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?
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteYou're spot on with your comments. The good news is that there are a number of us (many who learned from you!) who are moving our dioceses in the direction you are talking about. Eastern Michigan may be a small, financially-challenged diocese but we understand that the diocesan role of the future is primarily about network facilitation and resourcing for congregational health or sacred death. Are we perfect? Certainly not! We are asking the right questions and making the right moves. Thanks for all you taught me!
Todd Ousley, bishop of Eastern Michigan
Great piece -- one tiny thing: mesquite is a tree, mosquitoes are the bugs that require netting! A mere quibble...
ReplyDeleteSpell checker is a real headache at times.
ReplyDeleteI will echo Todd's comment. Your four points on the "new paradigm" describe exactly what we're aiming for in Springfield. And we're already doing relatively little of the "old paradigm" stuff.
ReplyDeleteVery good, Kevin. I believe money will (and is)bring about this change. Some incredible initiatives have come out of local Diocese of Texas churches. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a DS(UMeth) we spent a lot of time restructuring the Conference. Honeslty nothing much has changed for the positive. We worked hard to make big changes. We used great language that each level, Congregation, Conference, District had to be additive and distinctive. But when the rubber hit the road, we opted to change names, reduce supervision, and increase cost.
ReplyDeleteKevin, I'm curious why you don't mention church planting? I view planting as one of the most missional activities a diocese can spearhead particularly in identifying planters, helping to provide initial funding to the planter, coaching as well as commending the new plant to those other congregations in the diocese. Perhaps in your new paradigm you would envision it under #1?
ReplyDeleteBrendan, I don't mention it because TEC has an absolutely abysmal track record in church planting. The Diocese of Dallas may be one of the few exceptions to this. In recent years, the large congregation has been the best organization for starting new congregations, but this is in the other denominations. So, I don't see the diocese as good at doing this although I am in a diocese and come from a diocese both of which did a good job.
ReplyDeleteKevin, I marked this to read when I got a chance. I think this is exactly correct. While we do have some different structures that appear in EDOT because of foundations etc. I think the notion that we are to be doing different things is essential. We are in Texas for instance spending our time in the field, building networks, working on leadership, and formation. Our strategic plan is a field oriented plan of supporting the local congregation and one that moves away from writing curricula and developing new programs that are run by the diocese, take up weekends, and sap energy for mission at the grass roots level.
ReplyDeleteAndy, Glad to hear it. The Diocese of Texas is a very unique diocese for sure.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this concise analysis, Kevin. In Arizona we too are trying to move in these directions. I would like to hear you say more about point #4. It seems to me to be exactly those declining congregations that resist most strongly any "interference" from the Diocese.
ReplyDelete