C-016 to C-020
May 7, 2012 § 3 Comments
Hello all,
Fifteen C resolutions down… and lots to go. Forging ahead.
C-016: Western Kansas’ structural reform resolution — if you don’t know what this is, then you haven’t been reading in order.
C-017: Structure, Long Island.
C-018: Asks for $450,000 over three years for need-based scholarships for seminarians, to be distributed by the Society for the Increase of the Ministry.
C-019: Structure, Hawaii. Honestly, how many of these do we need? Anyone who has seen GC work knows that whether there are one or one hundred of these, ultimately, only exactly one of them will go to the floor, once crafting is completed by the legislative committee on Structure. Does anyone know what the rationale was for asking for an unnecessary pile of the same resolution?
C-020: It figures that immediately after complaining about the many identical structure resolutions would come… a different structure resolution. Rather than asking for a Special Commission and a Special Convention, Oregon instead asks the already-existing Standing Commission on the Structure of the Church to tackle this issue in the course of its continuing usual work and to report back with recommendations to GC15. I know that some people are in favor of this direction, while others prefer the Special Convention, but I will be interested to see how the legislative committee on structure ties this option into the polished resolution it will ultimately present to the floor, because to me, this actually seems like the proper and preferable way to go about it.
All right, I’m calling it a night; hope this helps.
Matt 
Looking forward to reading your comments, all.
Matt, I have real doubts about the ability of any institution to reform itself from within by one of its own committees, as Oregon asks for. (C-020) This seems to me to be kicking the can down the road. We are in an urgent crisis and simply refering it to committee will not be enough.
I agree with +Kirk – I can’t really see Structure managing this all by itself. I think a much broader conversation is needed across the church if we are to get real change, rather than just tinkering. This is the subject of my latest blog post at http://tinyurl.com/85tatlw. However, I am also exceedingly skeptical of the legislative solution proposed by the slew of resolutions calling for a Special Convention, for the same reason. I don’t think any structure can reform itself from the inside. A Special Convention will cost a huge amount of money, and result in minor change, because all the interests that have made GC what it is will rise up to protect themselves. Rabbi Edwin Friedman called this reactive process “homeostasis.” As I say in my blog post mentioned above, I think it will take a churchwide process of listening for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to bring about any true reform.
Regarding the Special Convention, I honestly think this idea is dead in the water. Everyone knows we can’t afford it. Executive Council didn’t bother to fund it in their proposed budget – they funded $500,000 for a Special Commission instead. I really can’t see PB&F producing millions of dollars like a rabbit out of its hat to add the special convention back to the budget, especially since I am hearing lots of skeptical voices about it. And if it did somehow get funded, then every single diocese would also have to magically produce large amounts of money to send deputies for an unexpected, unfunded mandate. I can’t see this happening.
Susan Snook