Just yesterday Cathy Ostuw, Jim Quinn, and I participated in a meeting put on by the Diocese of Connecticut regarding the upcoming Diocesan Convention (October 21 & 22) and certain resolutions coming before the convention. The meeting had a "town hall" quality to it, with presentations from various members of the Program and Budget committee and the bishops, and then an opportunity for questions from those gathered for the evening.
The information disseminated was rather stark. Like many other religious organizations, the Diocese has experienced reduced support from the 178 or so congregations in Connecticut. Given this scenario, the budget is being cut substantially this year, and a renewed effort to invite all the parishes to participate fully and equally in the life of God's mission in the church is a part of one of the resolutions for the convention.
Clearly, these kinds of discussions--amidst an uncertain economy and local communities seeking to support ministries in their own locale--can be quite unsettling. And there was an expected amount of hand wringing.
However, what struck me throughout the evening was the honest and open engagement with the issues facing the Diocese from a perspective of abundance and not scarcity; from an acute awareness of the gifts of life and not the capriciousness of life; from an eye to the opportunities that lie ahead and not a fixation upon the barriers. It was, from my perspective, refreshing.
Specifically, there was an historical perspective that Bishop Douglas gave regarding our current context that I found extremely helpful.
Bishop Douglas began by noting that the church throughout time has mirrored the culture around it. Some might say, "Duh!" but it is a reality that we often forget. Furthermore, to understand that the church follows various structures and movements of the culture is to recognize the intrinsic change that is a part of our life and life together in society and in the church. (This, of course, does not mean that all change is good nor does it mean that all change is bad. Simply put: Change is. And we are invited to evaluate that change time and again.)
What this has meant for the 20th century is that while big government--the New Deal-- and big business were prominent elements of the first part of this century, so too was the rise of big Church. Dioceses became more centralized and grounded in one location. The national church began to grow and develop programming for the Church as a whole. The face of the organized institution at this time would not have been recognized by those in the 19th century. With the rise of the bigger church, there also was a corresponding mirroring of the cultural regulatory milieu that marked the latter decades of the 20th century.
Again, it is not that these traits are necessarily good or bad. They simply are.
With the changes coming at the Diocesan level, Bishop Douglas underscored that we are in a different time in the first part of the 21st century. A time that he noted was marked by the need to network. A wonderful example that he gave was the structural similarity between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street groups. They may not necessarily co-exist on the same end of the political spectrum, but they are related in the loose networks that have arisen and created the movements themselves. They are not top down. They are organic. They are not centralized. They are diffused. They are not a labrynthine bureaucracy. They are a loose affiliation of individuals gathered around particular commitments.
While this analysis is largely descriptive and not prescriptive, it does help frame the context and landscape that we find ourselves in as 21st century believers. Indeed, Bishop Douglas noted that he does not know how everything will play out and how the Church and is missional efforts will look in the near and far future. That the Church will not look the same is a pretty safe bet.
I, for one, hope that the beautiful sanctuary spaces that we are privileged to worship in remain and a vibrant community continues to live into God's future in this place. I also know that the changes that come are inevitable, and it is not so much my--or our--ability to control the change that is important. I prefer to believe that the way that we engage the questions that arise from the changes--with grace, with humility, with understanding, with transparency, and with love--are more important. For, as in the meeting last night, these elements were clearly on display among those who spoke and acted recognizing God's abundance, gifts, and opportunities amidst the very realness of life. It was and is nothing less than refreshing.
Blessings,
Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment