Weeks ago, after I read Jim Moss's email introducing himself as the new Interim Executive Director of the ERC, I wrote, in one of my many off-the-blog exchanges, that Jim's note was "well-composed and powerful."
It is both of those things.
So, it is meaningful to me that, snuggled down and tucked away near the end of that note is this well-composed and powerful, nevertheless obscure, sentence,
"At this (January Conference) gathering we will address the constitutional issues that might arise as we begin to implement our new plan."
As we know now, based on Jim's note from December 13, the new Conference leaders are, in truth, and in Jim's words "proposing three amendments to the existing constitution to be considered at the upcoming special session."
Please understand: The purpose of the Conference session in January is to get the amendments approved.
Make no mistake about it and understand fully and clearly:
If the ARTICLE VII amendment to the constitution, proposed by the hierarchs is approved, their new New Strategic Plan will be implemented.
There is no MIGHT about that.
If the Conference in session approves the change to ARTICLE VII, ERC leaders will be REQUIRED, under the authority of the Conference, to dissolve all of the current Commissions...
...(which, by the way, they've already done, [did you know that?] presumptuous little buzzards that they are)...
...and they will also be required, by the Eldership, to establish the new Commissions that are at the core of the new New Strategic Plan...
...(which, again, they've already done without the approval of the body).
And, the new New Strategic Plan plan will be reality.
It's simple and, if the ERC hierarchs were honest, it would be straightforward:
If the Conference approves the ARTICLE VII amendment, it is accepting and authorizing the new New Strategic Plan.
------------------
Not long ago, someone asked me for my understanding of what the hierarchs are doing in regard to something. Honestly, I don't recall the context. But, the truth is that I never understand what they do or why they do it.
The one thing I do understand is that...
...the Lord of all authority and power and grace and mercy and blessing NEVER has EVER blessed their programs and plans.
In the case of the new New Strategic Plan and this special Conference session, I don't understand all the fancy footwork.
Why was Jim saying that constitutional issues "might arise" when, if the hierarchs have their way with us, there is no other possibility.
If the Conference approves the ARTICLE VII amendment, the new New Strategic Plan will absolutely be a reality. Where's the might arise there?
-----------------
So, why not be up front and honest about the ARTICLE VII amendment? Why not just say outright that if the Conference approves the ARTICLE VII amendment, it will be choosing to implement the new Strategic Plan?
Clearly, Jim not only supports the new New Strategic Plan, he's enthusiastic about it and anxious to be the man in place to lead the transition until the next E. D. is chosen.
Jim writes well. He could make the truth obvious if he wanted to.
As I say, I never understood what the hierarchs do.
What I do understand is that the word being spoken from the ERC mountaintop is not clear and it's not the plain truth.
Why the new hierarchs are not telling the truth about the January Conference meeting is beyond me.
But, I'm afraid that they, very simply, want to pull one over on us.
I see no reason to trust their integrity.
Don't let them do what they are trying to do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBill if anyone showed up for the meeting to which you refer they would be surprised in more ways than one. The biggest surprise would be there was no one there. The letter/invitation to which you refer was written 11/15 and invited delegates to a meeting on 1/6. That meeting did not take place.
ReplyDeleteThe date was changed to 1/13 with a very clear announcement that there will be a vote on proposed changes to the Constitution. If anyone shows up this Saturday and does not know that it is on them.
And to clear up any confusion about what I mean by sniper I have included the definition below:
to shoot at individuals as opportunity offers from a concealed or distant position:
to attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, especially anonymously or from a safe distance.
I stand by that definition but if you know of anyone offended by that I will be glad to tell them that as a pastor I find it unproductive if not unchristian to talk to someone who can not do anything to effect the outcome or talk about an issue that they have not addressed to the person (s) with whom they have the issue.
Lew,
DeleteCertainly the note was clear that there will be a vote on Constitutional amendments.
What the Hierarchs are not being honest about is that approving the ARTICLE VII amendment means implementing the new New Strategic Plan.
---------------
Based on the conversations I'm having, no one in conversation with me fits your definition of a Sniper.
Why you insist on maligning these people baffles me.