I have been a part of this “process”, both actively in my former parish, and as an “outsider looking in” at another. I also have a good friend who was involved in the “planning process” in her own parish in the Eastern Greece/Charlotte cluster, and we have discussed our general mistrust of the whole process many times.
So I submit to you the epitome of oxymorons-
“Pastoral Planning”
Pastoral: of or relating to spiritual care or guidance especially of a congregation.
Planning: the act or process of making or carrying out plans, specifically: the establishment of goals, policies and procedures for a social or economic unit.
Ummmm…., not - even - close- , folks!!!
We need much less of this and a lot more leadership here in the DOR. This process, not only in Irondequoit, but in every other instance I know, has dragged on, pitted one parish against another, and has ultimately caused more division, animosity and mistrust than anything else.
I am a department manager, and while I like to give my staff a lot of latitude, sometimes I have to make the difficult and often unpopular decisions, it comes with the territory. I don't always like it, but "that's why I make the big bucks!" (LOL)
Should we expect any less from our Church leaders?
This process has indeed not been pastoral at all.
ReplyDeleteThe way I would do things if I were a bishop put in the situation of having to close parishes would be:
1) Take a look at every parish in the diocese. Analyze finances, attendance, etc.
2) Compile of list of parishes that may need to close, and publish that list.
3) Make it clear that the list is by no means final, and every parish affected will have the chance to bring forward a plan to keep their parish open. All ideas will be considered.
4) Review plans, and provide an evaluation to the parishes of how well their plan meets the criteria to keep their parish humming.
5) Allow the parishes to revise their plans and review again.
6) If a good plan can not be produced, the closure will move forward.
Now what on earth is so hard about doing that? People would not be pitted against one another in competition, and everyone would be responsible for the fate of their own parish. People would have a chance to keep their parishes open, and there would not be any hopeless situations like we witnessed with St. Thomas. Also, should closures prove necessary, the bishop would be able to say that the parish had sufficient opportunity, but was unable to produce a plan for viability. Here there is none of that. There is no chance to save a parish at all. We just have lip service. There is division and anger and people leaving the Church. We approached the entire Pastoral Planning process in a very un-pastoral manner.
~Dr. K
Thanks, IC! :)
ReplyDeletePeace!!
I agree, excellent post. We definitely need to review how we handle parish clustering and closures in this diocese, because we are creating far too much competition, anger, and division the way things are currently being handled.
ReplyDeletePerfectly said, Persis.
ReplyDeleteI think that many of us in the Dioceses of Rochester/Albany/etc . . . forget that in most dioceses, the bishop can be relied upon to make decisions, not empower less-than-qualified lay-people to make them for him. And note also that, while the vast majority of dioceses have begun to grow, or at least have been stabilized, Rochester continues to fail. There will come a day when we'll have to buy back our own churches from those who show open contempt for the seat of Peter.