Agree with Susan's remarks, with one important add-on. "Outwards" doesn't always mean outside the church, although that is an important component. It also means shifting away from a focus on maintaining systems, processes and traditions in favor of outcomes. For example, many parishes spend the vast majority of their budgets on their physical plants, yet have only a few thousand dollars here or there in discretionary funds to aid those in need of assistance -- despite the fact that many parishes have members on limited incomes who lead lives of quiet desperation.

Turning outwards means focusing not on church as an end, but as a means to an end.

Eric Bonetti

PS A good start would be having a conference in which non-delegates are actually encouraged to attend. The site for the conference now states, none too helpfully, that rooms for non-delegates are not available, but that folks may want to contact the visitor's center for information. Hardly conducive to organizational growth.

Eric B.

Susan,

Justice for LGBT people is not a liberal distraction from mission, it is part of mission.

Let me also add that ptayer, worship and preaching are at the heart of what mission is -- see the BCP page 853. So that "hour once a week" is -- or is intended to be -- the source of all the rest.

I'm getting really weary of an apparent missional gnosticism, that separates "mission" from "administration" -- they are two sides of the same body, the church, and cannot be disembodied.

I'm not saying this is Susan's thesis; but the air of disconnection runs through the conversation on restructuring from Bishop Sauls on.

Can we restructure for greater efficiency -- no doubt. But let's not assume that "administration" is somehow divorced from mission.

I agree with Josh. What's it about, this rush to "move on" - to what? And about all that arguing: The Church has been arguing since the day after the first Pentecost after the Ascension. It's not about baby-boomers - it seems to be part of the nature of The Church. So, then, how shall we face this and what shall we do with it? Can we claim it and make it an asset? I'm sure restructuring will introduce yet another conflict, one in a long line going back to the disciples, who even before the crucifixion argued over who would be first in the kingdom.
I'm in Spanish-speaking ministry with English-speaking congregants. Shall we avoid that inherent conflict by ditching the whole thing? Just what is it about conflict that is seen to be only negative? What is it about the implication that a justice-based mission of reconciliation and inclusion of LGBT persons, or Spanish-speaking immigrants for that matter is a matter other than one of mission, makes me defensive? OCICBW... in which case, if I'm just off base, this baby boomer could simply retire and leave the field open for a conflict-free church.

Yes Lois - conflict avoidance is a sign of people unwilling to grapple with change - there are ways to do conflict but one cannot ignore it in the name of some sort of fake peace. I returned to the Episcopal Church because it was willing to speak out on justice issues and wrestle with the questions. Maybe a little advice from Rilke - love the questions.

Silent generation- not being so silent these days.

I think Susan has some excellent points about how we spend our money, and her analysis of the budget has been a real service to the church. I agree with both Lois and Tobias though that

a) some fights you have to have for the sake of your institutional integrity, and it diminishes the importance of those arguments, and the efforts of the people who participated in them, to suggest they were somehow a distraction. (I am not sure Susan is doing that, but this is an area in which it is important to be careful with one's rhetoric.)

b) it is not helpful to imagine that you can run any hierarchical organization without administrative costs; accounting for Jesus; planing meetings for Jesus--it's all important

c) if we keep thinking of mission as service we are on the road to spiritual bankruptcy.

I don't think most people come to us looking for a chance to be involved in service. They can find opportunities for that without having to confront their feelings about God, organized religion, mortality, etc., and without having to enter a community of strangers. We need to be clearer than we are now on what our distinctive gifts are. The overuse of the word mission is not helpful in this regard.

Thanks, Jim. PS, the Martian would be right. The "arguing together" is the preferred option to splitting apart into a thousand separate sects. Arguing means engagement. This is the truth of the old saw that schism is worse than heresy... There have been arguments in the church since Peter and Paul; the problem people were those who gave up arguing and just went their own way, or sought to silence the voices of disagreement and dissent.

Jim's summary is spot on...

Let me try again, because I don't think my point came across well. I am not arguing that the conflicts of the past were not worth having - I am glad that the conflicts over women, gays and lesbians are moving toward resolution in a direction I agree with. What I am saying is that the challenge of restructuring is not the same kind of conflict, and we shouldn't treat it the same. It would be very easy for a system, winding down from a major conflict, to not know what to do with that extra energy, and to treat all issues that come before it in the same way as it is used to doing. I hope that does not happen. Restructuring is a conversation that needs to happen, but I hope that it can happen in a prayerful and grace-filled way. I see a danger of us all pointing fingers at each other, when I think we need to be working together on this one - focusing outward instead of inward.

I definitely don't think that Mission is all about service. In fact, I think that the Anglican Marks of Mission do a reasonably good job of talking about mission, and arguably four of the five are externally focused rather than internally focused. Those Marks are:

> To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
> To teach, baptize and nurture new believers
> To respond to human need by loving service
>To seek to transform unjust structures of society
> To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth.

Only the second Mark is purely focused on people who are already in the church. That's what I mean by mission being (mostly) externally focused. If we concentrate on arguing with each other, we run the danger of forgetting about those external components of mission. And yes, I agree with Tobias that worship undergirds and supports all the mission we do.

Susan Snook

Susan, I think my problem is that the "Five Marks of Mission" are not necessarily "gospel" and we need to go back to the Catechism. There it is clear that worship IS mission -- not merely an undergirding. And yes, overemphasizing the inside over the outside is a mistake, but so is the opposite. Many churches lose those who are "in" in their effort to reach those who are "out." The goal is to get everyone on board...

Tobias, I agree that there should be a balance - certainly you don't forget about doing worship, pastoral care and fellowship in favor of doing ONLY evangelism and service. But I don't think our churches need anyone to urge them to take care of the insiders. We're pretty good at that, for the most part. What we need is a constant reminder to look outside. And if all our energy is consumed by conflict (an internal matter), especially on items that should be opportunities for teamwork (like restructuring), then we will never look outside. We can't forget to look outwards - if we do, we will slowly fade away, by simple attrition.

Hi Susan. Thanks for your participation--I am an avid reader of your blog.

One differing view I'd offer, though, is around our care for "insiders." Specifically, I'm amazed at how spotty our pastoral care can be, and have a number of friends who are greatly put off by the fact that the church repeatedly has not been there for them in times of need.

Unfortunately, the spector of pastoral neglect now appears to be rearing its head at the national level. Indeed, the Martians might conclude that the vast machine we have built that provides endless committees, meetings, and fora in which to argue increasingly ignores seminarians, youth, lay employees and others in need of our care and resources, as it demands that needed to keep the great cogs and wheels grinding in endless circles, generating noise and heat but little else.

Eric Bonetti

Eric, good point - the powerful get entrenched and protect their power, indeed see it as essential compared to the needs of the powerless - like children and youth, seminarians, lay employees, and so on. But you could see this as an insider perspective also - powerful insiders protecting their interests at the expense of the folks who are not in the inner circle. You are right to point us to the fact that looking outward could mean caring for people who are officially inside the church, but not inside the power structures. And it is a shame when pastoral care is not offered adequately.