To be clear and fair, Craig, the assessment is only for one year.

However I was very surprised the Synod knocked-back any form of hardship allowance on our poorest parishes.

Bearing in mind your previous 'pay the rent' blog Craig - are we really going to ask our struggling indigenous fellowships, for example, to pay for Bishopscourt?

I really hope Standing Committee can have a look at whether we can have a hardship mechanism, at least for the 4 or 5 really poor provisional parishes.

Given the circumstances, the 'flat' nature of the assessment appears to be highly regressive.

I was speaking to a rector of a parish that ministers exclusively to refugees and migrants in our south-west "desert" after the vote, and the impact on that parish will be way out of proportion to what will happen to north shore parishes.

I will be very surprised if we don't have assessments next year as well. If someone discovers oil under St Andrew's House, perhaps...

Craig
I understand you don't like the decision, but the characterisation of the debate as sentiment over sense is neither fair or accurate.

I don't believe it.

For once I find I agree with Craig Schwartz 100%. These are strange times.

Indeed - if you read my news article, you may be able to work out what I think was driving the no sale vote, on top of sentiment about the building.

As you said yourself Rob, there was a lack of trust given past mistakes.

@Michael - I explained in my article why I thought that was the case. Please - put the other side.

Although I was not involved in the vote, may I put forward the observation that if the sale had been authorised at this time it is highly unlikely that we would have received anywhere near good value given that our financial embarrassments have been plastered all over the media in recent weeks. The people who could afford to pay approx. $25M for a property for either residential or investment purposes don't make their money by being charitable to established religious organisations. The vultures are circling, waiting for us to put a prized asset on the market so they can take advantage of our need and snap up a bargain. Unless some rich idiot comes to us prepared to pay sticker price we need to put this idea back in the drawer.

This is not to say that I support holding onto Bishopscourt indefinitely, but if we want to get rid of it we should do so at a time that is advantageous to us. As the great theologian Kenny Rogers put it, you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. We should hold 'em until our hand is not being forced by circumstances.

Craig - I think you've misrepresented what was driving the no vote. Jeremy's news article puts both sides of the debate. The bigger concerns were that of whether EOS & Standing Committee could be trusted with the process and the proceeds of a sale and what degree of risk was involved. There was also concern that the Comission have more time to do their job - so far from avoiding change this buys them time to consider whether other options are available - especially with regard to St Andrews House. There was also a recognition by those voting No that this decision would not be without cost and would demand an assessment on parishes.
The Archbishop also had some great words following the sale - could they be made available Jeremy?
I'm just concerned that one day after Synod, this is being reported in a way which isn't doing justice to the spirit or substance of the debate. If this article was all you read about the Bishopscourt sale you wouldn't understand what took place. None of these issues are easy, but it's not good enough to dismiss the decision of Synod as one based on spurious arguments and lack of sense.
Synod was served well by Craig Roberts who spoke on behalf of the sale. Even if you weren't convinced by his arguments you could treat them more fairly than you have.

@Luke - I don't know whether you were there for the debate or not, but for the sake of those who weren't, it was made pretty clear that:

If A=Synod authorises the sale of Bishopscourt
and B=Bishopscourt is to be sold at any price

then A does not imply B.

That is, the valuation of $24M was also a reserve figure. And there was a strategy in mind to not just ensure that the reserve was met, but that it had a significant chance of being considerably exceeded.

To my mind, as a synod novice, the really strange thing was that we waited until the second week to have the debate. This meant less time was available to respond to a no vote, and so we end up with an ill-defined levy on only some parts of the diocese.

Antony Douglass is right.

In my view, Michael is on the money (if only that were literally true!).

I know a number of members who support the sale in principle, but want to be sure this is not another Greenoakes. Where is the sensitivity analysis? Where is the detail supporting the assumptions? The motion didn't even include a clause ensuring that the proceeds would be invested rather than spent on recurrent expenditure.

Some are nervous because the $800k - $1m a year in income the change in asset mix is supposed to generate is still only half the projected annual deficit of the EOS, on the figures presented on a slide the other night. What is to stop the newly liquidified assets being consumed to make up the shortfall?

While I support the sale, coming off the back of last years synod I can understand the hesitation of some, and see it has nothing to do with sentimentality and much to do with hard headed business sense.

Craig
www.stmarks.com.au

I also think that Craig is correct. Some of it was certainly sentiment and denial. But the issue of the lack of trust was decisive. And must be dealt with by the reform the Commission will bring in soon.

I hope the decision means that Bishop's Court will be used to its full potential ie for advancing hospitality in the Diocese. I'm not sure how big the grounds are, but presumably there is enough room for some afternoon teas or the like where we can meet the Archbishop and build meaningful relationships within the diocese.

Is it suitable for long term lease-out along the lines of some of the Historic Houses Trust properties - with the tenant responsible for upkeep and maitenance? At least it would then be contributing to diocesan income whilst it continues to increase in value without the expenses of maintaining it.

Unfortunately there were many issues mixed together in the debate which do need to be teased apart somehow.

One argument was that the Archbishop and Christine can still do their ministry just as effectively based from another (much smaller) residence. But their was no analysis of just what and how much these ministries (and many others that use Bishopscourt) would be affected - just the assertion that 'we can find other ways to do this'. How can we be confident that alone wouldn't eat up much of the profit of a sale.

But probably the biggest issue is the concern about governance of the EoS and the rush to promote the sale as solution. Perhaps when the board of the EoS have done a lot more work on sorting out the other problems and can show they can be trusted that Synod would be prepared to trust them with a decision about the Archbishop's residence.

Perhaps an even more pressing but ignored issue is the cost / benefit analysis of regional bishops & archdeacons and possible alternative funding sources - because they are what will have to be cut from the staff roster next if there is no turn-around in EoS funds.

I think the Synod just gave the EoS and the Episcopal team 11 months 'breathing space' to get things sorted out and come up with a comprehensive plan - and convince us it is the best one, before next year.

And Rob is still a stirrer, so it's good to see him bounce back from this defeat!

@Anthony - Thank you for clarifying that point (I was not there). Yet as an observer the problem still remains that the reserve figure does not represent the best value on our property but the amount that we would be prepared to accept given the financial obligations we now need to meet. For someone making either a personal or commercial investment of that type of money they will not be inclined to pay more than is absolutely necessary. In that case it is difficult to see, even if a commercial bidding war were to occur, how the reserve figure could be 'considerably exceeded' given a) everyone knows we desperately need the money, and b) we've published our bargain basement price in the public media.

It's more likely to be a race to the bottom rather than the top. We've shown every property developer in town our cards and we expect them not to take us to the cleaners?? My question is what sort of return on the property could we expect if we waited 5 years until a time when our hand was not being forced?

@Michael - thanks for your comments. Obviously my "read" of the house sentiment is subjective (as is everyone else's). It seemed to me that sentimental attachment to a grand piece of our history was the real driving force in the "no" case.

But I also agree that a loss of confidence in Standing Committee and the boards was a big part of the debate. Given the closeness of the vote, I agree with Rob that it may have tipped the balance.

I think David Marr got it right this morning when he said, "But Anglican sentimentalists teamed with critics of the church's present financial administration to oppose the sale."

Also, it's worth noting that my blogs are opinion pieces, not reporting per se. Jeremy's piece is the "official" report.

I think the Synod just gave the EoS and the Episcopal team 11 months 'breathing space' to get things sorted out and come up with a comprehensive plan - and convince us it is the best one, before next year.

I think there is less chance of a sale going through next year, and I doubt it will be proposed again. The thing about a crisis is that it is a perfect time for difficult reforms. When things are going ok, we tend to stick with the status quo.

@Luke:

The point made in support of the motion was that we are not the only ones to get our noses tweaked in the media - a parallel case was cited of a comparable sale a couple of years ago of the French consulate - same price leak, same laughing in the media, etc - and this sale exceeded the 'published' bargain basement reserve that the French had.

@Luke - the issue you bring forward (of not getting a fair price because our circumstances are public) was raised at Synod, and answered decisively by Peter Kell. Firstly, no sale would be accepted that was less than a fair valuation. Secondly, the highly specialised nature of this property means it is not affected by the sorts of market forces you are mentioning. Buying Bishopscourt is a once in a lifetime opportunity - it's not the sort of thing you haggle with the vendor about.

Craig, I'll disagree on that one. The same crisis will recur next year, as the levy was limited to this year. I doubt those that voted for sale will be persuaded to change their vote in a year's time by being forced to hand over a slice of their income!

On the other hand, I can easily see a few dozen of those who opposed it finding their doubts dealt with by the Commission et al.

buy something more modest for the Archbishop, for about $8M

It's worth pointing out that this is a previously unexplored definition of the word "modest"... ;-)

Yes, Anthony, I am back. And so I think will the question of the 11 Greenoaks Ave Darling Point property transaction be back before the Synod next year.

@Rob - good to hear Bishop, stick to your guns.

I think David Marr got it right this morning when he said, "But Anglican sentimentalists teamed with critics of the church's present financial administration to oppose the sale."

Strange times indeed! I also agree with David Marr.

I think the sale of Bishopscourt will be back next Synod too.

@Michael, from what the Bishop says, sounds like that's the case. I'm not sure how SC and the EoS go about restoring trust in the mean time, though...

IMHO that is the most important question Craig. So the work of the Archbishops Commission will be key. The 1 year assesment buys some time but still leaves urgency for reform

The Archbishop also had some great words following the sale - could they be made available Jeremy?

There is a link from the fact box in my news article.

@Michael - the problem is that the new governance legislation wont go before Synod until next year, and even if it's passed (which looks challenging due to the School Boards issue), it probably wont be fully implemented for another year after that.

So I don't know if anything practical is going to change in the next 12 months - though at least SC will be seen to be *doing* something about governance, and that might be enough to lift the mood.

@Michael, from what the Bishop says, sounds like that's the case. I'm not sure how SC and the EoS go about restoring trust in the mean time, though...

They show the Synod:
- That a new governance model has been implemented, including the, presumably revised, objective of the EOS
- the evidence on which they base their sale price estimates
- a detailed requirements document of 'new Bishopscourt' and some evidence that properties meeting those requirements sell for $X dollars
- What the proceeds will be invested in and how they are going to protect themselves from the temptation to dip into the capital in the future
- The detailed budget projections that this synod has requested, with those budget projections including further significant cuts in expenditure such that the EOS spends only what it can generate itself, after the reallocation of its assets, with no risk to the capital of the endowment.
- a sensitivy analysis and risk analysis so that we get a sense of the impact of different potential scenarios.

significant cuts in expenditure such that the EOS spends only what it can generate itself, after the reallocation of its assets, with no risk to the capital of the endowment.

The problem is that the current asset mix means income is very limited. Selling BC is part of the process that will allow them to balance the books.

obviously, but synod needs to be presented with the 'big plan' for closing the whole gap, of which this is one element.

I was sitting behind David Marr during the debate on Monday night and he nearly fell off his chair when the Bishop referred to his article and said he got it right. I'm not sure if it was because he was surprised he got it right or because he never thought he'd hear those words come from a Bishop - I suspect the latter.

From my read the 'No' vote had four distinct groups (in order of size):

1) The 'Sacred Site' group who would never want to sell Bishopscourt,
2) The 'Not Happy Jan' group who would vote against the sale of a potplant at the current time,
3) The 'Sell but for a lot more than $24m' group who didn't like the fire sale press having a negative drag on the potential price (and probably voted for Zac Veron's amendment), and,
4) The 'Long Lease' group who wanted the site to become a Consulate or Hugh Jackman's house for a few generations.

I'm new to this forum Craig, but know a number of the contributors.

I'm surprised to read you characterise Synod's decision as "a great triumph of sentiment over sense." Surely this is a more apt description for investment decisions made during the Global Financial Crisis?

I live, work and own property in the Eastern Suburbs. For mine, Synod's decision to retain the property is sound; Bishopscourt will be worth $75M by 2020.

The 'elephant in the room' is that individuals are just not contributing as generously as they should be to the work of their parishes and the overall work of the Gospel. If more Anglicans in Sydney took seriously 2 Corinthians 8-9 there would not need to be a debate about selling Bishopscourt.

I recall hearing one of the greats of the Diocese ask rhetorically, "What is it about your understanding of Grace that allows you to give less than what the Law required?"

You guys don't know what Diocesan levy is. Over in WA we pay % 16 of all money that goes through the plate!

@ Craig,

If someone discovers oil under St Andrew's House, perhaps…

You rang? I thought I told you oil discovery peaked in 1965….. ;-)

Now on topic…

This SMH article wants to focus more on the personalities and tactics in the debate, and it was interesting to hear the other side. What do you make of this comment?

The wide-ranging debate mixed real estate analysis with Christian exhortation. Dog collars were almost entirely absent. Not mocked was the notion that Bishopscourt was a place for teaching and hospitality. ''We are in the business of relationships,'' Mr Roberts said. ''We are in the business of connecting people to God and to one another.''

@ Huntly Gordon: IF I’m right about peak oil crashing us into the Greater Depression within 5 years, will Bishopscourt really be worth $75 million by 2020? That seems a bit pie in the sky when you die to me. Sell now, before the world economy is rocked to its core.

(quick edit to add: IF you're convinced on selling. I don't know enough to decide either way right now).

I wasn't there. But if Craig's speech which I have read, was the main thrust of the 'no' case, then sentiment had little to do with it. I think lack of confidence in the those who would have had responsibility with the resultant cash had a lot more to do with it.

Can we be gracious in disagreeing? There's a challenge! Tolerance = the ability to generously love those with whom you profoundly disagree!

(And FYI, 11% of offering goes to the Diocese here.)

I think lack of confidence in the those who would have had responsibility with the resultant cash had a lot more to do with it.

If those issues are resolved, then you would support the sale?

Can we be gracious in disagreeing?

I think we have been, Mark.

@James - I think your assessment is correct. I think the "Not Happy Jan" group are a significant enough minority to swing the vote the other way next time around. Having read Raj's blog, I'm feeling more confident about the vote getting up next year.

The 'elephant in the room' is that individuals are just not contributing as generously as they should be to the work of their parishes and the overall work of the Gospel

What is your evidence for this? As it happens, increased offerings would have added nothing in this situation, as the Episcopal office is funded entirely by the EoS.

obviously, but synod needs to be presented with the 'big plan' for closing the whole gap, of which this is one element.

I get what you are saying now, and I agree - that would be helpful.

I guess the "pro-sell" side know the lay of the land now. From comments I've read today, I'm feeling more confident that this will get up next year.

My two cents: if the debate about the 1.14% assessment motion was held BEFORE the Bishopscourt motion... bye bye Bishopscourt...

/subscribing to comments./

@John - I reckon you are right. In fact, I reckon there are a few rueful people today wishing they'd voted the other way on Monday.

Regarding congregational financial support, mentioned above, which would have softened the blow of the crisis considerably had it been more forthcoming and lessened the need for much of this debate:

More authoritative solid teaching on giving is needed by the diocese as a whole. A couple of weeks ago a single woman, who runs a decent car and was in front of me at church, sat her three dollars in coins on the shelf in front of her and left it there until time for the offering. She then dropped it in the offering bag when it came around, presumably unashamed that others could see how little she was contributing.

What about a video with supporting study booklet which sets out in detail a) the fact that the congregation and not the diocese pays the rector, staff, and church running expenses, including CMS support and b) what the Bible teaches about giving with a focus on tithing (the latter should be (a) but you know what I mean). As well, people need to be reminded constantly how we are so abundantly blessed by God in this country, even the poorest of us!

Robyn, do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that giving is a problem in the diocese?

Anyway, how would larger offerings have lessened the need for the debate? Offerings and the EoS have nothing to do with one another.

Sorry, Craig, I should have quoted the relevant comment (now below) as the basis for my argument.

#36 Huntly Gordon "The 'elephant in the room' is that individuals are just not contributing as generously as they should be to the work of their parishes and the overall work of the Gospel. If more Anglicans in Sydney took seriously 2 Corinthians 8-9 there would not need to be a debate about selling Bishopscourt."

Christian giving is always a problem in any church, surely? My comment is relevant to the debate as a congregation member who sees from the other side. Even people who have been Christians for some time often don't understand what it costs to operate a church which is faithful in doing the work of proclaiming the Gospel, especially when the physical fabric of the buildings is ageing, as many of those in our diocese are. One family in a church I was in previously (in another denomination) believed that the fees they paid to educate their children in the church's Christian school constituted their offering, so they put nothing into the church!

We must never forget that the church is an educational institution as well as a proponent of the Gospel. Teaching about giving is part of the ministry. In that way liquidation of assets becomes voluntary, not a necessity.

I agree wholeheartedly with Robyn, there is an issue with giving. Let me run some numbers to demonstrate the point ...

The average post-tax income in Australia is circa $48,000 per annum. Let's allow that each parishioner gives 5% of their post-tax income to their local church i.e. $2,400 per annum. This means that a parish with 200 employed people would generate close to $0.5M per annum.

Anecdotally I hear from friends in ministry that giving is not near this level. I'm happy to be corrected on this point.

Some might argue that giving could be even higher than this; my assumptions are conservative. Should it be pre-tax or post-tax? Some suggest that 10+% should be given to the local congregation with missions and Christian welfare giving in addition to this. [Methinks that Christians might even earn more than the average].

I'm not sure the answer is to be found in recriminations over poor decisions made during the GFC. Rather if we were more positive, if the responsibility of Christians to give was far more compellingly articulated, we wouldn't be bogged down in tiresome debates about the sale of assets like Bishopscourt.

Let's bake a much bigger cake!

Huntly, only a small number of our churches would have 200+ full time workers. And I count 37 parishes that have receipts in excess of $500k+...

I think David Marr got it right this morning when he said, "But Anglican sentimentalists teamed with critics of the church's present financial administration to oppose the sale."

I doubt those that voted for sale will be persuaded to change their vote in a year's time by being forced to hand over a slice of their income!
On the other hand, I can easily see a few dozen of those who opposed it finding their doubts dealt with by the Commission et al.

As one who voted yes to sell Bishopscourt, I agree with these analyses.

I do hope that the governance issues begin to be addressed and the sale Bishopscourt proceeds in the coming triennium as i think it is not only a lazy asset, but also, an indulgent one.

I was Baptised & Confirmed in the Parish of Fairfield & it broke my heart to see Peter Lim's amendment fail. He spoke the truth about the nature of ministry in the south-west and how this decision will be perceived in the pews.

The lack of consideration shown by the Synod in imposing a levy without any relief stinks.

This decision confirms a gut feeling that has grown over the past 3 years that the composition & mechanisms of the Synod work in favour of those causes found within the geographic & cultural heartland and the voice of the Western & Georges River Regions is too easily drowned out.

For the record, I am not a representative from a church within either of these regions, but have deep respect & am a vocal supporter of those who undertake gospel work in these regions.

Sometimes you read something you wish you had written yourself. Take this from the letters in today's SMH.

The synod's decision to hang on to a costly-to-maintain old mansion in a silvertail suburb while it is in deep financial trouble because it will help it ''in the business of connecting people to God and to one another'', is a sure sign that wonders and mysteries have not ceased in the Anglican Church. Terry Craig Holt (ACT)

Huntly, I'm sure we can be even more generous but the fact is that the Mission Report from a few years back showed that giving from ordinary Sydney Anglicans had increased markedly in the period 2002-7.

This is largely because church leadership has articulated a clear vision for mission.

I have my doubts that most people want to give to the cause of Bishopscourt.

I have some experience of not-for-profit fundraising. The biggest threat comes when your supporters stop trusting the transparency / professionalism of your financial management, even if that's not completely warranted. (eg Red Cross' problems after their Bali bombing appeal) There are too many good causes out there they can switch their dollars too. Indeed for Sydney Anglicans - even many, many good Christian gospel causes.

I think you are muddying the real issues.

Well said Jeremy! Spanking parishioner's giving because of the GFC and costs of maintaining Bishopscourt is a bit over the top.

I remember a certain local high church ran a campaign to raise hundreds of thousands to build their organ. I have to say, my hand didn't even twitch in the direction of my hip pocket nerve. Not at all. The church ended up with the nickname "St Organs" for a while.

However, when a godly friend went overseas to do some serious missionary work, we signed up for a significant monthly donation.

People coming to know Christ, now that gets the blood pumping! But rather pompous administrative taxes? I can see the visual and sentimental appeal of Bishopscourt, it's a very tempting place. But does the church really have to own the entertainment venue for various AB functions? What would those hospitality functions be? I'm starting to side with Terry Craig's letter.

I suspect that there were many like myself in the synod who found it hard to decide which way to vote. I grew up under a clergyman whose line was "You never sell church land, lease it but never sell it". In the parish concerned history strongly supports his principle and yet I found myself voting for the sale, if somewhat uneasily, probably because my parish is one of those small provisional parishes that will find the assessment a problem.
Like so much that we do in synod these days the whole process is too rushed and the debate is too quickly curtailed. There were suggestions that came out of left field that I suspect may have had more merit than their quick dismissal allowed. I don't really understand the one about a consortium of schools getting involved but the idea of a floor in St Andrews House being converted to a modern residence for an archbishop seems to have a lot going for it if we were prepared to be a bit radical. Yes, I know it would have issues living onsite like that because I have been in a comparable situation, but I suspect we need some kind of radical answer.

a floor in St Andrews House being converted to a modern residence for an archbishop

Cool. Any more to unpack on that? Was it floated quickly, or does someone have a more in depth proposal with a floor plan, sketch, or other ideas?

I'm not suggesting that we should all be giving money to prop up the running of Bishopscourt. Although I'm tempted to; I drive past it everyday and it is a gorgeous property. But I digress ...

What I'm saying is that if the overall level of giving in the Diocese was much higher, as it should be, we wouldn't have the same urgent need to debate the sale of assets such as Bishopscourt.

Furthermore I believe that the value of Bishopscourt, as with most Eastern Suburbs real estate (especially properties on the Harbour or with views of it), will go up significantly. On present trends I expect the property to be worth circa $75M in 10 years time. Such a valuable property can be used as security for other Gospel ventures.

If we're going to sell Bishopscourt, why not sell other valuable church property? I'm sure developers would love to get their hands on All Saints, Woollahra or St Mark's, Darling Point. Imagine the gorgeous sandstone townhouses that could be flogged off to the glitterati over here?

I'm just suggesting that we be a bit more sober minded about investment decisions whether they be now or in any subsequent GFC or recession.

I say hold a valuable asset. Give more.

Dave, It was floated by a lady in the synod, I assume as a way of dealing both with the bishopscourt issue and the problems with St Andrews House, which many think is the bigger issue. From memory, her suggestion also included leasing bishopscourt or developing it as some sort of commercial venture, rather than selling it. Her suggestions were quickly dismissed, I suspect because people saw them as a distraction rather than a serious proposal.

On present trends I expect the property to be
worth circa $75M in 10 years time.

In normal circumstances, I completely understand this argument. However, I wasn't joking when I said there are sound scientific and economic reasons to expect very abnormal circumstances ahead. Let's call it a Greater Depression. I'm not sure the market will be ripe with buyers for Bishopscourt at 70 mil if we're in a Great Depression around 2020.

Thanks Barry. Shame it was dismissed prematurely.

I am wondering if the pro-sale group had put a specific suitable alternative property proposal to Synod... their argument might have carried more weight. I am still of the strong opinion that the current property has three premium assets for ministry: 1. Location. 2. Location. 3. Location... and the Bishop clearly enunciated the current functioning and functional aspects of the property. To imply that Bishop's Court was a "lazy asset" (I read somewhere) seems to have been an unfortunate error.

I am wondering if the pro-sale group had put a specific suitable alternative property proposal to Synod..

Such as..?

No Ian, no specific suitable alternative property proposal was made.
That was one aspect of Zac Veron's argument against the sale.

Jeremy, what would a suitable alternative have looked like? It's not like the EoS had several multi-million mansions to choose from...

There were no concrete proposals given about a replacement. It was roughly costed at $5 Million to $10 Million.
Nothing was documented about what would be required in a replacement property.
Personally if it were up to me, I would find a large block of land between Ashfield and Strathfield and purpose build a house, entertainment area, with guest accomodation and parking. There may well even be land on an existing church property that could be used for that purpose.

@Huntley -the people asking synod to trust them on selling Bishopscourt were the same people who managed to lose money selling the backyard of Bishopscourt and managed to lose money trying to sell some of those underutilised churches in the Eastern Suburbs. They sold nothing and blew $1Million investigating it.

Craig, the EoS committee might have tried a real estate agent or agents!!! Or the net!!! Mansions must almost be a dime a dozen in some suburbs!!! But what about their location?

@Craig. (1) Possibly (2) disagree.

This letter in today's SMH is an excellent answer to the somewhat silly suggestion that opposition to the sale of Bishopscourt was pure sentimentalism.

To hell with media

Why do the media focus on the bad news? I paused in my Anglican Synod speech after the reference to Neutral Bay to suggest that journalists quote me as saying: "Without Christ, people go to hell." Implicit in this statement is a wonderful corollary of great news.

Further, I note that by not moving to sell Bishopscourt, the Anglican Church has signalled to the market that it is not an anxious seller. We will go to the market in our own time, on our own terms.

Craig Roberts, Senior minister, St Augustine's Anglican Church, Neutral Bay

That's hardheaded economic and, more significantly, spiritual thinking at work.

Given that the sale of Bishopscourt would likely take sometime, I don't see how finding a concrete alternative would be helpful. The "alternative" would likely not be still available by the time you are ready to buy, and market conditions may have changed by then anyway. And I suspect it would confuse people quite a bit to say, "this is the sort of place we would *likely* buy."

@Mark - if you think I or anyone else have been ungracious, let me know directly on the thread or via PM. But gosh - I think all of the discussions on this site are carried out with a remarkable degree of civility, certainly compared to most online forums. I think some Christians are extremely sensitive to disagreement.

an excellent answer to the somewhat silly suggestion that opposition to the sale of Bishopscourt was pure sentimentalism

Gordo, it was not *pure* sentimentalism, but are you denying that sentiment played a large part in the decision?

CR's comment is a bit bizarre. I think writing a letter to the paper saying, "We are not an anxious seller" is counter-productive - there is a saying about "protesting too much".

I don't at all accept that we need to send market signals anyway - it is a crazy idea. The "market" is a pool of probably no more than half a dozen potential buyers who are looking at a once in a life-time opportunity (literally) of acquiring an amazing property. If they want it, they will pay what it's worth. End of story.

This is not the same as selling a 2-bedder in Kensington! It's a different game entirely.

The encouraging thing about CR's comments is that they seem to suggest the sale of BC is inevitable. It sounds like the sale might go through next year. Here's hoping.

Craig, Logic and wisdom and (I will be accused of patronising again) maturity have prevailed. Bishop's court will remain an effective, practical, functioning, functional and geographically strategic asset for Sydney Anglicans for generations to come. By analogy Craig, I was outraged when the Coalition Federal Government under John Howard sold off Sydney airport. Now do you believe that privatising that great asset was a wise move?

@Ian,

I think you have misread the situation. The decision was only defeated by about 30 votes. A number of people have already stated that their only reservation was the EoS governance issues raised. If SC shows they are taking those seriously, then there is a good chance that Bishopscourt will be sold when the issue comes up again. Bishop Forsyth has indicated that this will be next year's Synod.

I think Bishopscourt's days are numbered...

I was outraged when the Coalition Federal Government under John Howard sold off Sydney airport. Now do you believe that privatising that great asset was a wise move?

Absolutely!!!

@Gordo,

Regarding letters, there was one yesterday that was closer to the mark, I think -

Among other things, Jesus said, ''It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'' And yet the Anglicans decide to keep Bishopscourt even when one of their rectors says that because of a lack of funds ''most of Neutral Bay is going to hell'' Breathtaking. David Hulme Lindfield

The fact is this - because of this decision, $1M is being taken out of front line parish ministry this year ahead! And that only covers half the EoS shortfall - I don't know where the other $1M is coming from.

I wasn't at the synod. Can somene tell me why this article has generated so much interest?

@Peter,

Many peole feel strongly attached to Bishopscourt, and are upset at the thought of the church losing it. Others are angry at financial mismanagement in the diocese. Others are doubtless unhappy at the tax that has been imposed to make up for the EoS shortfall. And still others are frustrated that a necessary reform was blocked by Syond.

Lots of emotion in this debate...

...extremely important aside...
Don't miss "Day of the Triffids" tonight on Channel 7, at 8:30pm! Whether carnivorous plant that can hunt human prey has anything to do with selling Bishopsourt or not, I don't know. Anyone suggest a link? (Exactly what are they growing down in that far, back corner?)

But otherwise, it's a cool story about how some human beings survive, even if the civilisations around them crumble into dust and ashes.

A conversation with a parishioner has provided a partial solution to financial woes: "PFJ's GUIDED TOURS of Historic Bishopscourt!!"

Someone mentioned that most of the clergy had visited at least once but many lay people didn't even know it existed, let alone that it was almost put on the market - now they want to see it!! Demand for "a gander" is exploding exponentially!

So, every Saturday, PFJ (or his designated purple-clad delegate) opens the gates of the mansion for tour groups. 1.14% discounts for Parish Tours! A copy of The Essential Jesus included with each ticket. A "City Circle Ticket" links the tour of Bishopscourt with a walking photographic tour of other city churches and landmarks led by Dean Jensen, Rev. Moffatt and co.

Prices currently under consideration.

Craig,

Is the 1.14% levy going to fund the EoS? If so, wouldn't the increase in offertories as mentioned by Huntly and Robyn be beneficial? If Sydney Anglicans all tithed, we would have enough to fund all our ministries, and even fund a bishop for the Georges River Region! The paishes would do it by an increased levy.

@ Tom M -- We could have a shuttle bus.

Allan,

The 1.14% levy is going to fund the EoS. It is the first time Synod's imposed a levy on the parishes to fund head office costs for over a decade, and there will be great pressure to eliminate the levy ASAP.

the levy is only for 2011 thanks to the Dean's ammendment

In my opinion synod have made a very wise decision. The various comments on this topic suggest there are many unanswered questions relating to the sale of Bishopscourt. When the issues are looked at and investigated thoroughly there may be a realistic case for the sale of this magnificent property.

Throwing fuel on the fire for next time. Johnathon Chancellor had this in the business section of the SMH today. http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/trophy-home-in-waiting-20100928-15v4v.html

Nope, that was in September. Of course, it may have been fuel for the fire this time!

Woah! Those photos from the SMH finally give me the vibe of the place. Shot 13 peaks up the hill. That shot reminds me of Peter Jackson's vision of Rivendell.

No wonder some don't want to sell it! But it must cost a packet to maintain. Priorities everyone, priorities.

Has anyone has asked the current AB and his wife abuot the suitability of Bishopscourt for their Diocesan and International minsitry?

I suspect they host plenty of people that might not otherwise fellowship with the AB of Sydney. In the longer term the place is a fine base for deepening overseas and interstat fellowship. The way it is set up at the present enables the AB to exercise a fine hospitatility ministry without too much strain on the family (I presume).

It is nigh impossible for the incumbent to state an opinion on the matter but the man and his wife strike me as Christlike thinkers (not greedy or self indulgent. What do they say or is it a question tha is too hot for them to touch?

Peter, Please do take the time to watch the AB's address to Synod ...linked on the RHS of this site. He answered all your concerns. He indicated that the location was excellent, the board/meeting room is worked very hard and there are adequate facilites (he did not imply "opulent") for hosting guests as I recall his words. Please do let me get this clear in my thinking... was it not the vast losses of the EOS investments that caused the difficulty? Not the ownership of Bishopscourt?

Ian, the difficulty is caused by the fact that about 75% of the EoS assets (Bishopscourt + St Andrews House) do not produce any income. They are working to resolve SAH, but that will take a few years. In the mean time, the EoS either needs to generate more income, or the parishes will have to pay for their bishops (as is happening this year via the assessments).

Synod will have to decide next year if they want to keep paying tax, or sell Bishopscourt. As far as I can see, they are the only two trains leaving the station.

Craig, Selling Bishops Court property would be like a large once only financial sugar hit. The third alternative is the leasing option. Precedents? Try No 2 York St. Currently leased out by (some arm of) the Diocese will revert to the Diocesan management sometime in the future ( I am not privy to that info.) But still owned I believe! I assume it provides cash flow. Did the Catholics sell their magnificent property at Manly. No. It is leaded out to a commercial school. There are many other precedents! There is a third train on another platform!

Hi Ian,
interesting position. I'm wondering if there are any examples where this actually generates decent income? Unless I misunderstood the above, Bishopscourt costs $500 grand a year to maintain. Now is that with staff, something that would not be a consideration if we were leasing it out, or is that the actual buildings themselves!

(Wow. Half a mil a year? I'm not really experienced in the maintenance costs of old 'Houses' and their land rates & taxes. Anyone able to give examples of income v cost?)

If it's that costly to own, surely it is going to eat into whatever leasing arrangements we come up with. As Craig said, we might be better off just putting the 24 mil in the bank and living off the interest!

But now to completely contradict myself, maybe land will survive as a better investment after you know what hits? I'm wondering how many banks will collapse in the coming decade.

@Ian,

The idea is not to spend the money realised - the idea is to invest the realised money into income producing assets. So we retain the asset value, but actually get some income from them as well.

Our church has historically done very poorly out of 99 year leases - including 2 York St. The diocesan endowments only really became valuable in the middle of the 20th century when all the old leases began to expire.

Hi Craig,
do you have the costs to maintain the site? What do you make of the 3rd option of just leasing it out? If investment is the goal, then how would Bishopscourt itself perform in that role? (If we moved the AB into St Andrews House or somewhere).

Thanks Ian for the link to the AB's comments about Bishopscourt. The problem with all investments is that we simply do not know the future! How can anyone honestly say that there will be x amount of return on any given investment. We presume too much about what might be the 'best' investment.

What is helpful in the whole debate about one property of many that are owned by the Diocese is that at least the blame will be shared if you know what happens.

@dave: its about 210K a year to keep it running.

you can read the info here http://www.sds.asn.au/assets/Documents/synod/Synod2010/SuppReport2010/S03.Bishopscourt.Rep10.pdf

My suggestions are:
1. Bishopcourt has a Bake sale to cover its costs, "get your *blessedbythearchbishop* Lamington for $2"

2. Bishops raise their own funds, like MTS/Catechist have to do. They can ask the churches in their region to pay for them, and then you might see your bishop more often. This would take substantial pressure of the EoS, and make you feel you are contributing to something useful than to pay into a fund that you have no idea where the money goes.

For the record, I voted to sell - my main reason is that its heritage listed and therefore is a pain to get *anything* done to it.

Hey Guy, aren't you the same Guy I once spent an insane "Christmas Cracker" with in a puppet theatre? Anyway...'Bishops raise their own funds, like MTS/Catechist have to do. Surely them's fighting words?

Entering the fray quite late...and I hope this doesn't sound narcy, because it is not meant to be, but I'd like some suggestions on how you explain to a congregation where 50% are unemployed and most of the 50% employed are blue collar...yet who a very generous with what little they have, but we are still unable to make budget...that now some of their money is going to keep the AB in a $24 mill mansion? To pay it, we'd cut our school scripture and local missions budget.

With an offertory full of "widow's mites", it's very hard to justify to them the "Bishopscourt levy". It's just very very discouraging for people in this patch of the frontline.

PL
Fairfield/Bossley Park (Prov Par)

WELL said Peter!!!!

Peter,
I have exactly the same problem explaining the situation. I have tried a few different ways to explain it to different people -but none of them have worked.

But making a distinction in who pays along provisional parish lines was not the right way to provide exemptions.
Many provisional parishes have income over $300,000 and some Provisional Parishes have incomes over $1/2 Million a year, and just never got around to moving out of provisional status.
Should Mount Druitt have paid the full amount and Kirribilli (Church By The Bridge) got an exemption?
That would have been hard to explain too!

Many provisional parishes have income over $300,000 and some Provisional Parishes have incomes over $1/2 Million a year, and just never got around to moving out of provisional status.

How many parishes are in this category ? There are some parishes who struggle to raise $100,000 a year - yet are full parishes, already making a bigger percentage contribution to the diocesan coffers than some with large incomes.

"Never got around to moving out of provisional status" ? For a parish with a reasonable income to still cling to provisional status seems to be motivated more by penny pinching than being a responsible, mature and growing church. It appears that some smaller parishes are carrying the can for richer ones - it hardly seems fair and just, does it ? And I don't think that the Apostle Paul would be impressed at this imbalance.

@ Peter Lin - I agree it is a tough call to make, but all we have done to date is agree to give some money for one year. It would have been crazy to rush the sale of Bishopscourt because they 'need the money now' - probably would have taken a big hit on the price. The money each parish gives is really paying for the regional Bishops and other services. While it is unnecessary to have the Archbishop in a $24 m mansion, he does have a unique ministry that probably needs a unique home. And remember that Bishopscourt is used for many other ministries - and the cost of doing them elsewhere has not yet been quantified.

@ Kevin - The idea of providing relief to provisional parishes was always dodgy (for the reasons you mention). At the moment there is no financial benefit from staying a provisional parish - which used to be the reason some large parishes were still provisional. The appropriate vehicle for supporting more needy churches would be the "Archbishop's Mission Partnership Fund" - set up to help for Connect 09.

Hi Richard,
but the 'other ministries' that venue hosts don't seem to justify that kind of capital investment. Yet. I'd need more information to side with the 'keepers' rather than the 'sellers'.

@DC - you are right Dave. It was a bit on the fly and did not get chance to work out a diff approach. But at least wanted to raise the issue at a wider level as the tone seemed to be that it would not be a bother to anyone financially. My other issue is alot of our money we fundraise for to plant churches etc. That increases our levy. It also raises questions of integrity. People have not given with a view to a portion going to the AB and team.

@KG - penny pinching is not an issue anymore. Provisional Parishes do not get any "discounts" whatsoever these days.

@RB - B'court sale is not just to fund one year shortfall. The shortfall will remain for a long time. The problem is B'court will never produce income and the EOS needs income producing assets, and they don't have alot of other options to play with. As for the AB's ministry there, I would think it's done there because it is there. Methinks it's a high price though.

Thanks for the clarifications RB and PL - glad to know that things have changed for the better.

With regard to generating new sources of income, I wonder whether the Diocese ( or a group of churches working together ) could ever consider being bold enough to consider taking out a McDonald's franchise or some other commercial venture. With limited 'internal' monies available, and the rising costs of living for parishioners, it may be time that we start looking outside the square and seek to generate monies elsewhere. Just an idea - but it could be more reliable than relying on 'gambling' on the stock exchange. Any other suggestions ? BTW still waiting to hear about Nigel's seven possible money solutions that some folk came up with whilst chatting at Synod.