"In such a model, prayer, Bible study and theological reflection would take center stage as the main event, with legislation relegated to the sidelines."

I'm afraid that if attention is taken away from the legislative process, it won't happen on the sidelines so much as in smoke-filled rooms.

I don't think she has ever been a Deputy to General Convention - I found it over the 9x I served to be a place of amazing grace, prayer and care for one another while trying to discern where we should stand as the Body of Christ in the world. People who talk about changing systems live in dreamland.

Ann, I certainly hope that those of us who "talk about changing systems" do not "live in dreamland." If so, God help us all!

Chris,

If I understand Ann correctly, we are in trouble when we talk about systems as abstractions. Systems are comprised of people and their patterns of relationship and behavior. When we work on transformation there through prayer and relationship, the system changes.

For me, that's the thrust of this article, and it also demonstrates the limits of legislative process, which often can "abstract" systems and people.

In 1995, when we were formed as a new diocese, we decided that annual conventions should be different. So we wrote the canons to encourage less "business" and more mission thinking/education. The bishop's address during the Eucharist was a review of what we'd done in the past year and a vision for the next few years. Beyond that, most of the time was given to workshops (6-8) on congregational developement or things we thought the congregations might find useful in their ministry. All resolutions presented to convention needed to first win the support of at least one deanery/convocation (lay and clergy supporting). This nearly eliminated the conflict (winners and loosers) we were used to in our former diocese. Instead we got resolutions that were practical, if not very exciting.
As time has past the pattern has changed (too much work) to a focus on a speaker/theme and the bishop's address.
I suspect that Zscheile's analysis and vision for a new way are possible, but even when you use canons to establish new structures (as we did), the pull of returning to the old ways is too hard for most of us to resist.
Tom Downs
Diocese of Eastern Michigan.

I found the article less than impressive because of the overly neat theory that church structures merely reflect social realities. The Enlightenment is supposed to have fostered a centralized business model. Post-Enlightenment is supposed to lead to other ways of being church. The problem is Enlightenment can and has been many things.

I also do not appreciate the idea that a language or rights has to be supplanted by theologically grounded discourses. Where have LGBTs heard that before? The majority gets to impose its supposedly theologically grounded discourse which just happens to view minitorities as inferior. I say the church needs more of an emphasis on the rights of individuals.

My main objection, however, is that a legislative body should legislate. Bible study and other spiritual activities, however well intended, seem like a distraction from the business at hand. At the end of the day one has to make decisions.

Gary Paul Gilbert

While I would agree that legislative bodies must legislate, I find it difficult to find much joy or energy in having a legislative body at the heart of our denomination. Further I do not believe that an end to getting legislation passed is what is being proposed. The short passage, and it is short compared to the larger article, on conventions must be placed in the larger understanding of 'being' that is being proposed. One key feature of this that I find of particular importance is for denominational entities and staff to focus on the development and cultivation of identity. The development of a strong identity as Christians in the Anglican tradition is of great importance, as young people are seeking to know who we are. In addition the resourcing of communities of mission (parishes/missions) as the main role of dioceses should be lifted up as well.

The article challenges us to look outside of ourselves, something that must be done when we are looking to how we structure ourselves. One question that came to my mind was: "Do our current structures: parish; diocesan; provincial; or denominational, serve our members or the world?" I would like to say emphatically that they serve the world, but know too often they fail to do so. This was highlighted at the "Building the Continuum" summit on Christian Formation in The Episcopal Church. Our ability and willingness to respond to changing global realities was highlighted as representing one of the two greatest uncertainties facing this ministry in The Episcopal Church. When we consider our music, language, legislation, governance and all other aspects of our common life together, it would be my hope that we take a stronger account of those on the edge of the church, and perhaps more importantly those outside of it.

Just coming for workshops and talk - I doubt many will show up.

Dear Ann,
Regarding Eastern Michigan's experience with workshops at annual convention. In fact the folks did show up. They were popular with the lay people who wanted to see good things happen in their parishes and felt, as parish leaders, this would help them make it so. Clergy, knowing everything already, weren't so appreciative.
In those days, we thought of ourselves as a grassroots sort of diocese. The sole purpose of a convention and diocesan office was to help the parishes do their job.
Tom Downs

An institution that no longer knows how to govern itself is what this looks like. It reminds me of some university departments which claim to be multidisciplinary. The good side is that they may claim to be cutting edge. The negative to this it can mean that the student is at the mercy of professors who can't agree on a curriculum. The alternative of a fossilized department is not the answer either. Some balance can be found where the best of the tradition can be taught while modeling the the type of scholarship being done today. I have known this sort of balanced department. I don't see that workshopping will save diocesan conventions.

I feel the same way about Prayer Book revision. If lots of stuff is changed then there doesn't seem to be a tradition anymore. If nothing changes, it can look fossilized.

Gary Paul Gilbert

My own diocese has for the past several years opted for educational opportunities as the primary purpose (at least if we measure by time allocated) of diocesan convention, now spoken of as the "Diocesan Gathering and Convention." The stated purpose has been to have a more educated diocese, and all in the diocese are invited to the Gathering, while a smaller number of us will be taking some time for Convention.

On the one hand, the ideas of gathering more people and of opportunities for a more educated diocese in all orders appeal to me. At the same time, in my experience we have had two consequences. The first is that we've had fewer resolutions and less debate on the resolutions we've had. That may or may not be a big loss, although I have enjoyed the occasional examples of expressive rhetoric that we've heard. But, I wonder whether in resolving less we are speaking less beyond ourselves.

The second is that all reports (with the valuable exception of Youth Ministry) have been filed by title. As a result, many of the ongoing ministries support by the diocese and/or networks of congregations get almost no public attention. Yes, of course we could read the reports. However, as our TV viewing seems to become "siloed," so our interests in diocesan convention become "siloed." Who reads all the reports? And so things like Jubilee ministries, health care ministries, etc, are referenced and passed over. The leaders do not hear the stories to take back to their congregations, and we become progressively less aware of many of the locally valuable ministries going on among us.

I don't think it's an "either/or" situation. However, as others have noted there are also costs associated with the changes that seem to promise much.

Marshall Scott

I was in ordained ministry for more than decade before discovering the Episcopal Church. My move into TEC was not impulsive, but exceedingly slow, deliberate, intentional, and costly, and was motivated for liturgical, theological, and spiritual reasons.

However, there is one thing I miss from the past: the annual gatherings that practiced the very approach urged by Professor Zscheile's. Institutional governance was necessary -- but played a tiny, minor role. The focus was on mission, best practices, inspiration, formation and education, and building community. It was more practical, less expensive, less frustrating, and engaged far more people, both ordained and lay. It's the ONE way in which I felt the other tradition was and continues to be vastly superior to our own. Professor Zscheile's proposal is not dreamy speculation. Rather, it is practiced, long-practiced, and widely practiced by numerous other groups. It just plain works.

The Society of Friends (Quakers) has exactly that sort of annual gathering --- a week of workshops and talk. And EVERYONE shows up! (Search Friends General Conference, 2012 FGC Gathering). It happens the same week as General Convention. Of course, the Society of Friends is much smaller, and legislative decisions are made at the Yearly Meeting (regional) level, not at a national one. When I joined the Episcopal Church I was dismayed to find that the national and regional gatherings are devoted to legislation and politics, not spiritual growth and fellowship.

Rick, I *think* that you came from the same tradition that my family back in Texas did (broadly speaking). One of its features that I've always been a little jealous of is the Sunday school class structure that prevailed, in which most members, it seemed, belonged to a specific class and supported it; the classes were about as important as the church service that they all gathered for afterwards. An awful lot of spiritual growth and fellowship took place right in those very meetings.

I've never been a part of an Episcopal parish (or, to be fair, an RC or EO parish, for that matter) that had real Sunday school for adults, as opposed to the Rector's Forum or Adult Ed. type of program at which all the adults who want to gather together in one venue, and which seems much more passive than my parents'' Sunday school classes. If your "other tradition" also shared the sort of Sunday school classes I'm talking about, I wonder if it made it easier for the sort of annual gatherings you describe to take place?

"Bible study and other spiritual activities, however well intended, seem like a distraction from the business at hand. At the end of the day one has to make decisions."

The above attitude is exactly what is wrong with the institutional church. It is even a problem in my own parish. The church is not a business or government, yet we run it like it is. When we do talk about the Holy Spirit it is usually just lip service. If we are to be the body of Christ on earth, expanding God's kingdom on earth, we must discern what the Holy Spirit is doing and join in with what the Spirit is doing. That requires Bible study, other study, reflection and prayer. Yes, decisions have to be made, but in light of our discerning God's will.