From the Daily Episcopalian:

I attended both the 2006 and 2009 General Conventions as a consultant and observer. This perspective differs from the perspective of a deputy or bishop. As an Episcopal priest, I admittedly have an interest in the outcome of some of the proceedings. Given those disclaimers, I offer the following observations[:]

....

(3) In sharp contrast, the HOD, with over eight hundred and forty members, meets once every three years for ten days. Half of each diocese’s HOD deputation is lay; priests or deacons comprise the other half. The HOD has a more fluid membership than does the HOB, as dioceses elect deputies for a single three-year term, although many deputies do serve multiple terms. Alternates may also substitute for a deputy during part or all of a Convention. Deputies have no staff to prepare briefings on the vast array of subject matter and a sizable number, based on my observations, seem largely ignorant of HOD parliamentary procedures. These problems were glaringly apparent when eight hundred plus deputies allotted themselves only ten minutes to consider most resolutions, then spent much of that time on parliamentary questions. To their great credit, most Deputies work long hours, strive to do their best for Christ’s Church, and seek to understand an incredibly broad gamut of issues that encompass liturgical, pastoral, theological, and ethical subjects far beyond the competence of any one person. The problem is not with the Deputies as individuals but with the Church’s structure, which imposes this impossible task on these good people. It is no wonder that well before Convention’s end most deputies (and many bishops!) look overwhelmed and fatigued.
(4) General Convention’s structure inherently entails some self-selection on the part of lay deputies. Ten days of sessions with travel can easily mean twelve days away from home. Even with their Diocese paying expenses, few working poor or lower middle class people, who generally receive little if any vacation time, can attend. Single parents may have difficulty arranging twenty-four hour childcare during their absence. I suspect that few high-powered professionals, corporate executives, or small business owners attend, reluctant to be away from their work that long. In other words, those present must have sufficiently flexible schedules to give the Church an uninterrupted block of ten or twelve days, valuing the Church above their other commitments. Anecdotally, rather than based on formal research, lay deputies appear to be mostly upper middle-class and closer in age to retirement than to high school. The deputies were laudably diverse in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, etc. Except for their degree of commitment to the Church, I wonder how well the socio-economic status of HOD lay deputies mirrors that of the Episcopal Church.

Read it all here.

Interesting thoughts, Charles, especially in light of the culture and class discussions in other forums on this site over the past few months (see especially http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/forums/viewreply/4445/).  Thanks for posting them here.  The discussion over on Episcopal Cafe appears to focus on Section (3) and whether or not the structure of GC is dysfunctional or how it might be made better.

Here, the post makes me wonder whether by suggesting that GC is an expression of the mind of the Church which is limited by the culture and class of the HOD/HOB (Section 4), do we then find ourselves in a similar position as those who would claim the culture-bound nature of Tradition and Scripture?  The socio-economic critique is one which proponents of “new revelation” would need to put to rest in order to convince sceptics, I should think.  At the same time, one should not use this simply as an excuse to dismiss the actions of GC out of hand.

-Bob

I’m most interested in Clifford’s comments about how the HoD functions. I do get the sense that on the last few days the sheer crush of material leads them to let a lot of more-or-less junk through. One thing he doesn’t mention is that in the past the delegates have tended to serve as a brake on the venturesomeness of the bishops; innovations/“progress” tends to pass by lower margins in the delegates, when it doesn’t get quashed.

Has that really been true in the last couple of conventions, Charles?  A “...lot of more-or-less junk” may indeed go through in the “crush,” but the two big issues this time did get discussed and the majorities in favor were hefty in both houses.  At GC 2006 it was the HoB which brought forth B033, not the HoD.  There have certainly been clear cases where resolutions failed only in HoD on a vote by orders, though that may be happening less (I don’t have the data on this - maybe someone more knowledgeable can help).

-Bob

Charles Wingate - 11 August 2009 11:59 PM

I’m most interested in Clifford’s comments about how the HoD functions. I do get the sense that on the last few days the sheer crush of material leads them to let a lot of more-or-less junk through. One thing he doesn’t mention is that in the past the delegates have tended to serve as a brake on the venturesomeness of the bishops; innovations/“progress” tends to pass by lower margins in the delegates, when it doesn’t get quashed.

In my home state, a proposed referendum has to get a minimum number of signatures from registered voters even to appear on the ballot. I’m pretty sure there isn’t any such thing in my diocese because I got a resolution onto the ballot nearly single-handed when I was a delegate. Maybe there should be a similar mechanism for General Convention resolutions, so that only issues which are widely considered to be important even come before the convention?

Karen

Bob Kaynor - 12 August 2009 04:22 PM

Has that really been true in the last couple of conventions, Charles?  A “...lot of more-or-less junk” may indeed go through in the “crush,” but the two big issues this time did get discussed and the majorities in favor were hefty in both houses.

I cannot speak to how well the big resolutions were discussed, but it does seem to me that the limited time left for other discussion has resulted in a lot of ill-advised and easily-ridiculed resolutions.

There have certainly been clear cases where resolutions failed only in HoD on a vote by orders, though that may be happening less (I don’t have the data on this - maybe someone more knowledgeable can help).

Once case I do remember is that the bishops proposed two or three GCs back to involve the delegates in the election of the PB, but the delegates voted this down. And of course, ordination of women as approved by single lay and clerical votes. There was a more recent case of an innovation passing by a single lay vote. None of these votes was particularly close in the bishops.