Pre-General Convention: Missionary Districts
Diocesan Press Service. August 7, 1964 [XXIII-4]
Missionary Districts will become dioceses, in name and in fact, if the 61st General Convention adopts the resolutions recommended by the Joint Committee on the Nomenclature and Status of Missionary Districts.
This Committee, which was requested by the General Convention of 1961 to study the problem of the name and status of missionary districts and other related matters, bases its recommendations upon certain premises: "(1) that every element in the life of the Church must be seen as engaged in mission; and (2) that, since our present nomenclature was adopted, the changes in our understanding of mission have been very great."
Because of these reasons and because the present distinction in nomenclature is based upon essentially inaccurate economic assumptions, that dioceses are self-supporting and that missionary districts are not, the Committee recommends in its report that "all ecclesiastical jurisdictions in this Church which are presently known as missionary districts be known as dioceses, and that they be governed by the statutes pertaining thereto, and that the bishops thereof be recognized as diocesan bishops." The Committee then proposed the appropriate changes in the Constitution of the Church required to effect the change.
The Committee also recommends that the present missionary districts be given equal representation in General Convention, that Alaska and Hawaii should be related more closely and normally with the dioceses in the other 48 states, as there is a basic difference between dioceses in the United States and dioceses "overseas", that bishops for "overseas" dioceses be chosen by diocesan convention from three candidates nominated by the House of Bishops rather than by the House of Bishops alone as is now done. Any bishop sent beyond the boundaries of existing work would, however, still be elected by the House of Bishops and styled "Bishop in _________ ". As soon as there are enough communicants and clergy in such an area, it can organize itself into a diocese and petition for union with General Convention.
Several other changes in the organization of the church are recommended by the Joint Commission on the Structure of General Convention and Provinces in order to bring about a closer relationship between General Convention and the ongoing life of the church. National Council staff members would be eligible to function as consultants to Committees and Commissions of General Convention. General Convention deputies would be invited to have a seat and voice, but no vote, in provincial synods, and General Convention, when feasible, would refer to provincial synods all matters of major concern for discussion and recommendation. Diocesan memorials and petitions to Convention would also be referred to synods before presentation to the Convention. Lastly, each province would be represented by observers at one National Council meeting each triennium.
This Commission also recommends that the Constitution be amended to change the term "layman" to "layperson" so that dioceses would be able to send women deputies to Convention if they wish to. It also feels that the General Convention should "direct the Provinces to consider, at the respective Synods next following the Convention, the matter of proportional representation in the House of Deputies of the General Convention, and to report their findings to the Joint Commission on the Structure of General Convention....." At present, each diocese has four clerical and four lay deputies and each missionary district one clerical and one lay deputy.
With each diocese having one vote in the House of Bishops, according to the Commission's proposal, proportional representation would make General Convention more like the United States Congress. It would also give "those dioceses which contribute more fully to the life, work and support of the Church ... a somewhat larger voice in the decisions which affect the clergy and communicants of the Church."