I decided that it was past time for this vestry to look at the parish's history of operating on deficit budgets. I also mentioned, that as the Rector, I needed to know if the vestry would be considering making additional staffing/expense reductions. The parish has significantly reduced its expenses associated with the Music Program and Parish Administrator. Human Resources nevertheless remain the parish's most expensive budget line item.
I also knew that the vestry had discussed the parish's congregational life-cycle at its April retreat. Vestry members had indicated that they observed the parish as being at a point where it could either re-imagine itself and reclaim vitality and/or observe further decline.
I proposed to the vestry that we invite The Rev. Canon Jack Koepke, The Diocese of Southern Ohio's Canon to the Ordinary, to come and work with us on these challenging and opportune matters at the vestry's May meeting. Canon Jack brings a well of information, a keen mind, and a delightful sense of humor with him in his work. Jack indeed did collaborate with the vestry about the parish's finances as well as making progress on its ongoing Purpose and Vision strategic planning and implementation.
Here's what I heard Jack initially recommend to your vestry. St. James has time and space to work out its financial matters. That may be the presenting issue but it isn't the most important matter the vestry and parish as a whole needs to take on. We're blessed with wonderful financial and capital resources. Moreover, it is exhausting and not life-giving to focus constantly on how we're going to keep the "established" St. James parish operating as it has.
Jack's recommendation was for the vestry to maintain its fiduciary responsibilities and delegate this financial work in a transparent and collaborative manner with the parish's finance committee. This approach will require an emerging and redefined relationship between the vestry and finance committees as both groups' membership has changed, right along with the parish. It will require re-thinking the parochial parish's budgetary planning and adjustments if the vestry and finance committee act upon it.
Jack then offered the vestry the distinction between two "models" of Episcopal Church. The first model is the one that Episcopalians who have been around for awhile are most comfortable with in their lives. It is also the model that the majority of Episcopalians are resistant to letting go of because of its familiarity. This model of Church has three primary "anchors." Those anchors are:
1). Sunday Morning Worship
2). A building for the Community to gather in for worship
3). A priest to conduct worship and otherwise serve as a pastor for the congregation.
There may be other "requirements" of an established church but these are the ones that the Prayer Book, church canons (rules), ordination vows, financial systems, and established diocesan doctrines require. The established model of church is a pastoral rather than prophetic way of being. The intention of this model when we worship is to gather the faithful and perhaps invite other people to worship with us. It shapes everything inside and outside of the Sunday morning worship space. Being established isn't a "bad" model except that it doesn't lend itself to proclaiming Jesus the Christ's Gospel as he explains it in the Parables of The Sower and Mustard Seed.
The gospel, unlike the established model of Episcopalian life, isn't solely or even primarily about ministering to the needs of a gathered, established Sunday morning worshiping community. The Way I read it, the proclamation of the Gospel and sharing of Christ's sacraments is about caring for the saints AND equipping them to be agents of Christ's reconciling love outside of the church where they live, work, play, and interact with neighbors and strangers alike.
Jack's proposed second model of Episcopal Church aligns itself much more so with the
Agile Church and
People of The Way models I described in the previous paragraph. The Second model of Episcopal Church has three distinctively different anchors. Those are:
1). A Community
2.) Faith
3). Action
A 21st Century, transformational church doesn't require a building or a priest, except in certain worshiping circumstances. Its exists in the
commons of life. People gather, pray, listen to Christ's Word, and then go back out into the world "rejoicing in the Power of The Spirit." This model's purpose isn't about providing people comfort. Rather it is to equip the saints for the ministries and gifts they may offer at times other than Sunday morning.
It is prophetic rather than pastoral in nature.
My observation is that the vestry and me alike were rather "provoked" by Jack's description of these two models. I wasn't a participant of the conversations that occurred in the parking lot or elsewhere after the vestry meeting. I bet these chats were .... heated.
Before I go further; let me clearly state something. St. James' established model isn't "closing" anytime soon. As I described, there's money to support keeping this model of existence for probably another 4-8 years, if nothing changes. There's hope and security here, today and for some time to be.
And, That's not THE QUESTION. There are more important QUESTIONS - Will St. James as a faith community earnestly begin preparing for and bringing into being the gospel-inspired model of Church that the world desires and feeds the faithful too. If so, how shall St. James boldly create connections between established parish and outreach efforts that connect the church with the people who live around us in Westwood, Cheviot, and Western Cincinnati more broadly? What relationships does St. James possess or can re-create/re-connect that will enliven Christ's presence in us here? (St. James Day School, Gamble Nippert Y as examples).
There are other questions requiring this Christian community's faithful response. How will St. James transform itself from only acting as a traditional family-based church and become an engaged neighborhood faith community? What steps can the parish take to resemble Westwood's generational, racial, and economic diversity? How will these two models of being church abide with one another, here, now, today, and for the foreseeable future beyond the parish's existing financial resources?
