Support the Café
Search our site

More TREC reaction

More TREC reaction

The reaction to the latest open letter from the Taskforce to Reimagine the Episcopal Church continues to roll in, as folks have a chance to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.

To get you caught up, no one seems to like using Lazarus as a starting scripture.


Mark Harris, at Preludium, remarks that TREC’s notable omission is anything having to do with the House of Bishops. Much else is curtailed, but the power and scope of the HoB remains untouched.

Katie Sherrod, writing at Desert’s Child, has similar concerns. She explains her location and experience as a female layperson in the Diocese of Ft. Worth, to ground her concerns that the TREC report will shift power too far towards the bishops.

Jared Cramer, writing at A Care for the Cure of Souls, finds, among other things, the Café’s coverage on this issue to be slanted. His post is here.

Steve Pankey, writing at Draughting Theology, thinks TREC would be better served by pursuing a separation between the Presiding Bishop and the CEO figure. He wants to allow the Executive Council to fulfill more of the governance role.

Susan Snook, over at A Good and Joyful Thing, echoes similar thoughts. She also would like separation between between the PB-as-bishop-and-primate, and a separate CEO position as administrator. Going through the document, she sees other problems as well, from a lack of clarity, to a lack of understanding of how the Convention legislative process works.

Finally, Nurya Parish points out that TREC’s main problem is that they have fixated on the wrong thing–TREC is concerning itself only with churchwide structures right at the top, when the problems holding us back run much deeper than that.

As you continue to ponder the open letter, what do you think? Have you changed your mind about anything?

Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_001

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café