?

And remember -- the money the Government lets the Church keep for its troubles reduces what the Government is repaid on its loans, so that the Church in reality is profiting handsomely at the taxpayers' expense -- to say nothing of the refugees whom the Church so efficiently cajoles into making payments.
 
A search of the Church's digital archives for resolutions authorizing debt collection activities by EMM turned up nothing as far back as 1976, which is long before the current State Department relocation programs were in place. All I could find was this Resolution 1997-D081, which stated:

Resolved, That the 72nd General Convention of the Episcopal Church charge Episcopal Migration Ministries with the responsibility for developing and implementing an advocacy agenda which reflects the concern of the Episcopal Church that the U.S. Government uphold a generous program of refugee admissions in response to the worldwide refugee crisis, maintain a just system of asylum for persecuted persons seeking safety in the United States, and ensure that needy immigrants are not unfairly denied access to essential services and benefits.

Is EMM actually carrying out this charge? ECUSA needs to be more up-front with its members about how much it takes in from its EMM operations, and justify why those revenues (and related expenses, which -- apart from debt collection -- are always projected to balance exactly, since they are 100% reimbursed by the Government) are needed by the Church, per se.

ECUSA already operates a separate non-profit organization, Episcopal Relief and Development, with which it furnishes disaster relief and help to those abroad, and through which it strives to meet its Millennium Development Goals. Perhaps that is where it should transfer its loan collection activities, as well -- if indeed, it seems appropriate at all for a non-profit organization to be in the debt collection business (pace, Archbishop Welby).

Legal News from South Carolina and San Joaquin

Late yesterday the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a brief order transferring to itself the jurisdiction over the appeal filed by ECUSA and its rump group (ECSC) from the February 3, 2015 judgment and order against them entered by Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein. ECUSA and ECSC had themselves requested the transfer of the case in order to expedite a final decision in the case by the State's highest court, without having to wait for any intermediate decision from the Court of Appeals.

The Court's order declined further to expedite the case's briefing schedule, set oral argument in the case for September 23, 2015, and then added: "No further extensions of time will be granted." In view of the great number of parties to the case (Bishop Lawrence's Episcopal Diocese and thirty-six of its member parishes are all respondents in the appeal, represented each by their own attorneys), the Court's order relaxes some of the filing and service requirements, and urges the attorneys to compress the multi-volume record on appeal to just the documents necessary for meaningful review of the decision below.

This order will enable a written, final decision in the case to be rendered before the end of the current calendar year, and should be welcome news to those on both sides who want to put this litigation behind them, and get on with the real work of the Church.

Also, in the federal case in South Carolina, Bishop Mark Lawrence has asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond to grant a rehearing, either by the three-judge panel that decided the case a few weeks ago, or else by all the judges of the Circuit Court sitting en banc (as a group). The petition is based largely on technical distinctions between the panel's recent decision and earlier cases, both reported and unreported, from the Fourth Circuit which Bishop Lawrence's attorneys maintain are inconsistent with that decision. Whether or not the petition is granted, the underlying federal case should be dead in the water pending the outcome of the case in the South Carolina Supreme Court, for the reasons discussed in this earlier post.

Finally, in the San Joaquin case (which is currently also on appeal), ECUSA and its rump diocese had filed a motion with the trial court in Fresno that sought to have all of the real and personal property transferred into their possession immediately, without waiting for the outcome of the current appeal. But the trial court yesterday issued a tentative ruling denying that motion, explaining that it lacked the authority to do what the plaintiffs asked. Since plaintiffs did not request oral argument after the issuance of the ruling, that tentative decision now becomes the final ruling of the court on the plaintiff's motion, and the status of all the property pending the appeal will not change.

The entities that hold the bare legal title to that property (in trust for the Anglican Diocese and its member parishes) have filed their opening brief in that appeal. The ECUSA parties' brief is due to be filed by June 1, after which I shall have more to say about the appeal.

Reconciling John's Account of Good Friday

[Note: This post is an update of the one I published on Good Friday, four years ago. It incorporates some newer information.] 

There is far more literature about the date of Jesus' death than there is about his birth. One reason is probably that there is so much more material in the Gospels about his last days. But another reason is also that the three synoptic Gospels disagree markedly with the Gospel of John over the chronology of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. In the past, scholars simply had to agree to disagree, and to choose the version which they felt agreed best with the conflicting evidence.

Beginning in the last half of the last century, however, there have been a number of fresh approaches to resolving those conflicts. While a blog post is not the place for a critical review of the literature, I shall still try to give an overview of the most recent views and information.

Begin with the one fact on which all four Gospels agree: Jesus was crucified and died on a Friday, the "day of preparation" before the Jewish sabbath. There was great concern about recovering his body and placing him in a tomb before sundown on the day he died, because of the impending Sabbath when no burials (or anointing of bodies) could take place. And the Gospels also all agree that it was early in the morning "on the first day of the week", i.e., Sunday, when the women hastened to the tomb to be able to complete the proper burial procedures for Jesus, only to find the tomb empty and the body gone.

So we have basic agreement on the three-day sequence of crucifixion, death and entombment on a Friday, everyone resting on the Sabbath, and discovery of the resurrection early Sunday morning. Beyond that simplified chronology, however, the conflicts and difficulties begin -- starting with the Last Supper.

The four Gospels also agree that the final sequence of events began with the Last Supper, followed by Jesus taking the disciples outside, to the Garden of Gethsemane, for prayer and vigil; followed by Jesus' betrayal, arrest, and trials, first before the high priest, then the Sanhedrin, then the first examination by Pontius Pilate, then an interrogation by Herod, and ending with his sentencing by Pilate. The disagreements begin with the nature of the Last Supper -- was it a Passover meal, as Matthew, Mark and Luke all describe it, or was it a meal taken on the eve of the day before Passover, as the Gospel of John takes great pains to make clear?

Resolution of this question interacts with the actual date of the crucifixion, which also has to do with the fixing of Passover in the Hebrew calendar used in the first century. Chapter 12 of Exodus, in verses 1-11, specifies the preparations for and celebration of Passover, always in the first month of the Jewish year. This month, originally called Abib in the Old Testament, had become known as Nisan (from its name in the Babylonian calendar used during exile) by the end of the Old Testament period. Exodus 12:6 requires that the Passover lamb be sacrificed at dusk on the 14th day of the first month, to provide the meal (with unleavened bread) for the start of the week-long Passover festival. That meal would take place after sundown on the day of the sacrifice, which was the start of the first day of Passover proper, on Nisan 15. (Although there is some dispute, most scholars agree that in the calendar system used by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem in the first century, the day began with the first appearance of the stars after sunset, and ended with sunset on the following day.)

It is this unique feature of calculating the days in the Hebrew calendar, and matching those days to our own Julian/Gregorian dates, which causes much of the confusion and disagreement in Easter week chronology. Let us say, for example, that we choose to accept the narrative in the Gospel of John. Then (John implies, but does not expressly say) Jesus died on the cross at the same time the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple -- that is, toward the close (in the afternoon) of Nisan 14. (What John says explicitly is that it was "the day of preparation for the Passover" -- John 19:14; 19:31.) He was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb before sundown on that day. Under John's apparent chronology, the Sabbath, which began at sundown following the burial, was Nisan 15, and the third day, the day of resurrection, was Nisan 16 -- but the Last Supper, which took place at the start of the Day of Preparation, could not have been a Passover meal.

But if the chronology of the synoptic Gospels is accepted, it would appear that Jesus and his disciples enjoyed their Passover meal on Passover itself, that is, at the start of Nisan 15 (after sundown on what we would call Thursday), and his trial, crucifixion and burial all took place on that same Jewish day (our Friday), so that the Sabbath was on Nisan 16, and the resurrection on Nisan 17. Thus the calendar sequence -- Thursday, Last Supper; Friday, crucifixion, death and burial; Sunday, resurrection -- remains the same for both accounts in our reckoning. It is the actual date of the Last Supper that differs.

Well, you ask, why does it matter? The reason is that the Hebrew (not Julian) date of the crucifixion is crucial in determining the year in which Jesus died. If John is correct, Nisan 14 was on a Friday in that year; but if Matthew, Mark and Luke are correct, it was Nisan 15 that fell on a Friday. The two accounts obviously lead to different years as candidates -- and that has resulted in most of the ink that has been devoted to the controversy.

If we use the dates which Josephus tells us Pontius Pilate served in Judaea, then Jesus had to have died between the years A.D. 26 and A.D. 36. We can narrow this range down further by considering the data which St. Luke gives us. Luke, who as an historian has proved accurate in so many other things, reports that John the Baptist began his ministry in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (3:1), and that Jesus began his ministry when he was "about thirty years of age" (3:23), after he had been baptized by John. Historians generally agree that Tiberius' fifteenth year, in the regnal system used by Roman historians of the time, began in A.D. 29. If we allow some time between the start of John the Baptist's ministry and the start of Jesus' own, we see that the latter's crucifixion must have occurred in the latter half of the reign of Pontius Pilate, and not in the first half.

This conclusion is reinforced by the analysis done earlier here about the probable date of Jesus' birth. As we there reviewed all the latest evidence about the date of King Herod's death, and the amazing signs in the skies over Jerusalem in the years 3-2 B.C., we came to the conclusion that Jesus was probably born in early summer of 2 B.C., or perhaps as early as the fall of 3 B.C.

Adding 30 years to those dates (and remembering that there is no Year Zero in between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D.), would put the start of Jesus' ministry at the time Luke indicates, sometime after A.D. 29. If we then allow for at least one Passover (the synoptic Gospels) or as much as three Passovers (John's Gospel) for the duration of that ministry, the range of probable dates for Jesus' death falls between A.D. 30 at the very earliest, and A.D. 34 at the latest.

This narrows the choices based on Hebrew days considerably. For Nisan 14 fell on a Friday on just two years during that period: in A.D. 30 and again in A.D. 33. (Remember, we are talking about Nisan 14 beginning after sundown the previous Thursday and continuing until sundown Friday evening, after which Nisan 15 would begin.) And -- here is what I consider to be the decisive fact -- Nisan 15 never fell on a Friday in the years A.D. 30 through A.D. 34 (unless one allows for an intercalated month, as the Babylonians -- but not always the Sadducees -- might have done). The last time it fell on a Friday was in A.D. 27, a date which is certainly too early for the crucifixion, for the reasons given above. (And if the Sanhedrin did agree to add an extra month the way the Babylonians probably did in A.D. 34, then Nisan 15 would have also been on a Friday in that year. But there is no evidence of the Sanhedrin ever having been guided in these matters by the Jews who remained in Babylon.)

The upshot of all this calendrical evidence is that there are really only two viable candidate years for Jesus' death during the reign of Pontius Pilate: A.D. 30, when Nisan 14 fell on Friday, April 7, and A.D. 33, when Nisan 14 fell on Friday, April 3. Next we ask: are there any other considerations that would allow us to choose between these two possibilities?

As noted earlier, the date of April 7, 30 A.D. is a little too close to Luke's data concerning the commencement of the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus, respectively, and its duration (according to John) of at least three years. We would then be using Luke in part to date the crucifixion, and also relying on John's account of Jesus' ministry ending on a third Passover, rather than taking literally the other gospels' accounts, which mention only a single (albeit the final) Passover. The scales are tipped decisively in favor of A.D. 33, moreover, by two other undeniable historical facts.

The first is a seemingly remote event in Rome, which might be thought at first to have no connection to Jesus' crucifixion and death. In the last weeks of A.D. 31, Tiberius Caesar first deposed, then allowed to be killed, his tyrannical prime minister and strongman Sejanus, who was (according to Philo and Josephus) vindictively anti-Semitic. It was under his influence that Pontius Pilate committed a number of violent outrages against the Jews in the first years of his rule, as reported by Josephus. But after his death, Tiberius sent word to his governors to treat the Jews with more respect for their customs and ways. Many scholars thus argue that Pilate's vacillation in condemning Jesus was because he did not want to be embarrassed before Tiberius under this new edict, while if the trial had occurred in A.D. 30, while Sejanus was still running things, Pilate would have had no fears whatsoever on that score.

The second consideration is an astronomical one. Given the signs in the skies that attended Jesus' birth, as noted in this earlier post, it is perhaps fitting that on April 3, in A.D. 33, there was a partial lunar eclipse in Jerusalem, when the moon would have taken on a blood-reddish hue. (The eclipse began at 3 in the afternoon, but the moon would still have been below the horizon at that point; by the time it rose several hours later, there is some dispute about how red it would have remained to the naked eye.) Luke (23:44) speaks of "the sun's light having failed" (or, as some ancient manuscripts have it, "the sun was darkened") at the moment of Jesus' death, and perhaps this refers to a faint memory of what was actually a darkening of the moon (there being no way that a solar eclipse could occur on Passover, a night with a full moon).

If you would like to see a recreation of the lunar eclipse on April 3, 33 A.D., you may do so by following the instructions -- and seeing the screenshots -- at Father Z.'s Blog. He makes the interesting point that a lunar eclipse as seen from the Earth necessarily implies a solar eclipse as seen from the Moon -- and with today's astronomical software, you can view both!

With the account in John's Gospel thus vindicated as to the timing of Jesus' crucifixion to match the sacrificing of the Passover lambs, it becomes possible to assert, with some degree of certainty, that Jesus died on the day of preparation for Passover (Nisan 14), on April 3, in A.D. 33. (In the "nothing new under the sun" category, note that Isaac Newton had arrived at this same conclusion -- as his second choice, however -- by 1733.) If one realizes that Nisan 14 ended on that date around 6 P.M. local time, and Nisan 15 then began, it might be possible to reconcile the differences between the chronologies of John and the synoptics if the two were using different calendrical systems, and that is what a number of recent scholars indeed have argued, as Pope Benedict XVI discusses in his recent book.

(One scholar even contends that Jesus and his disciples would have been following an ancient pre-exilic calendar, where Passover would have been observed on Wednesday, April 1 in A.D. 33, even though most of Jerusalem would have observed it on Friday, April 3. This allows the Last Supper to have been a true Passover meal, while also adding another whole day for Jesus' arrest and multiple trials, followed by two full nights in his tomb before the start of the new week. In the Jewish calendar, the first day of the week during Passover is called Yom ha Bikkurim -- the "festival of the first fruits.")

Another solution which has garnered a large following is that reached by John P. Meier in his monumental four-volume work, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Vol. 1, at pp. 399 ff.). He accepts the Johannine account, according to which the Last Supper occurred at the start of Nisan 14, the day of preparation for the Passover. (However, he comes down for Nisan 14 in A.D. 30, based on his having been influenced by the traditional arguments for Jesus' birth in 4 B.C. or earlier.) In his view, Jesus realized that he would not live to celebrate the traditional Passover meal with his disciples, and so used this necessity to inaugurate the new sacrament of Holy Eucharist -- which could explain the remarks in John's narrative about Jesus not partaking of wine or bread again with his disciples "in this world". In describing the meal as a "Passover" one, therefore, the synoptic accounts conflated the old tradition with the new, as Jesus -- being the supreme Paschal lamb -- could well have intended.

And along the same lines comes this reconciliation -- perhaps the simplest of all to date -- as explained in this post by Gary Manning, Jr. of the Good Book Blog:

Here’s the solution I find most likely. “Day of preparation” (παρασκευή, paraskeuē) is also the standard word for “Friday” for early Jews and Christians, since Jewish households had to prepare for the Sabbath every Friday.  John clearly means Friday, since he says that this παρασκευή was the day before Sabbath (John 19:31). The other Synoptic Gospels also call the day of the crucifixion παρασκευή (Matt 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54). So the phrase “Preparation of Passover” (παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα) can simply mean “Friday of Passover [week]” rather than “preparation for Passover.” That makes it the same day and date as the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels.

Under that reconciliation, the Last Supper was indeed not a Passover meal proper, the Crucifixion took place on the day before Passover (Nisan 14) and the account in John's Gospel is reconciled in all particulars. Jesus was crucified on the Friday before the Sabbath in Passover Week, Nisan 14, in 33 A.D., which also was the day of preparation for the Passover Sabbath. The only idea lost in this reconciliation is the reading of the synoptic Gospels to mean that the Last Supper was also a Passover supper, i.e., that it occurred on Nisan 15 -- which as we have seen, is just not probable.

[UPDATE 04/03/2015: My co-blogger at StandFirm, Matt Kennedy, points me to another reconciliation that manages to keep the timing of a Passover meal with the (ongoing) sacrifice of Passover lambs, as well: see "Option #4" at this post. I think we now may have our cake and eat it, too.]

Memorandum to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori (CONFIDENTIAL)

MEMORANDUM TO: Her Excellency, the Most Rev. Dr. Katharine Jeffers Schori
FROM: Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop
DATE: April 1, 2015
SUBJECT: Need for Immediate Pastoral Direction

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR THE PB'S EYES ONLY

Your Excellency:

There is urgent need for you to send out a Pastoral Directive to all diocesan bishops before their public objections to the passage of laws such as Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) get out of hand, and impair the position which The Episcopal Church™ is taking in the civil courts. Allow me to explain.

The statutes recently passed in Indiana and Arkansas are modeled upon the 1993 RFRA legislation which was introduced in Congress by Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and by then-Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). RFRA passed the House on a unanimous vote, and cleared the Senate with just three dissenting votes. It was then signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton, and renewed by Congress in his second term, in 2000.

The statute works at the state level just as it does at the federal level: it forces the government to justify any law or legal precedent that burdens the practice of one's religion. Originally designed to counter a Supreme Court ruling that upheld Oregon's dismissal of native-American employees for smoking peyote as part of their rituals, RFRA most recently was applied by the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case to uphold the right of a closely-held corporation to decline to provide coverage for certain contraceptives to its employees.

In the ongoing church property litigation cases, we are frequently faced with the argument that the trust interest declared by the Church's Dennis Canon cannot be given recognition, because the Church did not own the parish properties in which it claimed a beneficial interest, and declarations of trust have to be signed by the owner of the trust property to satisfy what is called the "Statute of Frauds." (The latter was a 16th-century law passed by Parliament that required all deeds affecting real property to be in writing, signed by the owner, and it passed into our States' laws after the Revolution.)

We have always countered that argument by contending that the Dennis Canon is an inherent part of The Episcopal Church™'s polity -- that by requiring TEC™ to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, state law was interfering with the Church's free exercise of its religion. Recently, we have made exactly the same argument in the cases involving dioceses that claim the right unilaterally to withdraw -- we contend that TEC™'s polity requires that a diocese's union with General Convention is perpetual and irrevocable, regardless of what the Constitution and Canons do or do not say.

You can appreciate now, I presume, the importance of the various RFRA statutes to the support of these arguments which we are making in court. It is embarrassing, to say the least, to have the various bishops of TEC™ spouting off against a law about which they know very little, and arguing for its repeal. We must maintain a unified front against the forces that are allied against us, and which recently have been on the upswing in Texas, Illinois and South Carolina, as I reported to you earlier.

Your Excellency, please send the following Pastoral Directive out at once to all of your subordinate bishops and clergy in the Church:

TO ALL BISHOPS AND CLERGY IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 

Grace and peace to you, from your sovereign Lord and Presiding Bishop. In the furtherance of The Episcopal Church™'s spiritual mission, and in defense of her most sacred polity, as handed down to us since the American Revolution, I hereby exercise my pastoral position and authority to counsel and advise each and every one of you that from this day henceforth, you are not to take any public or private stand against the passage of statutes modeled on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which Congress passed in 1993 and versions of which have since been adopted in over 20 States). Nor are you to advocate in any way the repeal of any such statutes. They are absolutely necessary to the Church's being able to carry out its mission in a secular and increasingly hostile world. Rest assured that their impact upon various segments of our society who have historically been the victims of bigoted and unjust discrimination, such as that impact may be now or in the future, pales before the importance of their impact on the ability of this Church to keep its house in order. 

You are all to conduct yourselves henceforth in accordance with this Pastoral Directive, or else answer to the appropriate ecclesiastical authority in accordance with the provisions of Title IV of the most sacred Canons of The Episcopal Church™.