Take for example Christian Education. In the 1950s and 1960s almost every denomination produced Christian Educational materials for local churches – think Seabury Curriculum. By the 1970s, local congregations could choose among dozens of alternative materials that were better, less expensive and more relevant than that produced by a denomination. Or think about capital fund-raising, time was each denomination had an agency to help congregations when they needed to raise funds for buildings. Again, by the 1970s, we had numerous organizations that would customize a program for each congregation. I could give many such examples.
Some of us do think we would be a bit better off if our national organization would cease to be so costly given its questionable role, but in this blog I want to focus on what Schaller had to say about a diocese. He thought that there is a vital role for the diocese to perform, but it needed to re-invent itself to carry out this role. He described this as moving away from many traditional things and toward new ones. Over the years, I have become absolutely convinced at his insight. Let me describe what I see as the primary functions of a Diocese in the old paradigm and the ones needed today.
Primary Functions of a Diocese in the Old Paradigm
1. A Mission Funding Forwarding Agency. In the old days, we on the local level would take up offerings to fund mission work somewhere else, usually the so-called third world; remember the “mite boxes”? Today, local congregations can form companion relationships across wide geographic boundaries because of the internet and better communications. We can even form relationships with non-governmental agencies in providing clean water or mosquitoes netting for local villages. The point here is that we do not need our denomination to make these happen.
2. A Resource Redistribution Center. This simply means taking money from larger congregations in a diocese and giving it to smaller ones. Today our largest congregations have plenty of needs on the local level and in their communities. They do not worry about sustaining small mission churches in small rural communities.
3. A Congregational Accrediting Agency. This was the role the diocese had in planting and recognizing new congregations and closing dead ones. Today we know that dioceses are one of the least effective agencies in forming new congregations. If you do not think so, look at the abysmal track record within TEC in new church planting.
4. A Clergy Accrediting Agency. This continues in the work of Commissions on Ministries and Standing Committees. The problem is not with accrediting but rather with educating such persons for effective ministry leadership in today’s world.
5. A Regional Program Entity. Do Dioceses really need youth, adult education, stewardship and other such ministries done on a regional level? Dioceses think so, but the participation by local congregations says “not really.”
6. A Denominational Link to Ecumenical Activities, Agencies and other Denominational Bodies. In the 1950s and 1960s, ecumenical work was negotiated on a judicatory level. Today, ecumenical work is done cooperatively on the local level with judicatories holding symbolic meetings.
Primary Functions of a Diocese in the New Paradigm
1. Resourcing and Networking Congregations. The Diocese that can serve as a resource to the local church has a place in the future.
2. Strategic Planning. Often a diocese can best frame strategic planning on the local level and can contribute significantly on a regional level.
3. An Inspirational Challenge Agency. A diocese can provide vision, funding and training to help local leaders carry out their work.
4. A Congregational Intervention Agency. A diocese can intervene to help declining, stagnant and conflicted congregations. Let’s face it; this is more and more of a need of TEC given our recent high level of conflict and the 60% of our congregations in serious decline.
I am not saying that a diocese can move totally from the old paradigm to the new one a short period of time. Like Schaller, however, I believe those that start a steady movement from the old to the new assure a healthy future for themselves and their congregations into the 21st Century; those, that do not, make themselves more and more irrelevant to their congregations. Where is your diocese in the movement from the old way of being the church to the need new way of being the church?