Immediately below are the abstracts and links to the various responses (in order received) to our BLOGFORCE Ready 5 Challenge. Below those are links to other responses that have been highlighted on Acts8 Social Media.
The Crusty Old Dean (AKA Tom Ferguson) made two submissions:
“Let the Dead Bury Their Own Dead: TREC Final Report” (Which is written in the hyperbolic character of the Crusty Old Dean)
“We’re One, But We’re Not the Same: Two Proposals for Restructuring and Reform.” (Which contains Tom’s constructive suggestions)
Steve Pankey writes, “We asked for change and they delivered“:
We asked TREC to give us change, and boy have they delivered. It took less than two hours before the sigh of relief turned into the very visceral response of rending of garments and bowls of tears to drink. Having served on a Diocesan re-imagining task force that presented its report in February of 2014, I could have predicted most of the responses on Social Media. The Conventionistas and Status Quo folks will be upset that TREC dared change anything. Those who are genuinely interested in change will be upset that their particular version of change was not put forward. Only a very small number of people, all of whom serve on TREC, will be happy with the proposal. All of those responses are OK because what is most important part the TREC report is that the report exists at all.
Adam Trambley writes, “A few small steps in a TREC of a thousand miles“:
Adam Trambley at The Black Giraffe concludes that “The details on governance, including the role and election of the PB, the Presiding Deputy, the Executive Council, and General Convention, are serious proposals that TREC has done a solid job addressing…[However, t]he lack of discussion around financial implications is a fairly large hole that will need to be filled in… The whole Church will have a lot of work to do. As TREC has said, they can’t do the real work that needs to be done. They can only propose some structures to make that work a little easier. We all have to do it.”
Keith Voets writes, “The TREC Report: To What End?“:
I think I am stuck. I am stuck because I have decided that while structural change is certainly necessary and should always be ongoing; the real crisis in the Episcopal Church is not one of structure, it is one of theology and missiology. Is the purpose of these changes so that we can create and nurture disciples of Jesus Christ or are these changes so that we can make it easier to be social workers that mention God once in a while? I am not convinced that our shrinking numbers have much to do with changes in society, but has much more to do with the fact that we no longer stand for much other than being nice. We have replaced cries for Jesus with cries for Justice forgetting that justice comes with a life in Christ. Are these proposed changes for Jesus or are they for us? We can reimagine and restructure all we want, but until Jesus becomes the center of our lives again – all of this is a waste of time.
Drew Downs writes, “Too Safe to Save: TREC’s final report“:
The Task Force had a monumental job and the results are in. The TREC’s final report was released with great expectation to clearly mixed reviews. The report, as it is, is strikingly middle-of-the road. It is more daring and prophetic than my lowest expectations and far less provoking of the hard, local decisions that need to be made in the Episcopal Church. They hint at the problems and nearly name them, but in the end, shy away from them with a nod and a wink. What is left are moves that, in the end, feel motivated by corporate ambitions than theological rootedness. But, it does offer hope. Just in a different way than we expect.
Nurya Parish writes, “Thank you, TREC. Church, let’s get to work.“:
TREC has offered us a prophetic message: we have not thought strategically and allocated assets effectively to serve God’s mission today. If we ignore it, we will endure the consequences.
Susan Snook writes, “Do Not Go Gentle: The TREC Report, Part One“:
TREC has made some good recommendations and some not-so-good ones. I find myself wondering, though, why we are managing for decline instead of restructuring for growth. First of a series of posts on the TREC report.
Scott Gunn writes, “Step away from the disintegration booth!”
Scott Gunn wonders if we’re ready for reform as he applies the wisdom of Star Trek to TREC. “While we haven’t installed disintegration booths at General Convention (yet), we are living in a painful reality in
which no one seems to be able to imagine an alternative. Not just at General Convention, but across the church, we blithely do the same things over and over again, even while the vast majority of our congregations
wither. It’s costly, but how else could we possibly do things? The pain of the present is tolerable, because it’s familiar.”
Frank Logue writes, “The lever that moves the Church“:
The most important technical fix in a final report that stresses the need for adaptive change is the two-line resolve on page 8 which states, “Resolved, That the diocesan assessment percentage be lowered while making it canonically mandatory (with means for pastoral exception) for each diocese to meet that assessment.”
Using data from the 109 Dioceses, Frank Logue fills in the blanks with a new diocesan assessment.
Other responses noted on Acts8 Social Media include:
Derek Olson – One Thing on TREC
I will be glad to add others to this list! Please submit them to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Respectfully Submitted by David Simmons, BLOGFORCE Wing Commander
The editorial board of Acts8 reserves the right to decline submissions that are deemed offensive or do not uphold the Guiding Principles.