interesting idea
Susan Snook
intriguing idea about a way we might carry on the functions that a
churchwide evangelism officer could provide, in an era when we don't
have that officer. As a board member of TENS, I know just how
challenging it is to raise money for an independent organization. But
still, the idea has merit. What do others think?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:45:29 -0600
To: bishops...@hobd.org
From: Lelanda Lee <lelan...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HoB/D] Budget
Message-ID:
<15a1f2200908280945x4fc...@mail.gmail.com>
--001636eee2666dd47304723669e7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Posted for kibitzer Linda Grenz:
I know facing cuts at 815 is difficult for any constituency whose
staff
person(s) got cut. Trust me, I've had my office eliminated twice when
I
worked at 815 so I know the challenges. And I was a former staff
person in
the women's ministry office.
But I do want to lift up TENS (The Episcopal Network for Stewardship)
as an
example as a way to respond this situation. They anticipated the
financial
difficulties the church would face in the future (being good financial
folks) and planned in advance to create their own 501c3 if/when their
office
would need to be cut so they would be able to continue their work.
That
ministry continues to this day and it serves as a model for others.
The
Episcopal Relief and Development Fund is another example -- they are
thriving as a separate 501c3 and are, in fact, raising more money now
than
before.
Now may well be the time for the Council of Women's Organizations to
become
a 501c3, organize themselves, raise money and hire a staff person who
is
accountable to them. Yes, that person won't have the 815 connections
in the
same way but, on the other hand, that person won't be spending about
1/3 of
her time in meetings unrelated to her work or have to adapt/bend her
work to
fit the goals/needs/politics of 815. So that cuts both ways.
Now may well be the time for us to discuss something I have raised a
zillion
times before: What is the role and function of a central
denominational
structure (a la 815)?
In the early part of the last century, that function for us was
largely a
Presiding Bishop leading the House of Bishops, a financial group
facilitating funding mission work, a staff person supporting
missionaries
and the Women's Auxiliary raising money and doing mission work.
Gradually
we, like other mainline denominations, built a national structure that
began
to "do program" (provide resources, host events, participate in
regional/diocesan events, etc.). The local church became dependent on
the
national church doing those things. Then the 1950's passed, funding
began to
decrease and the place of the church in the nation began to shift.
First we
stopped doing a national curriculum (the Seabury Series) and a Blue
Ribbon
Commission recommended moving education to the grassroots. So an
office that
once had more than 25 professional staff was reduced to 4 and
education
resource development largely moved to outside groups. Then we started
this
series of downsizings -- this is the sixth, I think, in my memory.
Each of
them eliminated some national functions. In some cases, that function
died
-- at least for a time. But if it was something that people really
wanted/needed, someone or some group somewhere started an organization
or
business or some other church entity (e.g. Pension Group) adopted the
work
and it continued in some other format.
When I was at 815, I used to say that the function of a staff person/
office
was threefold:
1) to identify the resources in my area of responsibility and link
local
congregations and dioceses to those resources,
2) create and manage networks so people engaged in the same work
around the
church could be connected and
3) once every three years host a event that would share "best
practices,"
stimulate innovation and inspire leaders in my area of responsibility.
I
would love to see that as an "institute" that ran along side General
Convention when we already gather lots of people and as a way to make
visible what we are doing in a learning mode vs. just passing
resolutions.
Those three functions could be carried out by an 815 staff person or
they
could be done by a separate entity.
I think where we make our mistakes are in:
1) assuming that 815 can do program (not possible with the funds/staff
available) and
2) 815 failing to work with existing or new outside groups.
If we did the latter we could provide seed money grants to start new
organization or grants to support existing groups already doing good
work
(especially support those that are succeeding as they are obviously
meeting
a need, have the ability, etc.) We could even appoint them to
represent the
church in official roles. So, to stay with women for the moment, if
the
women created a separate organization and hired a staff person, there
is no
reason that staff person could not be appointed to be the official
person to
be at the Anglican Church table for TEC and to be on the official
commissions/boards/committees of TEC. The TEC could give the Council
for
Women's Organizations a grant to assist with costs. That would be much
less
expensive for 815. The staff person would be directly accountable to
her
constituency (and less to 815 of course). And the ministry would
continue if
and as long as the women supported it. Likewise for any other
constituency
-- the people with the passion for that ministry would be responsible
for
providing the leadership for that ministry and 815 would facilitate
and
support it, rather than being expected to do it, pay for it, manage
it, lead
it, etc.
Centralized, denominational programming is a model whose time has
passed. We
need to begin thinking more imaginatively about how we can do the
ministry
we are called to do.
Linda
The Rev. Linda L. Grenz
Publisher and CEO or LeaderResources
www.LeaderResources.org <http://www.leaderresources.org/>
and
Interim Rector
Good Shepherd Episcopal Church
Silver Spring, MD
www.gsecmd.org
Lelanda Lee
What Linda Grenz wrote resonates with me. It reflects a lot of my sentiments about how local organizations, new or yet to be formed, can step up and do the work before us. I agree that TENS is an excellent example. I also agree with Susan Snook that fund-raising in the current environment is extremely challenging. When fund-raising is viewed in the context of church people who have a very hard time asking for gifts of money, the challenge becomes even more acute. Pair that with the fact that church people also have a hard time paying the market price for services rendered, and it is clear that only non-profits established for the purpose of doing ministry will have much chance of success. Rare are the programs that have appeal to a wider audience like the pop culture successes of “The Purpose Driven Church,” etc.
I've been networking actively with a number of on-the-ground
organizations, both Episcopal and ecumenical, to do social justice work in
Colorado. What's exciting is how quickly we can turn an idea around
without being bogged down with asking permission and negotiating approvals.
It will be interesting to see whether or not the "control" issues apparent
with bishops who want to have a say in every iota of ministry in their dioceses
is also at work at the national level. I pray not, because we can't
continue in the same vein.
The church is a human institution, and I believe that we have to overcome the hubris that prevents us from tolerating mistakes and learn to live into being more adventurous and willing to experiment including failing occasionally. Failure and the ability to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and move on together are important characteristics of learning, resilient organizations. We also have to learn to restrain our tendency to criticize honest efforts and honest failures, because none of us have a corner on being right and prescient.
I believe that people want to belong to a church that offers hope and
grace in the Good News of Jesus Christ.
But very human fears of being judged also accompany people as they take
their first steps into our churches. The
higher the bar we place on perfection in our worship and ministry styles, the
scarier are our places of worship for everyday Joe and Jane. As church, we have a lot to repent and
reinvent. People want to hear the simple
message of Jesus, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to him belong, they are weak, but
he is strong.” Everything else is
extraneous.
I like the idea of single purpose organizations focused on ministry, because they are easy to understand and easy to relate to. Their beauty is in their simplicity, and their simplicity is their strength. There are real opportunities for incubation of expertise and passion in such decentralized groups. Everyone’s attention doesn’t have to be focused on the same things all the time. We can learn to trust each other to do the work we are each called to without trying to mind and manage what our sisters and brothers are doing or not doing in the ministry next door. I don’t believe that people are single-issue oriented, but I do believe that we each have some passions that hold more sway than others and command more of our time, talent and treasure.
--
Lelanda Lee
8591 Bridle Ct
Longmont, CO 80503-8810
303.678.9277 (Home)
303.994.5140 (Cell)
Lelan...@gmail.com
http://whatacupoftea.blogspot.com/
http://storiesfrommomsmouth.blogspot.com/
