Good ideas but we have seen how resistant Eau Clair and Fond Du Lac are about merging -- if they are not willing - who will be.

Kansas and Western Kansas are obvious, re: size, but the distances get huge.
Craig Sweeney

A larger diocese brings its own problems and challenges. Virginia has 180+ congregations and 380 or so active clergy (the numbers are approximate but close). This means a real challenge in building a pastoral relationship with the Diocesan; collegiality is truly political and/or social; the Diocesan visits the parish only once every three years or so --so suffragan and assisting bishops are required.... I'm thinking we need to re-think a lot before we think reducing the number of Dioceses and increasing geographic boundaries is a fix. --because in all of that, it is the "middle-man" (for lack of a better word) --the clergy who will suffer, and the laity who will be further removed from an important relationship.

margaret watson

Margaret, there are a number of dioceses that are barely surviving financially and would love to have Virginia's problems.

The current plans for the mergers of the dioceses in Yorkshire look interesting w/re: mergers of dioceses here. A single diocesan with 'area bishops' or, in the near-literal sense of the word, 'suburban' sees.

As far as the committee structure goes... Less is more as far as I'm concerned. Aside from some committees whose work is ongoing (SCLM, for example), task-oriented groups and networks with specific reporting dates would seem to me to be a creative and lighter/leaner way of doing things. Raise 'em up for a time, then dissolve them when they're done.

Speaking of cheaper office space, what about moving the Episcopal Church Center out of New York to a city with a lower cost of living? It would reduce both rent and staff compensation without layoffs.

And yet Bp. Sauls recommends another convention, a Special Convention.

As to margaret's comment about the special relationship between the laity and the bishop, the majority of the folks in my congregation pay very little attention to the bishop. They see him on visitations, and that's about it. The relationship exists with the leadership in the parish to a greater or lesser degree, and with the rector, and that also to a greater or lesser degree. Some rectors think that a good bishop is one who leaves her/him alone.

A more centrally located church center outside expensive NYC is also well worth consideration.

June Butler

I think a Special Convention would be required, if not canonically, then at the very least pastorally, since much of the reform is going to upset a lot of apple carts. There is a sense of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" about that particular criticism.

I think much of the disconnect between bishops and laity is because we've fundamentally misaligned the size and scope of the diocese. Imagine if the rector of the largest church in, say, a deanery was the bishop for the area, and each parish in that deanery went to that bishop for baptisms, confirmations and ordinations. That, to my mind, is a lot closer to the Scriptural and ante-Nicene vision of the episcopacy than the sprawling regional dioceses that have developed.

I've thought for a while that moving the national offices should be considered, for several reasons: less expensive operation; better accessibility for more of the country; and potentially a clearer awareness of the spectrum of our church's life and work.

St. Louis, anyone?

St. Louis would love to have you, but it is worth noting that it is no longer a hub, so that trips anywhere tend to be indirect and expensive.

So, maybe Denver? Or Minneapolis? I don't have a vested interest in the chosen location; I'd just like to see us take up residence more toward the middle of the country.

As the former COO at the Church Center, perhaps I may be well placed to offer some additional insights regarding the side effects of a "shut down 815" decision. Let me say first that I have a very open mind on this subject and there are good arguments to be made for a move of the church staff to another location. But to be realistic, such a proposal would have to consider a number of concerns that may not be immediately apparent. One is the significant (not to say devastating) impact on Episcopal Relief and Development, the Episcopal Church Foundation, the National Association of Episcopal Schools and the several smaller agencies also housed at 815 rent-free and whose other building expenses (utilities, cleaning, etc) and some administrative costs are fully underwritten by the Church budget.
Additionally, it is incorrect to assume that a move away from New York would not involve layoffs. Many if not most of the Church Center staff would likely not be able to leave New York due to family and other considerations, so there would be financial costs (severance,etc., plus the move itself) as well as operational interruptions and downtime for recruitment, training, and the like. The staff includes many technical, financial, and administrative folks who are not clergy (or even Episcopalian) who provide dedicated service to Church programs (e.g. missionaries, migration ministries, financial operations, refugee loans, communications, to name a few) and who would have to be replaced in a move scenario. These employees currently reside in locations in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, many with commutes of significantly over an hour each way and in some cases two to three hours. So even a move to, say, mid New Jersey would mean the loss of valued employees.
Over the past four years, the staff and been downsized as many Episcopal Cafe readers are aware. Additionally, between 20 and 25% of the staff are geographically dispersed - in Washington DC, Los Angeles, and numerous other locations in the US and abroad. Costs for those employees are lower and additional space (beyond the 3 floors rented to the Ad Council) has been put on the rental market. I mention this so that we will all be on the same page regarding where the staff actually is. One of the primary reasons to have dispersed staff is so that they will be more accessible to dioceses - to counter the "New York-centric" argument which sadly may still have some currency left over from earlier days. Giving staff members the opportunity to telecommute or work from regional offices also enables the Church to employ very high caliber individuals who are not able to relocate to New York City.
Another consideration for a potential move is the residence of the Presiding Bishop at 815, for which provision must be made either in a "sell the building but stay in NY" scenario or a "move to some cheaper location" one.
And, there are the direct financial considerations, notably the value of the building during the current downturn and the initial and ongoing costs in whatever other locations might be considered.
During my time at 815, I repeatedly stated my willingness to consider other location options for the staff. Members of the Church Center leadership, contrary to the "chatter" around the Church, has been quite open to non-815 possibilities. The realities I have articulated above may help readers to understand more fully the considerations and factors involved. The central question, though, really concerns the mission, purpose, and direction of the staff - the debate about which is underway in what I very much hope will be a healthy and productive and Christian way.

Regarding the merger of diocese, I think part of our problem, as Issac above is alluding to, is that we have too few diocese, not too many. Because in many diocese, the bishop is a faraway person whose impact onthe congregation is minimal. Perhaps many of the functions of diocese could be transferred to Provinces (what do they do anyway?) to better enable sharing of resources.

As to moving the Church Center, I've often thought that Manhattan might not be the most cost-effective place to be. But I can see advantages in things ease of travel and access tot things like the UN. Nonetheless, its probably worth taking a good hard look at it again.

And finally, why do the HoD have to be physically in the same place to do legislative business? Why not seperate the legislative from the getting together; have a convention every 6 years, and with online legislative meetings every 2 or 3 years?

Jon White

Years ago, with the illness of our ID bishop, representatives of UT, ID and EOR wrestled with merger possibilities. Distances and market centers got in the way. Travel would have been long and lay persons would have found THAT a deep concern; jurisdictional loyalty would not have been as great.

I understand that retired / resigned bishops (and in some cases assistant bishops arrived from outside TEC) continue as members of your Huse of Bishops until either death, deposition or the renunciation of their orders. To this Canadian, it seems bizarre beyond words. Some money would be saved by reducing the House of Bishops to serving diocesans, suffragans and coadjutors.

One of the things that seriously needs to be considered is WHAT is the purpose for reconfiguring the structure or governance of the church. Reducing overhead expenses is one thing. Building an organization that is more responsive to a mission outlook is another. Doing both together? Possible, but a bit more complicated. Before doing any kind of restructuring/reorganizing we need to be very clear about what we're doing it for.

Malcolm, it is true that retired bishops do continue to have seat and voice in the House. However, in most cases they attend at their own expense, and not at the expense of a diocese. So, many do not attend, for reasons of health or expense. Some money would be saved in arrangements, but not, perhaps, as much as expected.

Related is the issue of whether retired bishops continue to have vote in the House, and we've gone back and forth on that. Sometimes the retired bishops have been more progressive than active bishops; and sometimes the opposite. That, too, would, I imagine, be part of the discussion of restructuring the Church.

Marshall Scott