Can't help myself... there's a lot of verbiage happening on the House of Deputies/Bishops to General Convention email list serve and various other places about re-structuring the Church because the Church is dying....
--and it sure sounds like a familiar drum beat. If I said, de-regulate, de-fund and give back to the States and localities, strip bare, no structure here or there, no centralization here or there, no giving to a national or international body, all spending, all everything would be local... wouldn't it sound kinda like the Republican platform?
And that is exactly what it is.... Crush the structure, push back to Provinces and Dioceses and congregations decision making and control and allow all the decisions to happen locally, allow formation and etc. to happen at grass roots level etc. and the Church will then be free of dysfunctional structures that nobody knows what they do and why we have them and then we will all be free for Mission.
Bull pucky.
Our current system --our current structures aren't working because they are under the same duress as our government --polarization, --and polarization is alive and well because our cultures themselves are under great stress and change and reformation (interpersonal relationships, gender roles, how we make and spend money, our responsibilities to each other and the earth).
We don't need less structure; we need no structure (I'll come back to this thought) or at least structure that unites, connects, enables --and that terrible word, empowers.
Example. Word has it that clergy on the Reservations get overwhelmed with death and funerals. Looking at the service books for the last few years, I can see that might be true. There is at least one funeral per week, sometimes two or three. That is a lot for one person to handle. So, the thought is to create a position so that a priest will travel around and do funerals and relieve the local clergy and let them get on with being priests in their community etc....
And, I think that is all wrong. It clericalizes funerals and sets up a stranger to come in with a liturgical band-aid. It removes the most important work that needs to be done here --dealing with death and loss, takes from the hands of the people and pastor living here.
What should be done instead, perhaps, is to create a guild, or a bevy of deacons, or folks called to this particular ministry by the community and given (ordained--the old Tradition of hands on their heads and commissioned) this work to do.
And, this is what is happening here. It is cultural. It is contextual. And it is good. This is exactly the kind of structural shift that some are calling for. But what I also see happening is a lack of depth in the training --in the things that make our tasty and distinctive Christian and, yes, Anglican/Episcopalian approach to death present. Some things have become so contextualized that a touch-stone with what unites us is like a very dim star.
And I both applaud all these circumstances --the present morphing, the contextualization --and my fear and discomfort (which I am willing to own and keep before me for Oh So Many Reasons).
Back to the current melt-down in the church... those that are raising the loudest ruckus for de-centralization and de-regulation would probably be the least supportive of the changes and enculturation that is happening here... and, quite frankly, this work here would not happen were it not for our centralization and historical commitment to mission as in sending a priest to build congregations and serve/teach/be with the people funded by the greater church.
It's like a Catch-22.
What somebody needs to say aloud is that we are living in a great time of reformation, and that reformation has FINALLY struck the church broad-side. But what somebody needs to say aloud is that we need to be conscious of this reformation, and not do knee-jerk reactions (equivalent to the olde-style reformation of chopping some one's head off or burning them at the stake). Conscious.
As to structure --I don't see de-centralization and de-regulation working. It doesn't work. Look. At. Us. Remember.
And, yet, we MUST change. C.H.A.N.G.E.
I am caught in that place of knowing that the death of current church structures is an event that is coming. And of knowing that I will grieve that great death, for all kinds of reasons. And of knowing that my great mis-trust of institutions and institutionalization and institutionalism will cause me to have great hope in an unexpected future --but that hope will be broken. Because we are a broken people....
--and that my vision of what the Church could be is far too radical to hope for... and would be most closely modeled after AA --which requires that there be no structure at all, no buildings, no safe guards, no establishment, no leadership... one book, a rule of life --only the experience and acknowledgement of death and the hope of new life.... see below.
--and that vision is informed by wilderness experiences, the Gospel, a sensation of what the early church might have been like --before the so-called and well-fabled Constantinian Fall....
Today is the Day We Remember Saint Mark. It is not in readings for today, but I used this bit o' scripture in my own devotions because it is my favorite of that gospel:
And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him. (Mark 1:11-13)
We are the Body of the beloved Son, members, all. When we know that, we will be driven into the wilderness. We will be with the wild beasts. We will have all we need and more than we want.
Amazing, that.
And, here, for those interested, the "structure" necessary for the church. Imagine reading these 12 Traditions morphed thusly:
1. Each member of the church is but a small part of a great whole. The church must continue to live or most of us will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward.
3. Our membership ought to include all who suffer from sin. Hence we may refuse none who wish to be healed. Nor ought church membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three sinners gathered together may call themselves a church group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.
6. Problems of money, property, and authority may easily divert us from our primary spiritual aim. We think, therefore, that any considerable property of genuine use to the church should be separately incorporated and managed, thus dividing the material from the spiritual. A church group, as such, should never go into business. Secondary aids to church, such as clubs or hospitals which require much property or administration, ought to be incorporated and so set apart that, if necessary, they can be freely discarded by the groups. Hence such facilities ought not to use the church name. Their management should be the sole responsibility of those people who financially support them. For clubs, church managers are usually preferred. But hospitals, as well as other places of recuperation, ought to be well outside church.—and medically supervised. While a church group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. A church group can bind itself to no one.
You get the drift. I've highlighted little bits below that make me sing:
Our A.A. experience has taught us that:
1. Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of us will surely die. Hence
our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward.
2.
For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience.
3.
Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism.
Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.
4. With respect to its own affairs,
each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighboring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.
5.
Each Alcoholics Anonymous group ought to be a spiritual entity having but one primary purpose—that of carrying its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.
6.
Problems of money, property, and authority may easily divert us from our primary spiritual aim. We think, therefore, that any considerable property of genuine use to A.A. should be separately incorporated and managed, thus dividing the material from the spiritual. An A.A. group, as such, should never go into business. Secondary aids to A.A., such as clubs or hospitals which require much property or administration, ought to be incorporated and so set apart that, if necessary, they can be freely discarded by the groups. Hence such facilities ought not to use the A.A. name. Their management should be the sole responsibility of those people who financially support them. For clubs, A.A. managers are usually preferred. But hospitals, as well as other places of recuperation, ought to be well outside A.A.—and medically supervised. While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.
7.
The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions of their own members. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly dangerous, whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies;
that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose. Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our spiritual heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority.
8.
Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non-professional. We define professionalism as the occupation of counseling alcoholics for fees or hire. But we may employ alcoholics where they are going to perform those services for which we may otherwise have to engage nonalcoholics. Such special services may be well recompensed. But our usual A.A. "12 Step" work is never to be paid for.
9.
Each A.A. group needs the least possible organization. Rotating leadership is the best. The small group may elect its secretary, the large group its rotating committee, and the groups of a large metropolitan area their central or intergroup committee, which often employs a full-time secretary. The trustees of the General Service Board are, in effect, our A.A. General Service Committee.
They are the custodians of our A.A. Tradition and the receivers of voluntary A.A. contributions by which we maintain our A.A. General Service Office at New York. They are authorized by the groups to handle our over-all public relations and they guarantee the integrity of our principal newspaper, the A.A. Grapevine. All such representatives are to be guided in the spirit of service, for
true leaders in A.A. are but trusted and experienced servants of the whole. They derive no real authority from their titles; they do not govern. Universal respect is the key to their usefulness.
10. No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on
outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.
[This one, in my opinion needs to be thought through --the gospel requires us to speak --or not (the two great Traditions --Jesus silent before Pilate vs. Jesus engaging Pilate).]
11.
Our relations with the general public should be characterized by personal anonymity. We think A.A. ought to avoid sensational advertising. Our names and pictures as A.A. members ought not be broadcast, filmed, or publicly printed.
Our public relations should be guided by the principle of attraction rather than promotion. There is never need to praise ourselves. We feel it better to let our friends recommend us.
12. And finally, we of Alcoholics Anonymous believe that the principle of
anonymity has an immense spiritual significance. It reminds us that we are to place principles before personalities; that we are actually to practice a genuine humility. This to the end that our great blessings may never spoil us; that we shall forever live in thankful contemplation of Him who presides over us all.
The
Twelve Steps could be used to model a Rule of Life:
-admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion (read SIN);
-recognizing a higher power that can give strength;
-examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member--God parent);
-making amends for these errors;
-learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior;
-helping others who suffer from the same addictions or compulsions.
Amen.
Huh... funny. I think today is the anniversary of my ordination to the diaconate.... I don't remember... I'll post that up to anonymity, and get on with it!
Peace out!
