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?