Diocesan Visitations Reveal a Patchwork of Affirmation, Concern and Frustration
Episcopal News Service. November 23, 1993 [93213]
Presented with an opportunity to say anything they wanted to say about their church and its future direction, more than 3,000 Episcopalians have given leaders of the denomination an earful.
From lofty affirmations to petty swipes -- and nearly everything in between -- members of the church have told their leaders that organizational structures exist to serve people in mission, and not the other way around.
For nearly nine months, two-person teams composed of an Executive Council member and a member of the national staff spread out across the church to set up a "listening post" in each diocese of the church. The visitors met with a range of people in each diocese -- clergy, laity, diocesan staff, volunteers -- and solicited concerns, challenges and suggestions for the church at all levels.
Dioceses were asked several questions to help guide the national church's planning strategy, including, "What do you see as the major challenges and opportunities regarding mission and ministry facing you, your congregation and your diocese during the next 10 years and beyond?" and "What do you see most essential for the ongoing structural and programmatic reform of the Episcopal Church at the national, provincial, diocesan and local levels?"
At a time when many institutions and governments are facing the wrath of constituents' disenchantment, most mainline religious denominations are also confronting a weakening of their institutional fabric. "We have a real crisis in lack of confidence in our institutions. We are one of those institutions," said a participant in the visit to the Diocese of Alabama.
Woven into the hundreds of pages that represent the responses of 70 dioceses -- the first half of the visitations to be tabulated -- are some strong threads of frustration at the local level about the role and direction of the socalled national church.
"Many in the church pews have only a fuzzy concept in their own minds as to how the entire organization of the church at diocesan and national levels relate to each other," said a participant in the Diocese of Southeast Florida.
Throughout the church, many members have strongly affirmed the vitality of local ministries and are embracing the idea of "decentralization" -- that the main purpose of diocesan and national structures must be to support local programs. "We need to look seriously at which national church functions could be passed down to the provincial or diocesan levels," said a participant in Western North Carolina.
A participant in the Diocese of Los Angeles was more blunt: "I think we are experiencing the death of centralized planning and I think it is healthy."
Although there seemed to be some broad agreement for reevaluation of the denominational structures in the Episcopal Church, several persons warned against going too far. "I have a concern that we become so decentralized that we become isolationist," said a participant in the Diocese of Kentucky. A similar comment about the dangers of congregationalism and isolationism was expressed in the Diocese of Northern Indiana. "We need to look beyond our doors and connect and support each other," the participant said.
"Doing away with Episcopal hierarchy is not the answer," said a participant in the Diocese of Southwestern Virginia. "The institutional church passes on Christian teachings and history. It educates people to care for others."
Despite attention given to polity and effective structures, much criticism on the diocesan level seemed aimed at the national church's engagement in social justice issues. "People are looking for stability and only see controversy," said a member of the Diocese of Quincy.
"The impression is that the presiding bishop has become a political figure elected by a partisan process dedicated to the implementation of a party agenda," said a participant in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. According to the participant, that so-called agenda "is irrelevant to the average parish."
"Our national structure is not working," said a participant in the Diocese of Northern Indiana. "We have become a church of special interests whose only focus is protecting those interests. This keeps the power structure from changing and forces people to focus on protecting their turf."
In Southeast Florida, the council and staff member heard a similar sentiment. "The church government is too political and too controlled by special interest groups. National church politics are making it more difficult to conduct local ministry."
"The national church is diverting attention away from the Gospel to its own political agenda," charged a participant in the Diocese of Colorado. "The General Convention needs to narrow its focus," said a participant in the Diocese of Kansas. "Do we have to take on all issues and try to solve the whole world's problems?
"We should be more spiritually oriented, rather than issued oriented," said a participant in the Diocese of Northern California. "While we should not drop the concern for social issues, we need to turn the direction of the issues, so that a genuine concern for people flows from spiritual growth, not spiritual growth from social issues."
Despite some sharp criticism that the Episcopal Church is "issue driven," some of the greatest excitement in the church is about mission and outreach around some of these same issues, such as racism and hunger as well as AIDS ministries.
Other inconsistencies in the reports suggested that a total analysis of the information would be more like a patchwork quilt rather than a seamless garment. For example, some participants said that the Episcopal Church Center distributes too many materials and resources; others said it didn't send out enough. Some reported a high degree of satisfaction with Christian education training seminars and workshops; others said they would prefer printed curriculum instead.
Despite the variety of opinions throughout the church, one idea had significant widespread support -- albeit for differing reasons. Almost as if it were a mantra for Episcopalians, participants said over and over, "Move the Episcopal Church Center out of New York City."
"Get the Church Center out of New York and into a central geographic location in order to be more in touch with parishes and better stewards of resources," said a participant in the Diocese of Lexington. "Down-size the Church Center staff and utilize the released funds for local ministries."
In the Diocese of Mississippi, a participants said that "moving the national offices to a central location would be a powerful symbol of being sensitive to the whole church. Accessibility, safety and cost of living in New York City is a problem."
"Moving the Church Center out of New York would help get rid of the perception that it is inflexible and has an ostrich mentality," said someone in the Diocese of Colorado.
And yet, even on this issue there was not unanimous agreement in the reports. One participant in the Diocese of Kentucky said that "the location of the Church Center is not as important as what goes on in the building." And another person from the Diocese of Indianapolis suggested that there were other underlying issues beneath debate over the location of national staff. "Have we, over the years, had a 'drift' in what the national church staff is asked to do or be? Are we expecting of them what they cannot deliver and then blaming them for their failure?"
Into the mix of compliment and critique, several dioceses called on new funding arrangements for the national program of the church.
"Money goes from the local churches to the national church and then some of it comes back to local churches," said a member of the Diocese of Los Angeles. "Half of it is lost in the process. The method of apportionment needs to be completely redone."
"When we send $500,000 from this diocese to New York, I want to be sure that money that is being taken out of the parish -- which is where the action is -- is spent with the greatest care and stewardship," said a member of the Diocese of Dallas during the visit. "What we get back is nowhere near half a million dollars," he said.
"If we are clear about our mission, the money is there," said a member of the Diocese of Arizona. "It's not knowing what our mission is that makes people resistent to give."
When it was inaugurated last spring, observers compared the visitation program to a national "every member canvass." Just as stewardship programs were concluding in thousands of parishes across the country, the Executive Council received the reports from "people in the pews" in order to develop budgets and set priorities for the future (see story on Executive Council).
More than anything else in the reports, it was clear that members of the church who participated in the process appreciated the engagement and the face-to-face dialogue with council members and staff. And yet, even there, a level of expectation was expressed in several meetings.
"We are encouraged by these visitations by the Executive Council," said several members in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. "We trust that the dioceses will be heard and that the material gathered will be used," they said. "There is nothing more destructive than getting people together and not taking heed of what they say."