Winning and Losing

In my first two blogs, I have been exploring the nature of TEC as it relates to the values of inclusiveness and diversity considering the recent study on the racial makeup of Episcopal leaders.  My second blog explored the tremendous change in our community of the role of women in leadership.  In this blog, I will be exploring how diverse we were before decisions around gender and after. This is an extremely sensitive issue in our Church, so allow me to say that I am not going to attempt to revisit these decisions but rather how these affected the character and make up of TEC.”

Please let me begin by clarifying my position related to gender issues. we have after all moved in an extraordinary way toward inclusion in issues related to gender identity. I was late to understand the cause of marriage equality, but I have always been on the side of the full acceptance in the Church of all people. In the mid-90s, I was a Clerical Deputy of the Diocese of Texas. There was a resolution before General Convention that the Episcopal Church formally apologize to our Gay and Lesbian members for the way the Church and Church members had treated them.  There was hot debate. At the end, each order filled out the paper ballot on our vote.  All our lay deputies and 3 of our 4 clergy ones voted no. I voted yes. Since I was considered theologically conservative, a term I never apply to myself, my fellow Deputies seemed confused by my vote.  Then the self-identified “most liberal clergy Deputy,” who voted no, asked aloud, “Kevin, did you not understand the resolution? You voted yes!” As the rest of the deputation listened, this is what I said. “I voted yes because I served as the Rector to a large parish in Seattle. About 35% of my members were single, and many were gay or lesbian, and I learned firsthand how badly they were treated by their families, friends, and churches. How can we not apologize for such behavior and such lack of Christian compassion especially for our own children?”

Since then we have grown in diversity and in inclusiveness! Unfortunately, we often did this at the expense of other Episcopalians especially those whose theological viewpoint was different from the Progressive one. Fast forward to the vote on the consent to the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop. The vote on consent passed by a large margin in the House of Bishops. In the House of Deputies, the vote passed but the margin was just over the 50% necessary to approve to consent.

The day after the vote, I was observing the House of Bishops and happened to be sitting behind one of the leaders of Integrity who I had known and liked for many years. A group of Integrity members came in and sat by him to complain that a resolution that they had supported had failed to pass one of General Convention’s many committees. My friend looked at them with astonishment and said, “Don’t you understand? With the consent for Gene Robinson, we won everything!”

Confirmation of that came at the next General Convention, the last one where I served as a Deputy.  When the first resolution that was supported by Progressives came to the floor. The deputies voted almost 80% in favor. There was a low murmur when the vote was announced because many of us realized what this meant.  Sure enough, every resolution put forward by Progressives that reached the floor passed. But even more telling, the fact that several conservative Dioceses had withdrawn from the Church or refused to attend gave the majority of Progressive Deputies more than enough votes to cut off debate on any issue. And they did. A resolution would be presented. Pro speakers would move to one microphone and con speakers would move to another. The first pro speaker would “move the question.” A motion to move the question which ends debate takes precedent and debate ended.  I want to repeat this, so you are clear. Every resolution supported by Progressives after this passed with no debate because Progressives had more than enough votes to meet the 2/3rds necessary to close debate.

Near the end of the Convention, a long-time Progressive Deputy asked for a point of personal privilege and was recognized. He painfully pointed out the behavior of his fellow Deputies and decried the complete shutdown of any dissent whatsoever. Despite his long service, he was booed loudly and walked away.

I return to the statement “We won everything…”

Around 1990, Forward Movement published a brochure about the constituency of the Episcopal Church. The insightful and knowledgeable writer pointed out the TEC was made up of several different theological viewpoints that represented both the history of and movements within Anglicanism.  The writer identified 6 groups.  Progressives were one and so were Anglo-Catholics. Identified were also Renewal/charismatic members and Evangelicals who leaned toward the Calvinistic side of historic Anglicanism.  Another strong group were historic Anglophiles who loved the high English culture represented by the Prayer Book and our DNA of high culture regarding music and the arts. Like the English Church, TEC had existed by accommodating these diverse theological and cultural viewpoints under what many called “the Large Tent.” Many of us Episcopalians identified with more than one point of view because we had been touched positively by more than just one viewpoint. I personally have been affected by the Oxford Movement, the liberal/Progressive Movement, and the Renewal Movement. I loved the fact that TEC like Anglicanism itself had learned the wisdom of holding these together using the same Prayer Book. Anglicanism in most of the world is a force for ecumenical affirmation and Christian unity.  In such a body, what did it mean to win?

It did not mean that the Church divided as some contend. It meant that Progressives now dominated and could force their viewpoints through the decision-making body of the Church. The result was that the Church fractured into its separate parts.  What did unite some of these, the ACNA for example, was their mutual anger held by these now disenfranchised members of the old coalition. And while this is hard for many Progressives to understand, many of our disenfranchised brothers and sisters had genuine theological objections. Objections that were once dominant in the Anglican Church and that in many Communion Provinces still are. This win made compliance with it a matter of conscience for those of other theological views.

The result has left TEC, unlike the most of Anglicanism, identified with one theological viewpoint.  The failure of Progressives to find a way of compromise and allow these other points of view to remain under this tent marks a turning point for the Episcopal Church. Let me be clear. I am not defending the behavior of some of those who left self-righteously condemning TEC. There is plenty of blame to spread around.

Why should Progressives have found another way forward?  First, they threatened to divide the Anglican Church which ironically is much more racially diverse than TEC. This has led to posturing around the Communion for the past 15 years that still reflects the potential for further fracturing. More importantly for TEC as it continues is something that few think about. Our leaders after the Robinson consent and the win, should have remembered the substantial research done by places like the Alban Institute on church conflicts. Thanks to Speed Leas and others (I was one), consultants were able to point out the effects upon a church or denomination that came to the 4^th step of conflict – fight or flight – and resolved it by one group winning.

The literature was and is extensive. The result is that all parties involved lose energy and momentum and decline afterwards.  Progressives believed that the full inclusion of all people meaning gender diversity would open the doors of the Episcopal Church to hundreds of thousands of new people as one Bishop boldly declared. It never did.  Holding a position on social issues is not evangelism. It does not call people to follow Jesus as one of his disciples. It is, in fact, exclusive not inclusive resulting in a less than diverse community when it comes to Christian theology and unity. Further holding this position does not in and of itself attract secular people and it does not recruit them to TEC.

The present decline of the church combined with the loss of so many GI generation loyal Episcopalians leaves us where we are today. Where is that? We are a declining mainline denomination with remnants of Anglican culture and a singular theological viewpoint unable to attract new members in any significant numbers and yet our leaders believe repeating their intentions to be inclusive and diverse will make us so. Many Progressive leaders of the Church deal with all issues by repeating their intentions and failing to see the consequences of their behavior.

Today, our church is less ecumenical, less Anglican, and less diverse. In my next blog, I will suggest what alternatives lie before us.  It is clear, however, that expanding our community with a larger number of racially diverse people has proven beyond our reach. The report on racism in our denomination only confirms this. Remember, insanity can best be described as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  

 

 

 

The Inclusive/Diversity Paradox

In my first blog in response to the release of the report on racial diversity, or lack of it, in the Episcopal Church, I explored the missed opportunity for greater inclusiveness and diversity among Hispanics.  In this blog, I want to focus on what I call the Inclusive/Diversity Paradox.  What do I mean by this?

For the past three decades, no one can doubt that the strongest theological worldview in TEC is Progressive.  For the last two decades, theological progressives have held almost every office of leadership on the national and diocesan level.  Almost all the Bishops elected during this time hold this perspective. The two words most associated with this view are “inclusiveness and diversity.”  It was out of a concern for diversity that the Church ordered an independent audit of the racial makeup of our leadership.

While the report is both useful and insightful, it also raised a serious question about what the progressive leaders of our Church have really accomplished despite three decades of emphasis on these two goals.  On the surface it seems that the more these two values have been consistently put before the Church, the less inclusive and diverse we have become.  I have heard a number of conservatives say this.

We have had several of initiatives aimed at addressing diversity and racial reconciliation taking place. These often fall under the discussion of becoming more the “beloved community,” a phrase often used by progressive leaders to describe what the Church is called to be.  No one can ignore that we have made racism, racial reconciliation, and social justice a high priority in recent years especially considering the Black Lives Matter movement.  Yet ironically the Episcopal clergy who have joined marches in support of these causes represent a Church that the audit shows being 90% white and has many examples systemic racism.

Sadly, these 30 years of progressive leadership has been marked by a decline in our racial diversity.  I have been an Episcopal Priest for almost 50 years, and I remember when we had strong African American congregations like the Cathedrals in Newark and Detroit. These were led by outstanding black clergy.  Many of our black clergy and lay leaders were active leaders in the civil rights movement during the 60s and 70s.  Our Presiding Bishop, Michael Curry, is a next generation example of this leadership.  Where are those churches now? Well, the more we focused on diversity, the whiter we became. The paradox is this. The more our Black leadership should have been affirmed and advanced, the more our leaders of the past 30 years failed to build on what we once had. 

Again, since diversity and inclusion have been the constant stated intentions, what kind of contradiction does our current situation hold up.  Some would say that on a fundamental level, our Progressive leaders have failed. I would not.

Where has the Church shown a fundamental shift related to inclusiveness. There are two areas that clearly stand out. I want to focus in this blog on the greatest area of change within TEC during the last 30 years. This is the incredible advances in women’s leadership. Since the official ordination of women in 1979, we have moved in a steady direction of full inclusion of women on all levels of the Church. Some may say that it has not been fast enough, but it has been extraordinary and a great blessing to us. Remember that before 1970, girls were not allowed to be acolytes and women could not serve on Vestries in most of our churches. Women were not allowed to be on Standing Committees or General Convention Deputies. From 1970 to 1980, TEC experienced massive change in the role of leadership for women.

There was considerable resistance to these changes, but this was proven to be a vocal minority. When in 1979 women’s ordination was passed by both Houses of General Convention, the place, and gifts of women in the Church exploded. In recent years, the number of women elected bishops has grown steadily.  This includes women of color.

As someone who has supported women’s ordination since seminary, I have seen this greater diversity among our clergy and lay leadership unfold.  Progressives have often pointed out that women’s ordination was an extension of the civil rights movement. I think this is true, but Episcopalians may want to question whether our gains in this area deflected our focus on the place of our black members. This could account for part of the diversity paradox.

When the ordination of women was affirmed in 1979, outspoken opponents to this claimed that we would see a major division and exodus from the Church. There was some, but it was small.  Initially some diocese accepted a “conscience clause” and did not ordain women, but their number diminished quickly.  While many of the supporters of women’s ordination were, like me, folks who do not call ourselves progressives, Progressives played a major role in changing the leadership makeup of the Church. Historically, this may be their greatest accomplishment in both word and deed.

One place that never accepted women’s ordination was the Diocese of Fort Worth and their Bishop Jack Iker. That diocese continued to hold their position long after most of the Church had fully accepted it. The House of Bishops failed to take any action against either the Bishop or the Diocese. The Diocese of Fort Worth eventually voted to leave TEC. This happened amid the controversy related to the acceptance of gay and lesbian clergy and marriage equality.  For those of us who knew Bishop Iker and the clergy of that Diocese, we know that women’s ordination was always the issue that led to their defection from TEC. I mention this because it is worth noting how dysfunctional that Diocese was and probably still is. Ironically, several ACNA dioceses allow the ordination of women. 

As Anglicans, we try to avoid the idea of winners and losers in our community of faith, but from a historical perspective, there have been no greater winners in the past 30 years than women of leadership in our community.

In my next blog, I will explore how gender issues have contributed to the ongoing Inclusive/Diversity Paradox. I content that this paradox is real despite some accomplishments and that a deeper exploration of it involves a better understanding of who we really are as a community and what our way forward might become.  I do know this, racial makeup is not the most significant dynamic of our Church. And, by the way, Episcopalians need to remember that African Anglicans are the largest racial community in the Anglican Communion.  Episcopalians today make up less than 1% of our wider community.   

 

 

 

 

 

Episcopalians, How Racist are We?

Recently, the Episcopal News Service released a story on racial diversity in our Church.  It was based on an independent study and report done for the Episcopal Church. The major lead was that we remain a Church that is 90% white and that the report confirms that we have implicit and explicit systemic racism. There were no details given and unlike their typical articles, it has not been repeated on the regular news releases.

They did quote a few of our leaders including our Presiding Bishop who said the results were disappointing and showed that we still have a long way to go in our efforts at diversity and inclusion. I would like to read the whole report, but I have yet to find it. 

A particularly insightful observation by some of our black leaders helps us understand what it is like to be a minority in our community. Often, they feel their presence is “simple ignored.” On the other hand, they are at times left to feel as though their presence becomes merely a token of diversity.  Both situations seem to me something that the rest of us should hear and take very seriously. 

The article did not give many details of the report, but perhaps its release will be more helpful when it is fully available. My initial reaction was “so a denomination that remains 90% white has racism issues? Thanks Captain obvious!” We are also older than the population and the average age of ordination continues to climb even with several intentional actions by some of our Bishops to recruit younger leadership. These too are issues badly needing to be understood.

My most direct encounter with racism in our church and its systemic nature came in my work with Hispanic members first in the Diocese of Texas working with Bishop Leo Alard, and more directly when I became Dean of the Cathedral in Dallas where 60% of our worshipping community attended our Spanish language service. My dear friend and colleague, Fr. Tony Munoz, Canon Pastor of the Cathedral for Hispanic work, helped me understand many of the issues our Hispanic members faced both in the Church and in the wider community.

Around 2000, when we were still having conversations about doubling our size by 2020, I wrote an article based on my experience with Hispanic ministry in Texas. I contended that the best way for us to accomplish this goal would be to focus strongly on reaching new Hispanic members.  I pointed out five proven missionary and evangelistic strategies that other denominations had used and how we could adapt them. I also pointed out how this would enrich our common life and put the Episcopal Church on the front line of racial reconciliation with the ever-growing Hispanic portion of our population.  I was not prepared for the reaction.

I got support from many Hispanic leaders, but almost none from others. The response that shocked me the most was when one national leader wrote me to object to my suggestions. In his letter, he said this, “Yes Kevin, we could do what you wrote about but if we succeeded, we would no longer by a diverse Church. We would have too many Hispanics to have true diversity.” I have kept the letter to remind me of another of our failed opportunities to live out both the Great Commission and the Great Commandment.

In this first blog on the issues raised by this article, I want to make two observations:

My first observation is this: We are not 90% white. We have a richer diversity than this found in our Hispanic membership and among some of our outstanding Asian and native American members. I know firsthand that many of our Hispanic people are simply not counted and I suspect this is true of other ethnic groups. For Hispanics attending our Church, there are some external and legal reasons for this, but mostly they are not seen and certainly not taken seriously enough.

My second observation and one I will explore more fully in further blogs is this: even if the 90% label is right, this is one of the least helpful things to know about the Episcopal Church today.

I will end with this further observation. Hispanic ministry remains one of the Episcopal Church’s greatest potential mission fields and one of the most fruitful ways we could extend our inclusiveness and diversity.  Sadly, it remains clear that racial inclusiveness and diversity remain values that many of our leaders hold dearly but have little idea how to obtain it even when even, as with Hispanic ministry, it continues to stare us in the face every day!

If we had taken the initiates that I outlined or the actions recommended by the Evangelism Commission of General Convention in 2003, we may not have doubled the size of the Church from where it was in 2000, but we would be double the size we are now! 

 

  

Parish Leadership 4: Tips for Organizing Around Goals and Work

To accomplish your work, this blog will be a series of bullet points with suggestions and ideas to help you in your work and calling to serve Christ’s Church as a leader.

1.     When I visit a Vestry Meeting, I like to see that each member has a Vestry Notebook. Page one is a statement of the parish’s vision or mission.

2.     Page two contains the current 1 to 3 years goals as set by the vestry leadership at a workday or retreat.

3.     Next to each goal is the name of the Vestry Member of Clergy who is assigned the role of shepherd of the Goal.  This person reports at each vestry meeting on the progress and status of this goal.

4.     I like to see the meeting start with a sharing of prayer concerns followed by a time of prayer.

5.     I want the business to begin with a report from the Rector, the Senior Warden, the Junior Warden, the Administrator or Treasurer.

6.     Next should follow a report from any Vestry Committees. A typical list might include:  Administration, Buildings and Grounds, Staff and Program. I would hope there would be a report from an on-going stewardship committee.  (Note these committees are organized around the vestry’s work)

7.     I would like to see an update from each of the shepherds of the current goals at each meeting.

8.     Each motion or resolutions from each committee or individual should be in writing which would include the alternatives considered the recommended.

9.     If the parish is larger, I would hope staff members and leaders of ministries would be invited to update the Vestry on their work on a regular basis.

10.   I would hope that there would be a year-round Stewardship Committee who would be charged with addressing the traditional stewardship of Time, Talents, and Treasure. The Episcopal Network for Stewardship (TENS) has excellent resources for communicating and teaching on Stewardship.

11. I would hope that the Stewardship Committee would focus on each of these at different times of the year. For example, Rally Day would be a great time to have a Ministry Fair with tables representing all Parish organizations and ministries to focus on the Stewardship of Time where members are encouraged to sign up or join.

12.  I would like to see the leadership consider a Stewardship Campaign for financial support in January before the Annual Meeting. Each Sunday, I would hope that there would be a brief witness on stewardship by diverse members of the congregation i.e., married, single, young, more mature, who state why they give to God’s work and support their parish.

13. There should be written requirements for Vestry Members that includes that they “recognize that the Tithe is the minimal standard of giving in the Episcopal Church and that they are committed to tithing or working toward the Tithe during their tenure on the Vestry.

14.  I would like to see that Vestry requirements include a pledge to pray regularly for the parish and for those with special needs.

15.  Leaders should make the Annual Meeting a festive occasion when the life of the parish is celebrated.

16.  The financial report should not be a detailed explanation of the budget, but a narrative description of the parish’s life and work. (a pie chart is often a helpful tool for such a presentation.)

17.  I would hope that at the Annual Meeting there would be special recognition of the longest tenured members of the Parish and welcoming of the newest members.

18.  I believe that each leader should see a part of their work as helping create an emotionally positive experience during the Sunday fellowship. (Sunday is not a day for complaining!)

19.  Churches should have both ushers and greeters (which includes families with children) and a designated Vestry Member of the Day who wears a ribbon that says, “Vestry Member: Ask Me!” (Visit the “Invite, Welcome, Connect” website for excellent recommendations on connecting to visitors and newcomers.)

20.  I would like to see the “coffee hour” replaced with a reception for visitors and new members and that each leader sees this time as an opportunity to meet and greet everyone in the room.

21.  I would encourage all leaders to remember that modeling is not a way we lead, but the only way we lead.

Parish Leadership 3: Structure for the Future Not the Past

Building on my first two blogs on Discernment and Community, I now want to ask a question about Vestry Structure, namely, how then should we organize to accomplish our work?

We need to start with the current realities. If a church hired and organizational consultant who knows nothing about the church and its purposes, the leadership would learn an interesting fact about a church works.  (I am speaking about the the typical congregation with a full-time ordained clergy person and attendance between 80 and 150.)

The consultant would point out that the church seemed to be organized to do two things.  First, most of the energy of the congregation functions to provide a Sunday morning services.  That is because the consultant would have seen the altar guild, the servers, the acolytes, the ushers, the clergy, and the parish secretary working at this task. 

Then consultant would also add that observing the full-time ordained leader pointed to a second purpose. Despite the old joke that clergy only work on Sundays, the clergy person is involved in a multitude of activities related to their office.  The consultant also notes that between 40 to 50% of the church’s budget is used to support the rector.  The consultant would note that besides Sunday morning, the parish seems organized to support the work of the Rector. 

Of course, the consultant would also note that organizations like the church school, and the men’s group, and the Wednesday bible study for a smaller number of folks also happened.  Many congregations would also have some sort of organization to provide for outreach. but these other organizations and ministries would just seem haphazard.

All of this becomes even more interesting when we compare this typical parish organization to the stated mission of both the wider Church and a local congregation.  We would see the lack of congruency between the organization’s stated mission and its actual operations.  I have worked with congregations and Vestries that have complex organizational makeup but who have never stopped to ask the question “How would we best organize and structure our parish to accomplish the mission we believe god has given us?

The sad truth is that 80 to 90% of Episcopal congregations are organized based on how we have always done things.  And Vestry is made up of a committee 9 to 12 people who spend most of their time reviewing the budget and the operations of the congregation. In other words, maintaining what we have known and expect to know into the future.  This would be fine if our churches operated in the 19^th century in a dominantly Christian culture but now our churches are in the 21^st century among predominantly non-churched people.

How then should the vestry organize?

I said in the last blog how important it is for the Vestry to build community life and model to the rest of the parish this intrinsic value to accomplish the Church’s bigger mission.  What we need today is to stop what we are doing by precedent and take a more radical step.  This step is by necessity what new planted churches and communities naturally do to get started.  They are forced by low budget, no building, not enough volunteers, and an immediate agenda to organize directly around a mission and 3 to 5 core values. 

That is what we do in revitalization of congregations.  We start with the mission and because it has a history, we allow 5 to 7 core values instead of just 3!

Let me pause and say what this does not produce. It does not produce a Vestry made up of 7 to 10 committees or even a Vestry where all elected members act as liaisons to parish organizations.  These two forms are all over the Church and are largely, in my experience, a waste of time and energy.  The only organization of the Vestry itself that I have found effective is when the sub-committees are organized around the Vestry’s work. You will hear more about this in my next blog on practical matters.

So, I want to see that every vestry member has a notebook. On page one is the mission of the parish and its core values, and on page two are the current one to three year goals.  When I see this, I find a Vestry that is either doing its mission directly or are preparing to do so.

The Vestry’s primary work now becomes oversight of its mission and the work around those core values.  Organize around this principle and you will have what organizational consultants call Organizational Congruency!

In my next blog, I will discuss what this might look like, and in my last blog on leadership, I will discuss stewardship and the budget seen from the point of view of the mission and core values. 

Questions so far?  Do not forget you can email me at deankevinmartin@gmail.com

 

Parish Leadership 2: Building Community

 

In this second blog on parish leadership, I want to talk about building the community. The community of the leadership and of the congregational community.  Remember that one of the two core values of the Jesus movement is the Great Commandment to love one another.  These are meaningful words and almost all Christians would affirm them, but realistically, how do we build community?

Some years ago, I wrote a book, 5 Keys for Church Leaders. It is available from Church Publishing at Amazon and is also in a Kindle edition.  In it I talked about how important it is for church leaders to “Build the Team.”  What I pointed out is that to effectively carry out the mission that you have discerned, then the leadership need to work like a team. The team image is powerful because no team just shows up to play. They spend time together. They practice and they learn how to work cooperatively and not competitively.

Rather than give a series of bullet points on how to do this, I want to share with you the most significant experience that I have had in my years of ministry with a Vestry that did this intentionally. It was the Vestry of St. Luke’s in Seattle when I was the Rector. Here is what we developed.

First, we would meet twice a month.  The first meeting was about the mission and the strategy and ministries to carry out the mission. (More of this latter in my next blog.)  The second meeting was the business one where we reviewed the budget and the oversight of buildings, staff, and operations.  This was second because the first of the month made it hard for the treasurer and the administrator to put together the month information.

We would begin both meetings at 6pm with dinner.  Often members came in late because of their business hours, their commutes, or family obligations.  At 7pm we would move to our meeting room and I would begin the meeting with an opening prayer.  Then we would go around the room and check for any prayer concerns or needs.  Our deacon would keep notes of the concerns and then at the end, the deacon (and others as they felt led) would hold up the concerns in prayer.  Often members of the vestry would move to lay hands on those with needs for healing or strength. 

At the first meeting of the month, we would open the scriptures and I or one of our members would lead a study.  This was not just a bible study.  This was a bible study centered on the issues of leadership.  That was after all why we were there. It is amazing how many passages throughout the Scriptures deal with this topic. (There is an NIV Leadership edition of the Bible organized just on this theme.) We would discuss these passages and explore the applications to our community.  The second hour of the meeting, we would turn to the main thing, our mission.  Twice a year, we would review our goals and set new ones. Often at this meeting, we would bring the leaders of ministries or staff members into the meeting to discuss their work and seeking ways that we could support their areas. 

The second meeting of the month also started with a meal, gathering and prayers. We did not do a Scripture study, but now had a report from the Rector, the Wardens, our Administrator, and the more typical reports you would expect.  The meeting portion was limited to two hours.  At the end of both meetings there was informal time over coffee and dessert. Over the years, and after holding and visiting hundreds of Vestry meetings, I am convinced that everything that happens after two hours is either redundant or ineffective.  Vestry members are, after all, volunteers.

In addition to these regular events, we held a day long retreat in February to welcome new vestry members and bring them up to speed and then to say goodbye and thank you to the off-going members.  Then in June we held a longer retreat to review and focus on our mission and strategies. 

Hard work? Yes!  Worth it? Without question.  People often said that the time on our Vestry was the most meaningful experience of Christian community they had ever had. A common feedback was that the Vestry had become a second family.

Now, I am not saying that you should operate this way, but I am suggesting that you structure your life together to allow time and use strategies that will allow the Vestry to become a community. 

Lastly, let me make this observation. While every parish has some dear saintly person whose spirituality and Christian witness is exemplary, and often some small group ministry that has rich fellowship and support, the corporate spiritual life of the congregation will not be greater than the spiritual life and witness of the leadership.   As Philip Turner said recently to a group of clergy, we must become the incarnation of the community that we are called to be. Modeling this is not a way to make this happen, it is the only way to enable it to happen. 

If you want more practical steps and ideas to move toward such a community, I have some in my 5 Keys book, or your Diocesan Office and Bishop should be able to help you.

In my next blog, I will discuss strategy and structure or how to organize to accomplish the mission.  Remember, a mission without a strategy is, after all, only a dream.

Parish Leadership: Discernment

 

This is the first of a series of Blogs about Parish Leadership. While it is intended for new Vestry Members, feel free to share this with leaders of your congregations. 

In these blogs, I will not be writing about the canonical responsibilities but will leave this up to parish clergy to communicate.  I will be writing about the issue of leadership as we enter the post-COVID period and the role of lay leaders working in partnership with their clergy to develop healthy, vibrant, and growing congregations. I will be covering the big picture issues and the practical steps needed to lead in today’s world.

Many Episcopalians think that the role of the Vestry is to manage the business affairs of the parish.  More specifically, they believe that while the clergy manage the spiritual affairs, the lay leaders manage the budget.  In other words, the role of the Vestry is to maintain the congregation, balance the budget and see to it that the grass gets mown.  Perhaps back before the last 40 years that was central to their role, but no longer.  In today’s world, we need congregational leadership to lead the local parish into the future.

The Current Realities

The demands of leadership are greater today than ever as the number of church members in our country drops from its historic post World War Two number of 40% to today’s number of 20%.  For the Episcopal Church, the last 20 years have seen significant loss of membership and decline in attendance.  To try to maintain our churches and continue business as usual is no longer possible. We need our current leadership to move to the future in creative and innovative ways. In short, we need our leaders to lead.

Let us start with the primary question, “What is the role or purpose of a Vestry?” What is their first task?  As I said above that, while they are responsible for the operations of the local Church, this is not their primary role as leaders.

Put in Biblical Terms and in the language of the early church, the purpose of our elected and appointed leaders is “discernment.”  They are to discern the will of God for the local church.  One way to start this process is to ask what is the mission of this local body that we are called to by God and which the Holy Spirit is directing our mission.

Not Just a Mission Statement

I am not saying that our churches need to write another “mission statement!”  I often say to vestries that if writing a mission statement helps you to discover your mission, then write it. Sadly, many congregations have a mission statement, often written in calligraphy and posted on a parish hall wall, but have no clear sense of mission, our “must do” as a local outpost of the Jesus Movement.

Nether am I saying that every congregation needs to start this process from scratch. We do not need to put up newsprint or come up with some ideas about what we might be doing.  As an historic and creedal community, we have much direction put before us. 

The Mission not a Mission

What is the mission of the Church the Prayer Book Catechism asks?  The answer is “to reconcile all people to God and one another through Christ.” And we have two core values that direct this ministry of reconciliation.

          The Great Commission to make disciples and,

          The Great Commandment to love one another.

With this mission and these core values to guide us, the question every Vestry should be asking is this:  How is God’s calling this congregation to live out this mission and these core values in our local, diocesan, and world communities? 

Each congregation has a unique community of people, a unique setting, and a unique opportunity to live out this mission.  As disciples of Jesus, we do not think that we are gathered in our local setting by accident.  We are sent by our Lord to be witnesses to Jesus and live out God’s Kingdom, God’s reign on earth as in heaven. And we have been promised that we will be guided by God’s Spirit and given all the gifts we will need to accomplish this work.

The first thing, the main thing, is discernment. What is our Church’s unique calling at this moment and how do the needs of the community around us point to that calling?

Where should the lay and clergy leadership start?  We start with the right questions. How are we currently carrying out God’s mission and what more are we called to do at this moment given to us by God’s grace? 

Of course, we can only discern such an important set of questions by beginning in prayer. Then with the scriptures and our worship to guide us, we move forward in discernment trusting that as Hudson Taylor, the great missionary to China, once said, “God’s mission shall never lack for God’s provision.”

As we grow in this discernment should we write down our mission?  Yes, we should! We should write it on all everything; our buildings, our bulletins, our website and our hearts.  And something else. The most vibrant congregations are constantly inviting and looking for others who will join us in the singular most important work of our life together.

Remember the first work of leadership is discernment and learn to “Make the main thing, the main thing!” 

In my next blog, I will explore how we build our leadership team and how we become the community the great commandment calls us to be.  

(you may contact me at deankevinmartin@gmail.com with questions or comments on these blogs.)