This has driven me crazy for years! It was fashionable a while ago to disparage those dollars a parish spent on "maintenance" and celebrate those spent on "mission". A singularly unhelpful distinction. What else is worship and formation and fellowship for but to equip the faithful for mission? If we're not doing that - well, that's another discussion. But surely, to denigrate investing in facilities, staff and program because it's "maintenance" and only value the money spent on "mission" or "outreach" is to entirely misunderstand what the Church is for. Gah! We've been having these arguments for DECADES!

My parish couldn't do a lot of the mission and outreach we do, if we didn't spend money on facilities. It's a little hard to run a dinner program for People Living with HIV/AIDS, and a dinner/arts program for LGBTQ street youth, without a building (and electricity, heat, running water, gas, etc.) to have them in.

A very helpful distinction made by Mr. (or is it Rev.?) Haller. The church is and has to be more than a cooperative organization that has God on our side in a special way (a la Denver Broncos). It is not less than serving the poor, but it is much more. I've seen several of the "restructuring" resolutions for GC2012 and I'm afraid they miss this distinction as well. A little catechism would go a long way...

Thanks for this - and thanks to Fr. Haller, too, for his original piece.

Some of us have no talent whatsoever for governance or "mission" on the larger scale - but are vitally interested in worship, proclamation, and what happens on the local level.

Luckily, we all have a place in the church, by design. The Baptismal Covenant uses the same sort of formula, and makes the same sort of point, I think: that the life of the church is about many things - and that we can all contribute in different ways.

@claire. You are right on point as is Tobias. All Souls' provides a home for many ministries that would otherwise have no base. Why is maintaining that not Mission? Why is it not mission to bring people comfort and possibly renewal or conversion by having space set aside for worship and spiritual growth?

The Sauls' proposal elevates centralized mission over governance. This is a false opposition. The one thing he says early that I agree with is that we should only centralize what is best done "in bulk". That is the conversation we need to have across the board for governance and mission. And we CAN do that at GC 2012 without a SpecCon. Simply dump all the "protocol" duties and ambiance stuff and sit and talk about this. Instead we will waste hours around some "theme".

Well said, brother Tobias.

I'm picturing some candidate for president or other national office in the U.S. saying something like "Congress spends a shocking amount on governance." Said candidate would be laughed out of every town, unless there's an anarchist town out there I don't know about.

The DFMS charges, on authority derived from the Great Commission, EVERY member (i.e., every Episcopalian) with carrying out the mission. What GC and its associated bodies do it try to gather human and other resources to help every member carry out the DFMS call to mission.

Blessings,

Sarah Dylan Breuer

Thanks Tobias. It's always good to look at the Book of Common Prayer for a reminder of our mission, but I also want to point out that General Convention adopted the Five Marks of Mission as a framework for how we talk about/implement it. These go well beyond privileging only our work with the poor and includes proclaiming the Good News, teaching & baptising new members. Given that so much of this discussion is about the value of General Convention, I hope that this GC decision isn't forgotten.

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/anglican_communion/

I also want to add, albeit hesitantly, that I'm saddened by the tone of this developing conversation on restructuring the Church, and also by the tone of the past few posts on Episcopal Cafe. To put it simply, there's a distrustful, mean-spirited quality to these conversations. “He is particularly good on the two bishops' faulty understanding of mission, a word they use as a weapon against those who think it is worth spending money to include clergy and lay people in the decision making bodies of the church.” As a still relatively new Episcopalian I find this profoundly demoralizing. I find myself asking whether this level of vitriol is something I really want to belong to. Is this something I can honestly welcome others into? My sincere hope is that our leaders, including the leading voices on Episcopal Cafe, might find a different way to communicate disagreement.

Finally, I feel as if a fire is being stoked for an outright conflict between the House of Deputies and House of Bishops. Fine. More subtle minds than my own will be able to see whether there has been encroachment of authority or not. What I'm concerned about is whether there is any spiritual room for a path forward. It feels as if this conflict has become deeply personal and has squeezed out any possibility of forgiveness, mercy, grace - namely, all those things that Christ calls us to embody even in the midst of conflict. I'm perplexed by this, in part because it sounds as if there's actually wide areas of agreement between the conflicting parties. For instance, both the PHoD and the PB are lifting up the five marks of mission as a way of refocusing our church, and both have upheld the local congregation as the place where we need to put our energies into. What's more, both believe the church needs to change significantly if we are to thrive. In most contexts, this would be a good start to a fruitful conversation, but it seems we're more intent on demonizing one another than naming our commonalities, seeking reconciliation, and starting to move forward.

I really can't exaggerate how dispiriting the tone of this conversation has been. Whatever else might be said about encroachment of authority, the authority that this throws into question for me is that of the spiritual authority of many of the leading voices of our Church. I sincerely hope I’ll be proven wrong about this, and will be praying that our leaders strive to embody a different spirit as we head toward GC.

Miguel - I am sorry that you are feeling dispirited. I guess I feel we should not just keep quiet and pretend there is nothing to discuss. I think we are stronger when put things on the table and work them out. That is not "stoking" to me - but truth telling to one another - hopefully in love.

@Miguel,

I wholeheartedly agree with you. It seems clear as the tone of this "discussion" devolves into petty name calling and ad hominem attacks that there is more going on than is presented in Episcopal Cafe posts or articles in The Christian Century.

I'm not new to this church and I find it incredibly dispiriting to see the feud between the PB and the PHoD escalate over issues of turf and protecting self interest.

Mr. (Rev?) Naughton has shared his conflict of interest in other articles that mean to attack Bp. Sauls and the PB (though he fails to disclose in this piece), but we have here another instance of the Episcopal Cafe being used to perpetuate a conflict between two of the supposed "leaders" of the church.

At a time when the popular press about TEC is finally moving away from conflict between dioceses and departing parishes it seems that Bonnie Anderson and Katherine Jefferts Schiori have little interest in moving forward together. We seem to have entered into a new time of conflict and I'm afraid this one will be more damaging than the last.

I wish the leaders of the two houses could learn to get along before they do any more damage or the church is crippled by their infighting before their terms expire in 2015.

We're reminded in the post that "A. The Church pursues its mission as it prays and worships, proclaims the Gospel, and promotes justice, peace, and love."

Apparently the part about peace and love at the end only applies to the parishes and not our national leaders.

-Mitch Bojarski

Not a priest. Have no idea what Bonnie thinks re: the PB and the COO's thoughts on mission. I think they are misguided all on my own. Think the church needs to discuss them, before it makes bad decisions based on bad analysis. Think the PB and COO have made that difficult by painting those who disagree with them as opposed to mission. Wish they would stop. Sorry if people think that naming divisions deepens divisions. Don't agree.

It's not the naming of divisions that is at issue here. It's the tone. Both the headlines and content of the articles regarding the current proposals have come across as mean spirited beyond merely naming differences of opinion. This is not limited to EpiscopalCafe.com nor posts by Jim Naughton but is spilling over into other press outlets. It is actually hurting anyone's ability to have a discussion on these issues and continues to portray TEC in a bad light.

The example I happen to have on my desk:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-12/mainline-protestants-seek-reforms-stir-anger

The PHoD and the PB need to have a sit down and agree to play nice or GC2012 is going to be a nightmare and, at best, nothing will get done, at worst, deeper divisions will continue.

-Mitch Bojarski

Mitch - the PB and the PHOD have done as you say - disagreement about issues does not mean people are unable to work forward for the best of the community. All I think any of us want is that. Strong opinions and debate do not mean we do not like each other. It is some who would like to tear down the Episcopal Church altogether who have characterized this as personal. I continue to push for a strong lay voice especially. That does not mean I don't like and admire the PB and other bishops. There has always been this debate among leaders of the houses - it is only because both are women that I think it gets any play (sexism anyone) in the press. Here is a photo from the last meeting of the Executive Council - does this look like people who can't work together? Let's focus on the main point - the best structure for the future of the church.

I don't think either Bishop Sauls or Bonnie Anderson said anything untoward in that article. I don't think the content of the article supports the headline that was put on it.

As for my own tone, it has grown edgier in proportion to the disrespect that I think the PB and COO have shown others in this conversation.

To a person not connected with Bonnie Anderson in any way the article in The Christian Century (TCC) appears to include the PHoD accusing the COO of TEC of an "end run" around a committee and being "naive."

This does come off as untoward and divisive and as someone who's interest in this issue was created after reading this article it definitely sounds like the PHoD is picking a fight with the COO.

Perhaps TCC has misquoted the PHoD but given the tone that I've since read on this site from her supporters it doesn't seem that they have missed the mark.

Again I'll say that my interest in this issue was created after reading this article. I then began to look into places like EpiscopalCafe.com to try to figure out what was going on with this story. I found the same tone here as I read in the article and it has been almost entirely unhelpful. The snide and negative remarks only work to diminish the credibility of both sides and leave me trying to explain to my congregation why the heads of the houses of GC seem to be fighting. I honestly have no idea why they are fighting and struggle to provide an explanation.

Ultimately it sounds disingenuous to claim to be defending the voice of the laity from the heights of leadership in the church. The laity in my congregation do not believe that the PHoD represents their view on this nor the PB. In the eyes of most people in the pews there is little to no distinction between the two offices. The division is between the leadership and the average person in the pew.

The average person in the pew (my experience here, which is admittedly limited) sees that nearly 50% of the money we send out of our community to the national church is used on administration and governance. They would not give to any other non-profit with that kind of overhead and they start to wonder why our little church continues to do so. Then here come the heads of the houses of GC to try to carve out their turf on this issue apparently disregarding the actual concerns of the majority of the clergy and laity who don't go to GC and just want to have the funds to keep doing ministry in their town.

I think that ministry, like politics, is all local and to most people in the pews this debate appears to be bureaucrats fighting over turf at the expense of parishes trying to make a balanced budget.

I can't help but think that if the issue was really empowering the laity there would be immediate agreement on reducing the size of the administration and governance to get that money back into the congregations where you find a vast majority of the laity, not in the preserving the strength of the HoD or consolidating power into the HoB.

The apparent mistrust and suspicion going back and forth only serves to tear us all down. Perhaps there isn't mistrust and anger between Bonnie and Katherine but the rhetoric betrays a different reality to the outside observer.

Unfortunately producing a picture of the two of them in the same room doesn't counter the negative press going on between our two faithful "leaders."

-Mitch Bojarski

Mitch, you seem to be saying that if some one meets for months with a committee, as a member of the committee, doesn't get its endorsement, then takes the work the committee has been doing to another forum and suddenly gets it made into diocesan resolutions, that's okay, but describing that person's behavior as an end run is sowing division. I suspect that that isn't what you are saying, but that's how it comes across to me.

I don't know that your numbers on administration and governance are correct. I think about seven percent of the churchwide budget voted on at General Convention supports General Convention.

It is regrettable that there is division in the church on the issue of reform, which I believe everyone agrees is needed. The alternative to division right now, though, is acquiescence. I think division is preferable.

Jim,

Your suspicions are correct. I'm not saying Bp. Sauls has handled this well nor Bonnie Anderson. The 47% number is what I thought I understood from the "Sauls Presentation" and in discussing the issue with people locally but I can't seem to find it anywhere online anymore so I couldn't double check. The number represents not just GC but all the costs of 815 as well and I thought I understood it as the overall overhead of TEC.

I also agree that this issue needs to be discussed through all appropriate channels.

I think where we depart is (now I know I'm repeating myself) over the tone. When I read several articles over the past few weeks here that convey a belief that +KJS and the HoB are engaging in a power grab and are trying to push the laity out of any say in the church, it doesn't help the discourse. It isn't exactly a charitable reading of their actions. It is, I believe, the same tactic used by those departing parishes and dioceses to raise the alarm and rally the troops. When each side begins rallying troops the discussion has ended.

It's really sad to me because until yesterday I've always been happy to check out this site for information on issues in the church and felt pretty confident that I was getting a fair view on a variety of topics. I was dismayed to have that belief broken and felt had to comment on the negativity when previously I was happy to read others opinions and use them in shaping my own.

You seem to believe the negativity is justified because "As for my own tone, it has grown edgier in proportion to the disrespect that I think the PB and COO have shown others in this conversation."

I'm pretty sure that fighting back when you feel you've been attacked isn't exactly the model for disagreement proposed in the gospel.

My hope and prayer is that the tone of the rhetoric can be turned down, that both sides can offer a bit of charity to the other and we can move forward without declaring that the PB doesn't understand mission or doing an "end run" around those who disagree.

I would have hoped that a site like this could have been the exact forum to call the sides together but it seems too wrapped up in the debate to maintain that sort of objectivity.

As a GenX-er in this church (meaning only that I hope to be serving God in this church for many years to come) it is my great fear that we have already bickered ourselves into irrelevance and will continue infighting until we no longer exist.

-Mitch Bojarski

PS - I also suspect that there may be only 2 or 3 people who have even read this thread this far.

Mitch Bojarski, Characterizing the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops as bureaucrats does not sound very positive to me, while you have been accusing others of spreading negativity. You seem to be dividing the people in the pews from their representatives. I am not comfortable with your accusation that those who are older are more likely to fight.

I am very thankful that Episcopal Cafe reports and comments on the issues the denomination is facing and would not want this to be another bland church journal.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Mitch, thanks for the conversation. I appreciate your sticking with it beyond the initial posting.

I think you are right, that we are not going to come to an agreement. I think people with power use power to get more power, and that people with resources use those resources to get more resources. I think that is what is happening now in the church. I don't find that something I want to be unnecessarily polite about. And I don't think the Gospels, which are about a guy who called his opponents snakes and vipers and made enough enemies to get himself killed, require it. The Cafe is sometimes a convener of conversations, and its is sometimes an advocate. In this case, we are acting as an advocate. People still seem to find us, whatever role we are in.

I don't think infighting will have any discernible impact on the survival of the church. I think our future hinges on our ability to adapt to a changing culture. At the moment, everyone is the debate is talking about adapting and streamlining, etc. but no one has really spelled out what they mean in any useful way.

@gary,

The characterizations I made in my post reflect the positions I hear from people in my church. I really do believe that the bishops and the deputies (including their leadership) think they are acting in the best interest of the church. I don't think a majority of the folks in my pews are as convinced and they don't see much of a difference between the two houses. There's a sense that the leadership has lost touch and are too worried about their own reputations and/or power to do what's in the best interest of those in the churches.

I also don't believe that older members of the church are more likely to fight, per se. But it is Baby-Boomers with all the power in the church right now and they are the ones doing the fighting.

-Mitch Bojarski

@Jim,

I thank you for your candor in saying that you are using EpiscopalCafe to advocate for your position and not objectively reporting on the issue and that your tone has grown "edgier". I do understand and accept that the EpiscopalCafe does not claim to be purely informational without commentary or editorial. You have every right to post like this on this forum but I think you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.

We obviously disagree on this point and I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that the mudslinging and name-calling can help the church move toward a more collegial future. I don't see how it will, but you seem convinced that you're in the right.

My original post was concerned with the "edgier" tone. Now that I see you seem to think the PB and COO are "snakes" and "vipers" and your “opponents” rather than colleagues in ministry I think I understand better. Once we see those with whom we disagree as opponents then it is fine to call them snakes and vipers and know that you're not in the wrong. You have certainly done a fine job of self-justification in that regard.

I wish everyone (the holy ones and the snakes and vipers) would be less concerned with being right and more concerned with doing right.

Hang on a sec. I didn't call the PB and Bishop Sauls the names you suggest. Nothing of the sort. And I don't think it is useful to equate sharply worded criticism with mudslinging and name-calling--especially when you are the one putting the names in my mouth.

I have managed to have this conversation without questioning your character in any way. You haven't been able to show me the same courtesy. Now you are distorting what I have said. So, I think we're done here.

Thank you, Michael, for insulting baby boomers, of which I am one.

Gary Paul Gilbert

The tone of this blog post raises questions for me about the intent of the blogger.

"He is particularly good on the two bishops' faulty understanding of mission, a word they use as a weapon against those who think it is worth spending money to include clergy and lay people in the decision making bodies of the church."

This tone feels objectionable at several levels. First, the blogger assumes a superior tone about mission and a motivation that feels contradictory to what I understand of the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Sauls.

Second, to deal in personalities and to impute motives subverts the potential for a win-win dialogue and converts it into a win-lose contest. The accusation of abuse of power turns on the accuser.

A discussion, free of heat and invective, about mission can only benefit us. It can only enlarge our vision of mission as we inform one another and receive one another's truth.

We do not do mission by extension; rather, we do mission by participation. God does mission 24/7 in every realm. Ours is to discern where God is at work at the local, diocesan, national, and international levels and join in that mission.

To set governance over against mission creates a false dichotomy. Governance serves mission. Mission trumps all else; thus governance indeed is missional.

Are we saying that we do not have $100,000 to fund this venture? Are we saying that we want to dump this task onto an already overloaded General Convention agenda rather than creating a milieu devoted entirely to a discussion of mission and structure? Are we saying that we do not welcome the outside voices and fresh eyes of people on a commission who otherwise would be tangential to the discussion?