As a long-time observer of General Conventions (my first was the Special Convention of 1969), I would say you're absolutely right, Jim, in crediting the House of Deputies with important leadership in governance. Time and again the House of Bishops has punted the tough calls to the deputies. And more often than not the deputies have risen to the challenge. That kind of legislative work takes experience, time, and focus.

1. People speak about their faith when they're actually doing something worth talking about that is an expression of their faith. Charity work, social witness, musical or artistic work, liturgical service, receiving or giving religious education, etc. A busy parish is a witnessing parish, not only in the deeds done in its name, but in the daily telling of the deeds by a membership for whom faith and lifestyle are inseparable. Christians didn't face down lions because of a set of propositions, but because of a whole life that they could never live without. Kinda like the Guy that started it all. But without effective leadership, this isn't going to happen. Nothing kills a parish faster than lazy priests, lazy deacons and lazy wardens. Oh and lazy music directors :)

2. This emphasis on other things, as Jim puts it, sounds like bored or uninspired people trying to come up with feel-goodies because they're not getting enough of that at home. I'm sorry, but by the time a Deputy gets to convention, s/he should already be motivated, with solid, effective, and proven ideas to share with the rest of the Church. And as an aside, let's be honest, most of the best sharing and learning isn't done as a formal part of the Convention, but during "informal gatherings" after hours. I've gotten more done at conferences at 9:30 pm with an adult beverage in one hand, and the other hand gesticulating wildly, than I ever got done at 9 am with a convention packet in one hand and one of those ubiquitous pitchers of water in the other. Though you show up at 9 am to vote and formally debate, you better be motivated enough to already have a plan, and to have bounced ideas off of others the night(s) before. 9 am is time for business, time for allocating time and re$$$$ource$, and for making ri$$ky stands about controversial issues, and these decisions come down to the faith in action of the motivated Deputy. The motivation and faith in action should already have been done before the Convention. A Convention full of weak, unformed Deputies makes for a weak Church, but that strengthening and forming and informing must have already happened, because at Convention, it's serious business, making serious decisions. You have no business being a Deputy if you need on-site, remedial faith formation to even do your job.

I free with Jim in noting that people whose gift is legislating may not be gifted as evangelists. But more generally I am opposed to all the "ambiance" activities like those we have had at the last two conventions.
What we actually need is more unstructured "mingle" time when deputies can just chew things over in small groups over coffee or one exhibit or another in the hall. Likewise we should eliminate all the fru fru nicey nice guest visits, resolutions, etc.

With a supposedly shorter convention (committees beging meeting on the 3rd after all) we need the time on the floor and off the floor for talking about important issues. Yes,yes evangelism is important, so have a convention for people with that gift.

There may or may not be some effort going on to diminish the role of the HoD, nonetheless our PHoD needs to continue her vigorous defense of our role in the governance of the Church, not to mention heightening the HoD's teaching authority via its resolutions and its "mind".

Again, please eliminate ambiance activities, etc. We are a legislative body made up of adults who can ha dle their own ambiance.

Michael, for those of us who have never been to GC, what exactly are the ambiance activities you mention?

General Convention is the governing body of the Episcopal Church. As such, the primary interest should be in addressing the constitutional and canonical issues upon which it is called to legislate. These should not take back seat to the epiphenomena of the fellowship.

I would be open to considering ways to streamline the operation -- many have been made over the years, including having cognate committees meet jointly instead of separately -- a big time saver as many agree. I would also be so bold as to suggest capping deputations at three clergy and three laity, which would reduce the size of the assembly without having a huge impact on in put. It would also simplify votes by orders.

I'm even open to exploring a revamp to have a unicameral assembly on matters other than the budget. This would carry along what has already been done with the legislative committees to the full assembly. The historic rationale for separate houses with differing functions disappeared very early on in the development of our polity -- and I think a fair examination of the pros and cons of bi- versus unicameral structure (retaining votes by orders) would be worth exploring. (I'm not prejudging the result of the exploration...)

I think we have eroded the authority of GC, and especially the senior house, by increasing the authority of the Presiding Bishop and the Episcopal Church Center staff. TEC is hierarchical, but the authority is vested in the GC. Perhaps it is time for us to remove the Primate title and consider having the PB continue to be a diocesan and not full time as PB. We might consider, especially in dioceses with few financial resources having bishi

My previous comment was sent before it was finished. My second suggestion was to return, where appropriate, to the practice of bishops serving as rectors of parishes.

Daniel Weir

When I wrote my earlier note, I almost included dweir's (Daniel?) suggestion. While I'm not averse to the "Primate" title as such, I don't think there was anything gained by severing the PB from a diocese, and moving to the corporate model with the PB as chair and CEO of the mission agency.

These comments on the purpose of Convention bring me back to the PB's video to the Bishops (and via them, the Deputies).

My personal reflection on the PB’s message She noted that the ordination process takes a large chunk of the Canons, and that the disciplinary process is the largest Canon of all. Two thoughts come to mind:

1 I’m trying to get my mind around the idea of putting Mission into the canons. By her comments, it would seem that she would expect a growing church to have Mission as the largest section of the Canons. Not everything works best through laws/canons.

2 Examples: I was a Coast Guard officer for 10 years. When I served on a polar icebreaker, there were no regulations at all (servicewide, districtwide, or shipboard) about how to break ice, or how to escort a thinly hulled vessel through the ice. When I served on a buoy tender, there were no regulations at all about how to maneuver to pick up or drop buoys. In both cases, there were best practices, otherwise known as the lore of the sea or the lore of the particular area of expertise.

Deputies are (one hopes) elected because of their understanding of the legislative process (as well as their reputation as faithful Episcopalian Christians). This would include a number of people who spend most of their days entwined in the business of the Church. (Chancellors certainly come to mind as people whose ministry often involves many hours [beyond their professional career hours] doing legal and/or advisory work for the Bishop and/or the Diocese.) Certainly there are many Deputies (especially laity) who have made sacrifices to commit the time needed to do the legislative work of the Church.

Certainly I could make a case for a national gathering to pump up the folks who are good at pumping up others to be more involved in evangelism or other aspects of mission.

And certainly there is much to be said for the idea of having a certain amount of time given to pumping up the members of Convention. Featured speakers falls into this category. But this should not be anywhere near a major portion of the time.

One can drive a screw into wood with a hammer. Wouldn't it make more sense to either use a screwdriver to drive in a screw or a hammer to drive in a nail?

Blessings and peace, Edwin Cox

Tobias, I also liked the suggestion of capping the size of deputations on the face of it. But people who've looked at the demographics of deputations tell me that the fourth spots in both the clergy and lay orders are disproportionately occupied by young people, LGBT people, and people of color. If analysis bears that out, capping the size of deputations could have the unintended consequence of making General Convention even more homogeneous than it already is.

Rebecca, I've heard that assertion, but I don't know that the facts back it up. I sense it may have been more true 20 or even 10 years ago, but I'd wager things have changed a lot since.

On the issue of the purpose of GC -- I think it would be more effective to treat it as a legislature, and have an annual EYE-style evangelism conference focused on mission work. Trying to combine the two ultimately benefits neither. The people charged with work on canons may not be the best missiologists -- and that goes for bishops as well as deputies, in my book.

I only have experience with younger deputies in one diocese, Western NY, but there the young member of the deputation, and so far there has only been one, was not always the fourth deputy. In one election a college student was the first deputy elected, coming in ahead of a long-serving and very respected candidate. I think the commitment of the diocese to include younger members in vestries, diocesan convention and council was evident in that election.