How about co-locating with one of our ecumenical partners (like the ELCA right next to O'Hare in Chicago)so that we can begin to truly work together on mission?

Jon White

It has never made much sense to me for the Presiding Bishops' desk to be in New York and her chair to be in Washington!

I'm not sure about space either, Jim, but with continual downsizing of both Washington National Cathedral and Church Center staff, more use of "deployed" or regional staff, and the money we would realize after selling 815, I would think razing the College of Preachers and building something modest, but new might even be possible. All this would have to be researched, of course, but I've always thought the ministries of the National Cathedral and the Presiding Bishop and staff might creatively be brought together.

Interesting...
In 1961 Bishop Higgins of Rhode Island said:

"Since we have determined to build a new headquarters office in midtown New York, it is my hope that we shall one day dispose of it at a handsome profit, and arrange for the headquarters of our national Church to be at the national cathedral in the national capital where it properly belongs, and from which the life of our Episcopal Church should radiate."

Talk about prophetic--maybe he had something there!

The idea of newly constructed but modest office at the National Cathedral, one that is built to facilitate electronic conferencing, is an enchanting idea. But D.C. is such an expensive town to live in. What if the salaries of our national staff could be adjusted for locations where the cost of living isn't so prohibitive?

Say, Oklahoma City?

I'm a communicant in the great Diocese of Oklahoma :-)

OKC is centrally located (though not a major airport hub and sometimes requires a connecting flight) and a relatively inexpensive place to live. The real-estate our Church could aquire in exchange for even a portion of what is sold (or leased) at 815 would be staggering.

Kansas City is a second alternative. St Louis a third, though each goes up in cost of living, I suspect.

Yes, Chicago is a central hub with many direct flights, which is logistically a good thing. And the ELCA connection makes sense.

Honestly, I'd love to see the Church offices in a more geographically central location. OKC would work; so might St. Louis, Chicago, or even Denver (the latter two being more airline hubs than the others). Not only would it be significantly less expensive to operate, but it might address the East Coast bent which sometimes leaves me wondering if 815 folks realize there is life west of the Hudson river...

Thanks, Bishop Epting. I don't think the College in its current form could be converted. Razing it would make more sense.

I vote for Oklahoma City! I do think this would make geographic as well as common sense.

All this talk of radiation and centrality seems to miss the point: What work is actually done at the HQ, and what is the best place to do it? That first question is the one that remains to be answered -- and all the vague notions of the PB's desk and chair, and "centrality" need to be set to one side.

One important point along work lines: for international work, being three blocks from the UN is important. One of the things it makes sense to do from an HQ is international work, btw. While DC is also commendable in this regard, working from Chicago or OKC would not be as easy.

I do think carts and horses thinking is in order here. First the task, then the staff and location, please. Out of this a logical budget grows.

Lots of good ideas here. How long ago was it that we sold Roanridge (home of the Town and Country Institute)? As I recall, it was more or less across the highway from the Kansas City airport. Even at the time some people suggested that we sell 815 and move TEC headquarters there. But oh no we HAVE to be in New York City (for reasons that I don't remember but presumably seemed very good at the time...)!

I think it makes good sense. While other places may be more geographically centered, they are not as easy to get to as DC, and it is usually more expensive to get to those other places than it is to fly to DC...

--as to cost of living.... just, ouch. Every where. But with a de-centralized center and good use of technology, staff could live anywhere, and only minimal staff would be required to reside accordingly.

Or something like that.

--margaret watson

This is a wonderful idea! Twice in the '90s I stayed at the College of Preachers (once for Holy Week, and another time during the Fourth of July week) and think the facility's location is excellent. Yes, old; but renovation is possible.

It does not seem necessary that all offices be in a single location; contemporary technologies allow quick and extensive communications and projects to be handled easily by many large organizations. The seminaries are mostly east and 815 is east; perhaps regional offices are preferable now.

Where would I locate regional offices, that would operate under the direction of the DC location? Austin, Texas and the San Francisco Bay area, are the locations of the two most western Episcopal seminaries and would be good sites. Two more - one in a SE state and one in a location east of the Rockies - would be my suggestion. This is where America is growing, and we need to grow with it.

I think I'm with Fr. Tobias on this... Before we figure out where Nat'l Offices need to be, we need to figure out what they're going to be doing first. Function should dictate location on this one. I do like the idea of the PB's office on the Nat'l Cathedral close. But then again I also like the idea of the PB and PHOD sitting at a desks facing each other like in police procedurals, so what do I know?

I am not in strong disagreement with what Tobias has said. But the Lutherans do international work just fine from Chicago. I think it makes sense to house people near a decent airport, and in a city where office space is cheaper than New York.

I think it would be best to dismantle 815 and move it to nowhere. I really think we'd be better off without them. Decentralize, give it back to the dioceses, and let the PB be simply the top-ranking diocesan bishop. I'm really hard pressed to identify any significant improvements that have come out of 815.

[Editor's note: Thanks for the comment. Please leave your name next time.]

As appealing as it would be to have the Presiding Bishop's offices co-located with her seat, I think there might be some problems with this plan. First of all, while the Cathedral has vacated the institution and ministry of the College of Preachers, the building itself remains in use. The offices are mostly occupied and the meeting areas are used regularly for Cathedral programs. The dormitory areas are available, but would require extensive and expensive renovation for use as modern office space (at a time when the Cathedral's masons are already working hard on earthquake repairs). It would be a shame to tear down the building, as despite its functional obsolescence, it's still an architectural gem. Also, putting up a new office building at the College's location on the boundary of the Close next to a residential street will run into a good deal of resistance from the Cathedral's neighbors who already endure the traffic and parking issues from the Cathedral schools and many visitors. Finally, there are many of us that feel that the original mission of the College is more important than ever to the clergy of TEC, and hope that sometime soon that in some form it's ministry can be re-established.
That being said there is probably acceptable modern office facilities available within a mile radius of the Cathedral, although I don't know if the costs will be significantly cheaper than NYC.

Chip Amos

This is a reasonable idea, and one that I mentioned on my blog a couple of weeks ago, also. There are actually three separate issues to be decided concurrently:

(1) What could we sell 815 for and how much would we realize out of the deal? (Or alternatively, move out of it and lease the whole thing to someone else.) I am not sure we would do much more than break even on the sale when the debt is paid off, according to one informed source I have talked to. However, it still makes economic sense to divest ourselves of it, considering that we are pouring $8.7 million in debt service into it in the next triennium, not to mention maintenance costs of $6.5 million. Rental income of $4 million doesn't begin to cover the cost.

(2) What other facilities are available to house a reduced staff, considering possibilities for spreading the staff out in many locations? We already have a number of satellite offices - why not make use of various kinds of unused space in churches, seminaries, diocesan offices, etc., across the country?

(3) What will our new staff configuration be and what kind of space requirements will it bring?

I believe that the process of selling or leasing 815 needs to happen right away even if the other two questions have not yet been answered. Exploration of the other questions can happen concurrently, but if we wait for all information to be in hand before we act, we will never act. Selling a large property like 815 takes a long time, and the process needs to start now.

Friends, conservatives have dreamed for decades of moving church headquarters out of Manhattan. Welcome to the party, and may you meet with greater success.

I too stayed a night at the College of Preachers after attending a Bruce Cockburn concert at the Cathedral. I would hate to see that lovely old building turned solely into office space, or razed to make room for office space. Surely there is a more redemptive use for the space.

Would moving the church's headquarters into the College of Preachers place too fine a point on the Cathedral's Episcopal identity? I know the Diocese of Washington built it throughout the 20th century, and it is the seat of the Presiding Bishop, but to quote from the cathedral's About Us page: "The Cathedral is a spiritual resource for our nation: a great and beautiful edifice in the city of Washington, an indispensable ministry for people of all faiths and perspectives, and a sacred place for our country in times of celebration, crisis, and sorrow."

To preserve ready access to the United Nations, perhaps the church could sell off everything but, say, the top two floors of 815 Second Avenue (including the PB's residence), or rent the top floors from a new owner. But then this question nags me: Does most of the Episcopal Church's more important work occur at the United Nations or, week after week, at the church's altars?

There are some wonderful ideas floating around here. I would invite the church to be daring and prophetic in deciding this question. Please lead by example.

I called 815 once to see if I could bring our J2A kids to visit while we were in NYC. The lady on the other end of the line was utterly mystified that we should want to see the national headquarters of our church. Needless to say, we crossed that off our to do list.

I'd vote for moving to someplace with a lower cost of doing business, centrally located with a major airport. Yeah, doesn't have the cache of Manhatten, but how much does the PB really hang out at the UN? For that matter, how much influence do we really have these days?

I'm not sure Indy fits the bill, but the last time GenCon was there, didn't someone (Lily?) offer to build us a new Church Center there?

Actually, Mary Ann, the Episcopal Church Center isn't much to see. The Chapel is lovely, in fact; but also small. The offices are utilitarian, and maintained well but not richly.

You are correct: Lilly money was, at least at one time, available for moving church headquarters. While the Episcopal Church hasn't taken advantage of that, others have - notably, the Christian Church - Disciples of Christ.

We do already have "satellite offices" of the Episcopal Church Center, and more could probably be done electronically. At the same time, there is something to be said for facilities that allow for meeting in person from time to time.

Marshall Scott

The ELCA doesn't have the kind of connection to Europe that we do to Canterbury. For better or worse we are linked to the worldwide Anglican Communion in a way that is far more intimate than the ELCA is to the LWF.

I think it's best if we leave it in New York (perhaps relocating it to General) or DC. This would make it just a hop away from London and Africa as well as just a hop away from most of the major airports in the US and Canada. It would also give the TEC a stronger voice in the UN and US government.

Dan Sloan

Jim, I don't know how easy it is to get visas in Chicago; I also don't know the extent of the international work of ELCA -- but I do know that TEC has member jurisdictions in, IIRC, about a dozen foreign countries, in addition to all of the development and mission work we do outside the US. This necessitates not just travel but diplomacy. Again, Chicago may be as well equipped with legations and embassies as NY or DC, and if that is the case this point is moot. But I suspect Oklahoma City is not so well-stocked.

However, loet me repeat in plainer language that this discussion is a fine example of rearranging deck-chairs, as far as I can see.

"Location of the HQ" is not the problem with TEC, much as conservative voices seem to think being in Manhattan has a liberalizing effect on policy (Tell that to the late John Maury Allin!).

The real questions, in a dispassionate and truly evaluative mode, should be "What does the HQ do that cannot be done on more local levels?" and only then "Where should we put the HQ so that it can do that work?"

Historical note: The first "Episcopal Church Center" was at 281 Park Avenue South, also in Manhattan -- just up from the noted Evangelical Calvary Church. New York was chosen as mission headquarters long before the PB had an apartment and a full time job being PB.

I long for a careful analysis of the purposes for which a central office is needed -- but I am not seeing it, just about anywhere. But most of the talk about moving the church center seems to be dealing with optics rather than praxis. If that's the case, I'd argue for moving into an abandoned high school building in the South Bronx; or if DC, not NW but SE! What a message that might send...

I agree with most of what you have said, Tobias. Especially the Oklahoma City part. But there is an issue of affording all of this stuff. New York is expensive. We have a terrible loan situation at 815. I think it makes sense to have conversations about other options.

Also, I don't think we can base the location of the headquarters on the fact that a few people may make a few international trips each year. But being near a domestic hub is essential.

Jim, I'm not against selling off '815' but do you see my main issue is not where it should be but what it is for? That question isn't being answered. Frankly, I'd be happy if the PB went back to being a diocesan, perhaps with a designated suffragan to handle much of the other work. We also need a General Convention office, and a place for ERD. But the notion that all of this needs to be co-located is part of the problem with this discussion. Why does there have to be a "center" to a "networked" church?

I do, Tobias. But this seems like useful brainstorming to me. Also, every PB I am familiar with, including this one, has opposed moving out of 815. I think momentum has to build within the church if we are ever going to give this matter the consideration it needs.

Actually, Jim, John Maury Allin almost got '815' moved into the old HQ of the Seamens Church Institute in lower Manhattan -- which would also have provided housing for the whole Executive Council as well as other visitors; '815' was all lined up to be sold to a foreign nation's delegation, but then it was discovered the ceilings at SCI were a couple of inches off from the code for office space, and the deal scrapped.

And although FTG eventually quashed the deal, there was inintial favor to the move to GTS, which might have been very wise on both sides of the deal.

You see, I've been down this path several times before -- under Ed Browning it was Indianapolis, IIRC. But the issue of the move always seems to dominate the real question of why we need an HQ and what we need it for? (As an example of failed process, when I was at 915 in the early 90s an Exec Council/Staff think-tank undertook a study for a new communications strategy to replace "The Episcopalian." After six months and thousands of hours and dollars we came up with a stratified, targeted communication strategy that replaced "The Episcopalian" with a short "news"-letter, a small monthly "features" magazine and a quarterly journal with substantive offical reports, documents and articles, and the beginnings of electronic communication. This was all shot down in 20 seconds when Ed Browning ruled, "Well, we've got to keep The Episcopalian...."

Brainstorming is good... and putting the location on the table, too -- but we must first understand what we are doing, or intend to do, that requires a specific location. We don't even know the number of staff we are talking about at this point!

I have "mixed" feelings about this.

Psychologically, it makes more emotional sense to me to have the office of the PB at our most prominent national church. Symbolically, this would be a useful thing for Episcopalians, although I am not sure how Washington would see it. I was there under the Nathan Baxter days, and we who attended at the cathedral had it made clear to us repeatedly (every Sunday) that there was no permanent congregation at the National Cathedral. It was like being in exile. I also know that a lot of tourists even today, have not the slightest idea that Washington Cathedral is denominational, much less Episcopalian. Would making it the real "seat" of TEC and the PB be harmful in a dollars-wise sense or profitable in that it might make visitor tourists think about visiting an Episcopal church in their own town?
As to the neighbors of the cathedral, I have heard this before. Wah! I would give a great deal (and would have to give more than I have) to live near the cathedral. A great deal of the "value" of their property derives from its proximity.
As to what Tobias raises, I must plead near total ignorance as to what really "happens" at 815, and I would suspect most Episcopalians in the pews would admit the same if asked. I hardly know what our own Diocesan office/bishop are doing most of the time, and we are even "FB friends." Perhaps the "Move" idea is really the cart-before-the-horse, but it needs to be considered.
BTW, I am really against some ludicrous geographic centrality. The reality is that many of the places in the nation's center are more expensive or harder to get to than the urban centers of east and west coast. Just try to fly to Iowa and compare the fare to DC (where there are three major airports) and you'll get the idea. Chicago makes some sense for Lutherans due to ethnic/immigrant identity from the 19th and early 20th century and also due to seminary/college proximities (e.g. LSTC in Chicago). I don't think it makes much Episcopal sense, although it might be cheaper than Manhattan (but probably not tremendously much).

@tobias who wrote "Historical note: The first "Episcopal Church Center" was at 281 Park Avenue South, also in Manhattan -- just up from the noted Evangelical Calvary Church. New York was chosen as mission headquarters long before the PB had an apartment and a full time job being PB." (Am I right that this was when Henry St. George Tucker became the first full time PB?)

My question is, why was New York chosen in the first place? Was it an answer to the question "What work is actually done at the HQ, and what is the best place to do it?" Or did have to do with where the rich and power Episcopalians of the time were located? I suspect the latter.

Perhaps I'm straying away from the topic, but I am intrigued with the concept of the PB as a diocesan bishop.

As to 815, I have no clue what sort of work is done from there, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I've heard that the PB herself does not spend a whole lot of time there, but I don't know if that is true.

In the electronic age, we have much more maneuverability with regard to actual physical places.

Anyway, this discussion has been quite interesting. One thing we all know is that we will have to do with less money.

June Butler

@John, Church Missions House in New York operated from 1894 -- decades before an elected PB, and very long before a full time PB, and even before the formation of what would later become the Executive Council. It was staffed by bishops, clergy and lay leaders devoted to mission, from all over the country (perhaps the most importantly Arthur Lloyd, general secretary of the Board of Missions (1899-1909) and its first President (1910). He had been elected Bishop Coadjutor of Virginia, but only served in that capacity for a year.

As to why NY? I do not think this was a "power play" but a logical choice for national and international operations in an era long before the advent of air travel. It is also no doubt a reflection of the fact that the corporation of the Episcopal Church, the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, is a NY State corporation.

Those who want to learn more of the history of mission in TEC would do well to consult Ian Douglas' "Fling Out the Banner." I think better informed discussion would ensue from a better grasp of history.

Once again the New Yorkers imagine that Chicago is some midwestern waste land. Here we go again. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but Chicago is the communication hub for the nation with two major airports, rail, shipping, highways, and everything else converging here. It is a progressive and busy city filled with foreign consulates, major industry headquarters, and the best architecture in America. It has as many resources of the urban life as New York (and truly world class cultural attractions, too).

As for connections to the UK (whatever they are worth; not much post Rowan, seriously) O'Hare airport is the hub of more than one airline and international flights are frequent and convenient. It takes about an hour longer to fly to Europe, but that is (really) meaningless. With internet connections and telephones that one hour of flying time is even less important. New York City is, in more ways than one, no nearer to Europe than Chicago.

I know that there are a few Americans with the delusion that the east coast is the center of this country. It is not. The real danger (to some) is not that the church would no longer be a few blocks from the UN or the White House or some other block of offices. It is that moving the church headquarters into the heart of the country would affirm what many Americans have known for some time: the center of gravity and culture in this country is no longer tied to the east coast and no longer tied to New York City.

We once felt compelled (through some sense of insecurity) to look to England, then we felt compelled to look to New York City. Perhaps it is time to finally look to the heart of this country and follow the good example of our friends in the Lutheran church.

Come to Chicago and see.

Dennis Roberts

As @tobias probably knows, Arthur Selden Lloyd had been elected bishop four times in other dioceses before he accepted election as coadjutor Virginia but served only 14 months before he resigned to assume the Presidency of the Board of Missions of the Episcopal Church. He served there 10 years before being elected suffragan of NY where he served 1921-1936.

Perhaps this comment belongs under the item on how elect bishops these days.

Dennis, I do not believe NY is the only place for the Church Center to be, but that is where it is. Unless there is a truly compelling reason to move it, any other location has to show itself to be not "just as good" but in fact better -- and most importantly to meet needs which are as yet unarticulated. As to travel, you can show that Chicago is "just as good" as DC or NY -- or Atlanta, for that matter: but that is no reason to move, if it isn't actually _better_ than DC or NY or Atlanta.

I keep trying to steer this discussion away from the location to the reasons to have a location, but it seems pointless to those who are fixated on location as of primary importance.

I have been to Chicago many times, and it is a lovely city. But the idea that moving the church hq there will make some kind of statement assumes such a statement needs to be made. Frankly, such a statement is very low on the church's priority list.

I assume that a financial statement would be meaningful enough?

Clearly TEC needs to address the costs of 815, to return many functions of the church HQ to the dioceses, and it should probably consider placing a smaller national staff at a location that is both geographically convenient and less expensive.

I propose Chicago as a good option, with easy access to a major airport hub. But other options in the midwest would work well, too.

And let's not pre-set the goal posts here. Moving the headquarters to a major hub in the middle of the country wouldn't be "just as good" as NYC or DC. It would be significantly better. NYC and DC aren't the standard; they are but two out of many possible cities that we could consider. Perhaps they score rather low on the list when we consider the important criteria.

The real question isn't "Why do we need to move?" It is "What is keeping us from moving outside of NYC?" With the old cultural reasons for being in NYC no longer as meaningful to the rest of the country the automatic assumption that the church would be headquartered in NYC no longer applies. We are free to find a headquarters for the church that works for the entire church. NYC is just one of many cities that would work. Yet it is no longer the center of the known universe, and the prudent thing for the church to do now is to find a location that is affordable, geographically central, and easy to reach.

And I think that this is exactly the sort of question that we need to address right now. We could spend years and years with all sorts of fun committees and commissions asking what sort of church we want to be. But for now we should probably take the responsible step and move the national headquarters to an affordable and geographically central location with access to a major airport hub.

Dennis Roberts

Speaking demographically, the "center" of TEC is east of the Mississippi -- by 2 to 1. Just what is so significant about geographical centrality? For Lutherans Chicago made demographic sense, but much less so for Episcopalians. There are more Episcopalians in just the four dioceses of New York, Long Island, Newark and New Jersey than in all of Province V! Not that most of them care where the Church HQ is... I guess I just don't see an abstract attachment to the geographical middle as a strong reason to move. Nothing is "keeping us from moving" other than the lack of a good reason to move -- and geography is not a good reason.

If it is a question just of the finances, as I said above, moving to the South Bronx would be even cheaper than Chicago, and closer to LaGuardia. Cheapest of all is simply downsizing the staff and leasing out more of the building to other tenants. The real question shouldn't be about moving but about the work of the church and its hq -- maybe we don't need one at all!

While it's tempting to recommend using a facility here in VA, where we have a high percentage of Episcopalians and plenty of empty real estate, it seems like Jesus would have had a good bit of fun in plopping HQ down in an underprivileged area where we could actually do some good. And in the present economic downturn, we'd have plenty of places from which to choose.

Eric Bonetti

I think Tobias is right that an important conversation to have is to decide what exactly we want a church-wide staff to do. But the reason I started this commentary with the suggestion to move to Chicago isn't because I think Chicago is inherently better than NYC or to make some kind of statement about moving away from the seat of the cultural establishment or some such. It is because that's where the ELCA is.

It seems to me that the future of Mainline Christianity in America is going to include a lot more (A LOT MORE) ecumenical cooperation. Therefore it makes sense (to me) to move to Chicago to begin to facilitate a conversation with our communion partners here in America about what combining some of HQ efforts together.

Such a move would also give us alot of flexibility as not owning property allows us the ability to more easily expand or contract our HQ as needed.

I think there's a lot of potential in our communion relationships with the Lutherans (who are twice as big as us btw) and the Moravians as well as the emerging relationship with the UMC. There is a great deal more potential for spreading the Gospel in our context in these partnerships than we currently are taking advantage of.

Jon White

Jon, I noted that point about ELCA, but it requires further examination. First, and most importantly, most of the work TEC does in conjunction with ELCA is not at the national level: Called to Common Mission was primarily geared to address mission needs in the field, and allow Lutheran and Episcopal Clergy to be interchangeable in congregational settings. (I do a number of things with my Lutheran neighbor!) But we are not geared to merging programs at a national level.

When it comes to international, it's likely important to note that Lutheran World Relief has its offices in Baltimore MD, with a branch in Minneapolis. A "natural" cooperation between ERD and LWS does not necessitate being in the same building.

It should also be noted -- forgive me for flogging history again -- but the creation of the "God Box" for offices of churches participating in the NCC was intended to include TEC -- but we dropped out to build our own building... Perhaps we should have thought ahead back then. But now that the Lutheran's left NYC, we at least have a number of other mainline churches who still have their offices there.