Episcopal Press and News
Restructure Becomes Watchword for Episcopalians
Episcopal News Service. June 15, 1994 [94120]
Alice Clayton, Executive for Communications for the Diocese of East Tennessee and editor of the East Tennessee Episcopalian
As a host of institutions and corporations are reexamining their corporate culture with an eye toward quality and caring, it's no surprise that Episcopalians are looking at their own institution with restructure in mind.
In August, deputies and bishops at the 71st General Convention in Indianapolis will join an ongoing debate on the Episcopal Church's future. Concerns about dwindling membership, financial difficulties, the perceived unwieldiness and ineffectiveness of General Convention and a growing dissatisfaction with what some have charged is a "corporate mentality" in the national church offices have brought calls for reorganization. Some Episcopalians believe the denomination is grossly out of line with what its mission should be.
The current structure of the Episcopal Church reflects styles of institutional management that found favor in the United States following World War II. In 1944 the church elected its first full-time presiding bishop when General Convention decided a bishop tied to a diocese could not lead the flourishing denomination. In 1960 a larger corporate headquarters replaced the small New York offices occupied since 1894.
Being created in the image of corporate America is exactly what some observers contend is the problem of the church today -- a national Episcopal Church that has become too bureaucratic and is not listening to its people.
"We are in a tremendous flux as to how to do the work of Christ. The old ways have not fostered the kind of partnership the body of Christ needs and deserves," said Bishop Rustin Kimsey, chair of the Executive Council Planning and Development Committee.
Convention deputies will struggle with proposals for restructure covering the budget, national program and staff, and the reduction of deputies and resolutions. Some radical proposals call for changing from a bicameral legislative body to a unicameral body and holding General Convention once every five years instead of three. One proposed resolution summons the church "to a season of repentance and reform" and calls for a special General Convention in 1996 to implement structural reformation.
Although not directly linked to the calls for restructure, the bishops of the Episcopal Church have drastically changed the way the House of Bishops conducts its business since the 70th General Convention in Phoenix in 1991.
Sharp words exchanged between Bishop John MacNaughton of West Texas and Bishop John Spong of Newark during a debate in the House of Bishops in Phoenix led to an unprecedented series of closed sessions to restore collegiality. Hoping to rebuild trust among the bishops, Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning called for the first of five special meetings at the Kanuga Conference Center in North Carolina.
Designed to create a new style of leadership based on community and consensus, the meetings centered on daily worship, Bible study and small group discussions. In a statement released following the first Kanuga meeting in March 1992, the bishops said they recognized the need for focusing on their communal life as a House of Bishops. "We learned that if we cannot be bishops together, we cannot be bishops alone," the statement read. The bishops further expressed a determination to "build a new way of meeting as a House of Bishops."
In a recent interview, Bishop Sam Hulsey of Northwest Texas, chair of the Kanuga Planning Committee, said he hoped the work of the House of Bishops since Phoenix would resonate throughout the church. "I would say our model is more circular than hierarchical now. We have worked on being less legislative in our process. At the same time we have to go on with our Anglican polity, but I am hopeful that one will reflect the other," Hulsey said.
In addition, the bishops have extended the hand of collegiality to the House of Deputies by inviting its president Pamela Chinnis to visit some interim meetings. To foster cooperation, the bishops asked the House of Deputies to join them for morning Bible study during the General Convention. The two houses will meet together two mornings during the 10-day convention to discuss the bishops' pastoral letter on the sin of racism and the teaching on human sexuality, Hulsey said.
"When the time comes to vote, our big challenge is to try to transfer what we've accomplished in the five interim meetings to a General Convention meeting," Hulsey said.
Touted as a "Grassroots Forum on Episcopal Structures," the Shaping Our Future Symposium thrust structural reform into the limelight in August 1993. Sponsored by the Diocese of East Tennessee, the symposium brought more than 1,000 Episcopalians together in St. Louis to examine the church's structure for the 21st century.
Planners of the symposium said the gathering would provide an opportunity to talk about the institutional life of the Episcopal Church in a nonlegislative atmosphere. Detractors predicted that it would be an uncontrollable "shadow General Convention" and a "magnet for the discontented."
Once the symposium convened, however, it became clear that those participants cared more about the church's mission than its structure. Predictions that the symposium would digress into a "gripe session" never materialized. Instead participants praised the gathering for its positive nature and sense of community.
The church's bishops continued the symposium dialogue in October during their annual meeting in Panama. Bishop John Howe of Central Florida invited his fellow bishops to discuss the important question of the symposium, "Where do we go from here?" Some called for a "revolution" of the church's structures, striking while the symposium participants were still energized, while others sought for a more evolutionary approach to change.
As the Shaping Our Future symposium was in its final planning stage, the Executive Council had already engaged Episcopalians of all sorts and conditions in discussions about their church. Sent out two-by-two, teams of Executive Council members and national staff members fanned out across the United States to listen to concerns of Episcopal clergy, laity, diocesan staff and volunteers.
More than 3,000 Episcopalians responded to questions designed to aid the national church's planning strategy, including, "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?"
A call for "decentralization" -- refocusing resources from the national level to the local level -- emerged from participants' answers, as did some dissatisfaction with the national church's perceived advocacy for social justice issues. "Our national structure is not working," said a participant from the Diocese of Northern Indiana. "We have become a church of special interests whose only focus is protecting those interests."
Several dioceses called for a more equitable method of funding national programs. "When we send $500,000 from this diocese to New York, I want to be sure that money that is 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.
Heeding the messages brought by its envoys and faced with the projection of a $4-5 million shortfall in 1995, the Executive Council at its November 1993 meeting embarked on a total reexamination of the church's program and structure. Breaking into small groups, council members spent a day in "open, candid and frank discussions," examining ways to forge what they learned from the listening process into a new and improved program.
Following three months of intense and painful decision-making, the council presented proposals guaranteed to have a revolutionary effect on the national church's relationship with dioceses and parishes.
At its January 31-February 4 meeting in Norfolk, Virginia, the Executive Council proposed:
- A new way of asking dioceses for national program funding based on a percentage of total diocesan income rather than a percentage of net disposable income at the parish level.
- A complete restructure of the national program and staff, cultivating a greater partnership among the dioceses, parishes and the national church. This proposal includes eliminating 38 national staff positions; shifting missionary deployment from the national level to the local; reorganizing the church's program into a single Service, Witness and Education Unit of six clusters and creating a computer bulletin board linking all levels of the church.
In perhaps its most radical move, the council proposed a resolution calling for a task force to study reorganizing the General Convention from a bicameral legislative body into a unicameral body. Several council members viewed this proposal as a sign to the people that the church had heard them. Bishop Rustin Kimsey of Eastern Oregon said a unicameral body would "help bring the church together." Bishop Hulsey said he believed that a unicameral body would reflect the work done in the House of Bishops since Phoenix.
As another sign of its dedication to restructure, the council will submit a resolution to the General Convention directing the Standing Commission on Structure to examine the usefulness of canonically established interim bodies. The council will also propose a resolution to save money spent on meetings.
The Executive Council is not alone in wanting to create structural change in the Episcopal Church. Many committees and individuals are floating potential resolutions for the same reason.
Fourteen bishops, led by Bishop John Howe of Central Florida, are proposing a resolution that "will bring radical reform to the structure of the General Convention, reducing drastically its size, cost, frequency of meeting, and burden of legislation."
The proposed resolution calls for:
- each diocese, whatever size, being represented by two clerical and two lay deputies and one alternate from each order;
- changing the frequency of conventions from every three years to every five years with one meeting of the provincial synods held midway between;
- establishing a Joint Commission on Resolutions and considering only resolutions that have been submitted at least three months in advance. An exception would be made for urgent issues if 2/3 majority of both Houses agree;
- limiting resolutions to 50 that deal only with budget, constitution and canons, prayer book, hymnal and program; and
- presenting a Consent Agenda at the beginning of each General Convention that will include resolutions distributed by the Joint Committee on Resolutions and any others deemed urgent.
The Standing Commission on the Structure of the Church is also considering ways to reduce resolutions. The commission proposes that resolutions be presented by one deputy (or bishop) and endorsed by at least two additional deputies (or bishops), all three being from different dioceses. In addition, the commission proposes that legislation left over from a previous convention not be allowed to be reintroduced at the succeeding convention.
The Rev. Jon Shuler, president of Shaping Our Future, Inc., and a deputy from the Diocese of East Tennessee, is submitting a resolution urging the church to declare the Great Commission of Matthew 28 as a kind of "mission statement" for the church. Shuler's resolution calls for a special General Convention in 1996 to reformulate the church's structures in light of the Great Commission and asks that General Convention "redirect all funds to the lowest possible levels to facilitate the mission" by making the "healthy growth of disciple-making congregations our number-one priority."
"We spent over 1.5 billion dollars in 1992, and gained 17,000 new members. This is not good stewardship.... This does not mean we have no money going elsewhere, it simply says that we keep it as close to this reality as possible," states an explanatory note to the resolution. Shuler contended that a significant number of bishops and deputies who attended the 1993 symposium in St. Louis support his resolution.
Although many Episcopalians clamor for change in the structures of their church, some lay leaders believe it's simply a reflection of society's growing discontent with institutions.
"I think some of it reflects a general lack of confidence in national bodies just as you see with the government. I think it's just part of a societal change which has nothing to do with the Episcopal Church whatsoever," said Peg Anderson, Executive Council liaison to the Standing Commission on Structure of the Church.
"Our national institutions are becoming obsolete, and the mainline denominations are no exception. It's not a matter of bad guys or good guys, it's just that the existing model does not connect to the parishes and dioceses anymore," said Barry Menuez, senior executive for planning at the Episcopal Church Center.
One lay observer said she isn't convinced that the people in the pews are indeed clamoring for change. "I'm pretty sure they are not," said Jean Mulligan, chair of the Standing Committee on the State of the Church. "I think the average person in the pew accepts the structure as it is."
Mulligan pointed to the inconsistencies found in the Executive Council diocesan visitation reports as an indication that as many people want things to stay the same as want change. "There were a number of dioceses that said they needed more information from 815 [Episcopal Church Center]. Another group of dioceses said 815 inundates us with material; we don't need any more. Still another group said things were fine," Mulligan said.
Charles M. Crump, chair of the Standing Commission on Structure of the Church, said he believes that any time dissatisfaction exists with what a group is doing, the structure gets the blame. "Rather than seeing a radical restructuring, I would like for us to improve what we have," Crump said.