August 31, 2020 The Most Rev. Michael B. Curry The Rev. Gay Clark Jennings Via email Dear Bishop Curry and President Jennings, General Convention resolution A060 requested that the Executive Council and The Church Pension Fund study jointly the historical and current relationship of The Episcopal Church and The Church Pension Fund in order to achieve greater clarity on their respective roles, responsibilities and authority. Attached you will find the final report of the task force created in response to that request. I am referring this to the Executive Council Joint Standing Committee on Governance and Operations. Faithfully, cc: Ms. Jane Cisluycis, Chair, The Joint Standing Committee on Governance and Operations The Historical and Current Relationship of The Episcopal Church and The Church Pension Fund A Joint Report by the Executive Council and The Church Pension Fund in Response to General Convention Resolution 2018-A060 July 17, 2020 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 2. Introductory Reflection by Bishop Hollingsworth.................................................................. 3 3. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4 4. Brief History of the Church’s Involvement in Clergy Pensions Prior to CPF ......................... 6 5. The Founding of CPF .........................................................................................................10 6. The Legal and Canonical Status of the Relationship between the Church and CPF ...........11 7. Past Reviews of CPF .........................................................................................................29 8. Possible Areas for Further Exploration ...............................................................................33 Appendix I Members of the Task Force Summary of Information Reviewed by the Task Force Meetings of the Task Force Appendix II Principal Legal Entities Comprising the Church Pension Group Principal Legal Entities Comprising the Church Appendix III Timeline Appendix IV The Archives of The Episcopal Church Research Report (2018-A060 Study) Relationship Between the General Convention and the Church Pension Fund Board of Trustees, April 12, 2019 1 The Historical and Current Relationship of The Episcopal Church and The Church Pension Fund 1. Introduction Resolution A060 of the 79th General Convention invited the Executive Council and The Church Pension Fund (CPF) to work together to study the relationship between The Episcopal Church (the Church) and CPF, since its founding over 100 years ago and currently, with a goal to achieve greater clarity on our respective roles, responsibilities and authority. In response to Resolution A060, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Executive Council appointed representatives of the Executive Council, and the Chair of the Board of Trustees and Chief Executive Officer of CPF appointed representatives of CPF, to participate on a task force (Task Force) to study this relationship and issue the requested report. This Joint Report responds to that invitation. The members of the Task Force, a summary of the information reviewed by the Task Force in preparing this Joint Report, and information about the meetings of the Task Force are provided in Appendix I. In considering the historical and current relationship of the Church and CPF, the Task Force recognized that a wide range of relationships exists between these institutions. For example, CPF maintains relationships with more than 25,000 active clergy and lay employees who participate in its pension, health and related benefit plans, as well as approximately 9,500 retired clergy and lay employees and 3,000 beneficiaries of deceased clergy and lay employees; with Episcopal parishes, dioceses and other institutions that employ and provide CPF benefits to these clergy and lay employees and those that purchase property and casualty insurance from The Church Insurance Company of Vermont; and with the many Episcopal individuals and institutions that purchase liturgical materials and other publications and supplies from Church Publishing Incorporated. As parties to transactions with CPF, all of these individuals and entities in the Church may be considered CPF’s “clients.” Moreover, CPF, its trustees, and employees maintain extensive relationships with individuals and institutions across the Church, including the General Convention, The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (DFMS), the Executive Council, Dioceses, parish vestries and other Episcopal organizations and groups, sometimes with a formal “legal” relationship but often also informally. Resolution 2018-A060 did not specify which relationships should be the focus of the requested study. The Task Force therefore discussed the many relationships that exist, but in the interest of managing the scope of our work, we decided to focus this Joint Report on the relationships between CPF and (1) the General Convention, (2) the Executive Council, (3) DFMS and (4) Dioceses, focusing on their respective roles, responsibilities and authority as directed by Resolution A060. One of the goals of the Task Force was to gather extensive, if not complete, information on the historical relationship between the Church and CPF, which led us to look at the history of the Church and CPF separately and in relation to one another. For example, the Task Force considered three prior studies that were done of CPF. And, because we were charged with 2 “achiev[ing] greater clarity on our respective roles, responsibilities and authority,” you will find detailed examinations of the canonical and secular legal structures, roles and responsibilities of each entity vis-a-vis the other. The Task Force hopes that the gathered and summarized information will be of value for those who want to examine the relationship in detail. Because the relationship between the Church and CPF is complex, the Task Force encourages that this Joint Report, including its appendices, be read in its entirety. All statements articulated herein should be understood in the context of the full report. These observations and reflections are those of the Task Force and are independent of the Executive Council and CPF, for whom the Joint Report has been prepared. 2. Introductory Reflection by Bishop Hollingsworth Any exploration of relationships with and within the Church will benefit from some reflection on the ecclesial and theological context in which those relationships are grounded. One place to begin is with an understanding of baptismal authority as the only human authority in the church, and how all members, by virtue of their baptism, are recipients thereof in equal amount. No one has either more or less authority as a result of elected position, holy orders, gender, race, orientation, or any other defining attribute (save age, until turning 16). As the baptized, we are each equally endowed with authority. Our polity, the way we agree to organize and govern ourselves as a body, constitutes us as a representational democracy. Beginning in annual parish meetings, we invest part of our baptismal authority in one another by electing lay colleagues as wardens, vestry members, and delegates to diocesan conventions, thereby surrendering some of our authority to them for specific and defined purposes. By canonical processes, we identify and ordain clergy, similarly investing in them some of our baptismal authority, again for specified roles. Vestries call rectors, diocesan convention delegates elect General Convention deputies and, from time to time, bishops, further investing in those fellow communicants some of the baptismal authority invested in them, again always for specific and defined duties and obligations. General Convention deputies and bishops, in turn, further invest some of the baptismal authority invested in them when electing trustees of church institutions like The General Seminary and CPF. It is important to note that the baptismal authority we invest in one another is received not as authority, but as responsibility; it is received not as power over, but as accountability for. In this way, we all engage in a continuing dynamic of surrendering some of our individual authority to others, and taking on specific responsibility for and to the whole. This is for us, as Christians and Episcopalians, a spiritual discipline of letting go of self-will and taking on responsibility for the body of Christ. It serves as calisthenics for surrendering ourselves to God and making Jesus’s way our way. Perhaps most importantly, all of this, both as practical polity and spiritual discipline, depends entirely upon trust: trust in God and trust in one another. The collaborative, clergy/lay leadership of our parochial and diocesan contexts and the bicameral legislative structure of our denominational governance are not designed simply to impose a restrictive check-and-balance on decision making, but rather to assure that we strive for a wider, more common, and holier ground, inclusive of all of our perspectives and best selves. Our structure is designed to inspire 3 an interdependent, trusting companionship that gives us the confidence and the accountability necessary that we might, individually and collectively, turn our will over to God. That brings us back to the relationships, personal