Episcopal Congregations: What? Why? How?

The Acts 8 Moment Blogforce proposed these two questions:

• What is the mission of the congregation?  
• How should it be structured to serve its mission?

Before thinking about mission and structure, I realized I needed a working definition of what a congregation in the Episcopal Church is today.  While I'm sure more theologically deep and ecclesiologially sophisticated definitions could be offered, a working definition for most congregations is:

Episcopal Congregation: a group of people who meet in the same place for worship on Sunday.

Of course, exceptions exist.  Some congregations are multi-site.  A few congregations worship at times other than Sunday morning.  Emergent churches and fresh expressions sites are experimenting with different models.  But in the end, our Book-of-Common-Prayer-based church identifies its congregations as the group of folks who gather for worship in a particular place, even if some gather at 8:00am and some at 10:00am.

Given this definition, the de facto mission of most congregations begins with hosting a Sunday morning worship service.  Since the 1979 prayer book, the liturgical movement, and our increasing denominational niche as the liberal catholic church, in many places a congregation's primary focus is offering a Sunday morning Eucharist. 

I might be accused of circular logic here.  If a congregation is defined by their Sunday worship, then their worship would be their primary goal.  The circularity makes my argument no less true, however.  This definition and mission has structural implications that are also observable.  Our congregations are structured to provide Sunday morning worship as effectively as possible.  Budgets focus on ensuring a priest to celebrate mass, a sanctuary, and a musician.  (If you have any questions about this, look at the budget differences in most congregations for the costs associated with worship and the costs associated with almost any other mission priority.)  Lay participation is often associated with liturgical ministries, as well, and the members of the choir, altar guild, acolytes, readers, ushers, etc., often outnumber people involved in other church ministries.

These details are particularly true for smaller congregations that have resources for only one or two priorities.  Larger congregations with greater resources can carry out the first priority of worship effectively and still have money and volunteers to accomplish other goals.

While I agree that worship is important, and is one of the priorities of a congregation -- maybe even the first among equals -- our current over-focus on the Sunday morning event is killing our churches.  For a congregation to thrive it needs inspiring worship, but it also needs evangelism and loving relationships and small groups and a number of other components (for one useful analysis, see the Natural Church Development materials).  Too often, when things are going badly in the Episcopal Church, we tinker with our worship service rather than increasing our evangelism or starting a new ministry in the community or dealing with the conflict that drives away every visitor who actually talks to anyone at coffee hour.

Instead of making worship services the primary mission of our congregations, we should redefine our mission as creating a healthy, growing community of disciples.  Worship will be one important component, but so will private devotions, fellowship opportunities, personal and corporate evangelism, and any number of other practical ways that we live out loving God, loving our neighbors and baptizing all nations while teaching them everything Jesus commanded.  The mission of our congregations, and the mission of the church at every level, should involve being a community that lives out the Great Commandment and Great Commission.

The structure of congregations, then, should be whatever allows a group of people in a particular place to live into that mission.  Given our traditions in the Episcopal Church, part of the structure of our congregations will involve democratically elected lay governance with appropriate clergy leadership along with financial transparency, administrative competency, connection to the diocese and larger church, and other best practices of non-profit and religious corporations. 

As this refocusing of mission is happening, some places are realizing that budget, building and other resources also need to be refocused.  These discussions and changes can all be very positive moves as our congregations worry less about filling our emptying pews and more about being a healthy, growing community of disciples.

A few small steps in a TREC of a thousand miles

This week the Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church released their final report.  This 73-page document contains TREC's "recommendations for changes in the Church's structures, governance, and administration to advance the Five Marks of Mission". 

(Note: a short five-point summary of my conclusions is available at the bottom of this post.)

The first thing to say about the report is "Thank You" to the members of TREC.  They did a significant amount of work in a fairly short period of time.  They solicited input, fostered conversations, and have put forward a number of proposals to move Church-wide organizations "away from 'doing' mission and toward enabling mission by connecting communities and individuals for mutual support, learning, and collaboration."  They have spent their time working hard to produce something that will invariably undergo the sausage-making process of church legislation and be openly critiqued by any number of Episcopalians that know how to use the internet.  They also remind us to follow Jesus together into our neighborhoods, which is a good place to start any renewal.  So to begin, gratitude is in order for their contribution to these important conversations in our church's life at this moment.

Second, TREC notes rightly that the innovation and collaboration is happening at various levels throughout the church and that their proposed "changes will not in themselves transform the Church and its health."  The goal of TREC's Church-wide governance recommendations is to enable "more transformational and visionary changes to be pursued by Church leaders at local, diocesan, and Church-wide levels."  They also note some places this collaboration is already happening in ways that are changing the church, like Episcopal Service Corps, the Acts 8 Moment, and new church plants.  TREC's goal is not to legislate innovation, which is probably impossible, but to reimagine church structures in ways that promote and foster such innovation at other levels.

Salt Lake City

Third (and finally, before getting into some of the specific proposals), TREC has given us a very important piece in the conversation we are going to have at General Convention in Salt Lake City and beyond.  However, much of what they have done is point to where the answers might lie, rather than making many definitive statements themselves.  Many probably wish that parts of TREC's proposals were more detailed (e.g., funding implications of some of the proposals might be helpful).  Other parts seem to direct groups of people to do what they are already doing if they can, which might not be so helpful.  While frustrating, TREC may not have been able to do much more in these areas for a couple of reasons.

On the one hand, TREC was being asked, like many consultants, to do what everyone knew needed to be done but which no one had so far made happen.  Much of the discussion leading up to the TREC resolution centered around the cost and ineffectiveness of aspects of General Convention.  However, when Convention 2012 could have eliminated many Standing Commissions or debated a unicameral house, everyone blinked and asked TREC to figure it out.  So we'll get to debate those issues in 2015 after a three-year delay. Meanwhile, while TREC was doing its work, a group from the House of Deputies re-wrote the House's Rule's of Order in ways that, if implemented, could conceivably save up to two legislative days (at least assuming that those two days aren't spent just waiting for legislation to get to HoD from HoB).  One wonders how many other issues could have been addressed by taking the bull by the horns in a timely manner and not passing them off to TREC (seminary debt?, sustainable dioceses?, the location of "815" which TREC doesn't address?).    

TREC Engagement Results

On the other hand, as TREC received input, much of what was received seemed as problematic to reimagining the Church as one would expect from a church in our current shape.  The top favorite memories of the Church read like a generic ad for a parish looking for a new priest: "A loving, welcoming, community that is like family and loves our liturgy."  The fact that liturgy was the most frequent answer of what to hold on to, with tradition running second and evangelism not appearing at all on the list, is also troubling.  (Certainly, inspiring liturgy can be a powerful tool of evangelism, but it won't be if we aren't intentional about using it as such.)  Perhaps we should be heartened that 2% of respondents thought that we should hold onto Jesus.

While it is easy to poke fun at what people said in their input, the most salient point I take from the answers is that most people responding value the Episcopal Church for what differentiates us from fundamentalist, evangelical or other denominational churches.  Most Episcopalians are still not thinking about what we offer that differentiates us from the increasingly unchurched and secularized world around us.  If our imaginations are stuck in our market-share of Christendom, we will continue to have a hard time reimagining a church that expands the Christian "pie"in our communities at the congregational and diocesan levels in a way necessary for any reimagining of the Episcopal Church to be truly successful.  The combination of abdicated past leadership in various church sectors and a widespread lack of imagination leaves TREC waving its arms around vaguely in some areas we really need to figure out.

One implication of TREC's hortatory proposals is that much work remains for General Convention to debate and flesh out TREC's ideas.  To give one example, lowering Diocesan assessments and implementing penalties when they are not paid are both ideas that I fully support, but what that lower number should be and how we get there are going to be Convention's decision without TREC's help.  Bishops and deputies should expect 2015 to be long, intense, and structure-focused if we hope to make future conventions (and the church as a whole) more mission-focused.  TREC's report, even if adopted unanimously on day one, would still give Convention a lot of work to do.

Now lets turn to some of the more specific proposals TREC makes.  I'll take them more or less in order, recognizing that TREC's resolutions contain a number of resolved clauses that address fairly different issues.

The first resolution is A001: Restructure for Spiritual Encounter.  To begin, I'm not sure exactly what spiritual encounter means here, or that everything included fosters spiritual encounter in a direct way, but such things will no doubt be debated at General Convention.

The first resolved clause urges seminaries to collaborate, then goes on to list a lot of outcomes expected from that collaboration.  While all of them sound good, I'm guessing that to the degree possible, seminaries are already working on many of these items with various partners, including developing competencies in ordinands beyond those defined by canon.  At the same time, where seminaries are having a hard time dealing with changing realities around them, I'm not sure some sort of reporting to Executive Council on newly developed measures of spiritual formation will be helpful.  We may need our seminaries to come back with a proposal for a future Convention on what canonical competencies we do need at this time, but that is not asked for here.

The second resolve asking Diocesan Councils and Commissions on Ministry to study ways for "clergy to make a living inside and outside of the Church" is also difficult to understand.  Some Dioceses are starting to look at this, but I don't see a resolution like this creating meaningful conversation in places that aren't.

The third and fourth resolve are important.  They ask Executive Council to look at clergy compensation and the Pension Fund to think about how it can best serve clergy in situations that don't fit traditional models.   Finding pension (and health care) options for non-stipendiary clergy could be a huge step forward in allowing more innovative congregational models at the local level.

The firth resolve calling on DFMS to develop a network to help everybody do everything a church should do and then report to their Diocesan officials just needs to go.  The learning of the church about networks is that people who want them form them.  DFMS could offer grants or technical assistance for those who want to form networks but don't know how.  I can't imagine asking someone to be on my parish vestry if they have to report their progress on becoming skilled at "creating, nurturing, and developing spaces and moments for spiritual encounters" to the Bishop annually.   

The second resolution is A002: Reimagine Diocese, Bishops, and General Convention.  This resolution also covers a lot of ground.

The first resolved is for a unicameral model of governance, effectively combining that House of Bishops and House of Deputies at General Convention.  I think this is a good idea, and one of the best one TREC could come up with to significantly shorten General Convention.  (Just eliminating the references to the "junior house" and "senior house" could save an hour over the course of convention.)  By having one debate with no back and forth between houses, many things could be streamlined.  For significant matters, votes by orders would still be taken.  TREC included an option that "any order may choose to deliberate and/or vote separately" with no mechanism of how that might be done.  If opting out of a unicameral legislature is straightforward, having one seems more trouble than it is worth (especially if two spaces have to be prepared and maintained throughout convention, just in case).  Better to keep everyone together.  If there are concerns about Bishops influencing how their deputies vote (or vice versa!), perhaps Bishops could be seated together and not with their respective deputations.

Another portion of this resolve is to shrink deputations to six, three priests/deacons and three lay persons.  Smaller deputations are another good step, I think.  However, I find that grouping priests and deacons together is as problematic as grouping bishops and priests or deacons and laity.  Why not say each Diocese gets three priests, three lay persons and one deacon?  Deacons do not have the same vows to participate in the councils of the church, and they bring a different (and very important) perspective that should not be lost if a diocese chooses not to elect any deacons.

This resolution also would provide for the Presiding Bishop to be elected by a concurrent vote by orders of the bishops, clergy, and laity.  Again, this proposal by TREC is a positive one that should be adopted.  (More on the Presiding Officers later.)

The second resolve asks bishops to collaborate, much like they asked seminaries to collaborate earlier.  Two items here are worth noting, however.  The first is a call for mutual ministry review for bishops and Diocesan bodies, and good processes for those reviews are badly needed.  The second is a frank discussion the number and size of dioceses.  A specific mechanism asking for a task force of 8 bishops to be created to address each area with some funding given would probably be helpful here.

The third resolve creates a task force to look at the episcopacy generally, and provides a mechanism and budget for doing so.  This task seems the most likely to sputter into vague generalities at the end, but could be useful.  I'd rather see funds go into the two discussions in resolve two, however.

The fourth resolve asks dioceses in transition to meet with Bishops and Standing Committees in adjoining dioceses.  This sounds great, and I would applaud it.  I would also say, however, that the times of uncertain leadership during bishop searches (like rector searches in parishes) would seem a not particularly fruitful time for significant change and collaboration to occur, since people are mostly waiting to see what the next bishop will do.

The fifth resolve asks that diocesan assessments be lowered, but canonically mandatory.  Later (p58), canonically mandatory seems to mean that Executive Council can reduce a diocese's program funds to be received by the church if a Diocese doesn't meet its assessment.  Reducing clerical and lay deputations down to one or two members would be a stronger stick.  The biggest issue, as noted above, is that TREC hasn't recommended what that lower number should be, or provided any rationale to make that decision.  We might all agree, but it is a lot of detail work yet to be done.

The third resolution is A003: Restructure Assets in Service of God's Mission in the Future.  This resolution seems designed to address the large number of (under-utilized) buildings and the draining of endowments.

The first resolve directs every diocese to "develop a theology of sacredly inclusive use-of-space that is adaptive and generative financially and spiritually."  I have a very hard time seeing my Diocese, or many dioceses, writing up such a theology.  At the same time, we may have to be honest that in many areas with multiple aging church buildings (of many denominations), there is not a lot of need for spaces with deferred maintenance and that need new paint, floors, and lighting.  I can also say from experience that even when a congregation incarnates the kind of theology being asked for here, significant investment of time (and resources) is required from a core of volunteers willing to maintain a heavily-used building in a way that is welcoming and hospitable.  I would also hazard to guess that the greater an albatross a congregation's building is around its neck, the less capacity that congregation has to open it up effectively to the wider community.

The second and third resolves look at similar issues in different networks.  Convening the right people to look at good ideas could be helpful, but much of that work may already be done by the Church Building Fund.  Resolving that bishops, deans, chapters, rectors and vestries all do similar work in their churches sounds good, but most parish leaders are either already looking at these issues or need significantly more help than a convention resolution to do so effectively.

The fourth resolve has two parts.  Endowment use policies are good things, but they get thrown out the window when pots of money are available and finances are tight.  Recommending Standing Committees to create them is also potentially problematic, since in some cases that is the work of other Diocesan bodies and their policies may not be enforceable at the parish level.  The idea of creating Future Generation Funds needs more explanation to be evaluated.

After these resolutions, TREC recommends a whole body of Constitutional and Canonical changes.  While the details will need to be looked at by General Convention for form and substance (the changes are significant and probably ripple throughout different aspects of the constitution and canons), I think they are mostly positive steps worth implementing.  

Effectiveness of General Convention.  As I said above, I support the unicameral legislative body, as well electing the PB from the Convention, as a whole.  TREC's proposal to elect a Presiding Deputy has merit, as well, given their proposed structure.  Having two Presiding officers alternating the chair could either be a blessing or a disaster, but it should work.  The Presiding Deputy becomes Vice-Chair of Executive Council.  TREC proposed a stipend for the Presiding Deputy "in order to enable a greater number of lay and clergy persons to serve as viable candidates for this position."  I'm not entirely sure this is necessary or helpful.  I don't see this as a full-time position, and wouldn't want to have a full-time paid position that is not accountable to the CEO and who would eventually need her/his own staff support, etc.  A generous allowance to cover travel and other necessary expenses might be sufficient.  I would also think that if clergy and lay deputies vote for the PB, then bishops should also have a vote for the Presiding Deputy, in a parallel vote by orders.

Shortening Convention to five legislative days would be a blessing, especially if scheduled such that people could take one week of vacation instead of two.  Removing retired bishops from voting makes sense, as well, and whatever the gatherings of bishops are called between conventions really makes no difference to me as long as all the canonical/constitutional bases are covered (personally, I would propose a Miter of Bishops, similar to a gaggle of geese, a murder of crows, etc.).  The idea of evolving Convention into a Church-wide mission convocation is a good one.  How this might happen is a question that TREC leaves open.  Perhaps this is what the vendors in the Exhibit Hall will decide during the deputies' lengthy deliberations on structural reform in Salt Lake City that keep them from purchasing their wares. (And, in many ways, the Exhibitors are the folks best positioned to think about how to expand what they are already doing well.)

Central Executive Structures and Staff of DFMS.  The major proposal here is to retain the PB as the CEO of the Church, Chair of Executive Council and President of DFMS, with clear responsibility for all staff.  The Presiding Deputy is VP of the Church and DFMS, and Vice-President of Council.  While this is not the way I would have recommended structuring the Church's Executive Officer, I think TREC's proposal is an improvement on what we have now, especially since the Convention would elect the PB and not just the bishops.  The PB would nominate or appoint, with concurrence of the Presiding Deputy (PD?), a Church General Manager (COO), Church Treasurer (CFO), Church Secretary, and Church General Chancellor.  These staff positions could be removed by a 2/3 vote of Executive Council.  Mutual ministry reviews are called for, as well.  Here again, some further discussion of details would seem to be important.   Hopefully some HR folks at Convention or on Executive Council could flesh that out. (I can't find anything about mutual ministry reviews in the proposed canonical changes, but I might have missed it.)

Changes to the role, size and selection of Executive Council.  The most significant changes here seem to be a reduction from 42 to 21 members with much more emphasis on a Nominating Committee identifying and recruiting people with the necessary skill sets to accomplish the work.  Both of these changes seem positive.  A smaller Executive Council made up of people with gifts for the work at hand should help.  I would prefer all members to be elected at-large instead of via provincial structures, with the Nominating Committee ensuring adequate geographic representation as they look at other needed qualifications.  TREC also proposes that Executive Council would have none of its own staff, but work through DFMS staff, as a governing board.  This also makes sense. 

Reduction in Standing Commissions and their scope.  Here TREC eliminates all standing Commissions except the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (renamed Theology, Liturgy, and Music) and Constitution and Canons (renamed "Governance, Constitution, and Canons").  I agree with eliminating all standing commissions except for these two, and believe it should have been done three years ago (at least).   I wouldn't change the names and expand the portfolios, however.  I don't think SCLM should be responsible for our theology discussions on an on-going basis, and I'm pretty sure that a committee to ensure our constitution and canons work the way we need them to shouldn't be responsible for institutional-renewal issues and ecclesiastical adjustments (which sounds like something the bishop's chiropractor should be responsible for).  That work is for task forces (like TREC), with Constitution and Canons making sure the ideas get written up correctly.  TREC proposes to allow the presiding officers to appoint task-forces for up to a three-year term,with task forces dissolving at the end of the triennium.

These are the significant proposals from TREC's report, although I may be missing something in the pages of canonical and constitutional changes.

So to summarize:

1) The details on governance, including the role and election of the PB, the Presiding Deputy, the Executive Council, and General Convention, are serious proposals that TREC has done a solid job addressing.  We need to discuss these matters in detail approaching and during General Convention.  None of these are the silver bullet ideas to save the Church, but they could be very helpful.  If we adopted the basic framework of what TREC proposes, I think we would be ahead of where we are now.  

2) Many of the proposals in the A001, A002, and A003 are almost meaningless, even if they point to real needs.  At the same time, a few items, such as asking the Pension Fund to look at pensions for non-stipendiary clergy, a serious discussion among bishops about the viability of dioceses, and the  unicameral legislature are worth implementing in some form.

3) The lack of discussion around financial implications is a fairly large hole that will need to be filled in.  Suggesting lowering assessments is one significant financial unknown, but so are the costs or savings associated with other TREC suggestions.  (Susan Snook did some quick financial analysis of previous TREC proposals and did not find the savings the Church might be hoping for in the restructuring of General Convention.)  Since part of the overall goal of restructuring is freeing up more money for things like on-the-ground evangelism and church planting, this omission this late in the game is significant. 

4) General Convention, Church Geeks, and other Men and Women of Goodwill have a lot of work to do.  Starting with the ongoing work of prioritizing needs to trim the budget and continuing with discussions of governance changes and proper canonical form, smart people need to put their thinking caps on and sharpen their pencils (or, perhaps, given our paperless convention, charge their tablets).

5) The whole Church will have a lot of work to do.  As TREC has said, they can't do the real work that needs to be done.  They can only propose some structures to make that work a little easier.  We all have to do it.

If you have gotten this far, you deserve a treat.  Here it is.  Go to the Acts 8 Moment website and read about the exciting things happening with the recipients of the Church's Mission Enterprise Zone grants.  This is some of what your work at the last convention accomplished, and we are spending all this time on things like TREC and structure to support even more such initiatives in the future.

Draft Rules of Order

This week the Episcopal Church's General Convention House of Deputies Study Committee on the Rules of Order issued their preliminary draft of new Rules of Order.  You can read their report and download their draft here.  (If you are already lost or just don't care about this level of Church geekery, I'd refer you to some very good Advent posts by my friend Scott Gunn.)

The work this committee has done is exceptional, and their draft is excellent.  Everyone on the committee deserves a huge THANK YOU, as does President Gay Jennings for setting up and commissioning the Study Committee. 

The Study Committee sees their work as making significant changes in a few major areas:

• simplifying the language to make it easier for deputies who don't run their day-to-day lives by Robert's Rules of Order to fully understand and participate in what is going on;
• allowing Dispatch of Business a greater role in shaping when legislation comes to the floor, so that Convention can more easily prioritize its work;
• increasing the use of the Consent Calendar so that our work flow is not gummed up by numerous votes on items with no significant opposition;
• streamlined rules for debate.

I think these proposed rules accomplish all of their goals in ways that will move along the business of convention without hindering opportunities for debate and discussion on important matters. (I only hope President Jennings is generous next summer if I should happen to Move the previous question instead of moving to End debate and vote immediately.)

In addition, these draft rules make two other changes that I would mention.

Under II. General Rules, section B addresses Communication Devises: 
B. Communications Devices
1. The President may allow Deputies to bring cell phones, computers, and other communication devices to the House.
2. No talking on communications devices is allowed while the House is in session.
3. All communications devices will be set to the silent mode.
4. Deputies will respect those around them as they use such devices.

These rules allow electronic communication devises to be present and to be used on the floor (except in closed sessions, which is appropriate).  I would hope that between now and the final version, a change might be made from "The President may allow Deputies to bring" to simply "Deputies may bring", but the current draft is a significant step in the right direction.

These rules also allow for legislative business to take place before General Convention.  The rules state that Legislative Committees may be directed by the President to meet electronically before the times set aside for Legislative business at General Convention.  This provision is a positive one that could save time and allow Legislative committees to hit the ground running once Convention opens.

A second provision would allow committees to hold legislative hearings in the two days prior to the first legislative day of General Convention.  This option seems unhelpful, especially since notice of the hearings would not be required until seven days prior.  This timing is much too late for deputies to change travel plans or accommodations to be present at a hearing for resolution they wish to address.  All deputies that have authored resolutions or wish to address particular matters would need to be prepared to be at Convention two days prior to the first legislative day.  However, since it is possible that no hearings would occur during those days, we might be lengthening Convention's costs for our deputies and Dioceses without accomplishing very much.  Some sort of electronic hearings in advance of Convention for noncontroversial legislation might be possible, but electronic hearings are not proposed in this draft.  If Legislative Committees have organized their work in advance, they should be able to conduct all necessary hearings beginning on the first legislative day of Convention.

Once again, I offer my thanks and congratulations to Bryan Krislock who chaired this Committee, and to members Michael Barlowe, Gay Jennings, Sally Johnson, Thomas Little, Byron Rushing, and James Simons for their hard and good work.  When Robert's Rules of Order is preparing their next revision, they should probably give you all a call.

Ferguson and Policing in our Communities

The killing of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson has once again opened up important discussions about race, violence and the value of life in contemporary America.  The Grand Jury's decision yesterday not to indict Officer Wilson has added intensity to those discussions.

Many others have provided insights from a variety of perspectives.  Dean Mike Kinman at the Episcopal Cathedral in St. Louis has offered particularly good words on reconciliation, prayer and healing on his blog.  My thoughts and prayers continue to go out to Mr. Brown's family, Officer Wilson and his family, as well as the community of Ferguson and our nation.

Beyond the very important big picture questions that need to be addressed, this tragedy also provides us an opportunity to look at some of more mundane decisions communities make about their police departments.  As in many things, the devil is in the details, and since joining Sharon City Council last year, I have seen many structural pressures that help create situations like the one in Ferguson that can go wrong very quickly.

I do not mean to imply that racism, discrimination or other larger evils do not need to be dealt with.  But I also want to recognize the pressures on local municipalities make it more likely that a solo officer will have to make a difficult decision that could end in the loss of his own life or the life or someone else, and we should do everything we can not to put our police officers in those situations.

The first surprise to many may be that officers are mostly working by themselves.  We expect a solo state police officer at a speed trap, but the banter between partners in the squad car on many TV cop shows might lead us to believe that most local cruisers carry two officers.  In most communities I work with, a car has a single officer, even at night.  Back-up can be called in, but when situations go unexpectedly downhill, one person has to make the response, and his or her options may be limited.

Additionally, this solo officer in the car is increasingly unlikely to be integrated into that neighborhood.  Municipalities are dropping residency requirements for police (although Sharon, PA, has not) and, generally for good reasons, police do not often live in high crime areas.  The most significant issue in this disconnect, however, is the loss of beat officers or community police in areas requiring more intensive and frequent police intervention.   

These losses are primarily due to municipal finances.  As city tax bases shrink, fewer funds are available for safety services.  These pressures are compounded by changes in federal grants and the increasing costs of benefits for current and retired municipal police.

Amazingly, a the federal government will give local police forces tanks and other equipment more appropriate to fight the Nazis than to respond to a domestic violence call.  But getting funds for community police officers from the federal government is increasingly difficult.  Grants are scarcer and hurdles higher.   In Sharon a few years ago, city officials turned down one grant because they did not believe the city could guarantee that it could cover the costs of the grant's local requirements.

At the same time, municipalities have a harder and harder time funding police positions due to out of control health care and pension benefits.  Cities face similar burdens of all employers when health plans increase costs from 15-38% from one year to the next.  With medium-term union contracts and binding arbitration, many municipalities have no recourse when health care costs increase in a given year except raise taxes or cut positions.  Another large issue is  mandated pension benefits, especially for past city employees.  In Pennsylvania, all pensions to municipal employees must be defined benefit plans.  Not only is that expensive, but when the stock market dips, additional funds are required of the city to keep their existing pension obligations current.  In Sharon this year, the pension obligation was more than $300,000 over last year's.  In Reading, PA, pension obligations have meant a decrease in their police force from 200 officers to 160 officers.  (For more information on Pennsylvania's municipal pensions and what you can do, go to fixthenumbers.com.)

Fewer officers working alone with less time to spend getting to know people in high-crime neighborhoods makes it more likely that good officers end up in crisis situations.  This climate also means that some of the suggestions made after Ferguson are more difficult to implement.  Recruiting minority officers is not as easy as a TV talking head makes it sound.  The most likely way to recruit minority officers over the long-term is to have police officers present as positive role models where minority youth congregate, while affording the officers time to build relationships.  Such opportunities are slim when police only have time to drive up in their cruiser to respond to a call.  Police jobs also look less attractive to everyone when wages are low, risk is high, and new hires are the first to be laid off when health costs increase.   


Added to these pressures are the increasingly dangerous questions officers must ask about anyone they are stopping.  Not only are guns prevalent, but bullets designed to go through "bullet-proof" vests are also increasingly common.  Questionable activity requiring police response is frequently carried out by individuals under the influence, and different drugs lead people to act in radically different irrational ways.

So in addition to many suggestions offered elsewhere, here are a few things we can do to make a difference:

First, know your community.  Walk and drive around neighborhoods that you don't frequent.  Stop in and meet local shop owners and those running area social service agencies.  Build relationships with people in town, including people who you wouldn't meet in other places.

Second, find out about your local government.  Go to a city council or school board meeting.  Ask questions.  Talk to the police chief or the fire chief about what struggles the community is facing and what struggles their department is facing.  Then do what makes sense based on what you find out.

Third, pray.  Pray, and ask your church to pray, for our public safety officers, for all the needs of our communities, and for racial reconciliation in the U.S.  On his blog today, the Rev. Steve Pankey had this photo with the prayer for the First Sunday of Advent.  It might be a good place to start.

  
  

The Million Dollar Question

So here is the Acts 8 Million Dollar Question:

If you had a million dollars to help ‘proclaim resurrection in the Episcopal Church,’ where would it go and why?

This question would seem straightforward enough.  Just this week I have attended two different dinners for good causes, and St. John's, Sharon, PA, is in the midst of a capital campaign (which you can find out more about here).  Lots of resurrection is being proclaimed in various places, and a million dollars wouldn't hurt.

Honestly, though, I haven't seen the proclamation of resurrection ever stifled for lack of coin.  In my own experience, and in the experience of those I respect, money is rarely the problem.  What we usually lack comes down to one of three things: deep prayer, good ideas, and committed leadership.  When people are coming together for serious time in prayer and generating worthwhile ideas that competent people are willing to make happen, then God always seems to come up with the financing. 

In the Episcopal Church, we have unbelievable amounts of money at almost every level.  Where prayers, ideas and leadership are present, resurrection is evident in innumerable ministries.  Where the investment report is longer than the evangelism report, the church has problems.  So I wouldn't support a struggling church or ministry that would happily take the money instead of being forced to deepen their prayer life, generate new ideas and raise up new leadership to continue.

Making angels from money doesn't really work.

I'd spend the million trying to support the development of prayer, ideas, and leadership in the most effective way I can imagine.  My proposal would be the following:

• Buy and rehab a number of adjoining properties in an inner-city block (in some areas this would still cost the entire million or more, but in Sharon it could be done for a couple hundred thousand).  Use one of the buildings for a worship space and another for a large kitchen and dining room.
• Develop a rule of life including common worship throughout the day, at least one joint meal time, and service to the surrounding community.
• Invite diverse people from a variety of denominations, social-economic groups, ages, and family situations to come together as part of the community.
• Use some of the money for health care and other essential expenses for those who come and don't immediately find outside employment or who spend their time caring for the community unpaid ways.

Richmond Hill Chapel

If this sounds like some sort of monastery, that's because it is.  Throughout church history, the monasteries have been places where prayer has occurred, ideas have developed, and leaders have been formed.  More recently, places like Richmond Hill have adapted the historical model for effective ministry today.  Much of the resurrection proclaimed in darker periods of the church's life have come through the words and deeds of monastic or similar movements.   

Of course, if prayerful, creative, committed people decide to come together in some sort of Christian community, the money will follow.  But if I have to put my million someplace to proclaim resurrection in the Episcopal Church, that's where it's going.  

Do We Need More Participation in Churchwide Governance?

George Clifford has put up insightful reflections on the TREC report and meeting at Episcopal Cafe.  I agree with many of his points.  However, I want to address the following statement he makes about participation in diocesan, provincial and national structures: 

I'm guessing that fewer than 20,000 Episcopalians participate in diocesan, provincial, and national TEC affairs, i.e., less than one percent of TEC membership. Substantially increasing the level of participation and sense of ownership from among the 1.88 million non-involved Episcopalians requires enlisting them in meaningful and rewarding opportunities for worship and service. Current legislative and administrative agendas provide few such opportunities that most of the 1.88 million find attractive. I've not seen any report of the number of the people who participated in TREC's Churchwide meeting, but infer from the silence (always a dangerous way to draw a conclusion, no matter how tentative) that many fewer than 20,000 persons participated, either in person or via the internet.

This statement represents one way of thinking about our church structures beyond the local congregation that is prevalent in our church-wide conversation, but I think is unhelpful.  We do not need more participation in larger church structures.  We may need better representation by gifted people from across the widest spectrum of the church, but we don't need more of them participating, especially in legislative and administrative enterprises.

Our focus should be on finding the most effective way to provide the services a denominational (or diocesan) structure needs to provide for thriving congregations and mission enterprises (including social justice and evangelism efforts).  We want to free up as much of the time of our best leaders as possible to focus on their congregations and mission.  Every hour spent at a diocesan or church-wide meeting is an hour not spent on the front-line work of the church.  Certainly there is a value on being personally part of something beyond the local congregation, but for most people that should be gained through mission projects, retreats, or diocesan celebrations, and other events that people could easily invite their un-churched neighbors to be a part of (and we have too few of those). 

We need good, gifted people doing the important hard work of church governance and administration, and, as Bishop Rowe reminds us, we need both managers and leaders.  However, we don't need more of them then the minimum number necessary to get various voices heard, good ideas brought forth, wise decisions made, and the day-to-day implementation overseen.  Everyone else has other needed work to accomplish before the church can live into its calling.       

Parable of the Corn Fields

Last Sunday's Parable of the Vineyard (or Parable of the Wicked Tenants) got me thinking about how American Christianity is doing as stewards of God's vineyard.  So I adapted Jesus' parable to our current situation. (You can read the entire sermon this parable was part of here.)

A corn farmer had a farm that he leased out to tenants.  He put his Son in charge of tenant relations.  The tenants liked the Son, and they really liked the farmer’s land.  For years they produced bumper crops, and they shipped all the appropriate documentation, notarized and in triplicate, off to the farmer’s Son via Federal Express.  But their harvests were so large, they realized they didn’t have to plant all the fields to have as much produce as they needed.  So they planted less and less.  Eventually, the farm didn’t produce as much, but the tenants were happy, and they figured they could always plant more for the farmer if he needed it.  Harvests got smaller, but the tenants still took the same share.  Then one day the farmer’s Son came back for an inspection and found most of his fields overgrown with weeds while the tenants were in the barn gorging themselves on the seed corn.

What do you think will happen to these tenants?