Last week, I got this invitation in the mail. (It’s a PDF file). The invite was from Claiming the Blessing, a small organization within the Episcopal Church (based out of All Saints Pasadena, where I volunteer as a youth leader) which advocates for full inclusion of gay and lesbian folk in the life of the church. The invite is for “It’s About Love: A Celebration of Music, Faith, and Equality” to be held at All Saints on May 2. The program is eclectic; the honoree of the event is the new bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop within the Anglican Communion. But here’s where it gets weird. In addition to the words of the good bishop, the invite promises:
Dr. Maya Angelou will send special video greetings. Norman Lear will introduce video highlights from his fabulous television career. Dionne Warwick will sing one of her best-loved songs. Brooke Adams, Jane Kaczmarek, Tony Shalhoub and Bradley Whitford will be on hand to welcome you to this special evening celebrating love and justice.
What an odd and eclectic group that is! But wait till you see the ticket prices, listed here:
General seating (with an obstructed view): $100.
General seating (no obstructions) $200
Bronze reservations (includes the show and two tix to the pre-concert reception): $1000
Silver (includes five tix to the same): $2500
Gold (twelve tix to same): $5000
Platinum: (includes twelve tix, plus two seats at dinner with Gene Robinson at the Ritz-Carlton): $10,000
Oh yeah, with the $10,000, you also get valet parking at All Saints.
Hey, I rejoiced when Gene Robinson was elected in New Hampshire. But I’m offended by this fund-raiser, which is as slick and secular as it could possibly be. I know the Episcopal Church has been hurting for funds lately as a result of conservative disappointment at Robinson’s election (see the regular coverage at Kendall Harmon’s blog), but this strikes me as a boldly cynical way to address the problem. The church is not a university or a hospital, and it shouldn’t ever, ever raise funds the way other charities do.
To give access to a bishop — under any circumstances — based upon donation levels is an obscenity, and it’s things like this that remind me why I’m happier as a Mennonite.
What I also find really interesting about this is that the “benefits” of various purchase levels are such that trying to claim a tax deduction on the basis of these allegedly charitable gifts will be difficult at best, and even ventures into the sketchy areas of IRS regulations regarding charitable deductions.
As a development officer, I’d steer waaay clear of affiliating something like this with the church.
Knowing what you do for a living, I was looking forward to hearing what you thought of it, Lorie. Thanks.
Maybe it’s a strange question to ask, but I can’t help but wonder how many of those celebrities (Angelou, Warwick, Shalhoub, etc.) are in fact Episcopal, or indeed in any way connected to the Anglican communion. I’ve no complaint with celebrating alongside those of another (or no) faith; but given Robinson’s position as a shepherd within his church, one would think that there needs to be some sense in which he is attending to his flock, and not just serving as a figurehead for a cause. I wonder if the the glitzy, top-heavy nature of this celebration of “love and justice” doesn’t make it rather too abstract, too general, more about the principle of love (as valuable as that is) then about the sacramental or social ways in which the body of which Robinson is a part is supposed to be making those principles real.
Actually, Adams, Kaczmarek, Shalhoub, and Whitford all attend All Saints (they are our resident celebrities). What Dionne Warwick has to do with it, I haven’t the foggiest idea.
Your criticism is deft, Russell. Thanks.
Russell beat me to my question about how the celebrities are connected to the church. I certainly agree with your take on it, Hugo. For the record though, I must say that I adore Bradley Whitford.
Oh, and I had another thought I’d like to share - I work in annual giving, which is in many ways worlds away from major giving (think thousands of dollars at a pop, often for capital projects and the like). Annual giving is about warm fuzzies - getting people to feel good about what they’re supporting so that they will support it every year. Major giving is sometimes about impressing the donor while also making him/her feel good about the mission, so that the donor will make a large, usually one-time gift.
The only thing I see here is an attempt to impress the donor, AFTER s/he has made the “gift” (the cost of admission). That’s kind of crazy. If it’s successful, it might help somewhat with the current money crunch, but as a long-term strategy, it’s garbage. The problem with doing big-ticket events like this is that you have to keep doing them. Those donors who buy tickets to this event will only support you again if you offer a bigger, better event the next time. It’s a really dangerous precedent to set.
You want people to give because they feel good about what you do, and you want them to keep giving for the same reason. Churches have the feel-good thing almost built in, so why undercut that with all the bells and whistles? It might be a quick fix but I think it may in fact be counteractive in the long run. Yessh.
This is, undoubtedly, one of the church’s ministries to the poor. They, too, deserve the best of entertainment.
Gosh! I feel guilty charging our kids our equivalent of a quarter so we can give them sandwiches, apples and water, to make sure they don’t go home hungry. (Only half of them bring it, and we feed the rest anyhow, but still…). $10,000? Those are people with far too much money. (Did you say filthy lucre? No, of course that wasn’t me….)
John — Can you imagine that I’ve heard that one before? I should also use only a first name.
If you are that desperate for my last name, email me! It’s no secret. ;-) I’m a Tory, from a nice middle class family. I have no problem with people having as much money as they want/have earned/whatever. More power to them. I have a problem with the church asking 10,000 for dinner with the bishop, the “servant of the servants of God”. There are Scriptures about buying seats in Church (church event, same difference). My other point is, we couldn’t get that much here in NZ to go and see Sir Edmund Hillary, let alone a bishop. The constituency for All Saints must include some seriously rich people. (Note: This is not a problem. Merely an observation)
I think both of us know that neither of my comments were straightforward ones. I don’t know that I have a problem with draining the rich. I hope the church puts at least as much effort, planning, and thought into real ministries to the poor.
Quite. Some how, I doubt it, but then, I’m a Fundie Pentecostal. I’m allowed to be cynical about the inclusiveness of liberal inclusivity. ;-)
As for straight-forwardness, I’m not sure what you mean. I do feel guilty charging our Sunday School 50 cents (NZ, not US) for morning tea, and I’d really rather not. But there is no real alternative. I do think that this is a demonstration of filthy lucre at work, and I do think that if these rich people can spend 10,000 to drink tea with He-who-styles-himself a bishop, they probably have too much money.
Oops, “this” refers not to the Sunday School, but to the All Saints fundraiser. I need tea. Or maybe something more violent to kick-start my sleepily incoherent brain.
I noticed that Bradley Whitford and Jane Kaczmarek were both in the Heifer Project catalogue last Christmas. That’s slightly related to this post. Sort of.
I work with a non-profit affiliated with the Presbyterian church and we recently had a benefit where the cheapest tickets were $100. I’m VP of the board, and I couldn’t afford to buy a ticket! Luckily the pres invited me to sit at her table, otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to go at all.
Great comments, folks. I understand that in the secular, fund-raising world, you do have to design programs that appeal to the very wealthy, and offer them all sorts of nice premiums. It’s a theological and social disaster to extend that sort of programming to church-related activities. I’m absolutely with John on this one.
Can I have that in writing? I’ll need it to show my grand-kids. ;-)+
I’m late to this, but I have two questions about the relationship to the formal Episcopal Church.
1. It sounds like this event is by a parallel but non-official organization, Claiming the Blessing. Is that the case?
2. How much of this is an All Saints alone project? And how much of this is more diocesan and national church based?
Even as a gay Episcopalian who was at the Robinson consecration, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with Robinson’s role here (but I’ll withhold judgment for lack of more information).
Also, I have to note that All Saints Pasadena has a rep within the wider church for being sort of loopy and sort of celebrity-centered. So I’d be wary of generalizing this sort of thing to the larger world of Episcopalians. I’d suspect it’s more emblematic of this parish than of all the Episcopalians out there.
It is led by Claiming the Blessing, but Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles is listed as the head of the planning committee. It is somewhat officially sanctioned within the diocese. All Saints is a bit loopy and celebrity centered, but has also been out front on lots of progressive issues. (First same sex union service in the Anglican communion — 1991).