I think there needs to be a distinction between legislative committees put together to help draw up legislation and groups that work towards "best practices." We're confusing governance and leadership, and I'm not sure those are the same thing. Venn Diagram-y, certainly, but not the same thing. But we're Americans, so we filter leadership through political institutions.

Let me first say that I am on the "band wagon" for restructure and reform of our systems and organization and have been for a while even though the thoughts of those over 50 years of age seem to have been discounted of late. I am also in favor of doing this work while knowing the history behind what has already been done. So, with all due respect to Susan, I don't think she actually gets the mandate. Thinking, analyzing, discussing and proposing legislation, for example, IS doing something. Had it not been for the work of similar CCAB's in the past, the legislation that ultimately made it legal for Susan to be ordained would have been much longer in coming to a General Convention. Similarly, legislation related to the full inclusion of all minorities would have also been stalled. There are many other examples.

The CCAB's are councils of the church in a smaller format....one that hopefully allows greater time for exchange of ideas and study of proposals.

I could list probably hundreds of resolutions which originated in CCAB's and that have been passed by General Conventions to become the official position of The Episcopal Church on the subjects of human trafficking, HIV/AIDS, health care issues, care for God's creation, compassion and response to the poor and disenfranchised, etc. etc.

Perhaps equally if not more important has been the ability of other faith communities to utilize our work for their own benefit. In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, for example, other faith communities were afraid to discuss the subject. TEC gave them the OK or courage or whatever it was that they needed to move ahead.

I am firmly convinced that there needs to be serious reform of our structures. But those involved need to also know the history and accomplishments of what they would propose to dismantle.

Bruce Garner, L5 Atlanta

There's a word for this position: REACTIONARY. Bruce has it right - If you don't have a history - or, at least, an appreciation for the history - of CCABs, then it's quite natural to come in and want to wipe the slate clean and organize the "kitchen" to your style of "cooking".

I would remind Susan that some of the major changes in the church, indeed, ones that allowed her to now be a priest in the church, came through those same CCABs that, in her words "do nothing".

We're not just talking about the ordination of women or LGBT people. Among other things, we're talking, birth control and reproductive justice, change in canons to allow for the remarriage of divorced persons, change in canons to deal with sexual misconduct.

I'm not saying that we've done things perfectly or that things can't be improved. I'm saying that parts of the organization need to be restructured and some may even need to be eliminated. But, to say that CCABs "do nothing" is not only inaccurate, it's insulting.

I think while what Elizabeth and Bruce say about knowing the history
is very important -- Susan also brings a fresh eye to the process. My
first experience on a Standing Commission (in the 80s) made me wonder
what we were doing other than "make work" -- I was on Metropolitan
Areas (token rural!) and we studied reports from around the church and
put forth resolutions that were supposed to call attention to the
issue of the cities. The problem I see with all the commissions is
that unless the whole church can get the "fire" that the committee
members have -- things go nowhere.

We do need to look at the whole picture -- forced to really -- by
budgets. Hopefully new ideas and history will come together to make it
all improved.

A bit of pushback in favor of Susan's message: I don't think she is suggesting that we simply dismantle Standing Commissions without any further consideration at all. Far from it, it seems like in some cases we should be expanding their purview and mandate! But my experience as a parish priest for over 15 years is that the majority of the resolutions that are proposed, wrestled with, amended, and approved at General Convention are gone and forgotten by the average person-in-the-pew by the end of that calendar year. In fact, in my own parish, I can't think of a single GC 2012 resolution that has affected the way we do or are church in my congregation day-to-day.

Yes, some resolutions have far-reaching effects and are taken and used to move valuable efforts forward. Certainly we can count the blessing of same-gender unions and the addition of transgendered persons to the anti-discrimination canons as significant. However, the reality is that most movements and efforts are not enabled or enhanced by GC resolution--they are enabled and enhanced by a group of passionate people who want to empower others to be about the work of God in the world--whether the institutional church sanctions or encourages it or not. I think this also may be a generational thing--Baby Boomers are used to using institutional power (ironically, since they spent their young adulthoods dismantling such institutions) where as GenXers and Millennials are used to using things such as Facebook and Twitter to launch networked movements.

No, we don't want to dismantle structures that work, but neither do we want to pay $1,100 per person to get people together who are frustrated because the only avenue for action that they have is a resolution that will be considered almost three years from now.

Jesus did not say "Go ye into all the world and propose a resolution." I think we need to acknowledge when CCABs are useful (and have been in the past) and reform the process when it becomes so cumbersome that it restricts the movement of the Spirit.

What might be dangerous is if we decide to empower Standing Commissions with executive authority outside the General Conventions. Mother Snook isn't advocating this, but I can easily see this as a solution that someone might provide to the problem she identifies.

I certainly agree that legislation is vital to achieve some things. Further down in my post, not quoted in the summary above, I wrote the following:

"There ARE things that legislation is vital to achieve. Ordination of women, a process for Title IV disciplinary proceedings, ordination requirements, blessing of same-sex unions, revision of the prayer book (but please God, not anytime soon!), funding and budgets - all these are vital issues of church policy that our legislature should decide. Legislation is necessary to decide what the rules are, what the boundaries are, how much money we have, and what we are NOT allowed to do."

It certainly is important to have legislative processes to accomplish these things, and this should be one role of the CCABs. However, not everything needs to be done by legislation, and General Convention should not have to decide on something three years from now AND assign the authority to put it into action, before it can occur. If you have a group of leaders gathered who are passionate about a subject, expert in that subject, and trusted enough to be appointed by the presiding officers, then their mandate should extend further than ONLY writing legislation. Sure, maybe there could be approval processes, like, say, Executive Council or some other official authority, but requiring General Convention legislation as the ONLY possible outcome of a CCAB's work just stifles ministry that doesn't need to be legislated. We have gotten so caught up in our processes and need for permission-giving and control that we have not allowed gifted leaders to take sensible and productive actions, and we have gotten General Convention bogged down in having to rule on every good idea that comes down the pike.

Maintaining the CCABs is a very expensive thing to do (the joint meeting was estimated to cost $1,100 per person for 200-250 people - that's somewhere between $220,000 and $275,000). If we are going to continue to spend this kind of money - and there's no guarantee that we will, in our restructured church - but if we do, then we should get in return a real flowering and empowering of ministry in all areas, not just those that are appropriately legislated. We all need to realize that church processes are going to be streamlined, and a lot of things are going to change.

Susan Snook

Susan, I was also in St. Louis, in the Commission on Health. I think we had a broader view of what it could mean "to develop policy." We discussed the Report to General Convention that each CCAB produces as a teaching opportunity, and an opportunity to share resources. We thought about all the resources that the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music provided for blessing couples.

We also discovered that materials we share for our own use can be cross-posted on the Commission's web pages on the General Convention web site. Resources shared there can come up in Google searches. So, not only can we share resources in for the next General Convention, we can also share them between now and then. (If you want that information for your Commission, get in touch with me through my blog site or through the GCO Extranet).

We are also planning a joint meeting with two other Commissions with which we share overlapping interests. We hope that working together we can produce better resolutions, more appropriate for where we will be from 2015 forward than simply from 2012 to 2015. Obviously, I think there's plenty of latitude for useful work from a Commission beyond appropriate resolutions.

And, Brother Tom, if your parish life hasn't been affected by the resolutions that at least intend to establish good health and retirement benefits for Church employees, including parity between clergy and lay employees, you haven't be paying attention. I know some of our resolutions are esoteric. However, some of our Church statements on ministry to various groups are there for you to build on, any time you think it's part of where you need to lead your congregation.

Marshall Scott

Marshall: Your point is well taken. However, as we have a very part-time Parish Administrator and a VERY part-time organist, the resolutions you mention don't apply. We have done nothing differently in our congregation as a result of General Convention resolutions, with the possible exception of reporting on them.

And, yes, I may have overstated things, but to use your metaphor of building--it often seems like we have a lot of foundation stones (resolutions) and precious little building on them! As a church, we seem to spend a lot of time, money, and energy on such "stones" and then we're so tired we can't do anything with them.

Tom, your point is well taken, too. And I really do appreciate that you are the one to decide (in appropriate context) what is needed in your congregation.

Marshall Scott

Hi Marshall, I remember meeting you in St. Louis. I am glad that your commission found a way to do some additional non-legislative work despite the rules, and I'm sure that will be beneficial to all. However, wouldn't it make sense if we didn't have to find ways to stretch the mandate to make good and sensible ministry fit and be allowed? If we were empowered to do ministry that is not appropriately a matter for legislation? You mention the liturgy for same-sex couples that the SCLM created. Along with that came some resources for pre-blessing counseling of couples. This is an example of something that is useful and helpful, but should not be legislated - no priest should be mandated to use one particular counseling resource. But the SCLM couldn't just create something and make it available - it had to propose it as legislation. This does not seem helpful to me. Let them create helpful resources, but differentiate between the ones that need to be legislated (like the blessing rite itself) and the ones that don't (like a curriculum and session outlines for pre-blessing counseling). This is an example of legislative overreach that I believe follows directly from the CCABs' limited mandate.

Susan Snook