Turning Outwards

On the day of Pentecost, the disciples were all huddled together in one room, praying, when the Holy Spirit blew through.  We see in Acts what the Holy Spirit does to a group of inward-focused disciples.  The Holy Spirit turns them outward – teaches them new languages, inspires them to accomplish new missions, sends them out to new people they never would have dreamed that God was interested in.  From a circle turned inward, tightly closed against the dangers of outsiders, the Church turned outward and began reaching out to the world.  Because reaching out to a broken and hurting world in need of God’s salvation is the mission of the Church.

Sadly, the Church's constant temptation is to turn back inward and focus on ourselves instead of on our broken and hurting world.  What are the signs of an inward-focused church?

• Decline in membership
• Confusion and discomfort about the purpose of evangelism, and resulting failure to do it very well
• Focus on the people with money and power, rather than, say, powerless children and youth
• Lack of clarity about what mission is
• Focus on internal conflicts rather than external mission. 

Oh, those things would never happen in The Episcopal Church, would they?

If Martians came to visit The Episcopal Church, what would they think the church was for?  What is our purpose, our mission, our goal?  I am not sure that they would see widespread evidence of the Spirit turning us outward. 

Our Martian friends would, however, discover lots of inward focus.  Clearly they would detect right away that our mission includes maintaining a headquarters in Manhattan, housing a large staff.  Quite likely they would conclude that our mission includes maintaining a great number of costly and beautiful buildings, which are lightly occupied for one hour a week.  And most of all, I think they would conclude that our mission was to argue with each other. 

After all, since 2003 if not before, our church has been convulsed with one argument after another. 

• The ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson, which brought to a head the disagreement over the place of gays and lesbians in the church.
• The resulting breakups, spinoffs, and property lawsuits.
• The Proposed Anglican Covenant, now thankfully put to bed for a nice long nap by our friends in the Church of England. 
• The whole question of “restructuring” the church, which has highlighted various disagreements over mission, not to mention tussles over leadership between Convention, Executive Council, Church Center staff, and the House of Bishops.  Who’s in charge here?  

Oh goodie, another conflict to sink our teeth into.

In the meantime, membership, attendance, participation, and finances in The Episcopal Church continue to drop.  See Nurya Love Parish’s blog post here for a rundown of the numbers. 

(Parenthetical note:  I have to point out that engaging in frequent conflicts over “issues” is characteristic of the way that Baby Boomers, the current generation of leadership in our church, operate, according to William Strauss and Neil Howe .  Strauss and Howe call the Baby Boomers an “Idealist” generation, who will often engage in conflicts over values they see as absolute.  In the conflict over gays and lesbians, for instance, the “conservatives” see themselves as guardians of Truth, while the “liberals” see themselves as crusaders for Justice.  Well, in a conflict between Truth and Justice, no one is ever going to back down.  Compromise is hopeless.) 

Now that the conflict over gays and lesbians is beginning to fade a bit (so we can hope), “restructuring” threatens to convulse us in another internal controversy.  Who is right here?  Those who argue that the Church Center staff needs to lead, or risk having the future imposed upon them?  Those who argue that representative government is a founding hallmark of our church structure, and should not be tampered with?  Those who truly believe that bishops are ordained and called by God to lead, in preference over the other orders of ministry?

I would have a wonderful time addressing all these questions, if I thought they were the most important thing right now.  But they are not.

Here is what is important.  This church has a mission, and the longer we expend all our energy on internal squabbles, the more that mission will slip out of our grasp.  Let’s forget about arguing with each other.  Let’s see how we can refocus, together, on mission.  Let’s turn our faces away from those oh-so-fascinating internal conflicts, and turn them outwards toward a world that needs to know the reconciling love of Christ. 

After all, Jesus didn’t say, “Stay here and talk about theology and church politics with each other, with an occasional worship service thrown in.”  What Jesus said was “Go.” 

Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to do everything that I have commanded you.  And remember that I am with you always, to the end of the age.  Matthew 28: 19-20.

Not stay here and argue.  Go and do mission.  Don’t sit around and spend all your energy on internal conflicts.  Go out there where the people are – the ones who haven’t heard that God loves them, the ones who haven’t had their lives transformed by Jesus Christ, the ones who are hungry and hurting and in despair.  Go. 

We need to change our structures, yes, to get rid of all the things that are causing us to stay put in old, inward-focused, hierarchical structures (like an office building in Manhattan).  We need to streamline our governance, yes, to allow the leaders of our church to operate in ways that are visionary and mission-oriented rather than being consumed with the minutiae of legislative procedures and Robert’s Rules of Order.  We need to re-think our budget, yes, to empower mission at all levels of the church rather than pay for the internally-focused structures that are keeping us stuck. 

And doing all these things will require some internal politics to make them happen.  But let’s make decisions that will allow God’s Holy Spirit to blow through our church.  Let’s create structures that require and empower us to focus on mission. 

Here are three proposals that attempt to do just that.  Please contact me at susansnook@thenativity.net if you have suggestions, comments, or are interested in co-sponsoring these resolutions. 

• Proposed Resolution 1 calls for a churchwide visioning process, involving all levels of the church, based heavily on Bible study, prayer, and discernment of God’s Spirit, leading to a restructuring plan.  Let the Holy Spirit blow!  Don’t do this by political maneuvering!  Do it by prayer and letting God show the way!
• Proposed Resolution 2 requires us to refocus our budget on true mission, rather than on administrative and governance costs.  If a budget is a missionary document, let’s refocus ours on mission.
• Proposed Resolution 3 looks toward a future when we will no longer have a hierarchical-model corporate headquarters in Manhattan, but will be leaner, more horizontal, and less expensive in our churchwide staff structure. 

Click on the links above to see the full texts of the proposed Resolutions.

A Resolution Calling for a Churchwide Visioning Process

Here is a resolution for General Convention 2012 calling for a churchwide process of prayer, Bible study, and discernment of God's mission, leading to a plan for how best to achieve that mission.  This proposal is based on my blog post here.

Resolved, the House of ____________ concurring, that the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies shall appoint a Task Force on the Vision and Mission of the Church by October 31, 2012, composed of twelve to eighteen Episcopalians, including lay, clergy, and bishop members; and be it further

Resolved, that the Presiding Bishop, the President of the House of Deputies, and Executive Council each appoint one person to serve in an ex officio capacity on the Task Force as a liaison to their office or Council; and be it further

Resolved, that the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies be encouraged to include a significant number of members on the Task Force who are not otherwise involved in high levels of governance in the Church; and be it further

Resolved, that the Task Force on the Vision and Mission of the Church shall train facilitators to engage the whole church in a spiritual discernment process including Bible study, prayer, and group discussion, to discover where God is leading local churches in mission and ministry, and how the churchwide structure can best support and empower that ministry; and be it further

Resolved, that each diocese of this church shall be invited to engage in this spiritual discernment process, and that other entities related to the church, such as ministry networks, provinces, seminaries, or Episcopal-affiliated entities, be permitted and encouraged to participate in the process during 2013, and be it further

Resolved, that the Task Force on the Vision and Mission of the Church shall also be empowered to investigate and make recommendations, in conjunction with other church bodies, on a plan for: 

• Future location of offices of the Church Center;
• Most effective staffing organization and structure for the Church Center;
• Possible changes to governing structures of the Church for the purpose of increased effectiveness and reduced cost;
• An improved budgeting process that empowers the Church for mission and ministry; and be it further 

Resolved, that the Task Force on the Vision and Mission of the Church shall use the results of the discernment process and other investigations to make a report to Executive Council and the Standing Commission on Structure by February 2014, containing recommendations for how the churchwide structure, staff and budget might best be organized to empower local and churchwide ministry, and be it further

Resolved, that the Task Force on the Vision and Mission of the Church shall be given the authority to propose “A” resolutions to the next General Convention or Special Convention in order to implement the recommendations in its report, and be it further

Resolved, that Program, Budget, and Finance be asked to consider an appropriation of $500,000 to implement the requirements of this resolution.

Explanation

Many people believe that it is time to restructure the church to reduce costs and effectively empower mission; however, people at the grassroots level of the church must be engaged in the discussion if a truly new and empowering solution is to be implemented.  This resolution allows for a group of people, including some outsiders to current governing structures, to engage the whole church in a process of prayer and discernment of God’s will for the church.  By asking for God’s guidance in a very intentional way, and by engaging the broadest possible variety of groups in this discernment process, the church has the best chance of restructuring for God’s mission in the next century.  In addition, the grassroots discernment process has the capability of helping local and diocesan groups awaken their own hopes and vision for ministry at the local level.  Further, the group will have the ability to propose changes to churchwide structures, including governance, location, staffing, and budgeting, that will enable The Episcopal Church to adapt to a rapidly changing 21^st century ministry context.  

A Resolution to Base Budget on Marks of Mission

Here is a proposed resolution for General Convention 2012 (see blog post HERE for explanation):

Resolved, the House of _____________ concurring, that this Convention reaffirms its commitment to the Anglican Communion, and accordingly reaffirms the Anglican Five Marks of Mission as an appropriate statement of mission in this church; and be it further

Resolved, that the Five Marks of Mission are:

• To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
• To teach, baptize and nurture new believers
• To respond to human need by loving service
• To seek to transform unjust structures of society
• To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth; and be it further 

Resolved, that this Convention affirms the following categories of ministry as further important Components of Mission of this Church:

• To build Religious Relationships, including such ministries as ecumenical relations, Anglican Communion relations, and Federal Ministries, and
• To develop Stewardship and Leadership; and be it further 

Resolved, that Program, Budget and Finance be directed to center the churchwide budget on these seven priorities, clearly delineating which costs are attributable to each category, and ensuring that at least sixty percent of the budget for the 2013-2015 triennium be directly allocable to these priorities; and be it further

Resolved, that expenses not attributable to the Mission categories described above be reduced so that they comprise no more than thirty percent of the churchwide budget by the 2016-2018 triennium. 

Explanation

The Anglican Communion has recognized the Five Marks of Mission as examples of how God works in each culture.According to the explanation of the Five Marks on the Anglican Communion website: 

Mission: Announcing good news

The first mark of mission, identified at ACC-6 with personal evangelism, is really a summary of what all mission is about, because it is based on Jesus' own summary of his mission (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22; cf. John 3:14-17). Instead of being just one (albeit the first) of five distinct activities, this should be the key statement about everything we do in mission.

Mission in context

All mission is done in a particular setting - the context. So, although there is a fundamental unity to the good news, it is shaped by the great diversity of places, times and cultures in which we live, proclaim and embody it. The Five Marks should not lead us to think that there are only five ways of doing mission!

Mission as celebration and thanksgiving

An important feature of Anglicanism is our belief that worship is central to our common life. But worship is not just something we do alongside our witness to the good news: worship is itself a witness to the world. It is a sign that all of life is holy, that hope and meaning can be found in offering ourselves to God (cf. Romans 12:1). And each time we celebrate the Eucharist, we proclaim Christ's death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26). Our liturgical life is a vital dimension of our mission calling; and although it is not included in the Five Marks, it undergirds the forms of public witness listed there.

Mission as church

The Five Marks stress the doing of mission. Faithful action is the measure of our response to Christ (cf. Matt. 25:31-46; James 2:14-26). However, the challenge facing us is not just to do mission but to be a people of mission. That is, we are learning to allow every dimension of church life to be shaped and directed by our identity as a sign, foretaste and instrument of God's reign in Christ. Our understanding of mission needs to make that clear.

Mission as God-in-action

"Mission goes out from God. Mission is God's way of loving and saving the world... So mission is never our invention or choice." (Lambeth Conference 1998, Section II p121). The initiative in mission is God's, not ours. We are called simply to serve God's mission by living and proclaiming the good news.

This resolution calls The Episcopal Church to reaffirm its commitment to the Anglican Communion and to doing mission in a characteristically Anglican way.  It calls the churchwide structure away from over-spending on administrative and governance costs, toward refocusing on empowering the people of The Episcopal Church for mission, by requiring that administrative and governance costs be contained and that costs of mission become the priority of this church.  Executive Council’s proposed budget for the 2013-2015 triennium proposes that expenses falling into the five Anglican Marks of Mission categories, plus the two additional Mission categories named above, comprise only 55% of the total budget.  The remainder of the budget is composed of administrative and governance expenses.  This resolution recognizes that these levels of administrative and governance costs are too high, and requires that these costs be contained over a reasonable period of time.  

A Resolution to Move Out of 815

A proposed resolution for General Convention 2012 (see blog post Here for explanation):

Resolved, the House of _____________ concurring, that this Convention supports moving the Church Center headquarters away from the Church Center building at 815 2^nd Ave., New York City, as soon as it makes economic sense to do so; and be it further

Resolved, that Executive Council be directed to appoint a Task Force on Real Property including knowledgeable real estate and finance experts, working in cooperation with the Cushman & Wakefield study that is already in process, to explore alternatives and make recommendations for the most effective economic way of selling, leasing, or otherwise disposing of the Church Center building at 815 2^nd Ave, New York City; and be it further

Resolved, that the Task Force on Real Property make its report to Executive Council by February 2013; and be it further

Resolved, that Executive Council proceed with all appropriate speed to place the building at 815 2^nd Ave., New York City, on the market for sale, lease, or other disposal, in accordance with the Task Force Recommendations, as soon as it makes economic sense to do so; and be it further

Resolved, that Executive Council appoint a separate Task Force on Church Center Location to identify other suitable alternatives for locating the Church Center, giving special attention to available properties owned by Episcopal-affiliated entities, locations close to large airports, ease of travel, cost of living for Church Center employees, and cost of acquiring or leasing the properties; and be it further

Resolved, that the Task Force on Church Center Location make its report to Executive Council by February 2013; and be it further

Resolved, that Executive Council be prepared to relocate the Church Center headquarters to the new location or locations as soon as it is economically feasible.

Explanation

The Church Center building in New York City is too large and too expensive for the church’s needs, and wiser, more economic alternatives are available.  The Church needs to move away from a hierarchical-model corporate headquarters in Manhattan, toward a less expensive Church Center that is more accessible to a broad spectrum of Episcopalians.

Empowering Mission

This is the fourth post in a series.  For the other posts, see:

Day One: Deck Chairs

Day Two: Will the Real Subsidiarity Principle Please Stand Up?

Day Three: About That Elephant

A few days ago, I argued that the real problem facing The Episcopal Church isn’t our budget, or our budget process, or our churchwide structure.  The real problem is the fact that we are declining precipitously in attendance, membership, and finances.  Those other things are just symptoms of the real problem. 

And yes, we are declining because the culture has shifted around us, because our core membership group isn’t having babies at the same rate it used to, because immigrant non-Episcopal and non-Christian groups are growing as a percentage of the population, because we live in a post-Christendom world where many people are spiritual, but not religious, and don’t identify as members of any religious group. 

These are reasons, but they are not excuses. 

After all, we are called by Jesus to join him in God’s mission.  That mission can be described in many ways, but most assuredly it includes the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20: 

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

In other words, we are called to the ministry of evangelism.  We are called to reach new people with the good news of Christ.  We are called to do all the work of discipleship – evangelism, teaching, baptism, and acts of loving service. 

But how can we inspire our church to a spiritual reawakening?  How can the churchwide structure help a group of loyal Episcopalians do the work of evangelism when many Episcopalians are watching their churches decline, don’t understand the reasons why, and don’t know how to make a change?  How can we provide a space for the Holy Spirit to move and bring us to a place of new hope and new inspiration?  After all, as Jesus says in Luke 10:2:

“The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”

God’s harvest is more abundant than ever.  How can we become the laborers we’re waiting for?

In Diana Butler Bass’ book, Christianity After Religion, she makes the point that the change we are experiencing is occurring in many places, and it is important to recognize the universality of the phenomenon while simultaneously taking steps to address the environment for which we are accountable.  

One of the arresting comments in her book is this: “In this terrain, changed minds and hearts – that is, what we think about ourselves, God, and the world – precede institutional change (which means, of course, that those people who seek to change minds by changing institutions are probably working backwards).”

Yes, we need to re-think churchwide structures, cut costs, and reorganize governance.  But that’s not the most important thing.  The most important thing is to change our minds and hearts, to open ourselves to the movement of the Spirit, to allow God to show us God’s deepest dreams and hopes for us. 

I think we need a churchwide process of spiritual discernment that includes Bible study, prayer, and visioning about the future of our church and our ministry.  I think this discernment process needs to involve people at all levels of the church, not just General Convention or provincial or diocesan leaders.  I think this process should be led by people who are not already leaders of our current church structures, so that they can listen for the feedback coming from the people, and use it to make Spirit-led proposals that are not bound by the current structures of the church.  Only then will real change be possible. 

Here is what I am proposing:

Create a churchwide consultation to engage all levels of the church in a visioning process, helping people who are NOT involved in current governing structures – i.e., those who are busy with local ministry and who don’t have a churchwide voice – to express their own longings and dreams for the church.  What would they like to do, if only they had the money?  How could the churchwide office empower them for mission?  What resources do they need and long for?  How is God calling them to move in their own ministry? What harvest do they see waiting, ripe and golden, in their neighborhoods, if only they had the laborers to go out into the harvest?

The visioning process, if constructed creatively for discernment, would itself be a catalyst for local ministry, even without considering the feedback brought back to the churchwide level.  We could ask them about structure too, but frankly I don’t think they care. They care about local mission.  And that’s as it should be.

And guess what – the visioning process would help people at all levels of the church focus on the real problem – their need to respond to God’s call to do mission, ministry, and evangelism. 

Because I don’t think this ship is going to sink.  I think the Holy Spirit is going to use this process to make this church into something new, a renewed, inspired, reawakened church that transforms many lives in this century, and for centuries to come.

Next Post:  Where I Think This Ship is Going

About That Elephant

See Part One of this Series Here:  Deck Chairs.
See Part Two Here:  Will the Real Subsidiarity Principle Please Stand Up?


In our continuing series about how to spend The Episcopal Church’s money strategically, to empower mission, ministry, and evangelism, today we are addressing the burning question:

• What should we NOT be spending money on?

I will try to restrain myself from gleefully rubbing my hands together.  So many living room elephants to choose from – so little time!

Look, we don’t have enough money to do all the things the Church Center has done in the past.  Where to cut?  Two major arguments have been advanced:  cut governance (because it is too costly and cumbersome), and cut program (based on the subsidiarity principle). 

What huge white-elephant category of expenses is being ignored by both the anti-governance and the pro-subsidiarity arguments? 

Administration.  Administration at the Church Center is getting a free pass.

A few weeks ago I did an analysis of the proposed budget that divided it into 7 categories: the five Marks of Mission categories, and two additional categories: (6) Administration and  (7) Governance.  Since then, I have refined my analysis.  Some folks have rightly pointed out that the five Marks of Mission categories don’t include a classification for Other Good Things – like ecumenical relations, which everyone agrees should be done at a churchwide level and which aren’t really administrative in nature.  (I had included these costs in administration because there was no Marks of Mission category to put them in.) 

Therefore, I have added two new categories to my analysis:  (8) Building Religious Relationships (including ecumenical relations, Anglican Communion relations, and Federal Ministries); and (9) Stewardship & Leadership Development (including the Development Office, Congregational Vitality, Transition Ministries, the Office of Pastoral Development, etc.).  With these two new categories, the proposed churchwide budget breaks out as follows (if you would like to see my calculations, please email me at susansnook@thenativity.net):

Anglican Marks of Mission                                                 Amount         Percent

1. To proclaim the good news of the Kingdom                $  2,283,270      2.15%

2.  To teach, baptize, and nurture new believers               $     286,438      0.27%

3.  To respond to human need by loving service               $26,428,618     24.91%

4.  To seek to transform unjust structures                          $  4,600,551      4.34%

5.  To sustain, renew life of the earth                                  $     106,470      0.10%

Not included as marks of mission, but categorized as:

6.  Administration                                                                 $46,823,109    44.13%

7.  Governance                                                                      $12,298,810    11.59%

8.  Building Religious Relationships                                    $  5,207,010      4.91%

9.  Stewardship and Leadership Development                   $  8,067,497      7.60%

Do you see what I see?  After all is said and done, the glaring enormous over-inflated budget item is not Christian Formation, not at all.  It is Administration.  When pared down as noted above, it comprises over 44% of our churchwide budget. That doesn’t even count the cost of General Convention!  


Yes, Administration is the same category of expenses that gives us a finance office that costs over $7 million to run and can’t add a budget spreadsheet up correctly.  (I am sorry to have to point out the obvious.  I would rather be churchy-nice and not point out or ask for accountability for expensive mistakes.) 

It is also the same category of expenses that brings us an office building in Manhattan, the most expensive real estate on earth, based on that old Eisenhower-era hierarchical corporate headquarters model.  Based on the proposed budget, the costs of operating that piece of real estate are:

            Debt Service                                                  $ 8,700,000

            Facilities Management                                 $ 6,443,156

            Offset by Rental Income                              ( 4,050,000)

            Net Cost                                                        $11,093,156

I do not understand why we are going after Program Expenses before we go after the hyper-inflated costs of administration at the Church Center. 

Here’s what I propose: 

• Sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of 815, and look for a more economic alternative elsewhere, such as using vacant space at cathedrals, seminaries, etc.  This will take some time, so it won’t save us money immediately – we need to understand this.  But there’s no more time to dither about it!  Do it!
• Reduce the asking to the dioceses, and cut the total budget to $101 million (right now it stands at $106 million, counting the Development Office error explained here – it is a deficit budget of $1.25 million). 
• Require that administrative expenses comprise no more than 35% of the 2013-2015 churchwide budget. That’s a significant decrease from the current 44% of the budget. In 2016-2018, the administrative percentage would be required to drop to 30%.  The phase-in allows some time to study the situation and make adjustments necessary.  (Note: the percentages depend on the way I have classified administrative expenses: for instance, I have included Communications, part of the cost of the PB’s office, etc.  If you quibble with the way I have calculated administration, fine, but if we change that, we need to change the percentages too.)
• Freeze salaries at the Church Center.  The proposed budget includes across-the-board salary increases of 3% per year.  How many folks working for local churches get that kind of guaranteed raise these days?
• Look into outsourcing certain departments like Human Resources, streamlining personnel in administrative departments, or other strategies for reducing administrative costs. 

Yes, we can also streamline governance expenses.  I am skeptical of the idea of holding a Special Convention (very expensive and unlikely to produce real change unless it is preceded by a real visioning and change process), but I certainly believe that we can “sunset” some CCABs and significantly reduce the expenses of others.  And we can consider ways to reduce the cost of General Convention itself, such as allowing much work to be done beforehand, electronically, or reducing deputation size. 

However, we cannot count on any cost savings for these possible changes in the current triennium, because they would require a constitutional convention, and no changes would take place this triennium. 

What we can do, right away, is address the unacceptable level of administrative expense at the Church Center.  We can make a real decision to sell 815 and move to a less-costly alternative, and we can realign our staffing structure, outsourcing some departments and streamlining others.  

We can do it because it’s worth it.  Because you and I aren’t writing those pledge checks every week so we can maintain  $46.8 million of administrative expenses.  We’re writing them because we believe in the mission, ministry, and evangelism of this church.  What we have is worth sharing, and it’s worth spending money on – strategically.  But not on elephants.  


Stay Tuned for Tomorrow's Post: Empowering Mission.

Will the Real Subsidiarity Principle Please Stand Up?

In yesterday's post, Deck Chairs, I pointed out that the real problem in our church is the need to refocus on mission, ministry, and evangelism.  Those are things that happen mainly on the local level.  Yet we need to think carefully about how the churchwide structure can empower the whole church for mission.  My next three posts will talk about these questions:

• How can a Church Center staff be best used to empower mission, ministry, and evangelism in today's world?
• What should the Church Center NOT be spending money on?
• How can we awaken the whole church for mission, ministry, and evangelism?

Today's post is about the first question.  What can the churchwide structure do to empower the whole church for mission, ministry and evangelism?  

Let’s start with the presenting problem:  the proposed budget for 2013-2015.

In the ongoing budget discussion, two major principles have been advanced to reduce The Episcopal Church’s over-inflated and unsustainable budget. 

• Bishop Stacy Sauls, the Church Center’s Chief Operating Officer, advanced the first argument in his presentation to the House of Bishops, when he argued that “overhead” was too high, and proposed that we slash overhead by realigning the governance structures of the church.  This would require a constitutional convention to change the format of General Convention and the many canonically required CCABs and other bodies.

• Since that time, the discussion has advanced to another argument: subsidiarity (it’s all the rage these days).  Many people have talked about this idea, and the Standing Commission on Structure proposes to enshrine it in our polity in proposed resolution A090, which asks us to embrace subsidiarity as a fundamental principle of our polity.  “Subsidiarity” can be understood to mean that ministry is most effectively done at the local level, and “higher” levels in the hierarchy should only do the things that are most appropriate for them, generally the things that “lower” levels cannot do. 

Subsidiarity is a hallmark of Anglicanism.  We believe, in general, that ministry should be locally adapted and locally managed.  Yet we are gathered into larger structures for a number of reasons, and among them is this: because together, we can do some things better than we can do alone.  A churchwide structure truly can empower local ministry by gathering people together in large groups to teach and learn, by pooling resources to provide shared resources for all, and by providing networks of experts that can speak, consult, and inspire at the local level. 

So I don’t think that the subsidiarity principle gives us carte blanche to go cutting all program expenses from the churchwide budget.  I think that it requires us to think carefully about what a churchwide structure can do effectively, and use our funds strategically to make those things happen. 

Let me give you an example of what a churchwide structure can do from the perspective of one network I have been involved in for the last 6 years: The Episcopal Network for Stewardship (TENS).  (I have just finished my term as a TENS board member.)  TENS is an independent churchwide network of people who are expert in and passionate about stewardship, providing stewardship conferences, a resource-rich stewardship website, and stewardship speakers at diocesan and regional conferences and seminaries.

The TEC Program Officer for Stewardship serves as a member of the TENS board, and has been able to help TENS network across the church.  She has also been able to use her program budget to help fund some particular initiatives of TENS, such as the development of TENS’ new website (www.tens.org), which provides hands-on, easily accessed tools for stewardship, to help parishes do a better job with stewardship, without requiring local ministers to reinvent the wheel. 

Now personally, I would like to see a whole churchwide office full of people who create, support and empower networks that do local ministry, without requiring local ministers to reinvent the wheel.  I would like to see people getting passionate about evangelism, Christian Formation, church planting, stewardship, Latino ministries, and on and on, because of the network-building that Church Center people do. 

I would like to see this happen through the work of Network Builders who empower ministry, rather than Program Officers who are experts in ministry.  As The Rev. Dr. Dwight Zcheile says in his article “General Convention in Context” (quoted in the Blue Book report of the Standing Committee on Mission and Evangelism): 

We now live in an age of participatory networks rather than centralized bureaucracies. How can General Convention be reimagined to support learning, innovation, networking, and renewal among peers in mission at the grass roots? One of the hallmarks of Anglicanism is its adaptability as the context changes. Today is a moment calling for major adaptation if the church is to live into its name as the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society.

I would add that this networking concept applies not just to General Convention, but also to the whole concept of a denominational “headquarters.”

Specifically, I propose that we create an Office of Networking to find ways to creatively network people for mission in the church.  Instead of Program Officers in charge of specific areas of expertise at the Church Center, we would have Networkers.  The Networkers would work with groups like TENS and Forma that are already active, helping to empower their work.  And in areas where we don’t have active networks, or have nascent networks, like evangelism or congregational development, the Office of Networking would help to gather people to create the networks we need. 

Rather than doing direct ministry, the Office of Networking would give grants to creative ministry networks or projects that empower ministry in specified areas, so it would need a budget for ministry grants.  

Fewer program officers would likely be required on churchwide staff under this configuration, because the networking concept allows for the development of local leaders, communicating and sharing resources across networks.  Grants from the Networking office would empower this leadership and sharing.  Networking would help ensure that the transition to a leaner churchwide structure doesn’t reduce ministry resources available – in fact, it might even increase them, because networks involve many more people who are passionate about and expert in a ministry area than a lone Program Officer. 

An Episcopal Ministry Network website could showcase all the different ministry opportunities and resources available churchwide, including items such as:

• Stewardship resources from TENS and the Episcopal Church Foundation;
• Christian Formation resources from Forma and from unofficial Episcopal-affiliated groups like Leader Resources, Church Publishing, Forward Movement, etc.;
• Resources for empowering ethnic ministries;
• Training and leadership resources for church planting;
• Leadership and congregational development resources;
• And so on. 

And remember what I said in yesterday’s post?  The REAL problem isn’t the budget.  The REAL problem is our need to refocus on mission, ministry, and evangelism, to reach new generations and populations.  Additional attention to networking at a churchwide level will allow us to address the REAL problem by giving local ministries the resources they need to refocus on mission, ministry, and evangelism.  And that’s a win-win all around.

Stay tuned for tomorrow's post:  About That Elephant.