In the
nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth century, The Episcopal
Church (TEC) grew both in numbers of members and of congregations. That
missionary impetus has dissipated; in 2012, TEC planted only three new
congregations. The first part of this essay considered the demographic and theological
imperatives for planting new churches and two impediments TEC must overcome.
This second and concluding installment outlines practical steps that the TEC
can take to recover its missionary momentum.
Attempting
to reverse TEC's numerical decline can easily feel like retrenching. Instead,
we should adapt an idea from Harvard professor Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, who
suggests that persons needing to downsize because of financial, health, or
other reasons envision the change as a generative opportunity (How to Think About Downsizing
Your Life,
Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2014).
On a
congregational level, small congregations might envision their demise generatively
by:
(1) Cherishing the opportunities for
enrichment intrinsic to uniting with a larger congregation, even a congregation
of another denomination
(2) Swapping the stress of trying to
keep the doors open and the priest paid for the joys of engaging in the
pro-active missionary endeavors possible in a larger, better funded
congregation
(3) Celebrating their obedience as
good stewards, easing the time and financial burdens small congregations impose
on dioceses.
On a
diocesan level, bishops might envision downsizing generatively by recognizing
that diocesan clergy, not diocesan staff, are the bishop's primary resource for
her/his ministry as chief pastor. Front-line ministry mostly occurs in the
parish, yet most bishops tend to spend a disproportionate amount of time with
their staff and rarely interact directly with the majority of their parish
clergy. (How many rectors receive multiple calls or visits per from their
bishop for which the bishop's only agenda is to encourage and to support the
priest's ministry? How many bishops regularly attend deanery meetings to be
available to their clergy? In what percentage of bishop-priest relationships do
priests prefer, whether from suspicion or good cause, to keep her/his distance
from the bishop?)
Like
most of us, bishops are busy. Bishops, therefore, need to re-focus by
intentionally minimizing the time spent on problem clergy, vacancies, etc., to
maximize the time they spend energizing, coaching, and encouraging their stronger
parish clergy. Effective bishops are chief pastors who become the wind that
provides the lift clergy need to soar like eagles. To some significant degree,
a diocesan bishop as chief pastor must shoulder responsibility when a
congregation well situated for growth either stagnates or declines.
Concurrently,
bishops and dioceses will seek to identify people whom TEC (and the larger
church!) serve inadequately or not at all. Where we find those people is where
we want – need – to plant new churches or to attempt to revitalize dying
congregations. Adapting a regenerative focus, with the accompanying changes in
priorities, effort, and spending, will provide the resources these efforts will
require. Critically, revitalizing and new starts both require expertise as well
as adequate financial support.
On a
national level, a generative focus will seek to reduce national staff and
budget to free resources for dioceses and congregations. Legacy programs continued
primarily out of inertia and programs that are minimally effective, regardless
of how vocal their constituency may be, need to give way to developing and
sharing expertise on church planting. Unlike numerical decline, ending those
programs will not pose an existential threat for TEC.
The TEC
Treasurer, in his latest report, noted that 42 dioceses have committed to the
full 19% of diocesan income asking level adopted by General Convention in 2012
and 39 dioceses contribute between 10% and 19% of their income. The remaining
30 dioceses give less than 10% of their income to TEC. The list recording the percentage that
each diocese contributes to TEC is revealing. Some dioceses (e.g., Honduras and
Colombia) are essentially missionary dioceses, underwritten by TEC. Some
dioceses pledge little, probably reflecting a lingering history of conflict
between the diocese (or its parishes) and TEC (e.g., Dallas and Springfield) or
conflict within the diocese (e.g., Pennsylvania). And some dioceses are simply
poor: ten domestic dioceses report income of less than $500,000 and another 15
domestic dioceses income between $500,000 and $1 million. In short, the
declining few increasingly carry the heavy burden of denominational support.
If we
don't get busy with these tasks today, a tomorrow very soon will be too late.
TEC will have dwindled into an irrelevancy that no amount of heroic
life-support efforts can resuscitate. New branches on the vine that is Christ
will have replaced the dead and useless branch that TEC will have then become.
2 comments:
Some very interesting concepts. I wonder how many Pastors want the Bishop looking over their shoulder. The staff may object to losing their jobs and the hardest part is convincing the people you need to do this in order for the church to survive.
In SAC when high ranking people came to our base to "help" us we knew it was about to hit the fan.
I talked to the Wing Commander at Little Rock when the Titan missile blew up. They were working to keep the warhead from having a conventional explosion sending radioactivity all over the place. SAC sent safety people to "help". They stood around and took notes. When the commander asked what were they doing, they said taking notes for the incident report and were not there to add any advice. The commander the people escorted back to base and take their aircraft back to Omaha. Of course he was fired.
Teamwork should be the goal. Instead, clergy (and too many people in other organizations, including the military) prefer operational independence of the lone wolf or top dog variety. As your SAC example underscores, effective teamwork depends upon everyone cooperating.
Post a Comment