I'm convinced that no one in the CGGC cares more about what the people in our headquarters say...and the little, of course, that they actually do.
I pay close attention to the "CONTAGIOUS: Collaborating for Kingdom Impact" blog. And, I would read it regularly...if there were regular contributions.
The fact is that the last contribution to the blog by someone who doesn't sit behind a desk on Melrose Avenue in Findlay was published 25 days ago from today. It was a good post by Dan Masshardt. In that post, Dan calls for repentance from the CGGC's "One Size Fits all Ministry Gifting Focus." In doing so, Dan argues that we must empower all of the ministry gifts provided by the Holy Spirit and that we are suffering from our fixation on the gift of shepherding.
Dan's post drew a comment, something that rarely happens on the blog, which is subtitled, Collaborating for Kingdom Impact. It drew a brief word of praise from General Conference staffer Ben Tobias.
However, when Dan asked Ben to join in the spirit of the blog and collaborate by extending the conversation, Ben became mute.
Since Dan's post, with its ignored invitation to Ben to engage in actual collaboration, the only contributions to the blog have been eNews articles and "Hands and Feet" articles, which are, essentially, news releases submitted by Michael Martin, the General Conference staffer who moderates the blog. (These articles usually highlight activities undertaken by CGGC congregations which are of a what used to be called "missional" nature...before the word missional fell out of fashion.)
None of the blog posts since Dan's has generated even one comment though some of the eNews articles are very worthy of comment, in my opinion.
------------------
What I've done in this post so far is to relate fact. The only opinion I've expressed is that Dan Masshardt's post 25 days ago was, "good."
And, as I continue, I'll attempt, as much as possible to avoid opionizing, other than to say this:
The CONTAGIOUS blog reveals that there are problems in the CGGC.
The blog's first post makes it clear that the blog itself is an invitation to conversation.
For me, the invitation to conversation raises two questions.
1. Why don't General Conference staff people engage in conversation on the blog THEY CREATED, THEY SAY, TO BEGIN A CONVERSATION?
I've given the example of Ben Tobias ignoring Dan Masshardt's generous invitation to extend the conversation his post was intended to begin.
But, Dan's post itself was an attempt to expand the conversation begun by Brandon Kelly in his eNews articles on APEST. I'm certain that Dan hoped, probably expected, Brandon to collaborate and join in the very sort of conversation CGGC staffers claim the blog was created to empower.
So, again, why don't General Conference staff people engage in conversation on the blog that they created to begin a conversation?
What does it say about General Conference staffers that they don't participate on the very blog they created for the purpose of engaging the body in conversation?
I won't express an opinion about that, but I'd love to hear yours, if even off the blog, in private.
2. What does it say about the people of the CGGC that the blog has fizzled?
Very few of us have engaged in the conversation. Some of what's been posted has been on important topics.
Dan Masshardt has contributed several posts which did generate comment, but, even then, it was minimal comment and, really, no actually conversation.
A few others not on CGGC staff have written and received a comment or two but, again, really, no conversation.
And, as I said, some of what's been in the eNews lately, has been good stuff.
Leslie Draper, from Urban Light in Muncie, Indiana, guest wrote an excellent, provocative article shortly before Christmas. And, Lance's last article, certainly peaked my interest.
What does it say about us...or the culture of the body as a whole...that we don't engage?
Could it be that participating is so difficult? I'll admit that I attempted to register to leave comments and I thought I had registered. The site told me that registration confirmation would be emailed to me and it wasn't. I don't know if that means that the moderator rejected me or if I did something wrong in the process. If I did, maybe you did, too.
I, of course, can make comments here.
But, the truth is that the people of the CGGC are not conversing with each other or CGGC staff, even though they asked us to.
Why?
What truths about them and us does that reveal?
No comments:
Post a Comment