About the only thing that could make GC function as a church organization would be mass catechizing, but it takes educated believers to do that.  None on board.  I recall in the 70’s being pressured to “make” a Cursillo.  It was touted as a course in “Basic Christianity”.  Sounds good, but I noticed they also had them in the Diocese of Newark.  What, pray tell version of “Basic Christianity” was taught on those weepy weekends?  You could ask a Newark Episcopalian, but you better hurry as they’re getting scarce.  So with catechesis; garbage in, garbage out.

Interestingly I read this after putting down Mike Aquilina’s “The Fathers of the Church.”  [A quote from p. 15 “The Fathers of the church were intensely concerned with preserving the unity and integrity of the “company of those who believe.’‘’ and p. 25 “doctrine was not something incidental to the Christian faith. It was essential.”]
  I agree with Ian Chamberlin that we need to focus on our inherited faith. My fear is that if GC begins discussing doctrine then there will be little left of the ancient faith. Anglicanism is wide indeed, but from the beginning it had boundaries (not Roman nor Puritan, later not Methodist). And it was always intended to be recognizably Christian.

Intriguing commentary coming from the president of Integrity in Phoenix.  I’m pleased to read his call for a focus on doctrine.  But as Kendall said, General Convention is not conducive to discussing theology.
 
At GC2003 the HOB defeated B001 “On the Topic of Endorsing Certain Historic Anglican Doctrines and Policies”, which affirmed the authority of Scripture and reaffirmed “that the statements known as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilaterial of 1886, 1888, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, 1979 continue to be true and accurate statements of the faith and policy of this Church.”

At GC2006 Resolution D058 “Salvation Through Christ Alone” did not even come to a vote. The Evangelism Committee voted to discharge the resolution claiming that 1982 Resolution A047 stated the same thing.  It does not. One Committee member commented that the debate over the resolution would likely be contentious if it reached the House of Deputies.  Attempts to bring the resolution to the floor for a current reading failed.  D058 reads as follows:

“Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church declares its unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved (Article XVIII); and be it further
Resolved, That we acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6); and be it further
Resolved, That we affirm that in Christ there is both the substitutionary essence of the Cross and the manifestation of God’s
unlimited and unending love for all persons; and be it further
Resolved, That we renew our dedication to be faithful witnesses to all persons of the saving love of God perfectly and uniquely revealed in Jesus and upheld by the full testimony of Holy Scripture.”

The uniqueness of Christ as the only savior and the doctrine of substitutionary atonement were apparently too narrow a path and/or too small a box for the General Convention deputies.

If Ian Chamberlain is ordained clergy then he has just abandoned the Episcopal Communion.  No doubt his deposition will be published on ENS, hard copy to follow to him in 6 weeks or so.

General Convention, sadly, is not at all conducive to doing theology —-KSH

Nor would “doing theology” fit the playbook of ECUSA’s current set of reappraising rulers. Better to operate obliquely by passing resolutions about “inclusion” and “the bounds of our common life.” Let overt, wholesale theological revision wait until the radical reappraisers have fully consolidated their control, honed their disciplinary machinery, and made basic decisions about prayer book revision. Theological revision would, ideally, codify changes to which liturgical revision has already acculturated the laity. In the mean time, reappraisers can profess fidelity to scripture and the creeds.

The best thing for GC to do is to discuss the rubrics and process, rather than politics, for example. 

That said, I’m not sure if the GC should “pass"doctrine.  It should discuss it, perhaps.

GC passes doctrine every time it authorizes innovations such as women’s ordination or condoning homosexual acts.  Not to mention licensing liturgy.  Every doctrine of the Church, from the Incarnation down, is theoretically susceptible to being revoked by GC.  It is a deep flaw in the much-touted “polity” of TEC.  Set up as a “Congress,” it refuses to respect the “Constitution” of the deposit of faith, and there is no Supreme Court mechanism to discipline it—the House of Bishops having abdicated their role as defenders of tradition.

The author being who is, I think it’s a remarkable statement.  I consider the movement of which he is part to have a large share of responsibility for the situation he decries.

too late.

If good politics is bad economics and vice versa is good doctrine bad theology? It certainly will be if TEC has anything to do with it.

If “indaba” was so great, they should cut all decision-making, resolutions and legislation out of GC.

The problem with this idea is that “To Set Our Hope On Christ” is their vision of “focusing on doctrine.”

So it would make no difference anyway.  Wink, Countryman, Boswell—that’s “doctrine.”

Again, two gospels, one organization.  Two mutually opposing foundational worldviews, means that their definition of “doctrine,”—along with “Jesus,” “sin,” “resurrection,” etc, etc, etc—is antithetical to ours.

It’s helpful to recall the convention that had to figure out what to do about Pike (didn’t matter, they did nothing).  When the uncomfortable issues came up, one bishop was famously heard to say “You mean we’re going to have to talk about…God?”  They couldn’t then, I don’t see why they should be expected to do any better now.  The line about teaching a pig to sing?

I think it’s more likely they’ll talk about discipline; inhibitions and depositions, etc, and it may include the laity for good measure.