Diocesan Governance Change Slowly Matures

Over the past five years, the Diocese of California has been in the midst of transformational changes in governance.  Along with Bishop Swing’s retirement and the call of Bishop Marc we also upset the old order by changing the constitution and canons of the church to modernize its governance.  The two principal governing bodies of the Diocese are the Standing Committee and the Executive Council.

• The Standing Committee, as we were reminded at convention by Paul Evans, the retiring president of the standing committee in his convention report, dates back to the beginning of the church in America when the first presiding bishop instituted the standing committee in a deliberate attempt to distinguish the new church in America as more democratic than the mother Church of England.  No doubt bishops, ever since, have sworn under their breaths many times at this rowdy colonist invention. The Standing Committee’s role is to be both a council of advice to the bishop and approves his compensation and confirms his decisions related to the ordained of the parish and other actions to live into the Constitution design to be more collaborative and democratic.  So as in all organizations there is sometimes tension.
• The Executive Council is the result of a very deliberate decision to eliminate the absolute powers of the bishop by winding down the corporation sole.  Under the old rules, the bishop served as president and board of directors thus the name corporation sole and under it the Bishop could, literally, do much as he pleased with Diocesan assets, funds and business interests.  The new structure combined the Diocesan Board of Directors and the Diocesan Council into one new Executive Council to be the fiduciaries for the temporal or business sides of the work of the Diocese while the Standing Committee deals with the personnel-laden and spiritual business of supervising the bishop and clerics.  The Corporation Sole is being phased out.

Shelton Ensley was also present as a delegate from the contra Costa Deanery and in his role as Chair of the Executive Council making his final report as his term is ending. He told the convention that in the two years since its inception, the Executive Council has focused on creating greater transparency and accountability. This has met with unexpected challenges and opportunities to do the diocese’s business more efficiently and productively.  The necessary questions associated with this process have naturally met with some resistance, and put our heritage of “agreeing to disagree” to the test.

In this time of continued economic uncertainty, the Executive Council’s fiduciary responsibility is as important, and ministerial, as ever.  As Bishop Marc’s intentions regarding a “post-parish” diocese becomes clearer, the need for Executive Council’s oversight regarding budgeting and revenue sources will expand even further.

Read Full Post »

6 Vote Landslide Victory

I was elected to the Executive Council at 161^st convention of the Diocese of California yesterday by a six vote plurality on the first ballot.  That means 120 of the 227 lay delegates voted for me but 107 did not.

This was my third attempt at election to a Diocesan office.

At St. Timothy’s we have come to see our chances of election as a curse until Shelton Ensley broke the curse and served three years in a term ending at the end of this year to the newly constituted Executive Council.  He broke the curse in style going on to become President of the Executive Council and doing what all admit has been a stellar job under trying circumstances.  These words of praise for Shelton’s work seem way too modest for his accomplishments.

Instituting a new order of things, as we know from our history lessons, is a tough job.  Over the past five years, the Diocese of California has been in the midst of transformation changes in governance.  Along with Bishop Swing’s retirement and the call of Bishop Marc we also upset the old order by changing the constitution and canons of the church to modernize its governance.

The two principal governing bodies are the Standing Committee and the Executive Council.  The former, the Standing Committee, as we were reminded yesterday at convention by Paul Evans, the retiring president of the standing committee in his convention report, date back to the beginning of the church in America when the first presiding bishop instituted the standing committee in a deliberate attempt to distinguish the new church in America as more democratic than the mother Church of England.  No doubt bishops, ever since, have sworn under their breaths many times at this rowdy colonist invention.

The Standing Committee’s role is to be both a council of advice to the bishop and a check on him by its control of his compensation and involvement in decisions related to the ordained of the parish and the bishop’s actions.  All bishops resist supervision believing they were chosen by God and should answer only unto Him.  But the Constitution is designed to be more—well, democratic.  So there is tension.

The Executive Council is the result of a very deliberate decision to eliminate the absolute powers of the bishop by winding down the corporation sole.  Under the old rules, the bishop served as president and board of directors—thus the name corporation sole—for the entirety of the Diocesan assets and business and could, literally, do much as he pleased with it.  The new structure combined two bodies, the Diocesan Board of Directors and the Diocesan Council into one new Executive Council to be the fiduciaries for the temporal or business sides of the work of the Diocese while the Standing Committee deals with the personnel-laden and spiritual business of supervising the bishop and clerics.

The reports of the retiring presidents of both these bodies to the convention yesterday reflected both the difficulty in instituting these new orders of governance and the progress being made at making it so.  Standing Committee president Paul Evans was the most blunt stating that he had reported the year earlier that all was not well in the relationship between the Bishop and the Standing Committee but they has decided to work harder at dealing with the issues.  This year he reported that things were better and much progress had been made—but unsaid was the continuing admonition that the Standing Committee and Bishop still had much work to do to agree upon their roles and live into them.

Shelton Ensley’s report on the work of the Executive Council was much the same—we made progress but it has been slow and frustrating and there is much more to do.

And so I begin this new adventure in Diocesan office properly warned to expect tension, politics, and differences of opinion and break-through areas of agreement on occasion.  I can’t help thinking about those 107 people who did not vote for me.  I need to pray about why that was and what I can do to reach out and discover the secret to building bridges and seeking insight from those whose views are different than my own.  Given the tensions at work in the Diocesan governance process as it evolves to maturity, it feels like listening is more important than talking, working together is more important than working at odds.

I think my daily prayers are going to starting taking a little longer after January.

Pray for me!

Read Full Post »

There is no ‘Us vs Them’—There is only Us!

I don’t really know how this rumor of us versus them started in the conversation about the Diocesan assessment.  Sometimes it is hard to tell who “us” is in the debate and who “them” is.

I could try to go through the variations and argue the case for Us in each one, but that would only give credence to the rumor.  Let me say this, I am not aware of any “Us” view among the larger parishes that feel ‘frustration at how they believe they are viewed by our smallest congregations – with mistrust, envy, dislike’.  That the rumor gets repeated does not make it so.

Does that mean there are no actual frustrations?  Of course not and left to fester that monster of frustration, as I have described it, will prove corrosive for all of us.  That’s why shining light on it, naming it, enabling honest discussion of it is cleansing, liberating, and holy.

That we may have differing views on the same issue is not divisive.  That we express those views candidly is not, by definition, disrespectful or hurtful. And it is also true that real needs in congregations both small and large not addressed, are unlikely to get better.

There is only us—and together we are the Body of Christ.

Our discussion of assessment formula options lives into the organization development and transparency goals of the Beloved Community as defined by the Special Convention resolution of May 2008 because it is an honest debate, above board about how best to respond to the economic crisis we all face together as the body of Christ. That there are differing ideas for achieving the same goal of serving God and living into the mission of the church is healthy and, with God’s help, the solutions we come together around by Convention 2011 can serve our goal of church vitality.

The discussion of the fiscal issues facing the church for congregations large and small is healthy because it is breaking down the barriers to better communication between us, between congregations and the Diocese, and in the pews of every congregation and program about our fiscal problems and how we can best use the resources of our stewardship.  It is setting the table for area ministry and our willingness to actually work together beyond our parish campus boundaries to achieve shared goals—imagine that.

My own views on this are not new, but I have learned much from discussions with others.  I first wrote about the problems of the smaller congregations before Bishop Marc was called.  In an article for our parish newsletter later shared beyond the parish I said I felt the Diocese was at risk of failing both large and small congregations by not focusing more on church vitality, growth and average Sunday attendance.  Those goals were later incorporated using slightly different words in the Beloved Community resolution in 2008.  You can read my Open Letter to the Next Bishop which I re-posted here when I started this blog.

For me one of the great frustrations in the rumor of us, in the perceived feeling of lack of respect if alternative views are expressed, and the most outrageous suggestion I have heard is that this “us versus them” allegation is somehow a large parish opposition to ethnic ministries.  That is total nonsense.  The plea for action to create more vibrancy and sustainability for the smaller congregation and by implication the ethnic ministries was being raised by the larger parishes in the pre-Bishop Marc discussion of parish finance.

My one regret–I confess openly—is that I did not take up this cause more forcefully when I was Rector’s Warden and a Vestry member years back when the issue surfaced pre-Marc.  I urged more inter-parish collaboration.  I urged the larger parishes to partner with the smaller ones and ethnic ministries—a “buddy system” that while I did not call it this would have been, in fact, an area ministry strategy perfectly consonant with the Beloved Community resolution and goals.  But Bishop Swing just was not interested in tackling this problem on his watch and so nothing came of it.  It was a mistake—a big mistake—and I should have been more pesky about it during the boom time in the economy when we had more options than we now have to deal with it.  At the peak we had four full-time ordained priests and a non-stipend Deacon in addition to lay staff.  Now at the bust in the economy and with Steven’s retirement St. Timothy’s will have one priest.  But we remain full of hope, full of the joy of “us” and ready to listen for what God’s plan is for our future.

So now what?

Considering whether ‘business as usual’ is still working for us under these changed conditions is hardly heresy. And each of the Diocesan faithful from the Bishop down to the people in pews is looking for answers to our prayers to solve the stewardship challenges we face.  Whether the strategy we choose is managed top down by the Dio staff or bottom up by congregations working together in area ministry matters much less than having that shared vision well executed to do the work of the church.

We are one Body in Christ.

Read Full Post »

Bishop Marc’s Pastoral Letter

Pastoral Letter from Bishop Marc Andrus

To the good people of the Diocese of California:

Since becoming your bishop in 2006, one of my primary foci of energy and attention has been to foster the sense of Christian community within the Diocese of California. I have been seeking to strengthen our community because the movement from isolation to communion is the direction of the Christian life; it is the way we follow Jesus the Christ to extend Christ’s love to those in our neighborhoods and workplaces. This pastoral letter is offered to support our ministry, and to provide context for recent efforts on diocesan stewardship.

While writing this pastoral letter to you on the eve of September 11, I remember the moving accounts of those at our cathedral who found thousand of San Franciscans streaming to Grace, filling that great space in the wake of the terrible loss in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We are in the midst of what some have called the “long emergency,” experienced by those out of work, those trying to cope with failing schools, deteriorated roads, access to health care, and the devastation felt at a deep level of great ecosystems like the Gulf of Mexico. The crowds that found their way into Grace on 9/11, and to many churches around the diocese, are in desperate need of God and the communion of God now. I know you share the precious goal I have of offering Christian community, and it is in this context that I write about an important matter in our common life as a diocese.

This past spring I received some communication from clergy and lay people in several of our congregations regarding the assessment formula approved as part of the budget at Diocesan Convention in 2009. Representatives of these congregations were meeting to come up with an alternative to the current assessment formula. Among reasons behind the effort to arrive at a new formula were assumptions about our smaller congregations, especially our missions and ethnic congregations.

The central assumption about the mission congregations was this: these congregations are largely static or declining, and numbers of them that are being kept solvent by the diocese should be shut down and sold. At the same time, some representatives of the congregations that originated this revision effort, all from our larger congregations both in terms of attendance and annual budgets, expressed frustration at how they believe they are viewed by our smallest congregations – with mistrust, envy, dislike.

These perceptions and real stresses are not new to the diocese, but I believe have become more acute with the needs our congregants and communities face. It became apparent to me that the most needed response was not just a new assessment formula, but rather a coming together between people representing different contexts of church life, and an honest exchange about those settings of life and ministry. The remainder of this pastoral letter provides an update for you about a process set in motion a number of months ago to support diocesan conversation about stewardship.

To begin the process, I felt that it was important to have a small-scale and representative conversation on stewardship needs and capacity that could be broadened to include more and more people, representing more and more of our congregations. Jim Forsyth, diocesan controller, helped me formulate a plan to establish an initial task force for this purpose, and Jim took our recommendations to the diocesan finance committee for help in implementation. I made suggestions at the outset of this effort regarding a list of participants who could be representative of small, large and mission congregations, and soon the taskforce was underway, headed by Shelton Ensley, president of our Executive Council. In addition to the representatives of our congregations, Shelton, Executive Council vice president Roulhac Austin, Jim Forsyth, and diocesan treasurer Bob McCaskill participated in the task force.

The task force worked diligently over a several month period, meeting every week. They reflected on the contexts of ministry in mission, small and large congregations, and produced a draft assessment formula that I think is very useful as a starting place for the expanded conversations that are to follow. Let me be clear; the assessment formula that the task force put forward is for the diocese to use in conversation – it is not being presented to diocesan convention in the form of a resolution. By our canons, amendments to the assessment formula must be submitted to the finance committee by April 1 before the diocesan convention in that year.

We are now at the stage of extending the work of this task force for broader diocesan input, and shall begin this process with an extended lunch period at diocesan convention for small-group discussions. I’m pleased that many members of the task force will be present to help lead small group conversations at convention and beyond, and I’m grateful for their ongoing support. The process for diocesan conversation will continue beyond the convention with the goal of arriving at a revised formula by March 2011, at which time the revised formula will be presented to the Finance Committee. Details for how convention input will be used, as well as additional opportunities for input, will be shared at convention.

For 2011, I proposed to the Executive Council that the 10% rebate on assessments that was enacted last year be repeated this year in order to give relief to those congregations experiencing budget deficits, a request the Executive Council was pleased to ratify. The 10% rebate will be a proposal coming from the Executive Council to the Diocesan Convention for approval.

Let me close by saying that I am confident that we will reach a new understanding of diocesan stewardship over the next few months through our expanded conversations together; and, that this will be expressed in a new assessment formula in support of the life of the diocese. Even more, I have confidence that we will continue to become a manifestation of the Beloved Community, by the grace of God and for the sake of God’s world.

With gratitude for our life together, I am

Faithfully,

The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus
Bishop of California

Read Full Post »

DioCalCares: A Strawman for Mission and Ministry

DioCalCares: A Mission and Ministry Budget Strawman

By Gary L Hunt

The Diocesan Finance Department Working Group’s proposal would separate the DioCal budget into two parts:

DAB– Diocesan Administrative Budget would be mandatory and include the fixed and overhead costs of operating the Diocesan including salary, pension and other benefits of the Bishop and his staff, utilities, occupancy costs, communications, travel and maintenance for Diocesan buildings and facilities.

MMB—Mission and Ministry Budget would be voluntary and include the costs for direct staff, benefits and other costs for ministry program development, mission congregations, ethnic and multicultural ministries, area ministries which is Dio-speak for shared or collaborative programs, youth and young adult ministries, campus ministries, and the work of the various commissions of the diocese.

The details about how the proposal to divide the budget would work are yet to be defined.  That means there is an opportunity for parishes to define the details to best suit their needs before a final draft is presented to the Convention likely in 2011 for approval.  The objective here is to encourage robust discussion, frame issues and seek consensus among the parishes on how the MMB concept can be used to improve the mission and ministry work of the church.

What is DioCalCares?

DioCalCares is a strawman concept building upon the report of the Department of Finance Working Group proposal to separate the Diocese of California budget into two parts: an administrative budget and a mission and ministry program budget.  DioCalCares strawman is designed to create a parish driven area ministry collaborative to encourage parish and individual participation and target resources from parishes working together to make a material difference in the lives of those we serve—shaping and defining our beloved community by doing the work of the church.

What is a Strawman?

A strawman is an evolving working draft of a proposed concept that evolves over time as we discuss and consider principles, concepts, alternative structures and designs in a collaborative process to modify, refine and improve the proposal in the search for consensus.  A strawman allows us to ‘rehearse alternative futures’ and assess its implications for the Diocese, its parishes and those we serve in doing the mission and ministry work of the church.

DioCalCares Objectives

1. Parish-driven leadership to grow the mission and ministry program work of the church expanding participation, leveraging resources, and better serving those in need.
2. Define the Beloved Community of the Diocese by transforming lives through mission and ministry service beyond our current experience, working together in new ways, and stretching to take on new challenges beyond our reach to serve the Church.
3. Expand the reach of existing parish ministry programs for use by other parishes, expand networking, collaboration and partnering between parishes to meet area ministry needs, build good relationships between parishes to improve ministry for those we serve.
4. Work together to create new ministry programs through a collaborative process of networking, information sharing, joint program development and mutual aid to improve the quality and effectiveness of services.
5. Grow the church by planting new mission congregations leveraging parish efforts beyond the diocese in the mission and ministry work of the church to reach good causes, solve pressing needs, and bring the Good News to those who seek it wherever God calls us.

DioCalCares Proposed Organization, Business Model and Funding

501c3 Organization Structure: DioCalCares could be organized like Episcopal Charities as a 501c3 nonprofit corporation under the IRS Code associated with but independent of the Diocese of California.  It would have its own Board of Directors selected by the participating parishes.  The Bishop or his designee would be an ex officio member of the Board of Directors.

Membership: Parishes or non-profit 501c3 organizations that enter into and maintain a valid participation agreement approved by the Board of Directors could be members DioCalCares.

Board of Directors:  Imagine parishes selecting a Board of Directors of nine members for staggered three year terms casting votes for the Board equal to its DioCal convention delegates.  Non parish 501c3 participants would each have one vote.  The Bishop or his designee would be a full voting member. The Board should select its own Chair and Vice Chair, keep and publish its agenda and minutes, and be accountable to the members for the following:

1. Approve Participation Agreements: DioCalCares should be funded by multi-year participation agreements with the parishes or other agencies.  The participation agreements would specify the funding level and term the parish is committing to in order to participate in its voluntary mission and ministry programs.  The participation agreements, however, would be legally binding contracts between the parties to develop, produce, fund and deliver the ministry programs and mission activities agreed to by the parties. DioCalCares may also enter into participation agreements with community organization and other social and human services agencies qualified and appropriate to its mission and ministry programs and to apply for, accept and administer grants, foundation awards and other contracts for service consistent with law and its mission.
2. Adopt a DioCalCares Ten year Mission and Ministry Strategy:  The DioCalCares Board would collaboratively develop a ten year long term mission and ministry program strategy with the active involvement of the parishes.  The ten year strategy approved by the Board would guide mission and ministry program development, help parishes set priorities for ministry, drive investments in mission and congregational development by providing a strategic big picture overview of the work of the church in the mission and ministry areas targeted.  The ten year strategy would be reviewed periodically and updated by the parishes and the DioCalCares Board to keep it current.
3. Maintain a DioCalCares Ministry Mutual Aid Network.  The Board shall maintain a current online inventory of the current mission and ministry programs of every parish or organization signing a participation agreement in a standard form and format approved by the Board.  In addition, the inventory would also include unmet needs, underserved populations, and requests for assistance from parishes unable to meet those needs on their own.  The goal of the Ministry Mutual Aid Network is to identify useful programs or compelling ministry needs and encourage parishes to work together.  The Network enables parishes to explore new ideas for ministry.  DioCalCares encourages networking and mutual aid back up to improve ministry training, dialog, and sharing to improve the experience for those we serve.
4. Approve DioCalCares Three Year Program Plans: The Board would designate the mission and ministry programs to be undertaken, approve a three program plan for each developed and recommended by the program participants, and consistently evaluate its financial and service performance against the approved plan.  Each ministry program would be evaluated each year by participants, providing a report card for the year ending, a ministry work plan, budget, performance objectives for the year ahead, and validate that signed parish participation agreements are sufficient to reasonably fund and deliver the service proposed.
5. DioCalCares Annual Mission and Ministry Program Conference. Each year the Board shall sponsor a conference of all the participants offering workshops, ministry training, and the opportunity to hear proposals for new mission and ministry proposals for consideration by the parishes.  As part of the conference, participants will have the opportunity to update or revise their participation agreements adding new ministry programs for the three years ahead, dropping programs past their time, or invite others to join with them to create a new program to meet special needs.

Comparing DioCalCares Funding vs Finance Department Work Group Financing Model.

DioCalCares uses a funding model that is different from the one proposed by the Finance Department working group, but it seeks to achieve the same goal of revitalizing the overall Diocesan level of effort toward mission and ministry over time.

DioCalCares is not designed to raise money for mission and ministry.  DioCalCares is designed to engage the parishes to actually do mission and ministry by offering a marketplace of ministry programs, services and a collaborative process for working together in the believe that where the heart of the parishes is engaged in doing God’s work their time, talent and treasure will surely follow.

DioCalCares solves the problem of parishes feeling the Diocesan assessment is a “tax on the parishes” that they have little control over while their mission and ministry support needs go unmet.  DioCalCares teaches parishes to fish for themselves by rolling up their sleeves and doing God’s work around the community, across the Diocese and wherever in the world God calls us to serve.

The funding model differences are as followings:

• DioCalCares would be a member funded, parish-driven mission and ministry program marketplace.  It receives funds from its members in the form of financial participation agreements which represent the voluntary assessment of member parishes of the Diocese of California over and above their Diocesan Administrative Budget assessment.  The participation agreement is designed to cover the costs of the ministry programs the parish chooses plus the shared cost of developing new ministry options.  Its goal is to facilitate the mission and ministry work of the church by creating a market place for programs and enabling the parishes to serve the needs of their parish, the Diocesan community beyond their campus, and the broader mission of the church.
• The Finance Department Working Group recommended a voluntary level of parish giving to support the mission and ministry work of the church as a percentage of each parish’s TOI in excess of $62,000 increasing from 3% to 8% of parish income over a six year ramp up.

DioCalCares Proposed Mission and Ministry Categories-vs-Finance Dept Proposal

The major philosophical difference between the Department of Finance Working Group proposal and the DioCalCares strawman is the latter’s policy and spiritual goal of getting the parishes to step up to the mission and ministry work of the church by creating a framework to facilitate such leadership and collaboration action. Today the parishes more often than not wait for leadership from the diocese or send their assessment payments to the Diocese and hope some of it trickles down to causes they support.

When Jesus said, “follow me”—he did not mean hang around until I have to come down there to turn more water into wine for you again, people!  He gave us a commandment to love others as He loved us.

DioCalCares lives into that commandment teaching us to fish. The Department of Finance proposal encourages us to keep sending checks and wait patiently for the diocese to throw some fish in our boat  DioCalCares is designed to bring the people back to the shore line with their fishing poles.

DioCalCares organizes the categories of mission and ministry differently than the Department of Finance Working Group proposed but the intent is to serve the same needs.  What’s the difference?

• DioCalCares is parish driven not Diocese-driven.  It seeks parish involvement and focuses on categories and ministries most likely to achieve that goal by growing the mission and ministry of the church.  DioCalCares seeks to change the way mission and ministry are imagined, developed, and delivered across the Diocese turning the parishes into advocates and champions for ministry instead of complainers.
• DioCalCares is collaborative but not bureaucratic.  It is focused on producing ministry results for those we seek to serve through the work of the parishes not raising money for administrative overhead costs. DioCalCares assumes that WE are the Diocese of California and that God expects us to get to work on our own initiative to follow Jesus.
• DioCalCares is Mission and Ministry Driven not Money Driven.  It believes that getting the parishes and congregations hooked on mission and ministry will drive their financial commitment faster and farther than taxing them to do it.  DioCalCares wants them to get to work not just write a check.

The Finance Department Working Group proposed the following categories of mission and ministry asking the parishes to allocate their 3% to 8% voluntary assessment among them:

1. “MISSION CONGREGATIONS: support congregations moving from mission to parish status and churches with specific development needs.
2. OUTREACH MINISTRIES: Episcopal and ecumenical agencies, networks, diocesan committees and chaplaincies that represent collective efforts to minister to others.
3. DIOCESAN SUPPORT MINISTRIES: resources for congregations through commissions, committees and divisions that work to enable congregational potential.
4. ETHNIC AND MULTI-CULTURAL MINISTRIES: promoting ministries that cross the cultural, racial and ethnic boundaries of our society and show us more fully the face of the Church.
5. OUTSIDE DIOCESAN SUPPORT: supporting the work of the Episcopal Church, Millennium Development Goals and missionary work.”

DioCalCares Mission and Ministry strawman offers an alternative way to organize categories of mission and ministry to focus on parish growth, vitality, and congregational development to grow the church; transforming the lives of the unserved or underserved with ministry programs that make a real difference; and planting new congregations and doing the mission work of the church wherever God calls us to serve as follows:

1. FACILITATE PARISH GROWTH AND CONGREGATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Assist parishes create and deliver meaningful worship and parish life experiences that grow participation in the work of the church doubling pledge units and average attendance in the Diocese of California every ten years by strategies to:

welcome the faithful and support parish growth, vitality and transition,

serve the unchurched and underserved with targeted ministry programs,

support congregations moving from mission to parish status and

plant new congregations in areas of need with specific development assistance.

1. CELEBRATE INCLUSIVE MINISTRY IN EVERY PARISH.  Assist parishes develop and provide ministry programs to welcome all, include all and celebrate all our rich multi-cultural, ethnic and LGBT parish membership by providing specialized resources that enhance congregation potential and fuller participation of all members in parish life and the work of the church.
2. OUTREACH TO THE POOR, SICK, HURTING AND UNDERSERVED. Create a Diocesan-wide network of parish programs, community services organizations, chaplaincies and other resources to leverage the time, talent and treasure of parish resources available to transform the lives of those in need.
3. SERVING GOD AND THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD BEYOND OUR DIOCESE. Support the work of the Church, Millennium Development Goals and missionary work beyond our Diocese.
4. ENGAGING THE FAITHFUL IN THE WORK OF THE CHURCH. No man is an island—and neither are the parishes of God’s church.  DioCalCares seeks to create a collaborative framework to learn from each other, experiment with new program ideas, leverage our resources by working together, and celebrate the gifts God has given us and use them to transform lives within our parishes and beyond for the good providing resources for congregations that work to enable congregational potential.

It’s time to quit waiting for someone else to make things happen.  DioCalCares seeks to excite the faithful with opportunities for mission and ministry to serve God through the work of the church.  What are you waiting for?   Go make miracles happen through the power of God’s love.

Collaborative Ministry Examples and Resources

• Area Ministry: The Episcopal Diocese of California’s new mission-minded evangelism http://www.diocal.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=200&Itemid=192
• http://www.diocal.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=308&Itemid=215

• Episcopal Charities: http://www.episcopalcharities.org/about-us.html
• Episcopal Foundation: http://www.episcopalfoundation.org/tools-and-programs/endowment-tools/collaborations-relationships
• Sisters of charity Foundation of South Carolina:  http://sistersofcharitysc.com/grants/types_of_grants/collaboration_for_ministry/ http://sistersofcharitysc.com/initiatives/collaboration_for_ministry_initiative/

• TEAM Lay Ministry Collaborative:  Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary: http://www.fcjsisters.ca/fcjcentre/teamprogram.html
• Catholic Youth Ministry: http://www.catholicyouthministry.com/collaboration-in-ministry-no-ministry-is-an-island
• Multi-Parish Youth Ministry: http://www.catholicyouthministry.com/category/blog/multi-parish-ym
• National Plan for Hispanic Ministry: The Methodist Church: http://gbgm-umc.org/programs/hispanicmin/plan2.html
• International Network of Prison Ministries: http://prisonministry.net/OPM

This strawman is an evolving work in progress designed to provide the Contra Costa Deanery and other across the Diocese of California with food for thought about alternative ways to organize, grow and support the mission and ministry work of the church.  Your comments and suggestions for changes or improvements are welcome.

Read Full Post »