This seems to be the hot-button issue on the site. Not much I can add to my earlier comments, but here are a few areas of opportunity:

Improve pastoral care.

It's amazing how often this comes up, both in our church and in others, and one hears tales of the dying left unvisited, the sick and suffering ignored, and the elderly left alone. And if we cannot care for those already in the church, there's no point in outreach to acquire more, as we simply wind up letting more people down.

Change with the times.

Nothing good in life goes without change; if it does, it becomes stale. Yet we sometimes seem terribly set on avoiding change at all costs.

Don't try to be all things to all people

Here in Virginia, there's an old quip about a state politician and his purported propensity for every shade of grey. This is a particularly big temptation for TEC due to our desire for the via media.

Learn how to allocate resources

Whether it's costly and cumbersome bureaucracies or unneeded physical facilities, we get caught up in the wrong things. Ever notice how the church in Haiti is growing, despite having nothing? Let's not confuse the church with its assets.

Eric Bonetti

Hi Jim--I would love to be a part of this discussion because I believe the Episcopal Church has so much to offer that is very, very, good.

My church has made some very modest growth over the last year which I attribute to the enormous courage of one individual.

So, I think one element that can appeal to people will be courage to live the gospel.

I think it is safe to say that people are looking for a spiritual home but I wonder how often they are left with the impression that "pray, pay and obey" is what it is all about and real congregational development doesn't happen. So, they just leave.

Often I see "congregational development" devolve to "fellowship." Not that fellowship isn't important but it is different from development which I think falls into the category of placing all of us in the role of teachers and guides.

1. The major problem with TEC is the endless amount of committees, commissions, and conventions that we feel are necessary. I love democratic processes as much as the next guy. We have to realize, though, that we live in a rapidly moving world. Taking 9 years to make a major change in church policy is unacceptable. We need to be a nimble group that can adapt to "the facts on the ground" quickly.

2. The guys in the pointy hats are cool, but they have too much power. We need to move towards a more congregational model. Bishops should be figureheads, nothing more. Bishops have too much power and can stifle innovation and enthusiasm just because they had something bad for breakfast.

Morris Post

It's very simple if you don't progress with the times you will become stagnate

I think we need to just do the basics well and build on the gifts of the people God puts in our lives. Now that we are past a season of polarization and conflict, we can grow if we just do those things.

Good question, Jim. One way of thinking about it is to think about where we focus our energies. To take just one example (Episcopal Cafe), it would seem that what concerns us most is structure, governance, and the like. Posts on such topics always seem to generate the most comments. And they always seem to degenerate into turf battles between lay and clergy, bishops and the House of Deputies, and 815 v. General Convention.

Perhaps all of these things matter, but it seems to me that if the Episcopal Church is to survive the next decades, let alone thrive, we've got to focus all of our energies on sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. But maybe I'm just crazy.

Actually, during the not quite five years that the Cafe has been in existence, there are probably more posts on LGBT equality than any other issue, followed closely by Anglican Communion politics. The structure stuff is more prevalent in the last five months. And there, are, of course, entire blogs devoted to spiritual meditations, art, and videos which are almost never about structure, and quite frequently about sharing the good news of Jesus Christ.

The most popular items on the blog this year--by far--have been Bill Carroll's three year-old essay on the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, George Clifford's essay on whether everyone should be encouraged to read The Bible, Derek Olsen's essay on what he considered non-negotiable elements in conversations about re-imagining the church, (namely, the Prayer Book) and an item we created by lifting up a comment that Josh Magda made on Derek's piece and making it into an item of its own.

The most commented upon items is the thread started by Josh Magda's comment. George's essay has received over 50 comments as well.

None of which is to say that we haven't paid a lot of attention to the structure debate. But it is hardly the exclusive focus of either our editors or visitors.

Well, this is certainly the right question to ask.

First, I would say that The Episcopal Church should not try to be all things to all people. Not every Christian (or potential Christian) should be an Episcopalian. Welcoming all is not the same thing as recruiting (or catering to) everyone in sight. I don’t think we have done a good job of advertising what we offer, something I won’t try to define here, but not having to leave your brain at the door is certainly part of it. (I agree with what Eric said about not being all things to all people.)

Reluctantly, I have to agree with most of what Morris said. I’m not sure we really have too many committees, but we really are slow at making decisions. The solution to this is not to give more power to bishops or to the PB. Bishops do have too much power and influence, if only because they meet so often.

I am wary of attempts to “reform” GC, which are likely to dilute the influence of clergy and laypeople. Perhaps GC needs to be more focused, coming to grips with the big issues and leaving everything else on the table. In 2006, I saw B033 happen because GC couldn’t get its act together regarding a response to the Windsor Report. I watched the train wreck, but, even to this day, I don’t know how it could have been prevented. Perhaps GC needs to do more spadework before the actual convention.

In my mind, it boils down to this:

First, TEC lacks the evangelical spirit that would drive it do try new ways of boldly proclaiming the Gospel.

Second, we are unwilling to take risks.

Third, we aren't sure who we are, so we can't make a compelling case of why someone should join our community.

Last, we are so focused on process and structure that we stifle creativity and flexibility.

All that said, I am glad I (sort of) have a place in TEC, and I hope to be around for a while to help it grow.

Lionel's first point is a really important one. We cannot be all things to all people and shouldn't try. However, that's equally not a valid excuse for not trying across the board. Thus, we need to ask ourselves who we want to serve and how we want to serve them. I'm not clear, however, whether the best answer is a national one or a local one...

We've got to major in the majors---not the minors---and, for a church, that means focusing people on the core knowledge and disciplines that will enable them to better love God as revealed pre-eminently in Jesus Christ, and then share that love verbally and non-verbally to the people and communities around them.

Nuts and bolts:
1) teach a solid grounded spirituality. And you know where I believe that's best found... (the BCP)
2) teach the Bible--how to read it as a spiritual resource; a product of its time and place but not limited to it and a means for experience the God revealed in it here and now
3) teach the Christian virtues: faith, hope, love, fortitude, temperance, justice, etc. and how applying these and standing up for them will make in a real difference in a world that needs redemption.

+1 to Derek's comment (as usual).

(If you're counting up the votes, that is....)

There is actually nothing wrong with the Episcopal Church except that we have allowed ourselves to be anxiety driven and stampeded. That means that we waste time and energy figuring out what we need to fix, when all we really need do is stand up as a self-differentiated being and tell people who we are.

Were we to spend one tenth the time we bemoan our situation figuring out our "elevator speeches" instead, we would be both happier and attractive to people looking for a spiritual home.

We are like the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, Scarecrow and Dorothy. We actually have all that we need, we just don't realize it.

The stars in our constellation are things like:

Comprehensiveness understood as seeking deeper fundamental truths that can unite people.

Tolerance of others as we discern between things that are necessary for salvation and those that aren't. We can live in "harmonious dissimilitude".

Generous inclusion that invites souls into our company without interrogating their points of view and now invites people in without respect to many ancient bigotries.

Reason and Revelation in conversation. We include creation itself and the study of it as a source of revelation as are the processes of thinking and reasoning. These are open ended windows into the beauty of God. Truth is what we seek. The truths about salvation are found in scripture in Jesus, but of the other truths we can reason out.

Empowered not depraved, in that we believe we can both choose the right and reject the wrong.

This gives us, among other things, a rich tradition that draws together truths from the major streams of belief and discourse. We draw inspiration from Catholicism, Orthodoxy (Global East not South Orthodox), Reformed, Renaissance, Enlightened, Modern and Post Modern, First Peoples and the faiths of the world.

In doing that we form people to be live empowered agents of God in a severely distressed world.

Pretty dang cool. Dump the Funk and give thanks to God for what has been incarnated in our corner of the faith universe.

IMHO nothing is ontologically "wrong" with the Episcopal Church. Where we GO wrong is when we choose the house of fear over the house of love.

Susan Russell

What is "wrong" with TEC cannot be really considered outside of what is "wrong" with Western Christianity - if the "wrong" is our continued contracting of size and resources just like all the other churches of the Christian West.

What may be "wrong" is that we have failed to "be" or to communicate that we "are" something other than what a growing population of those in the post-Christian west believe us to be: hypocritical, mired in the past, friends of oppression and greed, child abusers, and many other pejoratives. One does not need to spend much time online with the internet set to see how much people _hate_ "Christians." WE may think that we are different from all those "bad" Evangelical fundamentalists, but most don't see us that way. It is at most a slight "shade of gray" differentiation.

The other side of this coin is the "answer" to differentiating ourselves from all the "Bad" Christianity that is the subject of contempt from the high school to the academy. I honestly am not sure that we _do_ know how we are or should be different. We are no longer in the business, for the most part, of saving souls from an afterlife of torment in Hell. The "stick" is gone, but so is the "carrot" on that line. We need to be more than an ethical society that does charitable things. We could do that charitable stuff without all the "trappings" of Religion. We need to convince "them" that Religious belief and practice are _in_and_of_themselves_ of value in a well-lived human life. As much as I love the BCP, I just don't see the BCP communicating that. Anyone trying to get someone to sign up for an exercise club can list any number of tangible benefits of doing so. Can we, or more importantly, ARE we doing this?

I have difficulty with the question, because it tends to get us off on the wrong foot. We are a "fix-it" culture, always looking for what's wrong, but most organizational development folk I know involved with church growth, along with successful leaders growing congregations begin with the question: "What do we do well?" and build on that.

I am concerned right now with all the angst over polity, we're deep into fix-it mode which leaves us caught in our institutional insularity. The Church is growing where people are building on where the Spirit has brought life, and there is no one-size-fits-all to that. It needs to be figured out locally, and the wider Church must support that process. Problems need to be treated as opportunities. What is dying needs to be seen as making space for resurrection.

What's wrong with the Episcopal Church? It's where we're obsessed with fixing rather than growing. I don't think we're asking the right questions yet. That may indeed be our biggest problem of all.

Daniel Schultz comments here.

Love Daniel's comments, but as someone who attends an Anglo-Catholic parish, I'd add that folks should look past the BSTs (bright shiny things) before deciding if an Anglo-Catholic parish is right for them.

Folks at my church are wonderful, as has been the case in every "smells and bells" place I've visited. Yes, there's often Brie at our coffee hour (and always sherry), but you'd never meet a more down to earth, approachable, generous, compassionate, or faithful group.

Eric Bonetti

I read the Daniel Schultz post, too - and honestly, I'm at a loss to understand what's "stuffy" or "pretentious" about, say, a Rite II Eucharist.

That service is - by design, I believe - just about the same in every respect as the modern Roman Catholic mass - and I'm fairly sure nobody would ever call it "stuffy" or "pretentious."

(And actually, this seems a very good thing, to me, given the number of ex-Catholics who've joined the Episcopal Church....)

(I wanted to add that I very much like Richard Helmer's comment above - especially the idea that there's no "one-size-fits-all" and that many things have to be worked out locally, and on the basis of what's actually happening on the ground. That's important to keep in mind, I think - although it's difficult to do that, when trying to take a "big picture" view.

I don't think there's anything wrong, though, with self-examination - but that can and should include "assets as well as liabilities." AA says, in its 10th, "continuing to take personal inventory," Step, that it's good to remember "that inventory-taking is not always done in red ink. It's a poor day indeed when we haven't done something right.")

I thought Daniel Schultz's comments were arrogant and condescending, and didn't offer much in the way of new insights. So a member of the UCC doesn't like the episcopate or liturgical worship? Gee, who could have seen THAT coming?

Daniel Schultz's analysis, I agree, is disappointing, especially what he says about Prayer Books.

UCC I admire for many things, such as its commitment to social justice and its polity. But it too is losing members.

I suspect that simplifying worship will only lose more people.

Gary Paul Gilbert