This
essay's first part explored five factors that bode ill for TEC's future: our
legacy of small congregations in the wrong places; a growing preference for
large congregations; the increasing number of spiritual but not religious
individuals; biblical illiteracy; and a diminishing proclivity to make music,
preferring to listen to the music of others. Denominational restructuring,
regardless of its nature, does not address these issues.
Two complementary
trends powerfully influence the future of TEC because those trends set the
context for denominational life and ministry. People are increasingly apathetic
to hierarchy and disengaging from traditional forms of organized community.
The non-hierarchical
trend is easily visible in business. Corporations are flattening their organizational
charts, eliminating management layers by trying to become more nimble and
responsive to both employees and consumers. This non-hierarchical trend differs
sharply from anti-hierarchical Protestant Reformers who rejected bishops for
biblical and theological reasons. Now many of the people in our pews, who often
perceive that neither they nor their congregation receive much value from the
diocese or national Church, want to know why they should support diocesan and
national structures with their money and efforts. Dioceses and national
structures that want to thrive must now convince members of the benefit that
the whole Church receives because the dioceses and national structure exist.
Restructuring, by itself, cannot do that.
Robert
Putnam in Bowling Alone (Simon &
Schuster, 2000) exhaustively documented the decline of traditional expressions
of organized community in America. He summarized data that traced the decline
in civic, fraternal, and religious organizations. Restructuring may helpfully
reduce organizational overhead in TEC dioceses and the national Church (that
the Taskforce for Re-Imagining the Episcopal Church (TREC) survey showed
Episcopalians desire) but cannot reverse the larger social trend.
Although
recommendations such as reducing the number of diocesan deputies to General
Convention from eight to six advantageously cut overhead costs, the
recommendation disadvantageously narrows the number of people personally invested
in TEC's national organization. This unintentionally exacerbates rather than
ameliorates the underlying social trend of organizational disenchantment and
disengagement, probably accelerating institutional decline. The critical issue
is not the good of ensuring adequate and diverse representation, but the deeper
existential issue of commitment to the organization. TREC should focus its
restructuring proposals around function rather than organization. Why does TEC
need 10 – or even 7 – days to conduct legislative proceedings? Are decisions
that TEC needs to make better made representationally (the status quo) or
through direct democracy, harnessing the power of the internet so potentially
hundreds of thousands of Episcopalians vote instead of only a couple of
thousand?
How can
Episcopalians and TEC reverse the apparently inexorable downward trends? The
trends are negative, notwithstanding a recent scattering of positive signs,
signs for which we should give thanks without thinking our problems solved. TEC
can take four positive steps toward a more vibrant, positive future, two
discussed here, and two in the third and final installment of this post.
(1) We
need to focus our attention, efforts, and resources on congregations located in
places where numerical growth is happening or seems reasonably probable. TREC,
in its December 2013 letter to the Church, suggested that spiritually vibrant
and mission focused congregations comprise perhaps only 30% of all TEC
congregations. Arguably, diocesan and national staffs can make the greatest
progress toward realizing the kingdom of heaven on earth by concentrating their
efforts on these congregations. Seminaries, in addition to the spiritual
formation, academic preparation, and practical equipping of students for
ordained ministry, should research and teach the sociological, psychological,
and organizational dynamics conducive to growing spiritual alive missional communities.
Concurrently,
we need to make difficult decisions about the resources – money, time, and
energy – that we are willing to expend on small congregations and on
congregations with poor prospects for growth. Included in the substantial but
generally uncalculated and therefore ignored costs that these thousands of
congregations impose on TEC are the costs of regular episcopal visits, programmatic
and monetary support, assistance with clergy transitions, and educating and
ordaining thousands of priests and deacons. Resources used on these efforts entail
opportunity costs, e.g., a bishop visiting a small congregation has not done something
else. Congregants who, if the small congregation did not exist, would have
joined a thriving congregation also represent an opportunity cost, depriving
the larger congregation of the benefit of their presence and gifts.
The
choice about support for small congregations, although emotionally charged, is
not the same choice that the shepherd faced when one sheep wandered off from
the other 99 (Mt 18:10-14). In some remote areas, the TEC congregation may be
the only Christian congregation and thus merit ongoing support. In other
places, however, people can easily drive a few more miles to reach another TEC
congregation. Elsewhere, the TEC congregation might unite with an Evangelical
Lutheran congregation, find creative ways to share resources with other
religious congregations or non-profits, etc. The choice is not whether to serve
the one (i.e., those Episcopalians in small congregations) but how best to
serve them. An unexamined, blind commitment to all congregations, regardless of
size or prospects, characterizes a poor steward. We have an obligation to God
and to one another to use our time and resources as effectively and efficiently
for God's purposes as possible. Buildings and other resources should be means
to an end, not our raison d'ĂȘtre.
The
ordination process, canonically standardized, has considerable variation in
practice. Dioceses utilize the General Ordination Exams in a wide range of
ways. Some of our seminaries are struggling financially, exploring new ways to
be relevant, or developing online degree programs. Some dioceses are
establishing alternatives to residential seminary programs for preparing new
priests. Leaders in theses dioceses regard seminary degrees as unaffordable for
clergy whom the diocese hopes will serve congregations unable to afford a
full-time stipendiary priest. Leaders in these dioceses also recognize that
both increasing numbers of postulants for holy orders have an employed partner
unwilling to relocate for three years and ordinands, after graduating from
seminary, may receive a call to a different geographic area. Some dioceses also
have unique issues, e.g., Hawaii has had difficulty retaining mainland clergy for
more than a couple of years because emergent family obligations make relocating
to the mainland desirable for many.
How
should TEC form and educate new clergy? Which small congregations merit our continued
support? Which ones should we target for closure, consolidation, or another
form of realignment? These questions are like the proverbial 800-pound gorillas
in our midst that we are desperately trying to ignoring, but that obstinately
refuse to disappear. Not seeking honest answers to these tough questions can
only accelerate TEC's demise.
(2) We
need to reexamine our ecclesiology. Why are bishops important? I know the
answer in the Book of Common Prayer, but that answer is insufficient. What do
we really want – need – bishops to do? If the answer is to be a visible sign of
the Church's unity, then one bishop might be best, representing an unmistakable
unity. If the answer is to teach the faith, then we need sufficient bishops to
teach regular assemblies of the faithful. If the answer is to administer
confirmation, then we need the number of bishops required to administer
confirmation annually in large parishes and for regional gatherings of small
congregations. None of these answers presumes the geographically contiguous
dioceses defined by the borders of political jurisdictions. Are there other
important tasks for bishops to perform or roles for them to fill? Once clear on
what we expect bishops to do, then determining the number of bishops required
becomes relatively easy.
No comments:
Post a Comment