The ERC people in touch with me are abuzz with chatter about the so-called Town Hall Meetings intended to gin up involvement in and enthusiasm for the new ERC New Strategic Plan.
Just a few notes on the buzz coming my way:
1. The promotion of the meetings was somewhat limited.
People send me the ERC Newsletter. There has been no mention of the meetings there. It's curious to me that these meetings, presumably so crucial to casting vision for the future, were not announced and promoted as widely and enthusiastically as possible.
Notice of the schedule of the meetings was, as far as I can tell, sent out in a Conference email.
Why, do you suppose, the hierarchs are not beating their drums as loudly as possible about these meetings?
Ineptitude?
Lack of boldness and courage?
This is their best chance to call the people of the ERC to walk behind them and into a bright future.
2. The report I received from the first meeting suggests that only 13 people, not on ERC staff, attended and that no one from the largest ministries in the district attended.
But, then, the slim turnout may be a function of the scant promotion of the meeting and not of a lack of interest in the plan.
3. I would not say that the review I read of the plan is negative as much as it is skeptical. Certainly, though, it was far from enthusiastic.
4. From what I'm hearing, the plan amounts to what you might think of as Big Government Church-ism.
It expands the role of the Conference in the lives of the people of the Eldership.
If that's the case, I can't see many of the people of the Conference embracing it.
If God is willing, I will soon publish my theory on who the CGGC cynics are and how they came to be.
Why Big Government Church-ism will fail to capture the imagination of the people of the Eldership will become apparent from that post.
Your sources are wrong once again. Shouldn't a prophet see that? The first meeting was well attended with at least 30 people, including pastors from most of the churches. I know because I was there and I counted.
ReplyDeletePastors were called personally to invite them and they showed up.
If your sources screwed this up maybe it is time to look for new sources. Either they can't count or they lied or they did not attend the first meeting. I actually attended the first meeting and the subversives weren't there or they didn't speak when they had the opportunity because I did not see them or hear them.
Interesting, Lew.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, my sources thought the one from this past Thursday was the first Town Hall meeting.
I apologize for representing that one as the first meeting. I truly thought it was. The person who told me about that meeting innocently informed me that that was the first meeting.
S/he believed it was the first meeting.
And, I know that one of the correspondents for THE LAYMAN'S LOG, for certain, didn't get a personal phone call of invitation.
And, certainly, 30 people attending a meeting is a much better response than the 13 from this past Thursday.
However, as I mentioned in an earlier thread, back in the day of the first Strategic Plan, there were six of us from Faith and the meeting we attended was absolutely packed. I couldn't have said how many churches were represented or how many were present. The place was PACKED!
----------------
On another note, your category "subversives" strikes me as inappropriate for anyone I've known in the ERC in my 40+ years. (Unless, of course, you want to apply it to me.)
The people from whom I receive my information reside a fair distance up the ERC mountain. They are not subversives. They are not even cynics. And, while they continue to be in contact with me, they also continue to be involved in the Conference and hope for the best for it.
There are, however, indeed, a fairly large number of cynics across the whole of the CGGC, especially in the ERC.
In my opinion, it would be far better if those people were subversive. At least then, they'd be in the conversation and there'd be hope for them as far as the future of the Conference is concerned.
Instead, as things are now, they'll stand aside and allow your 30 and the 13 and other attenders of the Town Hall meetings to approve the new New Strategic Plan, again, unanimously.
Then, they'll not participate...
...again...
...still.
Bill, This is the second time your sources have been wrong even if they thought they were right. The first time, in your blog at least, was when the vote at the conference was said to have brought forth cheers, like Eagles fans. Wrong wrong wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd I stand by my use of the word subversive. If any one of them attended the strategic plan meeting and did not raise objections then it seems they have no desire to effect change, just gripe and complain. Complaining to you will not bring change.
If they are not in favor of the new new strategic plan they need to speak up or shut up. I don't care how far up the ladder they are.
For their perusal, and this post is for them more than you, I have pasted two definitions of subversive.
"Subversive:tending or intending to subvert or overthrow, destroy or undermine an established or existing system, especially a legally constituted government or a set of beliefs.
You might want to call someone subversive if they are sneakily trying to undermine something, from the social structure of your high school to an entire system of government."
I will ask Kevin tomorrow if there were any objections or concerns raised at the second town hall meeting. If no concerns were raised then your sources are not only wrong but are disingenuous.
Lew,
DeleteI'm at the beginning of three loooooong work days and I won't have time to blog but, for now, I'll say thay no one who writes to me complains.
They express opinions that are, for the most part, far less than enthusiastic about what's happening in the ERC.
They're not at all interested in undermining anything.
They fall into two categories, I'd say.
Either they are uninspired, or,
They just simply don't care about the Conference any longer.
These people are not subversives.
And, they are not the cynics I often refer to.
From where I sit, many in the Conference are either cynical or apathetic...about the Conference.
The problem I see is spiritual, not strategic.
I don't know how you define complain so I have pasted the definition.
ReplyDeletecom·plain
VERB (USED WITHOUT OBJECT)
1.
to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault: He complained constantly about the noise in the corridor.
2.to tell of one's pains, ailments, etc.: to complain of a backache.
com·plain (kəm-plān′)
intr.v. com·plained, com·plain·ing, com·plains
1. To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.
So you may call it what you will. The dictionary, and me, we call it complaining.
And for the record your source did not raise any opposition at the town hall meeting, apparently. He missed a great opportunity to express his concerns, his hesitations, etc.
And another note, I don't think you should be surprised if all you hear is the negativism and the concerns. Would anyone tell you they liked the new strategic plan? For example, what if Ronnie (an imaginary person) thinks that most of the plan is good. Would he tell you considering what you have said on this blog about Dave, Kevin and Chuck. I doubt it. My guess is you are only going to hear the complaints (see definition of complain above).
Your compadres, as concerned as they may be, need to express their concerns to those who can do something.
Lew,
DeleteYou're in conversation with me and YOU are not complaining about the plan.
Of course, to be honest, you're not praising the plan either.
You're, using your definition, complaining about me and the people conversing with me.
What do you like about the plan?
---------------
And, to clarify: My source isn't opposed to the plan. S/He merely strongly suspects that it won't work.
The plan won't work if he doesn't support it. No need to hide his gender. Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteLew,
ReplyDeleteJust curious:
When you asked Kevin, did he mention any objections or concerns from that other meeting?