Wait a second, wait a second! Morning prayer IS a liturgy! To do without the Eucharist every week is not to do without worship or liturgy. (Speaking as a priest myself.)

Laura Toepfer

Wait another second, Morning Prayer was never intended to be the principle service of Sunday mornings. The CofE never had Morning Prayer as a substitute for Eucharist. Supplement-yes, substitute-no.

I'm with Derek on this one. Good liturgy does not mean exhausting liturgy. I'm the 1/2 time priest-in-charge of a traditionally Anglo-Catholic congregation. Preparing for liturgy is a shared ministry which undergirds everything else we do in Christ's name. What's key is right sizing ministry not just indiscriminately eliminating that which feeds us.

Whoa, there. One of the things that's attracting me to the Episcopal Church is its return to the ancient perspective of the Eucharist being normative Sunday worship and the root of the Church's identity and being, a la 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. Stepping away from that is taking a step backwards. Why starve ourselves by limiting how often we eat the food Christ Jesus provided for us? The Episcopal church I attend in a small Southern college town manages quite well to feed at the Lord's table weekly and feed the poor in the neighborhood just as often, if not more -- with three presbyters and plenty of lay ministers on board. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water in a panic over declining membership that's affecting virtually every religious group in America.

The church in the West US grew without Eucharist every Sunday -- clergy came around a few times a year, baptized and held Eucharist. Dedicated women grew the church with Sunday school and laymen (yes-the way it was) read MP. Good worship does not require Eucharist - sometimes congregations with welcoming coffee hour has a better chance of growing than a having a priest who has no passion leading HE.
Not that it is either or - but don't knock the power of Morning Prayer unless you have experienced it -- our church in my youth had MP 3 Sundays a month and we did just fine.

Let me clarify: my main objection here is the suggestion that I read in this post that "Eucharist" and "liturgy" are interchangeable.

I am also speaking from the experience of spending an extended period of time in Uganda where the Church of Uganda still worships on the Eucharist once a month model--and that's in parishes that are rife with priests. Believe me, I missed the Eucharist hugely, and I am all in favor of the recovery of the Eucharist, but in light of both pragmatism and the normative Anglican experience worldwide, I think Morning Prayer is an alternative worth considering.

Laura Toepfer

With all due respect, Ann, that was then and this is now. For over 30 years, Eucharist has been the normative Sunday worship experience for Episcopalians. Going back to receiving Communion once a month would not be acceptable to a significant segment of our membership.

As an Anglo-Catholic who says the Daily Office regularly, I have a great love for that liturgy; however, it is not a substitute for Holy Eucharist. Small churches can find creative ways to share clergy, offer Eucharist from reserved sacrament, and continue to nourish themselves on Sundays with the Word and Sacrament.

Sorry Anjel - but there are still churches that are thriving on occasional Eucharist. Reserved sacrament is not for distribution by laity -- most bishops were very clear about that when the canons on LEMs were written.

Of course I like Eucharist but I am a priest.

But much else is up for grabs.

Yes. Either we move forward with change, or change will be forced upon us. Wouldn't it be better to be proactive and take charge of the change?

And I like LKT's reminder that "liturgy" is not synonymous with "Eucharist".

All the silk and lace and incense is lovely, but I sometimes wonder what Jesus would make of the high church liturgies. Of course, what matters is in the heart as we worship God, but liturgies can be both beautiful and simple, as well as beautiful and elaborate.

I speak as one who is especially fond of eucharistic liturgies, but I believe we would do well to try out more frequent services of Morning Prayer on Sunday. One other plus in favor of Morning Prayer is that all are welcome to participate fully in the entire service.

June Butler

Laura, I am actually aware that Morning Prayer is a liturgy.

I, for one, was not using "Eucharist" as being interchangeable with "liturgy." What I saw in Mary Anne's comments as a whole--not just the MP on Sundays suggestion--was the notion that the church is wasting its time, money and volunteer hours on "beautiful rituals" instead of the stuff that "really matters."

I find that very problematic. As I see it, all of the Good Stuff that the church is and should be doing flows out of our connection with God. One of the things that is distinctive about Anglicans is our belief that the common liturgical worship of the community is one of the most important ways that we encounter and experience God. To suggest that we lessen our liturgical activities--Mass and Office alike--seems to me the wrong way to go about it.

I am so hopeful with Mary Anne's post - particularly how she wraps up:

What if we concentrated a little less on our beautiful rituals and more on feeding hungry people? What is we finally listened to the laity that we have been educating all these years through EFM, Via Media, and Bible study?

Feeding hungry people, listening for the Spirit of God and asking if we can join in - this is transformational work in the world we live in.

My own 2 cents - the Church is not likely to be revitalized by more worship services, by drawing lines of Eucharist vs. no Eucharist. Our call is to be a faith expression within culture not in a parallel 'Christian' culture,

Far too often, Eucharist or full-time clergy arguments consume all the oxygen in the room, distracting us from the glorious work we are called to.

@Derek: thank you for the clarification and my apologies for any offense.

The Self We Share

Thirst is angry with water. Hunger bitter
with bread.The cave wants nothing to do

with the sun. This is dumb, the self-
defeating way we've been. A gold mine is

calling us into its temple. Instead, we
bend and keep picking up rocks from the

ground. Every thing has a shine like gold,
but we should turn to the source! The

origin is what we truly are. I add a little
vinegar to the honey I give. The bite of

scolding makes ecstasy more familiar. But
look, fish, you're already in the ocean:

just swimming there makes you friends with
glory. What are these grudges about? You

are Benjamin. Joseph has put a gold cup
in your grain sack and accused you of being

a thief. Now he draws you aside and says,
"You are my brother. I am a prayer. You're

the amen." We move in eternal regions, yet
worry about property here. This is the

prayer of each: You are the source of my
life. You separate essence from mud. You

honor my soul. You bring rivers from the
mountain springs. You brighten my eyes. The

wine you offer takes me out of myself into
the self we share. Doing that is religion.

From The Glance
by Coleman Barks

Children, children - the strength of the Episcopal church is in the laity and the priest exchange, dance as Rumi would probably teach, building each other up, encouraging each other, priests moving laity out of the pews into ministry with strong understanding of theology, laity supporting the priests in their calling, and this naturally overflows into our lives, our communities, other denominations and faiths, social actions and social justice. We don't have a corner on the market, but we must work, pray, act together in Christ, our center and our savior.

Janet, ObJN

What is probably up for grabs is a paid clergy class. Questions about who needs to be paid to make the church work for the most people could be asked.

Wait, wait. Is the lead writer suggesting that beautiful liturgy requires expensive "accoutrements" and a full-time priest? A congregation can have beautiful liturgy with a part-time priest and no deacon or LEM, the simplest adornments around the altar, the simplest flowers. The language of the BCP is beautiful in itself. Personally I favor music well sung--even unaccompanied--but it can be sung well by a congregation that has the habit of singing. (This can be cultivated.) It's not a pageant, after all. It's worship. Consider our small and medium sized parishes in rural areas and shore towns and small cities where worship is done well by part-time and circuit-riding priests, with the help of lay persons, including kids. I write this as a busy lay person (former choir member, Sunday school teacher, LEM/LEV, sr. warden) and now a postulant and part-time seminarian, who anticipates being bi-vocational. I cannot conceive of pastoral care without also weekly Eucharist--Jesus said, "Feed my sheep." Now the experienced among you can smile at my naivete.

The way I am reading the articles and the comments is that there is an either/or thing going on. Either (Eucharistic) liturgy or one of the points by Mary Anne. But perhaps a both/and perspective is needed. Why can we not have both, it will mean changes but I think all aspects of church ministry are important.

What is probably up for grabs is a paid clergy class.

Yes. All too often in smaller parishes, the money is just not there to pay a full time priest.

June Butler

As I said on the thread below (in response to Mary Anne Chesarek), Sunday Eucharist is non-negotiable to me (I would leave for the ELCA if the local TEC parish didn't have a Sunday Eucharist. Frankly, I would consider lay presidency if that were the ONLY way to have my Sunday Meal o' Jesus).

The sunk/continuing costs of property is a stickier wicket. I get that we'd "run faster" w/o them. But I also love the beauty (mostly) of TEC's ecclesial worship spaces. My parish back in Michigan used to Wed evening "house eucharists" in the summer. They were great...but no substitute for our sanctuary {Sigh}

JC Fisher

OK, I'll take the bait. Yes, I'm an academically-trained priest, but I spent the first 45 years of my life on the other side of the altar rail (and long after getting all of my academic credentials). And tonight, I spent four hours cooking macaroni and washing dishes for a meal for the homeless.

This can't become a debate between lay and clergy. It can be a debate about the allocation of resources, in which case, difficult questions are going to arise. For example, my parish's diocesan assessment is roughly the same as the draw on our endowment, and prevents us from doing mission and ministry in our community in the ways we might otherwise.

The debate cannot be over whether there should be weekly Eucharist or if Morning Prayer is enough, or whether we need educated priests. The question has to be whether the Anglican tradition has a unique witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ that merits a hearing in the 21st century. Other Christian traditions, and non-denominational churches do what they do, for better or worse. If we have something we believe offers a unique voice, a unique message, we need to proclaim it.

It so happens I think we do. Our charism as a tradition is the beauty of our worship and a reflective, thoughtful approach to questions of faith. That may not have mass appeal, but I was drawn into the Episcopal Church by those two things twenty years ago and in my experience, they are what continue to attract newcomers in large numbers.

Perhaps the other thing to do is to say: "How can we make the most of the clergy and buildings we have?" We're a denomination that values educated clergy and beautiful sacred spaces. We're not a denomination that allows someone to send off for a 5-minute ordination certificate or study a couple of books and then proclaim himself or herself a pastor. That simply isn't who we are. We can bemoan that or we can work with it. If you want to go to a church with a barely educated pastor in a shack with a poorly tuned piano or $200 keyboard, look elsewhere.

Rather than firing the full-time priest and/or selling the building, how about we figure out ways of actually using clergy and buildings more effectively?

First, clergy. We pay clergy to do a substantial number of things that could easily be done by a (likely less expensive or volunteer) lay person. There's administration (finance, etc...) up the wazoo, for example. There are property issues (Do you really need a priest to fix a toilet?). There are all kinds of things that fall more into the category of "business owner" than priest. If you get some time freed up in a priest's schedule, then what do you want him or her to do with that? Thinking a little more creatively in this area might help. I've heard that one essentially needs clergy for the ABCs--Absolve (people of their sins), Bless (in God's name), and Consecrate (elements for communion). What if we reinterpreted that to see pastoral care as the absolving part (not that laity can't do it, but sometimes the collar is helpful), enabling ministry by motivated and excited laity as the blessing part (bless a program, initiative, or person and see what happens), and our worship (word and table) as the consecrating part? Anything that doesn't fit into the healing, equipping, or feeding (spiritually and physically) parts can be someone else's job.

Second, buildings. Yes, if the building is crippling the congregation, by all means sell it and move on. This is what I think should have happened in a few ACNA cases--just agree on a selling price for the building, sell it, and invest the proceeds in some other congregation or congregations rather than expecting the dozen or so remaining people to support a huge building. However, in this age where community centers and libraries are substantially cutting their hours if not closing altogether, our buildings may be the last "centers" that communities have left. Why not take advantage of that do so something new in mission and ministry? Can we host exercise classes? Be places for neighborhood groups? Even have non-profit coffee houses with free wi-fi for folks to come and talk without feeling like they need to spend $7.50 on a cup of coffee? As far as our church buildings themselves go, how about doing liturgies that celebrate particular vocations (emergency personnel, doctors and nurses, retail workers, etc...) and invite people with those jobs? We have a rich history of blessing just about anything--let's use it!

Finally, one really needs to take a hard, realistic look at the level of pledging in a congregation. There are some folks who are giving sacrificially, but I suspect there are many parishes where people are literally paying for what they can see--a priest on Sunday morning in a nice building--and not really seeing the church as the primary agent for mission and ministry in the world. If you simply shrink to support your shrinking budget, you have a race to the bottom in the church. There was an old saying that Baptists needed only 10 people to start a church, because 10 people tithing would equal a pastor's salary and building rent. As an Episcopal Church, why do we need 100 people just to pay for a priest and a building?

So, again, rather than dumping the assets we have, why not figure out a way to better use them for mission and ministry?

Thanks, Tom. As usual, spot on.

I think the main problem with this discussion is that too many of our problems are unique to the local situation. I know one story of three congregations in upstate New York which sold their historic buildings to merge and form a now thriving parish in a new structure. If you took a good look a those old structures, you would understand their decision. I also know of a Methodist church in Mississippi which makes very good use of their ample facilities to serve the wider community. That building was in use 24/7 to collect supplies and organize volunteers for Katrina relief efforts, as well as serving as a refugee center. We should all be as effective in using our facilities in ministry and outreach. Different circumstances, different needs, different solutions.

As we oppose our ideas, let's be specific about how unique they are to a particular problem or opportunity. I don't think the answer comes in one size fits all.

Given the shifting demographics of TEC, change is coming, like it or not. And, if we embrace it appropriately, change is, I believe, part of the divine plan and thus inherently good.

Liturgy is without a doubt important. We are a liturgical church, and our ability to communicate the divine in this manner never fails to inspire me.

That said, the role of liturgy is one of balance and perspective. Worship is, by definition, always of value, but if it comes to a beautiful church or feeding those in need, I suspect and hope the latter will win every time.

Eric Bonetti

I think we have a great opportunity, now that belonging to any church is no longer normative in the US, to become a missional church. By that I don't mean focusing on church growth, but on focusing on the work of all our members in the world. We cannot return to the days when TEC was part of the establishment. If there is anything like established religion in the US, it is evangelicalism. Freed from the burden of de facto establishment, we can engage in risky and exciting ministry, but that will probably require letting go of old patterns of employment, perhaps even having bishops who serve parishes as well.

See the item from Padre Alberto Cutié and this essay for the church. Fully 1/3 of our congregation at St.Catherine/Santa Catalina are of Mexican heritage.

I'm struck by how many of the comments above begin with "Wait, wait..." "Hold on a second." "Whoa..."

Yep, that's our problem. Unwillingness to ask the hard questions and make changes for the future...

In my opinion, one of the really important things that we need to do is to come to clarity on the specific roles of bishops, priests, deacons, and laypeople.

We still operate largely on the model that clergy are "professional Christians" whom laypeople pay to do the "Christian stuff" that they/we don't get around to. In the environment we're moving into that's not going to cut it.

Look at the ordination service. The distinctive roles of priests--that is, what makes them distinct from laypeople--is that they are set apart for the sacraments and preaching. Apart from those things, everything else also falls within the purview of the laity--things like mission, evangelism, spiritual care and comfort inside and outside the congregation, teaching, etc. We need to either keep doing these things or get to doing them.

There is no need to urge the need for change on the Episcopal Church. We have been covered with change for the past 30 years.

The problem has been HOW WE ACCOMPLISH CHANGE.

In making the changes at a high level and in a universal fashion, we maximize the chaotic consequence.

I would suggest that it is foolish to debate changes aimed at local evangelization on a national level. If the problem was deployment of missionaries overseas, the national level would be an appropriate place for the conversation.

When the problem is people in the pew, the resources and authority to make change should be as close to the pew as possible.

Hoss Gwin,speaking as a Bi-Vo Priest, myself.

We live in a world where we are constantly pressed to be "doing" rather than "being". Sell all the buildings and feed the poor! Keep doing more!

And clearly, more needs to be done. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

With relentless focus on outreach and mission, you may forget to nurture those you have. And you run the risk of burning them out. Volunteer-based organizations can be ravenous in using up people, leaving them exhausted and resentful.

Surely there is an important need for rest and reflection, too.

Seems to me that the liturgical function of the church is critical not only to bring together and build the community, but to allow restoration and recharging of its members. Those run ragged by their weekday jobs can find some healing in the tranquility and rhythm of Sunday mornings, and those battered by the ugliness outside can find some healing in the beauty of music and incense.

After all, even I do....

Susan Forsburg

Hi Susan. Good points.

I suspect part of the issue is asnwering the questions, "What are we called to be in the future? What is our role in society?"

Once those questions are answered, we may well find that we do less, but in a more targeted way. If nothing else, the aging demographics of the church and society as a whole suggest both that the needs we serve and the church's finances will change preciptiously over the coming years. And that's okay--the end of the baby boom effects all of society, not just us. But to paraphrase the old saying, "If we don't know where we are headed, that's exactly where we will wind up."

PS Apologies for forgetting my signature on the above post.

Eric Bonetti

Its not so much about change, there is always change - but how we decide to live as a Church. I always think of a story from William Stringfellow...

St. Anne's-by-the Sea - Block Is. After the congregation was first organized, a small building, featuring a sanctuary, was
constructed. The congregation flourished for many years "until the great hurricane of 1938, which was devastating for Block Island. In that storm, St. Ann's-by-the-Sea literally blew away. Ever since, island wags have referred to it as St. Anne's-in-the-Sea. The congregation remained moribund in the aftermath of this hurricane, which, after all, was officially designated as 'an act of God'."

Then, during Stringfellow's tenure on the island, St. Ann's started to revive. Initially, people started meeting in each other's homes, reciting the daily offices, celebrating communion, doing Bible study, and discussing the news on Block Island and in the world. Free of the encumbrances of institutional life, it attracted more and more people, until, finally, it gathered the attention, once again, of the Episcopal church. It wasn't long before a priest was visiting weekly and plans were underway to rebuild St. Anne's-by-the-Sea.

"That may have been a fatal decision. Since then, the congregation has been canonically recognized as a mission of the Diocese of Rhode Island, the traditional polity for missions has been instituted, and, predictably, the sentiment for rebuilding has steadily increased. We do not do Bible study any more; we do not seriously consider the mission of the Church in the world, including Block Island; we seldom ask any ecumenical questions. We are into raising money, which we will likely spend to embellish the social life of Episcopalians and their kindred in the summer colony. Has anyone ever heard this story about the Church before?"
- William Stringfellow, A Simplicity of Faith, 1982, pp. 100-103

Have we lost sight of our mission? or can we still accomplish it through our buildings and clergy and people?

Rev. Kurt Huber
St. Peter's, Monroe

Why go to church? Some answers here.

"Seems to me that the liturgical function of the church is critical not only to bring together and build the community, but to allow restoration and recharging of its members. Those run ragged by their weekday jobs can find some healing in the tranquility and rhythm of Sunday mornings, and those battered by the ugliness outside can find some healing in the beauty of music and incense."

That's exactly right, Susan, from my point of view. Thanks.

One thought about Morning Prayer vs. Eucharist is that it helps us address the so-called "open communion" question or communion with the unbaptized. If we weren't having Eucharist every Sunday, this might not be as much of an issue. At least, we might be able to find time to talk about something else.

Morning Prayer is also thought to allow for a longer sermon that can really teach people in an evangelistic way, certainly much more than the 10-minute things I hear most Sundays. In an era when Christian public in the broader public is abysmal, that seems kind of exciting to me.

-Jesse Zink

"To What Purpose?," I ask in all innocence and humility.

I've read everything posted, agree with some of it, question other parts... but what I'm not seeing is clarity of purpose. Is the object to prevent more fall-off in membership and attendance? Is it to satisfy those who look upon thriving "competitors" with envy? Is it to attract families and individuals into TEC? Is it all of those?

Liturgy has arisen as a point of debate; even been defined. But are TEC's thriving "competitors" actually providing the enlightening security of the traditional liturgy to congregants, or are they staging entertainment for spectators?

It's a vitally important question: Need we waste time debating the need for priests when the whole argument really hinges upon someone else staging full-theater, surround-sound, stage-lit, professionally choreographed, symphonic "services" which no cleric in the history of Christianity would recognize? And, not to hone the point too finely, but isn't jealousy of RC and Anglican ceremonial the real reason for all the 'whoop-di-doo' being included at such events in the first place?

"Feed the hungry and minister to the poor" are obviously what TEC should be doing - and does! But we're not looking at a handful of Apostles cheerily offering bread and fish to a hillside gathering. We're looking at billions of people around the world and what they need cannot be provided through a charmingly Victorian notion of charity in the form of a small-but-noble storefront church.

Help your neighbourhood, of course! And more of that would indeed by very, very good! But reducing TEC to helplessness obviously isn't going to help anyone except those who dislike TEC and ill-wish it... and yes, such people do exist.

MP versus HE? Is that even a question, really? Why not just run buses to the nearest RC church? Wouldn't that be even easier? The reason for pitching a roof over the patch of ground where the Lord's Table is located is specifically because the Lord's Table is located there. MP never was, isn't, and never will be a "substitute" for the Holy Eucharist which is the very foundation of the church.

If one doesn't wish to join in communion, the "spiritual but not religious" have loads of room to accommodate one more... no idea where... they don't have churches. For TEC to attempt to cater to those folks, however, is just plain silly.

In each point raised so far, I hear the same echo, and quite bluntly, that echo's the real root of TEC's problems.

That echo is, "Closed! Not welcome!"

*Footnote: The first person to exclaim, "B-but what about our position on GLBT!," will serve as an example of why that echo just won't go away: Not everything in this universe is centered entirely upon personal sexual preferences, and TEC needs to snap out of its' fixation upon them. Nobody cares except those who seemingly can't get through a single minute without harping on them; it's their "theme," not any church's. Let it go.

It's peculiar and perverse that parishes which can be as welcoming as TEC's are hidden under the bushel of TEC's "larger" disputes... which absorb all light, heat and oxygen, allow no church growth, little parish security, and few future hopes for ordinary people to invest their time, resources and heartfelt belief in supporting. It's unfair to TEC's parishes, and it should stop now, before TEC is lost.

The common denominator in all cases of thriving churches versus those which are dying is: enthusiasm, love of worship, desire to pray; ENJOYMENT! Not surprisingly, people enjoy being where they are welcomed, embraced, kept in close contact, supported... an ALIVE church... which, incidentally, exemplifies our eternal life in Christ.

That's what TEC isn't offering, and listening to TEC's members arguing about cutting services, curtailing events, and abandoning facilities is like listening to teenagers chatting about suicide: depressing.

Jonathan Greiser, Hoss Gwin, Tom Srarnek and others have offered suggestions worthy of consideration - but needing people - the lack of whom is TEC's bottom-line problem.

Perhaps - instead of firing priests, laying off parish communications secretaries, curtailing services, and moaning about having real estate to moan about - risk-averse corporate church execs, titular-only hands-off bishops, and people at HQ who promulgate such debates as this one need a long, unpaid "Curial Retreat." Then, priests, parish secretaries and volunteers might see a green light to increase membership by taking down the "Closed! Not welcome! Go away! We're busy arguing!," signs which are emptying TEC today, and hang up new signs: "Open All Hours! HE Every Day! Please JOIN US! We WANT you!" The messages that TEC is simply NOT sending out, now.

It would work, it would be very nice for all concerned, and I venture to note that God and Christ would surely like it better than circular, depressing arguments and pitches by "church reorganization" salesmen and the like, which are currently occupying space without paying rent.

Maybe that's just me.

Yet still, I hope and pray that it's not.

Blessings!
Rev. CW Brockenbrough

Whereas the whole people of God are supposed to be the church, it seems as if those who are not ordained to the priesthood are portrayed as helpless beings in need of leadership by either full-time or shared priests. A parish lacking a full-time priest or even a so-called supply priest need not be viewed as defective in any way. An advantage of morning prayer is that one need not be ordained to lead it. Ideally, both morning prayer and eucharist should be celebrated. Calling in a supply priest to celebrate the eucharist for the congregation may be yet another way of infantilizing those who are not ordained.

The people have a right to the eucharist and should be able to, with the approval of the bishop, appoint someone to preside at the eucharist.

I think the story from William Stringfellow shows that the people do better when they take care of each other rather than waiting for ordained priests to do everything for them, killing initiative.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Although I love the tradition of weekly Eucharist, there is something to be said for the other offices, including Morning Prayer. They empower the laity. Any lay person is fully capable of leading Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer or Compline. One church I attended had a daily Evening Prayer service led entirely by laity. The Rite II Morning Prayer service in the current prayer book is a marvelous service, but I have never seen it used.

*Footnote: The first person to exclaim, "B-but what about our position on GLBT!,"

And here, you lost me completely and utterly.

I'm sure that makes me your "first person", Rev CW (ah, so "Cyberia Rune" WAS a pen name). But ***my life*** isn't just "personal sexual preferences", and I'll be glad for you to spare me your superior attitude.

"Nobody cares except..." those who know the GOSPEL is deformed w/o including all the sacraments for all the baptized (thank you, CTB). Including ALL the Imago Dei is FOUNDATIONAL, to every bit of the TEC brainstorming we're doing on this thread. Gnats&Camels.

JC Fisher

The people have a right to the eucharist and should be able to, with the approval of the bishop, appoint someone to preside at the eucharist.

Gary, we already have such a process--it's called "ordination"...

Paul,
I'd love to see public offices offered more. And yes, offering public offices is a way to both empower the laity and energize parish life. Rite II Morning and Evening Prayer are delightful public Offices and I have heard them quite often in our churches, preeminently in my time at St Mary the Virgin, Times Square.

I am surrounded by the sort of churches that Mary Anne seems to be pining for in her post, and they have United Methodist written all over them.

It is very discouraging to see Episcopalians who for some reason value their affiliation, in other words enjoy being called "Episcopalian", yet are disinterested in or hostile to those things that are bone deep sensory markers of Episcopal identity, things thatt empower us far beyond even words on a page. These folks will kill a church real fast.

I wholeheartedly agree with those who would take seriously the task of strengthening our grasp of what the various orders of ministry are really all about. If you don't think the services of an ordered priest are important enough to get one in your community every week as the ideal, how does that make you different than a Methodist? Maybe there are a large number of crypto-Methodists in our pews who are tired of playing fancy church in a pretty building, because that is all it means to them, and when that is all it means, you do get tired of it and want something different. And when your regular churchgoer gets a whiff of this attitude from the leadership and/or the loudest voices in the parish and/or the Church at large, there is a gnawing feeling of being associated with something ultimately inauthentic in some way, and people leave. There you have it.

I am surrounded by the sort of churches that Mary Anne seems to be pining for in her post, and they have United Methodist written all over them.

It is very discouraging to see Episcopalians who for some reason value their affiliation, in other words enjoy being called "Episcopalian", yet are disinterested in or hostile to those things that are bone deep sensory markers of Episcopal identity, things thatt empower us far beyond even words on a page. These folks will kill a church real fast.

I wholeheartedly agree with those who would take seriously the task of strengthening our grasp of what the various orders of ministry are really all about. If you don't think the services of an ordered priest are important enough to get one in your community every week as the ideal, how does that make you different than a Methodist? Maybe there are a large number of crypto-Methodists in our pews who are tired of playing fancy church in a pretty building, because that is all it means to them, and when that is all it means, you do get tired of it and want something different. And when your regular churchgoer gets a whiff of this attitude from the leadership and/or the loudest voices in the parish and/or the Church at large, there is a gnawing feeling of being associated with something ultimately inauthentic in some way, and people leave. There you have it.

Derek, I was thinking of Saint Mary the Virgin, Times Square, when I said that ideally the daily office and eucharist should be celebrated. In the 1990s when I went to Saint Mary's for weekday liturgy (the priest then said never to use the word "service"), I would take in both evening prayer (with its own scripture readings) and Mass (with eucharistic readings).

Saint Mary's offered both. At noon they had the noonday office before Mass and I seem to remember they had morning prayer before Mass in the morning.

Gary Paul Gilbert

For the record, I love TEC's liturgy and weekly Eucharist is a large part of my spiritual life. What drew me to TEC was the beautiful and meaningful Eucharist, as well as my school's daily Morning Prayer, led entirely by laity (teen-aged girls, to be exact.) If your parish has an ASA of 300, then have all the smells and bells, paid choristers, and elegant liturgical garments you desire. But in my parish (the larger of 2 in this county) the ASA is about 50 and our diocesan support is decreasing each year.

The challenge is, how do we remain Episcopalian in our belief and practice with dwindling financial resources? We have a full-time priest now, but we may not in the future. If we define corporate worship as something only a priest can lead, some congregations will die. What makes us Episcopalians? Is it the via media, the three-legged stool, and the varied and rich worship forms in the BCP, or is it an Anglo-Catholic service?

BY the way, the person who thinks I yearn to be a Methodist might look to the Methodist history of growth and community service led by circuit-riding pastors and a lively laity. Could we learn from them?

Mary Anne Chesarek

Dear Mary Anne,As far as I am concerned, if people use the Prayer Book they are Episcopal. It depends on their resources. If the eucharist is not possible for different reasons, then I don't think there is anything wrong with the people gathering to do the daily office. The nonRoman Catholic tradition is not just about Mass but also the daily office, led by the nonordained. Traditions evolve.

People use the tools they have at their disposal. There is no point in criticizing other denominations for what they don't have that we have. I agree that one could learn from the Methodists, as from many other traditions. The joke about Anglicans in ecumenical circles is the Anglican representative goes to each tradition and says, "Yes, yes, yes!," affirming all that is good in each one.

I wish your congregation well.

Gary Paul Gilbert

A few responses and comments from a 20-something convert layman, late though they may be:

"...the increasingly less relevant Anglican Church in North America..."

I am no cheerleader of the so-called 'Anglican Church in North America', but it strikes me that if they are increasingly less relevant, it is only because we Episcopalians are less relevant. I believe, for better or for worse, our fates are bound up together however much venom may fly back and forth. Live together or die together and all that...

"Some bishops will not allow the rite to be used in their diocese, raising an interesting question that won’t be immediately addressed by the church, about whether bishops should be allowed this kind of discretion."

I am not only a layman, but also new to this site. Perhaps this sort of thinking is common here, but this only struck me as odd. We are, after all, still the Episcopal ("bishop led") church. We believe, so I understand, in the Episcopate as the apostolic & catholic way of church order and governance. We believe it so strongly (presumably) that we named ourselves after this tradition of church order and authority. There are plenty of venerable traditions and denominations where the laity "run the roost" so to speak... Congregational, Unitarian, Baptist,etc., etc. I am in no way suggesting anyone should be shown the door... it just seems almost silly, as Episcopalians, to wonder if Bishops should have great authority. A bit like becoming a Baptist and arguing for infant baptism or becoming a Unitarian and arguing for a fundamentalist reading of scripture.

"Restructuring is necessary. It is also perilous."

Well said. Such a move at such a time seems to me unwise. Much of this thread is devoted to what a dysfunctional church and institution we are right now, and hoping that the sort of dysfunction we are dealing with will some how produce clarity and wisdom in a restructuring convention seems overly optimistic. Then again, we are Christians. We can always hope.

"We will understand with deeper urgency that if we don’t attract more people to the Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church will wither and die."

Again, right on. However other commenters may try to parse the words, the idea is spot on. My two cents on a strategy for attracting more people:

1. Worshiping God in the Great Tradition of the Church
2. Making committed, pious, thoughtful, and faithful disciples through study of the Scriptures, the Church Fathers & Mothers, and the Anglican Divines and the practice of the classic spiritual disciplines of the church
3. Serving the poor, the marginalized, the ill treated, and the hopeless
4. Actual Evangelism! Not: "hey come to my church... we're really inclusive." Good, old-fashioned Jesus is the Lord and Savior of the world evangelism (Yes, I know I sound like a fundamentalist right now).

I won't re-quote the last paragraph, but it is a real winner. Well said.

I'll only add one more thing, I have enjoyed the comments and discussion here, but there was one comment posted by the Rev. Susan Russell that really stuck out to me:

"...my 'cringing' comes when we forget ...that Jesus never told us to worship him ... he called us to follow him."

Jim, I almost took issue with your seeming dismissal and demeaning of seminary education. However, if this is the sort of statement we can expect seminary educations to produce, then perhaps I begin to see your point.

Rev. Russell, I do not disagree that following Jesus is one of the preeminent occupations of all Christians, but to play that off against the worship of Jesus is unhelpful and perhaps dangerous. I hope I misunderstand, and that you do not actually mean to insinuate that we should not worship Jesus or that such worship is secondary or unimportant. If that is in fact what you do mean, one can only wonder what you are doing in Holy Orders.

Jason ... If you haven't yet read Verna Dozier's "The Dream of God" then I recommend it highly. Dr. Dozier eloquently indicts the church for falling short of living into God's dream by settling for worshipping Jesus and failing to follow him. The comment, in context, was in reference to the mission of the church.

Here's a quote:

"The people of God are called to a possibility other than the kingdoms of the world. They must be ambassadors—again, St. Paul’s word—to every part of life. They witness to another way that governments can relate to one another, that money can be earned and spent, that doctors and care-givers and engineers and lawyers and teachers can serve their constituencies, that wordsmiths and musicians and artists and philosophers can give us new visions of the human condition. That is the ministry of the laity.
All of them need the support system of the institutional church. There must be those resting places where the story is treasured and passed on in liturgy and education. There must be those islands of refuge where the wounded find healing; the confused, light; the fearful, courage, the lonely, community; the alienated, acceptance; the strong, gratitude. Maintaining such institutions is the ministry of the clergy.

We have all failed the dream of God. The terribly patient God still waits."

And that's what I'm doing in Holy Orders. Thanks for asking.

Susan Russell

I love the conversation and believe deeply in its importance. I also fear for our defensive posture and risk-averse nature. I have two thoughts. Tim Keller's The Prodigal God wonderfully illustrates humanity's seperation into younger brothers in need of experience, freedom, risk, and failure. And the older brothers, who are stable, committed, refuse risk, and are deeply committed to "fairness" with their sibling. It is worth watching and reading. It applies here in a very important way: we have long relied heavily on our "older brothers" to maintain the farm. They, in turn, perhaps unintentionally, reject forgiveness of the "younger brothers". Not directly (usually), mind you. But systemically. We take it as a given that we are the inheritors of this (seemingly) unchanging liturgy and dare not be influenced by our adventurous siblings. This is delightfully apt when we see our pews filled with older members who so closely resemble the older brother in such a literal way and those Gen Xers as myself have a very different experience of life of church and of participation.

I commend to anybody still reading this thread an awesome blog post by Nadia Bolz-Weber about the challenge in her church's search for worship space: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nadiabolzweber/2012/01/the-problem-with-pews/
It speaks my precise sentiments.

Drew Downs

I think it´s sad that this thread has devolved into whether the Eucharist is necessary every week. That´s a no-brainer. As a volunteer supply priest, I lead a congregation of about 30 immigrants. We make Eucharist every Sunday. It takes me 2-3 (sometimes 4) hrs. a week to do pastoral care, plan & lead the liturgy, and occasionally appear at a social justice event. Alas, we have no deacon, and really need one. That will be our first paid cleric, when the time comes, not me. I rarely go to meetings.

Let´s talk about real reform, depending on answers to questions like, What is the church supposed to be like? What could we do to get arrested at least, if not tortured? What are the causes of suffering and death (yes, death) in our neighborhoods? What should we do about them? How can our eating together every week show forth a different kind of world?

I have been pondering Jim´s original post about the need for reform for several days, and just posted something like the following there. But since it has moved here, I´ll post it here as well.
The question is not whether we are not growing, but why. The simplistic answer is that we might not, after all, be so evidently the living, breathing Body of Christ. Instead, we are trapped in a series of self-fulfilling and self-referential habits of thought, feelings and manners that prevent that question from being answered.

These, IMO, may be summed up as the following operating principles:

1. The Church is a business--NOT.
It is free. "...for it has PLEASED GOD to GIVE you the Kingdom." Clergy do not get a salary. They get a stipend if they don´t have trust funds (and must work so many hours a week to stay alive).

2. The clergy are "helping professionals" --NOT.
We are ritual technologists and psychopomps. (That´s NOT a pompous psycho!)

3. "People are naturally Christian" --NOT.
Blame Adam and Eve. Humans need to learn how to be Christian. We are not born that way, naturally watching out for the abused and oppressed. TEC sucks at forming new Christians. RC´s and ELCA are ahead of us.

4. We don´t need intellectual seminary training. NOT.
We sure do! Intellectuals are few and far between. My God, it´s prophetic to be an intellectual in this country! We don´t want to go the way of the evangelical right. What we might not need is a priest for every congregation of 50 people.

5. "Natural leaders make natural priests" NOT without training. The "Noble Savage" is dead.

6. "The Kingdom of God is God´s dominion over my heart, a spiritual reality" NOT.
It is that new world of truth telling, justice, peace and love that we ask for in the Our Father. We are not going there. It´s coming to us, --or so we say.

7. "The Eucharist is a symbolic meal." NOT. It´s supposed to be a real meal that manifests (symbolizes) the "green shoots" of that new world.

8. "A church cannot run without meetings." NOT.
It sure can --the Eucharist is a meeting! Perhaps we have so many meetings because deep down, we are working out power issues?

9. "Deacons are not to be paid." NOT. They should be. Without them we have no leaders into justice-doing as a community. --And that´s hard work, taking much more than a couple of hours a week.

10. "Our liturgy is crystal clear." NOT. It´s arcane, full of encoded shop-talk, and manifests a hierarchically-ordered world that we no longer believe in.

My fear, as you can tell from the above, is that we will speed ahead to become even MORE individualistic, emotivist, and anti-intellectual than we already are.

I agree wholeheartedly with Juan, particularly #10.

It seems as if our focus is disproportionately focused on tweaking our liturgy, doing a little extra focus on mission, and some good ecclesiological change. It would be more helpful if we focus on the theological reasons for both changing and especially not. Most Episcopalians I've spoken with, that are firmly Episcopalian by choice, seem eager to do something but when confronted with the prospect of changing anything, they act as if they need not defend current practice theologically. And when they do defend it, they use only 'practical' responses that are wedded to a bygone (but not ancient) era.

Drew

Perhaps a short description of the situation and current practice of the Old Catholics in Germany might provide some insight.

(Full disclosure: Raised Episcopalian and officially still Anglican, but a member of an Old Catholic parish since 2005 and served as a vestry member for five years and diocesan delegate thrice.)

The Old Catholics in Germany are a true diaspora – in a nation of 80 million, they number only 15,000, concentrated mostly in the southwest of the country and the Rhineland. They have just one bishop for the whole country, and many parishes have various missions which the rector also serves for regular services. Most parishes, but not all, have paid clergy, but in many cases the vestry does indeed do all the dirty work, and that is the expectation.

There is also a steady supply of volunteer clergy thanks to a flexible and fairly short distance learning program, which can lead to ordination as a deacon or priest, if a parish and the bishop and standing committee agree to it, which they often do without much fuss. Many parishes have one or two such clergy, who fill in when the paid clergy aren't available.

Our parish in Hannover is a good example in extremis of how we live with this scattering of believers. Our parish boundaries are the entire state of Lower Saxony, which is about the size of Maryland and Delaware put together, with 1600 members in total.

We have one paid priest, one volunteer priest, one volunteer deacon, and for a year we have a paid transitional deacon. We have services every Sunday in Hannover and Osnabrück, with the rector doing most of them, but the volunteer priest occasionally handles Osnabrück (especially on feast days) and the deacons handle Hannover in his stead from time to time; as I recall, our rector easily racks up 50-100,000 km on the parish car each year. We also do Eucharist services in homes when requested, though that was reduced during our church building project (which, thanks be to God, is now done and we have a shiny new church).

And then there are vespers Fridays, ecumenical services and meetings, prayer meetings and such, all handled some or mostly by laypeople. We have no other staff – the rector and vestry have to handle all substantial the clerical work, like dealing with the state church tax system (which sadly eats up a lot of time...).

Thing is, we also have the reality that even with two full-time clergy, it is impossible to provide an airtight pastoral service, let alone have enough people on a regular schedule as vergers, acolytes, lay readers and so on. Licensing for such work is theoretically required, but in practice the local priest decides on it with the approval of the vestry, and laypeople from the parish assume various duties where the Episcopal Church still insists on lengthy training and even ordination.

I myself have often led vespers and Morning Prayer services, even preached at Sunday services, in spite of not having formal training beyond discussions with the priest. Several other members have done the same. The Bible lessons are generally just done ad hoc by whoever wishes to do so; the collection is also just someone there taking the basket and handing it around. No formal offices, just people taking up slack where they see it.

We are also all adamant about celebrating the Eucharist every Sunday, and that is why I and other laypersons also celebrate prayer services with distribution of Reserved Sacrament when a priest is not available. Again, I have no formal license, just the agreement and support of the rector and vestry. Lay presidency would be reason enough for me to leave or avoid a church, and it won't happen with us any time soon. Even so, the Eucharist can still be celebrated with some flexibility and planning.

Meanwhile in Austria there is even less structure and rule-making. There, quite a lot of clergy are just volunteers or part-time, including the bishop, John Okoro, and it seems to work just fine.

With all these things that would be extremely difficult or impossible in TEC, the world hasn't come to an end. Far from it, it seems that it has helped our parish bloom and grow, a rarity in northern Germany's heavily post-Christian atmosphere. The many newcomers are often impressed at how involved and engaged our members are, precisely because they are not limited by unnecessary regulations and rules. New members in turn quickly begin helping out as well, in spite of great driving distances (well, by German standards...) and time constraints. The mere fact we built a church is something of a sensation here, and our attendance is noticeably growing. I don't think that is a coincidence.

So why can't TEC do the same? Why does it require ordination for so many offices that theologically do not require it based on any tradition? Why does it require such rigorous licensing?

God's help is clearly there for our parish, working through many people who quickly apply their gifts without church apparatus getting in the way. Why does the Episcopal Church place such strong limits and requirements on those clearly called to serve?

John Grantham

Wow! More good ideas from lots of different perspectives! Now, THAT'S alive!

How about, instead of thinking "either-or," let's let those kinds of active, personally investing ideas carry TEC into a wonderful era of "both!," and "all!"?

How about having regular, dependable, daily before-work MP led by lay-leaders, and schedule regular HE celebrated by priests. Encourage regular attendance by offering EP and a convivial, topical supper, regularly. The Apostles weren't speaking metaphorically about "serving at tables," you know.

Follow in their footsteps in every way, just as they followed Jesus. Offer real hospitality and you'll get volunteers to keep it happening. Step up! TEC has an amazing universe of fabulous gifts and wondrous graces to offer, and when you offer them with enthusiasm, genuine openness, and love, your challenges change into the kinds of challenges that any church wants to have - like overcrowding!

Cast your bread upon the waters and you'll find that you often get a lot more than soggy bread in return! That's the Spirit!

Blessings!
REv. CW Brockenbrough