Support the Café

Search our Site

Does talk about structure just paper over larger issues?

Does talk about structure just paper over larger issues?

Every so often, in and amongst the general chatter, something catches your attention. Crusty Old Dean (Bexley Hall’s Rev. Dr. Tom Ferguson) made this blogger sit up straight this morning in an entry on blips and germs in an entry he calls a manifesto.

If I’m reading him right, part of Ferguson’s argument is that truly to restructure things means something much more fundamental and wide-reaching than ecclesial decision making bodies are equipped to handle. It means accepting that history has been kind to The Episcopal Church, but that history is history. (One commenter’s remark that our denomination has already feasted on its seed corn is still haunting my coffee-addled imagination.)

What is that “something much more fundamental and wide-reaching”?

COD finds himself thinking that restructuring is so 2011. The past few months have convinced him that on the one hand the scope of change we are looking at in the next 50 years is so profound, and, on the other hand, how utterly incapable governing structures currently are at shaping a discussion about what is needed (a quick run-through of the Blue Book Report shows that nothing of substance will likely emerge from this General Convention this summer, brought to us by the same people who can’t use Excel properly).

Collapse, my friends. That’s what’s coming.

1) Realize the blip is not normative, and that the much of the structures we have cannot be tweaked because the structures are part of the blip.

2) Dismantle national church structures to be solely canonical governance. Looks like we will spend 2012, just like we did in 2009, letting the General Convention and the Politburo that makes decisions slowly decide what we cannot do (in 2009, things like Liturgy & Music, Theological Education, and others; in 2012, Youth & Young Adult; in 2015, what next?) so they can struggle to do what they think they can still do or prefer to do. A slow, slow death march to irrelevance. Begin to end it now; shut it down but do so in order to

3) Begin a process to fully empower dioceses, provinces, networks to do the mission of the church. We have some assets: $250 million in endowment funds held by the DFMS; property in New York; a series of networks which, at times some more successfully than others, coordinated by denominational staff; a network of over 7,000 parishes and 100 dioceses and many, many affiliation based groups and networks. Empower the networks fully instead of having them have stuff periodically dumped on them every three years. We will still do many of the things we used to do, but in different ways, with broader buy-in and support — maybe Forma (formerly NAECED) or provinces would hire Young Adult & Youth Ministry network coordinators to work with congregations and dioceses instead of what 815 used to do.

Or, maybe like those germs which devastated the Aztecs, maybe a whole new and unexpected way of doing church is going to emerge. Or maybe it’s already here and we can’t fully empower it blowing millions on a building in New York and on holding a once-every-three-years meeting.

4) End parishes as clubs for members with a chaplain to minister to them, set up as Ponzi schemes for committees, which sees recruitment as getting people to serve on committees. Would many of the towns where our Episcopal churches are located even notice, or care, if they were to close? How many of our parishes function solely as clubs for the gathered? How many dioceses have 10%, 15%, 20%, of their parishes on diocesan support? How many dioceses are struggling to function? We have to change not only the diocesan structure, but fundamentally reshape what it means to be a parish and a diocese. Some of many options which are available, should we be willing to pursue them:

–We could recruit and train non-stipendiary priests to gracefully end parishes which are unwilling or unable to engage in any actual mission, evangelism, or discipleship; even develop a system of training and education for non-stipendiary priests which wouldn’t make them have to drop everything to go to seminary.

–In turn, for what full time clergy we have, train them not to be chaplains to a gathered community but missionaries and community organizers. This will also require a fundamental rethinking of seminary education in how we train such folks. You know, COD is a Dean, and is ready to partner with whomever is willing to work on the two points above.

This blogger would love to find a crack in the armor of the COD’s thoughts on the matter strictly for reasons of personal convenience, but can’t. Heck, I bet the COD would love to have a crack pointed out to him for the same reasons.

Anyway, read the whole darned thing and let’s have a conversation.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Ironically, I am not so sure that the demise of the national structure would make a big difference. My experience is that in vibrant parishes, there’s little interest in what happens on the diocesan or national level. (My Facebook post on my parish’s page about the proposed budget, which I had hoped would engender vibrant discussion, was instead met with a big yawn, LOL.)

FYI, there’s an interesting post about the fate of the former Cathedral of Christ the King in western Michigan, which was sold in 2007 to a church that had started in 1992 and had grown to more than 2,500 members by the time it acquired the cathedral. Sadly enough, the Episcopal parish at the cathedral, which moved to a smaller facility down the road, disbanded altogether a few months ago. Details at

Closer to home here in VA, I am concerned about our approach to the continuing congregations, many of which will soon be moving back into their church homes. Although we have the diocesan Dayspring program, which appears to be a worthwhile project, there seems to me a pressing need for those of us happily esconced in more stable parishes to reach out and help our neighboring parishes. Yet I don’t sense that the matter is much on the average person’s radar. We will have made a major blunder if we spent millions to maintain control of TEC assets, only to ignore the assets — and the people served by those assets — into oblivion. Insularity = death.

Eric Bonetti

Mary Ann Hill

There are still plenty of entreprenuerially and mission-minded clergy in this church. I know of one network that has dozens of them (Gathering of Leaders) The only thing holding us back is a reluctance on the part of some to let change happen, mostly because their egos are too strongly invested in the status quo. We are surrounded more and more by people who are unchurched or who have been hurt by religion, and we have so much to offer them. If we are

courageous and faithful, there is no end to what God could do through us.

Jonathan Grieser

In preparation for some long-range planning in my own parish, I reread some of our parish history this morning and I was struck by the ways in which we are returning to patterns that existed in the nineteenth century. Rectors in the second half of the 19th century held services regularly in outlying communities–most of which never became established parishes or even missions. There are other ways of being Christian community than being a parish, having a building and a full-time priest and we need to experiment with those other models just as we did at earlier times in our history.

Jim Naughton

Chris, I think many of us are afraid. Thanks for being honest about your concerns. (And the first person who uses the phrase “non-anxious presence” in responding gets Cafe detention.) What I like about Tom’s piece is that I think it points to various things that we can do. And the notion that we can and should take action is reassuring to me.

Chris Arnold

Alright, I’m going to be vulnerable and honest here: I read this saying “yup, I think he’s right” and “Dear sweet Lord, I’m afraid he’s right.” As a fairly newly-minted priest, it makes me panic to think that there’s yet more chaos in the future. That’s just my personal baggage, but there it is.

Ecclesiologically, COD’s plan feels like the death of another thing that holds us together. I’m witnessing the falling-away of all sorts of “classic” Christian markers, not only changing attitudes towards sex, homosexuality, and marriage, but radical changes in our views on baptism and communion (the Communion without Baptism thing), the saints, the Creeds… If we spin this out to the dioceses, what on earth will hold us together? Someone will say “Christ!” but we’re already speaking such different languages about him now.

I think COD’s plan is brave, and it is certainly radical. Alternatives may not be possible, but I fear that this plan will not be sustainable. Basically, yeah, I’m afraid.

[Chris Arnold // name added -.ed]

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café