Episcopal Church Foundation Vestry Papers - for leading congregations

I’m grateful for the feedback and engagement with my previous post: “Beyond Vestries,” February 25, 2015. I’d like to clarify some matters and, above all, point to some larger, more critical principles.

For starters, my one big hope is that the church starts having frank and honest and, yes, hard conversations. That’s why I said as much at the outset: “...if for no other reason than it might do that – actually spark a conversation and actually lead us to seriously re-consider our conventional working model – I’ll go along with it.”

I believe we’re in a moment in which everything needs to be put on the table. Unlike other churches, we’re actually in an enviable position to do precisely that: in our Episcopal/Anglican tradition, that is, the substance of the Christian faith and life is already set – we have the established catholic deposit contained in the Book of Common Prayer, after all, and the parameters provided for in the Canons. What’s left then, the only thing we’re really talking about re-examining are the conventional business model(s) of The Episcopal Church, particularly in its local lived communities. (There are obvious affinities between this conversation and the revisions which need to happen in diocesan and wider church structures, but I’m not going there. Not yet.) On the local level, the business model of most every congregation has changed over time and will, by definition, change. This, then, is the moment to put everything on the table. If not now, when?

In “Beyond Vestries,” I was describing a model, not necessarily the model. Certainly not the only one. It probably wouldn’t work in, say, a congregation that’s far removed from its closest neighbor parish. (Although it could work out ecumenically.) It also would be a difficult model to bring about in larger churches, especially those more resourced congregations and cathedrals. That’s not to say it couldn’t happen in even our largest congregations. It could, for sure, and it could perhaps lead to greater impact on the local community – not just the church institution itself. But the model, itself, is no universal cure all. The proposed solution I was offering was a model, not the only one.

What I was attempting to point toward was a series of principles which, if we could engage them critically and fully right now as the church – if these were really and truly on the table – would lead in short order to serious and significant renewal. Let me offer some general principles, albeit ideas which are probably not without controversy:

We are an institutional church, not just a movement of people. To say that structural reform doesn’t bring about real and substantial change misses the point. In fact, it’s dangerously Pollyannaish. Like others, I agree that the church is changed when hearts and minds are renewed in Christ (Romans 12:2), when the members of the Body of Christ are set on a course which is distinctly separate from maintaining what we’ve received (perhaps Ephesians 4:12-16 is a good starter). Sadly, however, too many think this means that spiritual reform, not structural change is what is required. This has failed and will continue to fail to move the conversation forward, however, because it overlooks the intrinsically institutional nature of our church. The method, the strategy by which we achieve that goal is and can only be brought about through institutional, yes structural reform and change. It’s a basic principle: either your institutional norms and procedures are working to forward mission or to maintain the status quo. Either everything is on the table and can be re-examined, called into question, or nothing is. There is no both/and.

Mission is either your business, or else your business is not mission. It’s no longer enough to talk about mission and ministry. Unless we seriously intend to re-think the entire way we go about funding and resourcing our congregations and core ministries, let’s stop talking about more dynamic worship or better outreach or more impactful Christian formation. It’s time to get those people who serve on finance committees, say, to buy into this talk about mission. Until that happens, the only thing we will continue to do is push off the changes necessary for today to the church of tomorrow.

The Canons, as such, do not limit creativity; they provide for the basics. Responding to my previous post, a few people asked why I believe vestries can’t do both: why can’t vestries be concerned with ministry and, at the same time, serve as the people in charge? Good question. At St. George’s, Valley Lee, I am now blessed and have been blessed with really great vestries who try their best to balance their duties. But we still spend greater amounts of time strategizing about buildings and budgets and cemeteries than about relational matters that also impact the community. So why, then, are we asking people to try to balance a tenuous system which is perilous, anyway? Why don’t we pause to ask whether there is a better way? Perhaps a smarter and more impactful solution would emerge if we let God’s people invest greater energy where God is calling them, where God has already gifted them.

So: “Why can’t vestries be concerned with ministry and, at the same time, serve as the people in charge?” Looking at current demographic trends, the answer is obvious. We’ve invested far too much in a maintenance model and, in general, we have become our future’s own worst enemy. The Canons do not in any way assert that vestries have to oversee everything in the church. The Canons don’t even say how many people need to be on vestries; you could have a delimited vestry of two people, as far as the Canons are concerned, and in so doing you would free up the other leaders to focus on other opportunities. Nor do the Canons imagine that vestries are the be-all-and-end-all of congregational life. Nor do the Canons suggest that ministry is at all the same as maintenance and oversight. The Canons don’t limit us in any way; our conventional practices do. The Canons only provide for the basic structure. It’s time to think as boldly and creatively as possible, not just about mission and ministry but about structure and governance.

There is room in every congregation for different people to exercise different ministries in complimentary ways. What I am describing is a highly decentralized community, held together by a common pursuit of Jesus and shepherded through the servant-leadership of the clergyperson in charge. The Canons allow for this model and the New Testament church lived it – and grew because of it. Yet, for reasons which are obvious (yet which we really don’t like to talk about), The Episcopal Church in many of its local, lived expressions turns out to be a community which has figured out how to uniquely localize power and decision-making in those bodies which are most significantly invested in an establishment, maintenance model. For the most part in most congregations, those in charge are those who control the stuff of the parish – for some, it’s the cemetery; for others, it might be the music ministry; for some others, it’s the kitchen. Each place has its own unique power center, but each place has one.

What I am describing is a congregation in which no one body or person is in charge, a body which learns to share. And I’ll be the first to admit that I’m also articulating a very strong servant-leadership role for the clergyperson(s). Regardless of what you may think of such-and-such a clergyperson, the reality is that s/he is, by definition, the only member of the congregation who is not technically a member of the congregation. Thus, the clergyperson is (supposed to be) beholden to no one and responsive to all, and only when such a person is truly in charge will we find ways to share and share alike and, thus, grow more fully into the stature of Christ.

Don't miss a blog post! Subscribe via email or RSS, using the grey box on the upper right.