![]() |
Let's make sure there's no mistletoe at 815. |
Crusty Old Dean is trying to get the Official Child of
Crusty Old Dean (OCOCOD, an afflication for which, sadly, there is no known
cure) into mythology. COD immersed
himself in Greek and Norse myths around ages 8-10, mainly for two reasons. For one, he had been reading a lot of
comic books and found out that Thor was not just a comic book character. For another, he was simply fascinated
by all the bizarre stuff that came up: in a world of four TV channels showing
inoffensive sitcoms, no cable TV or internet, he thoroughly enjoyed the
dysfunction of rampant sex, violence, monsters, cow-licking creation stories, and child-eating that seemed to
be part and parcel of myths.
One of the recurrent themes in Norse mythology is that of
Ragnarok: that history is
cyclical, that the world, including the supposedly immortal Gods, will
destroyed in an apocalyptic battle – and yet reborn, only to have the entire
process repeat itself.
Well, at the last meeting of Executive Council, we received
the latest installment of the 815 Ragnarok: a seemingly endless cycle of apocalyptic discussion about
the placement and future of the denominational offices of the Episcopal Church.
As a reminder to any new readers out there, or any readers
at all (seriously: don’t you have
real blogs to read?), Crusty spent a decade on the denominational staff of the
Episcopal Church, and at one time had an office with a window and his name
outside the door at 815 Second Avenue.
And yea verily, rumors and plans for relocating the Church Center have
abounded pretty much ever since it was opened there.
First of all, we should note that the opening of the Church
Center itself was an act of Anglican establishmentarian hubris, like calling a denominational Cathedral that represents less than 1% of the population a "national" Cathedral. At the time of 815's founding, many church denominations were consolidating
offices on Riverside Drive, on the upper west side of Manhattan, in a new
bulding which also housed the National Council of Churches. Dwight Eisenhower laid the cornerstone
of 475 Riverside, and Congregational, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Reformed,
and other denominations either had their headquarters there or housed
significant parts of their denominational structure there. Yet the Episcopal Church Center
had no interest in joining this party, continued with plans to open its own
headquarters, with the Presiding Bishop at the time noting that “These people
work for the Episcopal Church, not the National Council of Churches.” Note: accuracy of quote is disputed, this was relayed orally to Crusty Old Dean by an aged NCC employee. And, in a bit of irony, the Presiding
Bishop was also first president of the National Council of Churches for part of this
time. Awkward!
![]() |
Mmm...hogfat... |
In addition, the area where 815 is located is not, as some
might presume, built on an ancient Indian burial ground, the standard trope for
buildings that may be seen to carry a trouble history. Rather, the area was available for
redevelopment in the 1950s for the Church Center and United Nations because of another reason. In the days before reliable refrigerated shipping, the mid-town
east side was the home of slaughtering yards and was home to abbattoirs, cattle pens, and breweries.
Lastly, we should also acknowledge that moving
denominational HQs are difficult.
The times that it has happened, historically, often has to do with
denominational mergers. The most
recent example is illustrative:
the ELCA opened a new HQ in Chicago, in an office building within
spitting distance of O’Hare. It
did so because the ELCA was formed from the merger for three different entities
in 1987 – the Lutheran Church in America (LCA), the Association of Evangelical
Lutheran Churches (AELC), and the American Lutheran Church (ALC), each previously with its
own denominational headquarters. However, these three entities were only formed after 1963, when 26
Lutheran bodies merged – and these 26 are in turn the result of mergers from
the 1910s and 1920s which brought together over 50 Lutheran bodies. The ELCA
was able to “do it” because they were creating a new body, and, rather than
privileging the headquarters of any of the existing merger partners, chose a
new one. Likewise, for instance,
with the formation of the Presbyterian Church, USA, in 1983, from the United
Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Rather than either of the major
partners’ existing HQs, the organizing assembly had a choice between Kansas
City and Louisville, or, as one member at the founding Assembly told COD, reflecting on the historical
background of the properties in question, “A choice between a whorehouse and a
warehouse.” The most recent
successful relocations have come from mergers, not from denominational choice –
though there have been smaller church bodies which have done so, such as the United Church of Christ
(to Cleveland).
So 815 was born with a hefty dose of establishmentarian hubris and on top of rendering
plants. What could go wrong?
And, 50 years after its founding, it has become an almost
ecclesial Detroit: once occupying
9 floors with over 400 employees, it now leases out 3.5 floors, with further
consolidation in place to allow for more floors to be rented.
Alas, the cycle of Ragnarok for 815 does not seem to be in
the thousands of years the ancient Norse believed, but, roughly, every few years or so. There have been
reports, or General Convention resolutions, or internal conversations about
selling, regularly since its opening in 1963. There have been resolutions at the General Convention level in 1982 (D081), 1985 (A069), 1988 (D130), 1991 (D002), 1994 (D092 and D033), 1997 (D012). These are only resolution available through the online electronic database of GC resolutions -- Crusty is 34,000 feet over America right now and does not have access to his pre-1976 collection of General Convention journals. Also this does not include any Executive Council or internal staff proposals. In the lunchroom at 815, one of the older support staff once swore that in 1974 potential new owners were measuring out and parceling up
office space before a proposed deal was squashed. Whether apocryphal or not, evidence to the theory of continued discussion about the place and role of the Church Center.
We are in the midst of just another cycle. Last General Convention passed
Resolution D016; to see Crusty’s initial thoughts on this, go here. The original resolution, passed by the
House of Deputies, called for the establishment of a Task Force and a recommendation within a specific, designated time period -- by June 2013. This was amended simply to express the "will of the General Convention" to move the headquarters away from 815 Second Avenue without any Task Force or required benchmarks. Having been on staff up until 2011, COD
knew that there were already internal discussions and conversations, which were
also noted in the debate around Resolution D016.
At the most recent Executive Council meeting, a report was presented on the question of the Episcopal Church Center. The Executive Oversight Group – hereafter for COD to be EOG
– consisting of senior staff at the Church Center, prepared this report. This report was, in turn, informed by
work undertaken by Cushman and Wakefield, a global real estate firm that
“assisted” in the work, and whose involvement was underwritten by the diocese
of Los Angeles (perhaps in atonement for its significant reduction of its
diocesan giving to the denominational offices? Crusty does not know).
Crusty, as usual, has some thoughts – and he freely admits
that his comments here are based on the Episcopal New Service coverage. Crusty has neither seen the report, nor
was present at the Executive Council meeting. All COD has, like 99.99% of the church (more than the
percentage of the church that live in the Eastern and Central time zones) is
this ENS report.
Right off the
bat, Crusty has a problem with the lede of the story (as the son of a printer,
having smelted lead for hot lead linotype machines, Crusty refuses to use lead
instead of lede): “The church’s denominational
offices would remain at the Episcopal Church Center in New York if the Executive Council accepts a recommendation it received
Feb. 26 from a group of Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society executives.” Shouldn’t this read something like,
“could remain” or “would remain for the time being” or something? After all, can’t the General Convention
pass a resolution in 2015 to undo any action Executive Council might make
during a triennium? Seems
overly deterministic here.
But onward! The
report makes several recommendations; key among them are:
--that the denominational center and staff remain at 815 in
New York City,
--that there be further consolidation to rent out more
office space.
There are many reasons given for this recommendation. One is the synergy and proximity to
organizations such as Episcopal Church Foundation, Episcopal Relief and
Development, Church Pension Group, the United Nations, and so on. The other is the critical mass of
Episcopalians who live in the Central and Eastern time zone (80%, which is an
improvement from 1900, when 90% of Episcopalians lived east of the Mississippi). Crusty, frankly, wonders what the real implications
of this are as a reason not to move; perhaps Episcopalians are unable to
understand our time zone differences?
Among the several reasons given, several stand out for Crusty:
1) Crusty
is glad that we, apparently, have rediscovered our sense of social justice in
terms of employment fairness. The
report notes several issues related to a move, including the potential for a
two-tiered compensation system (some new hires in a lower cost of living area
being paid less than some continuing employees), concerns about moving to an
area which does not recognize same sex marriage, the fact many staff could or would not be able to relocate, and so on.
Crusty is delighted!
He also hopes perhaps this commitment to fairness can be applied in other areas and not only trotted out when deciding not to move the denominational headquarters.
Maybe we will no longer terminate union contracts without
notification or negotiation, as occurred in 2009 with maintenance staff, while
at the same time speaking out in favor of union rights in other areas.
Perhaps we can actually set standards for severance which
are in conformity with other non-profit organizations.
Might we even redress the already existing two-tiered compensation
system that we have, where employees with the exact same qualifications can receive different compensation packages because of ordained or lay status?
2) COD notes that everyone in the church seems to be embracing our polity
when it suits them and ignoring it when it does not. Many will, no doubt, be infuriated with this recommendation, given that the General Convention clearly expressed its desire for the relocation of 815. Crusty,
rather, sees this as a sign of progress and acceptance of our true polity.
Because the reality is, many levels of the church simply ignore General
Convention resolutions and canons as they see fit. We do, after all, have a canon on communion of the
unbaptized, along with GC resolutions on eucharistic hospitality (like the 1979 GC standards passed in
resolution form), but in many places and many area this is just ignored. Likewise, a friend once sent COD a
power point presentation on the revised ordination process to be rolled out in
a diocese, asking for input.
Crusty noted that it departed in some respects from that approved in the
2003 and 2006 revisions of the Canons; the person replied that they knew that
and this was better for their missional context. Just look over resolutions passed in 2003, 2006, and 2009, let alone stretching back years, and we can see how many are routinely ignored. So what’s good for the diocesan and parish geese are good for the denominational gander? Or are we all willing to be accountable?
3) Crusty is frankly baffled by some of the language in the report as
quoted in the release. He was
struck, in part, the way the report
declares that “the real
underlying energy in examining the location of the church center is less about
its location and more about how it actually functions,”
ponders, “how long, we wonder, would it be before complaints about the
isolation of the Church Center in New York would become complaints about the
isolation of the Church Center in some other city?”
and further
suggests that “Perhaps rather than shifting the locus of our
communal anxiety from one site to another, we would be better served in the
long run to use our best judgment to make a rational and strategic decision in
the best interests of the church’s engagement of God’s mission and then clearly
articulate that decision to the church.”
WTF is that all about? COD is perplexed that comments such
as these appear in a report whose goal is to present a recommenation about the
location of the Church Center. On
what grounds and basis and data is this report able to identify “underlying
energy?” Why is it
speculating about whether a move would lengthen or shorten the Ragnarok 815
cycle? Why not just make a
recommendation and put a lid on the editorializing and creating of straw
men? COD, for one, welcomes
discussion of new ideas about a denominational center, but holds none of the
opinions mentioned here.
Why needlessly antagonize or dismiss people with language
like this?
4) In
fact, if anything, COD is concerned that fixation on issues above – like
whether the EOG is thwarting the will of Convention when in fact everybody ignores what they feel like – will take attention away
from some other potentially important aspects of this report which may not get their due.
--For one, the recommendation by the very real estate firm retained
to provide advice that they should sell the place, and that the church should
not be in the business of property management. The EOG report's recommendations not only firmly puts the church
in the business of property management but expands that business by suggesting
a) further
consolidation to make more floors available for rental and
b) eventually
asking for rent/financial agreements from current Episcopal Church agencies
located in 815.
--For another, one the one hand Crusty finally welcomes some
financial transparency; in some of his budget posts from spring 2012 (remember
spring 2012? Before Psy and when
Michelle Bachman was running for present? Doesn’t it seem like five years ago?) COD wanted to know more about debt
service and lines of credit which were not outlined in detail in various
draft budgets. Well, here we get
it: we find out there was a $37
million loan, not line of credit, taken out in 2004 to fund the extensive – and
admittedly needed, included asbestos abatement – renovations of the Church
Center, and that this is secured not by the building, but by unrestricted
endowment assets. We even know the
interest rate, 3.69 %!
![]() |
Remember last time we counted on investment income? "Oops." |
Yet an important element in the recommendation not to sell
is that it is better to pay off a loan at 3.69 percent with the
expectation for 8% growth in investment assets. To this Crusty says, “Yes, we know how well depending on
investment growth worked for the 2000-2009 triennia.” One of the reasons for the massive, and in part foreseeable, budget
shortfall in 2009 which led to layoffs was the consistent underperformance of
investment growth. Have we learned nothing? Maybe we'll get another "oops" in 2015 like we did in 2009. After all, the finance and investment people won't be the ones losing their jobs.
5. Crusty
also has a procedural concern here:
what about the newly formed Task Force on Restructuring? What are the implications of making a
report and recommendation to Executive Council when there is another entity
charged with looking at reform and restructuring of the church? Should we consider tabling this report
(it was presented to Executive Council, will go to a committee for discussion,
and future consideration at the June meeting) or even referring it to the Task
Force? Or will we have dueling
proposals for 2015?
Finally, Crusty, while not agreeing with some of the
language used here, particularly some of the bizarre editorializing comments above, does
agree in essence with some of the central tenets here. It really doesn’t matter where our
denominational headquarters is unless we are committed to a holistic rethinking
of the kind of denominational structure we need. Moving it for the sake of moving it, without concurrent discussion about the nature, scope, and purpose of a denominational structure, is pointless. Likewise, keeping it in place without a holistic appraisal is likewise pointless. As Crusty has said repeatedly on this blog, we have
regularly rethought and changed our structure. In the 1780s, governance inherited from the Church of England
was in some ways radically reimagined for a new context: having clergy and lay
people share governance; electing bishops; and so on. Likewise, at the turn of the 20th century the
Episcopal Church engaged in a sustained conversation about restructuring and
governance (one could even argue this extends from the period of the Civil War
through World War I) , leading to changes in 1919 that led to creation of a
denominational structure. So who
the hell cares where a denominational HQ is if we can’t rethink how we
need to do mission in radically changed contexts and think through how this relates to dioceses, congregations, ecumenical partners, and other networks and organizations?
And, like Ragnarok was not the end, the Episcopal Church
will survive. After all, in 1801
the first bishop of New York resigned to become a gentleman botanist farmer,
thinking that Anglicanism would die out. In the early 1800s the diocese of Virginia didn’t even bother to hold its diocesan council
for a couple of years and had shrunk to a handful of clergy. We still have African American
Episcopalians despite a legacy of de facto segregation, exclusion, and institutional racism
which the church, at times, tries very hard to forget. We could go on with other examples.
Even if we do die, we will be reborn; the question is, can we seize this
moment and shape the change that is coming, rather than be shaped by it? This triennium, Crusty thinks, will be
a referendum on whether the church is able to do that.