This seems to be the next trope. And, well, it wouldn’t be as much of an issue if GC weren’t presented with major, faith-changing issues every three years, and if they just said, “look, we’re not doing political position resolutions.” As it is, the other big “problem” is that the deputies keep telling the bishops to slow down, which is exactly why the current structures exist.
I imagine what happens now is that they try to depose the bishop and/or set up a rump standing committee by going down the abandonment route. Or maybe they do nothing. But most of the focus I’ve seen has been on the disfunction at GC, which is definitely a problem. The thing is, why is it a problem? Part of the problem is that there are too many people there (and really too many dioceses to begin with). But it seems to me that the main problem is that the institution was designed to fight back against what the progressives want to do. There are so many different checks against change, including the dreaded vote by orders and the requirement for some changes to get approval from two successive GCs. In that respect the current system is sort of working, but not well enough from a conservative point of view because eventually resistance is overcome. In the meantime the political structures balk, exactly the way they were designed to. When you look at some of the ideas being tossed about, they invariably involve getting rid of the pro-conservative checks on the process.
This seems to be the next trope. And, well, it wouldn’t be as much of an issue if GC weren’t presented with major, faith-changing issues every three years, and if they just said, “look, we’re not doing political position resolutions.” As it is, the other big “problem” is that the deputies keep telling the bishops to slow down, which is exactly why the current structures exist.
“Revenue Sharing” is the possible point of this. What happens now if a diocese withholds funds from the National Church?
I imagine what happens now is that they try to depose the bishop and/or set up a rump standing committee by going down the abandonment route. Or maybe they do nothing. But most of the focus I’ve seen has been on the disfunction at GC, which is definitely a problem. The thing is, why is it a problem? Part of the problem is that there are too many people there (and really too many dioceses to begin with). But it seems to me that the main problem is that the institution was designed to fight back against what the progressives want to do. There are so many different checks against change, including the dreaded vote by orders and the requirement for some changes to get approval from two successive GCs. In that respect the current system is sort of working, but not well enough from a conservative point of view because eventually resistance is overcome. In the meantime the political structures balk, exactly the way they were designed to. When you look at some of the ideas being tossed about, they invariably involve getting rid of the pro-conservative checks on the process.
The language of this resolution is so minimal and so ‘broad’ that it opens the door to another revisionist ‘putsch’ at the next General Convention.
And the Diocese of South Carolina, by it’s next convention, considers this resolution, also, null, void and inconsequential.