I've often likened the church to a battleship--very sturdy, hard to sink, tremendously powerful, but slow and difficult to turn quickly. The military doesn't make battleships anymore. Similarly, the church operates in an environment in which large, powerful, and slow things do not thrive.

By contrast, patrol boats are nimble and fast, but much more fragile. The only way to make a battleship into one or more patrol boats is to scrap it, melt it down, and then re-construct it. I'm not sure if there is an exact parallel in the church, but clearly there is a need to "slim down" the church structures, General Convention among them.

A handful of quick observations.

MITRES: The Presiding Bishop doesn't know her ecclesiastical haute couture. Abbots and abbesses are entitled to wear a mitre. Some choose to not take one. Roman Catholic non-episcopal cardinals (e.g., the late Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., from New York City) are entitled to the vesture and insignia of a (arch)bishop who is made cardinal.

'Power for selfish reasons': I can't help but wonder if her complaint comes from being in the hot seat since the moment she was PB-elect.

Governance and structures established because they 'didn't want to change things quickly': The House of Bishops had absolutely no qualms whatsoever in calling an emergency meeting in an airport hotel to discuss whether the late Bishop Paul Moore Jr should be guillotined. Nor has the presiding bishop herself had any trouble in jettisoning faithful and trustworthy servants because it suited the business model of the moment (i.e., let's decentralize, let's rearrange 815; and a year later, let's let everyone go). In the words agile, nimble, and quickly adapt, I hear a call for more centralized power in both the presiding bishop's office and in the House of Bishops ... like other autonomous Anglican churches. Put conversely, I hear a call for moving those pesky pew people and mere deacons/priests to only triennially consider big ticket items (if they don't take too long and do what we say).

'Openness to new populations, demographics, and ways of understanding': Didn't hear being open to the work (or guidance) of the Holy Spirit mentioned once. Sad.

Over all I heard 'we need' more often than I heard things like 'trusting in God's time,' 'seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the church in council (i.e., General Convention),' 'while we may need to streamline some of our governance and management structures we must keep the unique aspects of Episcopal polity which have enabled us to be in a moment where the still small voice of God may be heard.'

It strikes me that the Presiding Bishop would not speak of arbitrary deadlines, nimbleness, and agility as concerns marine research or piloting airplanes. In both of those disciplines waiting and patience are more often than not necessities.

I keep hearing this dire stuff but then I see my grandkids who love the Episcopal Church- BCP, worship w/o power point, no trendy music -- and I wonder.

While I am no antagonist to change, I mean that is what the Holy Spirit is all about, I would be reluctant to exchange the slowness of the battleship for the fragility of the patrol boats. It seems like the Church is already a bit fragile without adding another degree of complexity of completely revamping our structures. Although, I imagine that battle would make very interesting bedfellows, in the end it would weaken our Church.

Perhaps it might be more effective to move to some sort of discernment model at first that fits into our structure.

I am a fan and frequent defender of the Presiding Bishop, but the way she is talking makes me nervous. All conversations about becoming more nimble seem to move immediately toward limiting the size, budget and authority of the principal bodies through which lay people and clergy influence the church. I hope that this is not what the Presiding Bishop and her chief aides intend, and hope she will speak about this issue in more specific terms some time soon.

Fan and frequent defender, too. My observation is that on the one hand, when she raises issues of governance there are kneejerk reactions that this will take us back to the 1950s or make us authoritarian. Such assertions distort what she is saying. At the same time, she is not being at all clear about what it is that is bugging her, what it is about our current governance that has resulted in squandered opportunities. Where's the beef? I can spin theories about our structure, but there need to be facts that justify or at least anecdotes that resonate.

Jim raises the issue of limiting the budget of the bodies through which laity and clergy have influence. While I'm not an advocate of across the board budget cuts I do wonder if there has been the right mix of budget cuts. If we are continue to staff one wonders what's wrong with at least raising the question of cutting the budget of lay/clergy bodies.

Here's the thing.

Effective leadership sometimes require the capacity to be nimble. Sometimes it requires the capacity to let things move at their appropriate pace.

Effective leadership NEVER requires the effective accrual of all power to the centre.

BTW, that's Malcolm French+

Is there any way to change the way my name automatically appears?

Malcolm:

1. I don't believe it's possible to change your log in name. In other words what you'd need to do is abandon your current account, and create a new one.

2. Who said anything about accrual of "all" power to the center?

John, the budgets of the CCABs were cut significantly at GC 2009. General Convention 2012 is two days shorter. And just because certain people at 815 aren't acknowledging their desire to exclude clergy and laity from the governance of the church doesn't mean they aren't working on it.

I think the PB is being ambiguous in her recent statements. I don't find her ambiguity at all helpful in that it has created a vacuum for everyone's gripes about the church to fill that vacuum. I think we need clarity from the PB and only responses to what she has actually said. We don't need more battle lines.

And just because certain people at 815 aren't acknowledging their desire to exclude clergy and laity from the governance of the church doesn't mean they aren't working on it.

But it does not mean that they are either. Jim, nothing that the Lead has presented in any of its posts about General Council present that concept. So you need to stick to the facts that you lot have presented. If you are savvy to behind the scene information, rumor or innuendo, it is unfair to your readers to involve them in your comments without making us savvy to them as well.

James, you reveal your hidden agenda for the PB with your comment. "I did not hear...," represents your unspoken expectations of the PB. Those are unfair. You will do nothing but criticize, as you do now, when the other person is unaware of your expectations. This was an edited video interview. She answered the questions she was asked. Perhaps next time you should be asking the questions and then she can answer to your hidden agenda better.

David Allen

Malcolm you can reset your account to show your whole name - I did it to mine. The PB is an amazing voice for our church out in the field -- she is a real evangelist. When she visited Wyoming - we found her open and accessible -willing to answer any question and listening to those with concerns. My only concern is this seeming move to give bishops more power than the other parts of the church.

I know what I know, David, and I have said as much as I came comfortably say. You can take it or leave it.

I have several reactions.

First, regarding the mitre situation. Was it an insult? Yes. But could she not have chosen to wear rochet and chimere? Plenty of bishops choose them as their default vestments, even at the eucharist, and it still would have made her office clear. In fact, it would have been clearer than holding a folded mitre that was barely visible. More importantly, she would have presented as a class act.

With regard to the structures of the church, it seems to me that a big part of the problem in today's church, both in the U.S. and globally, is this need to react to issues immediately. One of the troubles with the age of the internet is our ability to press "send" without having to think more deeply about what we may really want to say. An advantage of the cumbersome polity of the Episcopal Church is the fact that no one individual can make decisions for whole the church. As a result, important decisions take a long time, which means that those who are entrusted with the responsibility of decision making are able to gather as much information as possible and engage in a degree of discernment that is impossible if one is called to make fast decisions. The primates of the Anglican Communion may not like it, but it's just the way it works here.

The Presiding Bishop made reference to the fact that the polity is structured in a way that favors the status quo. This is undoubtedly true. In particular, the House of Deputies' rules allowing for votes by orders is a prime example. But at the same time, these rules ensure that any change or controversial move has broad support across the church, as does the bicameral nature of the General Convention. It is often frustrating for those who desire change; however, it ensures that when needed change finally comes it will find broad acceptance, which ultimately leads to a healthier church than one that is divided 51% to 49% on critical decisions.

Could structural improvements be made? Undoubtedly. But, any change should preserve the democratic ethos and broad representation of laity, clergy, and bishops that is really the hallmark of the Episcopal Church.

Thus I worry when I hear any language--whether from the Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop or from the Archbishop of Canterbury--that seems to call for a centralization of power and decision-making authority. That system may work well in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is not who we are. And not who many of us want to be.

As Ann Fontaine has noted, the Presiding Bishop has become an increasingly effective public face of TEC. She also, so far, has effectively protected the property of TEC against the predations of the schismatics. There is much to admire in her ministry.

But, although Daveed is right to caution against dealing in mere rumor or innuendo, it's no good waiting until a sense of unease breaks into the open before discussing the causes. One strength of the PB has been her education of Rowan Williams about the polity of TEC, one different from that in the CofE and evidently uncongenial to his understanding.

The question is, has the influence been one way? Rowan Williams has been using nonjudicial Lambeth Conference resolutions and advisory reports like the Windsor document to extend top-down control where he has no official authority. Jan Nunley, the splendid communications officer dismissed early in KJS's tenure, wondered in another Café thread about the implications of "nimble" in these recent Executive Council dispatches: "'Nimbleness,' huh? Fascinating. I guess that's why communications was gutted--makes you much more nimble when you don't have to explain anything." KSJ was strikingly nimble in her first hours as PB in ramming through B033 as General Convention was dispersing, but she has been all patience when justice and equality for the GLBT members of her flock were at issue.

Aside from her power politics and gracious restraint in seeking equality for GLBT churchpeople, it's people like Jan Nunley who contribute most to my sense of disquiet about the direction of TEC. We live in New York City and know several people who have left or been ejected from Church Headquarters. In many cases, the parting wasn't considerate, sometimes brutal. I'm too far outside to cite specifics, but the impression is that the administration of the office is in shambles. Of course, funds are tight and cuts must be made. But the abrupt dismissal of the firm employing union office cleaners last Christmas in favor of a non-union outfit has been echoed in dealing with the church's own -- economy trumping principle. Sermons are nice. The state of one's own household is also indicative.

Ann, how do I do that? If I sign in, it merely takes me back to the page I was on before I signed in.

Malcolm+

What I've learned is that one can sign to comment on a Café posting only on the original page of the posting. If you preview your comment, or sign in after making it, you lose your sign in. I've learned to write my comment and check to see that it will appear as I wish -- then I copy it, click the BACK button until the blue "sign in" link appears, then copy my comment into the box and submit it. Hope this helps

That is, copy your completed comment, go back to the opening page of the posting where the "sign in" option appears, copy your comment into the box, and click "Submit."

Malcom+, if you are using TypePad then follow this link you should be able to access your account and make any changes that you like.

https://www.typepad.com/secure/services/signin?to=%2Fdashboard

David Allen

I cannot view this particular clip at present but it seems to me that her recent remarks in other contexts are essentially consistent with the transformation of ECUSA governance into a federal model, thus leading to a strong central executive. In my view this is the antithesis of "nimble", because that would involve letting the dioceses (and beneath them, the parishes) act in a more decentralized manner.

It's just not the Anglican way to convert the presiding bishop into a pope-- who in her scheme would not be subject to the considerable inertia that checks the power of the Roman pontiff. I really do not want to be in a church whose entire tone is set by a single person; electing a PB shouldn't be like electing a US president.

I think that you misread the PB totally C. Wingate. She is not the executive of TEC, she is President Bishop of the House of Bishops. The executive of TEC is the Executive Council, a body of 40 members consisting of the ordained and the laity, between General Conventions which is the ultimate executive body of TEC.

To change any of that would require a long time and lots of persuasion. Something for which her 9 year term would not be sufficient for anything to her personal advantage.

But perhaps what some folks fail to remember is that much of the staff at 815 is her staff. They serve the Presiding Bishop. She inherited a staff organization which perhaps over the years and past PBs, has become too wieldy to manage and has become self perpetuating. Every change that she attempts to make to change that is very publicly questioned and second guessed, understandably by folks who of course do not want to lose their jobs. So I think that a lot of criticism of her is sour grapes.

What the PB and the Church Center staff can’t seem to grasp is, like any other nonprofit entity, the paid staff’s main purpose is to serve the membership of the organization.

The staff exists to serve and the laity and clergy of the Episcopal Church by carrying out the policies and directions given by their elected representatives (Executive Council, CCABs, House of Deputies, etc. ), not the other way around.

I share Jim Naughton’s anxiety about exactly what Jefferts Schori is up to. As a journalist, I get nervous about her recent comments, the House of Bishops’ increasing number of closed sessions, and Church center staff hostility.

I hope some clarity, transparency and some common sense are in our future.

test

Interesting debate. There are several reports in "The Anglican Journal"on the just ended meeting of the Canadian Bishop. Reports from that meeting should be of interest to Anglicans concerned about the "evolution" of the monarchical episcopate in Anglicanism. The one difference is that there is very little comment on the Canadian site by comparison with Episcopal Cafe. This does not bode well for those opposed to The Covenant and its hierarchical assumptions. The several articles may be read at the site linked below
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/