Excellent reflection and prognostication as always Jim.

When I hear or read certain comments (even though some may be tongue in cheek), from many places and many people, even within our own Episcopal Church that I am a member of, there is just something that makes me feel very uneasy, and cringe. "... if we don't attract more people to the Episcopal Church ..."

I wonder what would happen if instead, our mindset was ... "..if we don't attract people to Jesus Christ?"

I wonder if people came into our worship, and experienced how we praise and give thanks to Jesus in our Churches, as we try to live the life Jesus calls us to in outreach and ministries to others, and as we share Jesus' love, and the sacrifice He gave for each one of us, with those who happen to come into the Episcopal Churches we may be members of - I wonder how that would attract others? Maybe, just maybe that may be what we are called to do, and to be, in ALL our churches, no matter what the denomination? And maybe matters of a church denomination dying off wouldn't be an issue?

A very nice analysis, although I disagree with you on the "special convention" paragraph. The current structure clearly is not working and we may need some strong "emergency powers" vested in the PB for a time certain.

Kirk Smith (added by ed.)

azgospel - please sign your name when commenting. Thanks. ~ed.

We, as in ALL of us, from the PB onward, ought be fully aware of a ¨powerful attraction¨ that becomes FULLY present when we stand up STRONGLY alongside the marginalized, the demonized, the despised and the hated at home and/or worldwide...not only must every trace of bigotry and discrimination (at all levels of Church/Everdaylife) be exposed at TEC but widely/openly challenged throughout the Anglican Communion. The deadly emotional and spiritual sickness directed against LGBT Anglicans/others in Jamaica and parts of Africa must not be ignored. The blood of ALL of our brothers and sisters is sacred. The preaching of difference along with the hategenerating by clergy at Church must not go ignored. Prudent plotting is not a tactic when clear, clean and strong outward WHOLESOME leadership must be the STANDARD for honorability, passion and love=inclusion at TEC. Pandering to pompus male, and they are largely pompus male, politicos at Church contaminates and distracts from the religious fellowship centered around the Body of Christ...our membership will continue to fall away if our actions lack the BRAVE TRUST in our convictions (or if we simply act ¨prudent¨ instead of learning how to say NO to fear and hatemongering at The Anglican Communion).

sorry, forgot to sign my full name to above posting...Leonardo Ricardo/Leonard Clark

I also cringe about "special appeals" to youth, etc. I don't think our challenge (across the whole church, not just TEC) is coming up with the magic advertising effort that will tell others what we have to offer. I think the challenge is being a body that proclaims that Gospel that THIS world needs to hear - not the world of the 20th c. or the world we wish we lived in. Rather than inviting others in, the invitation is to move out, out of our buildings, out of our institutions, out of what we find comforting and supportive and listen to what others have to offer, what others need, and what communities they are building and ask whether we might not be a part of them to share what we have while receiving what others have to offer. At this time of year, I am reminded of how early Christians adopted and co-opted previous traditions. Perhaps, amidst the missteps and injuries we caused, there is also a lesson in there for us about connecting to the world around us. We have become so accustomed to the world following our lead that we have forgotten how to listen and speak to others where they are.

Roberta, I hope that implicit in the call to attract people to the Episcopal Church is the understanding that we are trying to attract people to Jesus. Kind of like in saying that in attracting them to a restaurant, you are inviting them to eat.

AZGospel: "Emergency powers" vested in the PB? Why? And what anywhere in our history or documents justifies vesting such power in a single office?

Donna, I cringe when people don't understand that the church is not somehow above having to make its case to human beings in the same way that other organizations make their case to human beings. I also think the notion that we can somehow l leave behind our buildings and move out into the world without actually leaving behind the thousands of people who come to the church to be fortified for mission work in which they are already involved is unrealistic, and in some ways, an abandonment of those people.

Spot on (as usual) ... and my "cringing" comes when we forget (as Verna Dozier was wont to remind us) that Jesus never told us to worship him ... he called us to follow him.

And IMHO when we focus on following Jesus by making decisions based on the Gospel values of love, justice and compassion then we're "being" the Church ... which is exactly what will build the Church.

More later. Almost time for the Rose Bowl. Happy New Year and thanks for this, Jim!

Susan Russell

"Those of us who are concerned about the church’s survival and flourishing will patiently endure lectures..."

If survival is our highest priority, then we don't deserve to flourish. If we have our priorities right, then we will acknowledge that our existence as a church is in God's hands. If we focus primarily on "how can we make people happy with the service we provide as a spiritual-services provider" customer-oriented plan, then we are basically saying our purpose is to be a network of private social clubs. If our focus is wrong, we will fail - and deservedly so (or succeed at being something other than we what should be).
The Episcopal churches that I've seen being "successful" in bringing in people are those whose focus is on serving the kingdom of God. Focus on that first, "and all these things will be added unto you."

@Daniel, I don't know whether you are seminary educated, so maybe lay people are just as guilty of the kind of condescension I am talking about. You pick one word, decide it means something it doesn't mean, draw a sweeping generalization based on no data beyond your own experience and then give us pablum as a way forward. Do you think that no one has thought of preaching the gospel as a way of building up the church? Do you think people aren't trying to do that? If you are going to condescend on those of us who are base enough to think that the Episcopal Church is an institution worth saving, don't you have to do a little better than this just serve the kingdom kind of stuff--as though no one has ever thought of that before?

I was struck by these two paragraphs:

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. Those of us who are concerned about the church’s survival and flourishing will patiently endure lectures from seminary-educated people who will inform us that our theology is wanting, that survival is not the word we should be using, that you can’t judge fidelity to the gospel by the number of bodies in the pews, that Jesus was not concerned with earthly success, that if we just preach the gospel the rest will take care of itself and other things that may be true, but are not necessarily to the point.
Then maybe we will focus on the myriad of faithful ways in which we can make our churches more visible and appealing to our friends, neighbors and the strangers in our midst. Maybe we will understand that we need to make special appeals to young adults, and to immigrants, especially Latinos and Latinas. Or maybe we will just occupy ourselves in arguments. Because we are, at the moment, a church of more hat than cattle, and we didn’t get that way by accident.

My response is that I think we may need to ramp up our clarity about our Christology. Don't just "invite people to church". Invite them into a relationship with the Body of Christ.

When Jesus is REAL - and not just a symbolic Eucharistic act - nothing is more powerfully attractive.

No, I'm not saying that we should stop Eucharist as our central act of worship. I'm saying that unless Eucharist - thanksgiving - is also revealed in genuine, authentic acts of gratitude, generosity and excellence, we will always miss the mark.

Yes, I'm talking about "mission" which is the "outward and visible sign" of the "inward and spiritual grace" of the Sacraments of Eucharist and Baptism. There's a reason we break and share bread and wine as the central symbols of our worship: So that we can be fed and feed others who are hungry - physically and spiritually.

I know several churches who have a "mission" to "check-writing". That's lovely and probably necessary on some level, but it's not mission.

Congregations and congregational leaders who have a clear identity and definition of THEIR mission in their communities and the wider world are thriving.

Allow me to brag a bit about one of our own. Here's an article about Sandye Wilson

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/flinging_the_doors_open_wide_s.html

Here's what I'm talking about:

Under Wilson’s leadership for nearly eight years, St. Andrew has evolved into one of the most diverse, socially conscious and creative religious communities in New Jersey. She has brought liturgical dancers (ages 8 to 80) onto the altar and children to the "Small Fry" service every Sunday. There are poetry slams, science and arts camps, peace camps and drama camp; there is a Holocaust Remembrance and hunger drives with Jewish synagogues, as well as hurricane and earthquake relief work in partnership with the Jamaican Nurses Association. She cooks formal dinners for teenage boys at the rectory so they can practice their social skills, and then takes them to a restaurant of their choice to practice those skills.

A few years ago, the church even opened its doors to Buddhists, allowing them to use its library for weekly meetings until they found their own space.

"We do that all the time — not forgetting who we are, but learning about, and being in, a relationship with people across the community in different faiths," Wilson said.

Patrice Henderson, a member of St. Andrew for 25 years and the chairperson of the search committee that chose Wilson in 2004, puts it more simply.

"She’s very innovative," she said. "The community is energized. There’s a place for everybody under the tent."

Making Jesus real. Giving outward and visible and tangible signs of God's Eucharistic, self-sacrificial love for us. Doing the mission of the Gospel. Inviting absolutely everyone into the tent and making a place for absolutely everybody under the tent.

That's what I'm talking about.

I do not think that the Anglican Covenant and woman bishops are linked in the C of E. Nearly all dioceses have voted in favour of woman bishops, whereas dioceses are voting against the covenant as much as they are voting for it.

If woman bishops are approved, I believe that Rowan Williams will announce his retirement this year. I do not think that the Covenant will ultimately be approved in the C of E. People have more urgent matters to think about, and it's even possible that the required number of dioceses approving will not be reached. The bishops are doing their utmost to strongarm dioceses into approving it, though. Watch this space.

It's absolutely inappropriate for the poster to attack commenters as Jim has done. I saw nothing condescending in Robert's remark.

Bad form, Jim...bad form. We expect better editorial services at the Lead.

Joe Brewer

Joe, do you mean Daniel's remarks?

Jim, in my opinion, your remarks TO Daniel were aggressive and unhelpful. You called him condescending twice, and I didn't gather that was his intent.

Civil discourse works both ways.

Joe Brewer

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My question was whether you were referring to Daniel or to a person you called "Robert" by which I assumed that perhaps you meant Roberta. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, just figure out which commenter you were speaking of.
I thought Daniel's comment was cavalier and dismissive, and as I am tired of having to defend my interest in the survival of the church against people who dismiss the concern and give me bromides in return, I responded aggressively. I might be able to do better in the future, but I did not do better in that instance.

Sorry, I'm doing several things at once. Yes, I meant Daniel. Oops.

If you act out like this and are "tired" of defending your views, perhaps it is time to pause and regroup. At any rate, to respond like this is not likely going to garner much positive commentary, unless you are just looking to pick fights. But that's my opinion. I enjoy your writing, and I enjoyed this post (though I might not have were I seminary-educated).

Sorry for the diversion, continue commentary.

Joe Brewer

Interesting thought about ACNA and its interest in being part of the Anglican Communion not outliving its founding members.

I wonder, though, are members of The Episcopal Church anymore interested in being part of the Anglican Communion? i.e. for new people who become part The Episcopal Church, is the fact that we are a province of the Anglican Communion a major "selling point"? Doubtful, though this may not be the best way to measure interest.

My larger point is that interest in the Anglican Communion has always been the preserve of a relatively small number of people and that those people dominate its institutions. How might we consider making our membership in the Anglican Communion part of the features that distinguish The Episcopal Church and broadening interest in it?

-Jesse Zink

Can we really speak about bringing in more membership when 30-50% of our membership already comes from other traditions (mostly ex-Catholics and ex-evangelicals) or unchurched? Cradle Episcopalians are a pretty rare breed which means that many others find our church attractive and making it their spiritual destination.

It seems to me that we are quite successful at bringing in lots of people, it's just those people aren't having kids like they used to.

Most of our former membership growth and current membership decline is due to rising and falling birthrates. There was a FACT study that was somewhere on the TEC website that said that the average birthrate for Episcopalians and Presbyterians was down to 1.3 kids per couple. That means that for each generation the population contracts by 45%.

That's a huge demographic ship that isn't going to be turned around easily, especially when we (correctly) increasingly attract people from segments of the population that don't have lots of kids (gays, singles, urbanites, etc.) It's also a demographic trend that is starting to affect all of Christendom - liberal, conservative and evangelical. The Southern Baptists, one of the country's most evangelistic denominations, is also aging and starting to decline.

There is certainly much more that can be done to get our brand out there and bring in more people. We shouldn't rest on our laurels. Many have no idea that you can be a moderate or progressive Christian, but I'm not convinced that is going to turn around membership decline.

I expect that at some point it will start to balance itself out, but we'll probably be a far smaller church and I think we need to figure out how to manage decline and still do our ministry effectively.

Dan Sloan

Jesse, I am not sure you are right about this. I would bet that somewhere between a quarter and a half of the parishes in the Episcopal Church have a relationship with a parish or diocese in another province.

Colleagues,

People are leaving organized Christianity of all flavors because it is associated with mean spirited, nasty biblical fundamentalism. They are leaving because their social position is more congruent with TEC than with the evangelical fundamentalist churches in which they were raised.

They are leaving but not coming to us. That is the factoid we might ponder. Many are quite passionate about their faith, just not connecting with our "liberal progressive" position.

In general, reasonable people do their best to stay out of fights in which they have no dog. While most of the overt fighting has subsided I think our anxiety has settled into a steady hummmmmmm that people somehow feel. It connects for me to all this sort of "why are we shrinking" conversation. We have analyzed it from all possible directions and we keep coming to the sort of "bromides" Jim finds unhelpful. The various bromidal "well we should be..." is just adding to the anxiety. It does add to a spirit of continuous hypercriticality that is also easily detected.

The re-structuring proposals and the Anglican Covenant are just this stuff writ large. A special convention would just be a huge opportunity to have more internal tension, so I say let it rest. We should spend 10 minutes on the first day of GC 2012 passing the EC resolution on the Anglican Covenant and then forget it. We should likewise quickly dispense of the special convention idea. Let it sit.

What we have is the paralysis of analysis and it is binding up our most energetic minds in a series of endlessly looped dead ends. Being part of the Anglican Covenant Community or having a fresh structure will do nothing to stem the tide of departures from Christianity.

The money we might spend on a special GC would be better spent honing our message and getting it out there as effectively as the new RC ads on TV.

Otherwise lets lighten up in 2012 and eschew further self flagellation. Rest back, and identify your own passions for ministry and then make it so locally as Elizabeth K's friend is.

How's that for some tasty bromides Jim!

One more thing regarding membership trends that I didn't see mentioned that is going to greatly affect us soon are the rapidly declining levels of income and wealth among young people. It's probably the most significant underreported story of the past decade. Not only are young people taking on more debt to fund university and vocational education, but many are taking jobs that pay much less and have fewer benefits than the previous generation and they are being forced to channel more of their money into services formerly picked up by their employer - healthcare and pensions. This trend is only going to accelerate for the foreseeable future.

The Gen X and Y generation may inherit some legacy wealth from their baby boomer parents, but barring a change in our economic policy, that legacy wealth will probably be gone after them.

Even if we succeed in bringing in more young people we, as an institution, are going to be squeezed between aging, high maintenance buildings and increasingly costly ministries versus fewer financial resources to keep them going.

If young people have to choose between giving to church versus paying off student loans, putting increasingly higher amounts of of their take home pay into food, housing, health and retirement expenses they are going to pick the latter.

We as a church need to be ready for that, both as a matter of institutional survival, but most importantly as a matter of pastoral care. It's going to reshape everything.

Sorry, that last post was by Dan Sloan.

@Michael
Actually, I think you are on to something. I am wondering about whether we can afford to just stop defending ourselves when attacked and simply try the church building stuff. It's extremely tempting. I don't know that it is possible--we have an organized opposition--but it is tempting.

Excellent reflection, Jim.

By why the swipe at seminary education? And do you think that we've really done the best job possible in TEC to empower all the baptized as theologians?

I think education and theology are really very helpful, and equipping empowering all members as theologians is a plus, not a minus, in attracting members. I don't think we've done enough in that respect. We ARE weak in our theological grounding in some respects as a church. We've got bishops who think that the episcopate ought to be a curia, among other things! And then you know what kinds of theological silliness would-be popes are issuing.

Yes, bad theology -- and our unwillingness to invest in serious formation in scripture, tradition, and theological reasoning -- is a part of a lot of our problems. And these things have everything to do with mission. Without a serious grounding in the theological question of what "mission" means, we might just fall for the ridiculous proposition that it's about reshuffling org charts of the DFMS.

Dylan Breuer

Thank you, Dylan. I was not taking a swipe at seminary education. I was taking a swipe at all the superciliousness, high-mindedness and intellectual peacockery that one has to hack through to allow this conversation to happen. I suspect that we agree that the church hasn't done much of a job in helping the baptized become theologians. However, many of the baptized have done that on their own, and it would be helpful if more people in the church could recognize that.

As usual, I am thankful for Jim's article and for the many comments that it generates.

I personally feel that the thoughts closest to my own considering restructuring are Bonnie Anderson's Opening Remarks to Executive Council. While I believe they have been shared on the Cafe before, they are worth mentioning again.

http://houseofdeputies.org/executive-council-meeting-discusses-mission-and-structure.html

Click on "Bonnie's Opening Remarks" and go to page 3.

I hesitate to bring out one particular part of the remarks, but will do so (on the issue of restructuring):

"We have not heard one another’s wisdom on this issue. We need to move forward fully informed, equipped with the insights we gain from each other, considering all the options and not taking a “position” until we have had that opportunity. We need to have a conversation about mission first, before we change structures to enable our doing mission. All the structural changes in the world will not help us if our mission is poorly defined, or poorly understood. So I ask you to give some thought to this question: What is mission and what does it mean to us?"

I think Bonnie's question gets to the underlining point from an earlier post of Jim's (and perhaps his earlier response in this thread), that it is not acceptable to change our structure under the banner of "mission" without serious thought, conversation, study, work, and (finally) clarity as to what we mean by it.

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/mission/mission_in_your_own_words.html

Jim,

While I understand your frustration with "lectures from seminary-educated people," I am equally frustrated with a General Convention apparatus made up of the same people year after year, the most senior forming a self-sustaining elite that can be as myopic, committed to the status quo, and every bit as condescending as any group of clergy.

I am frustrated that the CCAB's which do so much work between conventions are set up in such a way that they favor GC "insiders."

I am frustrated with a bickering, bicameral body spending days debating minutiae that should be covered under consent calendars or a pastoral letter from the bishops while more important matters languish or die in between houses.

I am frustrated when I look at other denominations and note that they get their business done faster, more efficiently, and with less cost.

I am most frustrated when I see GC held up as some sort of "center" of the church, usually by those who have a long investment in it. One recent document referred to it as the "Heart of the Episcopal Church." If this is true, then we have really lost our way. GC cannot effectively worship, evangelize or serve, It can only legislate.

Jesus is the heart of the Episcopal Church. GC is only the way we govern ourselves. We should not be afraid to tinker with it.

I am interested to know who these "people with a limited understanding of how legislative bodies actually work" you refer to are? Bp. Sauls? The deputies to the special convention themselves? And in that case, who would the "experts" be? Sounds like another lecture to patiently endure from the GC elite....

Fr Simmons, if you could sign your name next time, that would be great. Thanks.

I was thinking it might be worth availing ourselves of real expertise in restructuring the legislature--say, as one possibility, some of the people who helped Eastern European countries develop their legislatures after the fall of Communism.

Sorry, That's
David Simmons

And I guess, the question is - is the Episcopal Church more like an ex-Eastern Bloc country or another denomination? (BTW, you just gave the ACNA people a lovely metaphor) ;-)

If more like another denomination, perhaps we would do better to study and learn from other models already used by other churches.

Governance of a denomination is not rocket science. We are treating a DC-10 as if it were a space shuttle.

I think we need some help understanding which of the problems that people have identified with General Convention are specific to General Convention--and therefore possible easy to fix--and which are part and parcel of any legislative process. This is a job that requires some familiarity with other legislatures.

I am not sure what other denominations you are talking about, but my colleagues in the Lutheran and Methodist churches don't think they have ideal polities, either. So maybe we could all use a remake.

I'm a bit late to this thread, it seems. Re: the problems w/ TEC as an institution, TEC, like all the other denominations, has become institutionalized, and institutions have problems. I don't see any way around this. I'm in the higher-education bubble, and it's here, too. My current methodology is to accept the institutions for what they are, no demonizing nor valorizing, and find ways to work with the structures and foibles (subversion from within, muahaha).

As for "understand[ing] with deeper urgency that if we don’t attract more people to the Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church will wither and die," well... I think I'm with the lecturing, seminary-educated folks, despite my lack of any theology degree. A friend of mine (also a non-seminary-educated 20-something) says it better than I, and called me up short with this comment:

"I think the church has approached this problem [of losing young people] the way Americans seem to approach everything: identify the outcome you want and then make up the way you think will get you there the fastest and cheapest. Instead of saying, 'How can we attract and keep more teens?' we need to be asking, 'What are the values that we are trying to practice, as a church?' and focus on that. If a church focuses on values rather than outcomes and is successful at putting all of its values into practice, then can be content in its practice despite demographic shifts. If people continue to leave, well, either the message of Jesus isn’t as powerful as we’ve said, we’ve got the message wrong, or it doesn’t matter that they’re leaving. The reason more churches don’t operate this way is that they don’t know what they should be valuing, and if the church leadership doesn’t know that, well, I don’t really blame the young people for leaving."

And, because I just can't resist quoting Madeleine L'Engle whenever possible: "The church is not immune from the bigger-is-better heresy. One woman told of going to a meeting where only a handful of people turned out, and these faithful few were scolded by the visiting preacher for the sparseness of the congregation. And she said indignantly, 'Our Lord said feed my sheep, not count them!' I often feel that I'm being counted, rather than fed, and so I am hungry.”

True, but not to the point? Hm... perhaps. But as one who would like TEC to extend far into the future, I long for emphasis on values and feeding rather than marketing. If someone is really being fed at church, won't the publicity come organically? Whereas a really striking, well-done marketing campaign can glitter and glisten when there's really no there there. Not that I'm against good marketing and sleek publications--quite the opposite, really--I just wonder about ordering priorities.

Yes, Alissa, that IS the point. We are awash, drowning in a sea of befuddledness (sp?) over what we are and what we value. Some heresies to combat, IMO:

1. "The Church is a business"--NOT. It is free. Clergy do not get a salary. They should get a stipend if they don´t have trust funds (and are needed for so many hours a week).

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. TEC sucks at forming new members.

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!

5. "Natural leaders make natural priests" NOT without training.
The Noble Savage is dead, --having been colonized.

6. "The Kingdom of God is only 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 the "green shoots" of that new world.

8. "A church cannot run without meetings." NOT. It sure can --the Eucharist is a meeting!

9. "Deacons are not to be paid."
NOT. They should be. Without them we have no leaders into justice-doing as a community.

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.

Juan Oliver

The concern about the CofE is that, since women bishops and the Anglican Covenant will likely be dealt with at the same General Synod session, Rowan will suffer a loss on providing special dispensations for opponents of women bishops, a loss that will be compensated for by approving the Covenant. This, of course, would be a deal with the Devil, but it would not be unheard of.

The idea of a constitutional convention terrifies me; all sorts of mischief could be engaged in, particularly since the idea has had little serious discussion so far.

Here, however, is an idea: why should our church be led by a bishop? I would feel very much better if our highest officer was a layperson. The Church does not exist for the benefit of clergy. Moreover, experience suggests that most mischief in the Church is initiated by bishops.