Presume,
even if just for a couple of moments, that the prophets of doom are correct in
predicting that denominations – including The Episcopal Church (TEC) – are
living dinosaurs, anachronisms from a bygone era that will soon die off
completely. If accurate, those predictions invite, perhaps demand, a radical
rather than incremental reimagining of TEC because we have little to lose.
Post-radical reimagining, the worst possible scenario is that we have inadvertently
hastened TEC's demise as a denominational force. However, the best possible
scenario is that radical reimagining reinvents and reinvigorates TEC as a
twenty-first century missional force united by common prayer. Here are two
proposals.
First, TEC
might replace its formal, bicameral, hierarchical approach to governance with
highly decentralized, ad hoc, multiple open channels that social media makes
possible at little or no cost (imagine shattering rice bowls!). In this new inclusive
approach, dynamic, self-organizing groups with open membership would convene
around a task or shared interest. Groups would form, subdivide, multiply, and
dissolve when and as members deemed appropriate, superseding the existing
permanent agglomeration of TEC commissions, committees, and boards. Virtual
meetings, online polling (direct democracy displacing representative democracy),
and other electronic communication would advantageously eliminate most of the overhead
costs associated with our current approach to governance.
For
example, instead of only one group studying the theology of marriage, TEC could
capture the energy the subject generates and allow any number of self-selected
groups to grapple with the theology of marriage. The groups could all publish
their reports; the initial reports might approach a consensus opinion (surely
an indicator that the Spirit was at work!), a new group or groups might form to
develop a comprehensive report, people might be comfortable with plural views,
or a completely unexpected development might occur. An open-ended,
decentralized process creates space and time for discerning the Spirit in ways
that formal structures and tidy processes make difficult and improbable. Having
only one group study a subject, report its findings, and then General
Convention act decisively on that report perpetuates a chimera of common belief
better suited to the Christendom of yore than the post-modern individualism of
the twenty-first century.
TEC
might discover that the majority of contemporary Episcopalians regard the
elections, legislative processes, and budget debates in which we now invest
considerable time and money as unimportant and irrelevant. (As an experiment,
ask some Episcopalians what occurred in the last General Convention or
Executive Council meeting, or to name three key TEC mission programs.)
Attempts
to justify the importance of formal structures are both dated and circular. TEC
requires minimal structure to comply with state and federal law. Nor do our
Constitution and Canons interpose insurmountable obstacles. Eliminating most
elected positions will minimize the need for elections; we can conduct any
necessary elections electronically. Legislative processes are inherently
exclusive, costly, and self-perpetuating; most TEC members are neither engaged
nor invested in TEC's ministry or mission. Finally, the next proposal replaces
centralized finance and budgeting and with an entrepreneurial approach designed
to promote involvement and ownership. In sum, focusing our common life and
endeavors around celebratory worship, building community, spiritual formation,
and shared mission endeavors will achieve more for God than the status quo
does.
An open
structure maximizes breadth and expansiveness (no limit on participation),
honors an incarnational view of life (the Spirit can move through all
Episcopalians, not just elected representatives), and is continuous with the
past (retaining democratic discernment of the God's leading) while changing
with the times (a flat structure congruent with post-modernism). An open
structure also coheres well with TEC's theology that in Baptism God calls all
Christians to ministry; the other orders of ministry connote particular
functions within the body that an open structure respects.
Second,
TEC might replace its reliance on diocesan financial commitments with endowment
income, crowdsourcing, and outsourcing. TEC's endowment is sufficient to fund
the Presiding Bishop, Anglican and ecumenical relations, and a small program.
Crowdsourcing might fund some of TEC's ministry and mission, i.e., direct
giving from multiple dioceses, congregations, and individuals to particular
ministries or missions of their choice. People and groups give enthusiastically
of time, talent, and treasure when they believe in the program or cause to
which they are donating.
TEC
could also outsource some of its ministries and missions to dioceses,
congregations, or groups willing to take responsibility for a particular
ministry or mission. TEC did this, in effect, decades ago with theological
education, outsourcing responsibility for funding and operating clergy
education to seminaries that, in spite of their links to TEC, now are largely
autonomous. (That model worked well, though the failure of seminaries to adapt
to our post-modern, post-Christendom world suggests that significant changes
are in their future.) A diocese with a large military population might fund and
support the Office for Federal Ministries, paying the salary for the Bishop for
Federal Ministries who would remain a Suffragan to the Presiding Bishop.
Another diocese (or group of dioceses) might take responsibility for youth
ministry, or new church starts, etc. Several dioceses are moving in this
direction, establishing local programs for clergy education. Outsourcing would
both cohere with TREC's key themes and encourage dioceses and congregations to
expand their view of ministry and mission from the local to the national or
international.
Ministries
and missions not funded through endowment income, crowdsourcing, or outsourcing
would end. Any expectation that the current flow of funds from congregations to
TEC via dioceses gives the original donor a feeling of ownership or
participation in the ministry or mission of TEC seems erroneous, perhaps naïve.
The present approach of centralized decision making and assessments better
suited a pre-Information Age Church that depended upon printing to disseminate
information. In today's world, General Convention and Executive Council
approving TEC budgets paternalistically presumes that those bodies can more
faithfully discern God's leading than can the rest of the Church. Crowdsourcing
and outsourcing eliminate that presumption, a presumption at odds with TREC's
key themes of breadth/expansiveness, incarnational theology, and social
engagement/prophetic dissent. Moreover, this approach would foster
entrepreneurialism, encouraging new ministries and missions for which dioceses,
congregations, or ad hoc groups hear a call and have a passion.
Some
entities, like an army, require strong, hierarchical, organization and
structure. But TEC is not an army. And although strong, clear structure and
governance provide some benefits, they can actually impede rather than promote
ministry and mission. Sometimes, a flat, loosely connected organization can
best leverage people's gifts and passions, quickly adapt to new opportunities,
and create community while preserving individuality.
Advantageously,
radically reimagining TEC's structure and finances may create new centripetal
forces to hold us together as a Church united in common prayer. Involving more
people – lay and ordained – in the Church's larger mission may be the best option
for helping a highly individualized, denominationally disengaged constituency
to value our connectional polity. Engaging people in the Church's ministry and
mission, creating linkages that transcend geography by finding common theological
and liturgical ground, will both promote common prayer and common forms of
prayer.
The two
proposals outlined above, admittedly short on specifics, suggest one possible
way to reimagine TEC. Surely other options for radically reimagining TEC exist.
Reform is not the answer. TEC is dramatically out of step with social changes
and appears headed toward oblivion unless it successfully reimagines itself.
Fewer Episcopalians are giving their time to support TEC ministries and
missions; dioceses are increasingly reluctant to fund TEC. Radical reimagining
offers hope for preserving TEC's distinctive liturgical and theological
identity as a church united in common prayer while adapting our structure,
governance, and funding to the exigencies of twenty-first century life.
No comments:
Post a Comment