RE: [HoB/D] Structural Proposition

[Louie Crew <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu>]

> [O]ur congregations are by and large anemic because the resources
> at the parish level are being piped up stream to fund Diocesan, National
> and International Church infrastructure rather than local, national and
> internal mission connected directly to the giving from the renewed hearts
> of the people in the pew.

I am not sure that I understand you.   By "our congregations" do
you include those in the Diocese of Central Florida and the Diocese
of Dallas?

The Diocese of Dallas qua diocese, which ranks 10th in total income out of
111 dioceses, passes along no money whatsoever to the Church Center, and
your diocese, which ranks 28th in income, ranks 87th in the percent it sends
to the Church Center.

Whatever anemia your congregations are experiencing might be the result of
shutting up the bowels of compassion and generosity, but it clearly cannot
be the by-product of giving too much away.

(See my tally of the stewardship of all dioceses at
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/bpsprof2008.html#stewardship.  I recently
revised it to reflect TEC's policy of not assessing anything on the first
$100,000)

Or do you mean for the anemia to characterize only the dioceses that
actually give generously not only to the infrastructure (canonical expenses)
but also the mission program of TEC?

I personally am not much influenced in choosing how to make decisions about
TEC's budget by deputies whose dioceses give little or nothing to it.
Their withholding is a clear statement to which they are entitled.  As Jesus
says of those who pray loudly in public, "they already have their reward."
I'm not disposed to give still more voice.  But that is just my personal
position, not one I care to go to the mat selling to others.

(Some dioceses do refuse voice on budget matters for those who have not
contributed to the budget.  I would be interested in assessments about how
well that policy works according to deputies in  those dioceses)

More generally:

I agree with you that GC ought to be restructured. We need to Gideonize,
i.e., to become lean and agile, ready to move quickly in mission, lapping
water on the run.

I would like to see a maximum of two deputies in each order in each diocese.

I would also prefer that we use proportional representations and abandon our
current highly undemocratic polity of counting the vote of a deputy from
smaller dioceses as equal to the vote of a deputy from a huge diocese.

I would also like to close the exhibit halls and hold the much smaller
convention on a campus, such as the University of Kent used during the last
two Lambeth Conferences. Meals could be taken in the refectory.....

But an old man's word of caution about my preferences and yours alike:

Don't spend much time or energy proposing changes to the structure, because
any changes will be minimal.  You will spin wheels on these matters more
than on most of your other priorities.  People with disportionally large
representation don't usually volunteer to give it up.

Also, a time of great disagreement, such as our time, is not the best time
to revise structure:  each "side" is right to fear that the other "side"
might use restructuring as an occasion to gain advantage in the matters
under dispute rather than act our of complete disinterest.

Louie, L1 Newark