This reality can best be illustrated in the passage of Obama Care in the face of overwhelming public opposition. To accomplish this feat, many of the "vote early and vote often" ways of Chicago politics were employed. Congressional deals were made, votes were bought, trades were made, political extortion was practiced and opposition was brutalized and neutralized in a way that went well beyond what is the norm even in Washington politics and the huge congressional majorities held by the President's party created a revolutionary law that most Americans opposed and a large number of Americans opposed vehemently.
----------------------------
Recently, as what really was essentially an aside in an email to me from a member of the CGGC clergy, I received a disturbing comment.
While I have no wish to expose the identity of the person who wrote this, undoubtedly, some mountaintoppers may know who this is from the details. For that I apologize to the writer. I am quoting as briefly as possible. He said,
I was not invited to attend the last General Conference as a delegate and I have some fairly solid evidence why: I was opposed to the new “We Believe.” The GC knew this due to a letter I wrote to the Administrative Council.-----------------------
My friends, the CGGC governs itself through a system of church government that theologians describe as "Presbyterial."
The New Testament Greek word presbyteros is the word translated into English by the word elder. Our body has always shared the conviction that its highest human authority rests in the "Eldership," that is, the community of those holding ministerial authority and those holding positions of ruling authority in our congregations.
From the days of John Winebrenner, our body held "Eldership" meetings, now called Conference sessions. This is true to so great an extent that it was at a meeting of elders that the Church of God was formed in October 1830.
Every person in our fellowship has always been subject to the authority of the whole community. No one person or group of people, by the agreement of all of us, has authority over the Eldership or the Conference. On a human level, from Day One, the community of Elders has always reigned supreme among our people.
As a matter of commonly shared belief, we trust that the Spirit will operate through the will of assembled elders.
Therefore, this belief involves what we hold to be true about the church and to what we believe about God--thus, the doctrine of the TRINITY.
Crucial to the integrity of the Eldership is the necessity that its membership be formed openly and honestly.
As far as the highest human authority in our body--the members of the General Conference, i.e., General Conference delegates is concerned--this requires that General Conference delegates be chosen honestly and freely by the members of the Conferences without corruption, collusion or manipulation.
-------------------------------
Now, I know the person who wrote the email I quoted fairly well. I know him to be a person of truth and integrity, honesty and humility--to a degree that is rare among the ministers of the CGGC.
And, I believe all of his words.
I have no idea of the nature of the 'solid evidence' he has available to him. And, I have already written to him and told him that, in my opinion, he owes it to the body to pursue this in a Matthew 18 way.
And, for the sake of the integrity of the CGGC, I hope and I will pray that he does pursue it.
I have also written to him and told him that I am convinced that anyone who has colluded in keeping him from having an opportunity to participate in General Conference in 2013--and who is credentialed--absolutely MUST have their credentials removed. If what he believes to have happened did happen, a great sin against our body and against what we believe about the Holy Spirit has been committed.
----------------------
It would not surprise me if the charge leveled regarding the make up of the body of General Conference delegates proves to be true. In fact, it is consistent with the manner in which Ed and his staff kept tight control over issues to be decided at General Conference in 2013.
I actually strongly suspect that this collusion took place and I expect that this collusion, if it is investigated successfully, will prove to have been organized at the highest peak on the CGGC mountain.
During our days in Findlay, there were times when the people in the highest seats of CGGC power lost track of what is important and became concerned with prevailing in the body--i.e., getting their way, no matter what the will of the Eldership might have been.
In those days, however, those people would not pursue their will at any cost.
I don't trust the current gang to remember that they are obligated to submit to the authority of us all as a community of elders. Sadly, I don't trust them, as a group, to behave with integrity.
There is already evidence available to everyone that they chose to avoid even knowing the will of the community in 2013.
And, my guess is that the degree of cynicism among the people of the CGGC is so high that, as people read this blog or hear about it, many will suspect that there was, indeed, collusion and corruption in the formation of the body of General Conference delegates. As I have already indicated, count me in this group.
And, many others will be absolutely convinced of the corruption and collusion.
We must repent.
The following exchange has taken place off the blog, via email. I have found that the best stuff related to what I put on this blog takes place in this way.
ReplyDeleteI will, of course, attempt to mask the identity of the person corresponding with me.
(Incidentally, I suggest that you not attempt to figure out who this is. In the past, people have told me who they think a person whose identity I am attempting to mask is. Never has anyone ever been close. Apparently, I'm pretty good at it.)
His side of the conversation is in italics.
How can someone be prevented from being a delegate? My understanding is that the nominating committee nominates folks and the conference votes on their delegates.
I've never been nominated either and thus never have had the opportunity to serve as a general conference delegate.
So, how exactly is someone prevented from being a delegate? Is this person smoother otherwise qualified to 'automatically' be a delegate because of a particular role?
Interestingly,. . ..
No one can be prevented. In this case, this person was not nominated by the nominating committee.
Interestingly, I was nominated and the rationale for my being nominated in the note asking me to allow my name to be placed on the ballot fits this person perfectly. And, he can be counted on not to be assertive on his own behalf. Which, of course, he wasn't.
That he was not nominated, as the DEAD SKUNK song says is, "stinkin' to high heaven."
Congrats on. . ..
I'd think the the fact that you were nominated prevents much conspiracy theory. If people were wanting to keep trouble makers away, surely they'd start with you.
I'm suspecting that this person has been regularly nominated in the past, otherwise it would be unsurprising.
Although you could be perceived along the lines of 2 Cor 10:10 [Editorial note: Interesting.]
I'd say the nominating committee is the fist line of accountability if something was going on. The people serving on that committee could be much more important than most of us give credit for.
----------------------------
My thought about my own nomination is that I had become so much a pariah by that time that it was certain that I would not be elected. I did, however, expect to be asked to attend as an alternate, as I have been in the past when I was not elected.
I was not. And, I have been suspicious since then. I have no evidence of collusion or corruption in my case, though.
I will say that, if anyone should have been proposed by the Nominating Committee, the person in question should have been.
The fact that he was not makes the possibility that he was excluded by collusion and corruption the most likely explanation to me.
As I mentioned in another post, I initiated a conversation with a representative group of people either within or familiar with the CGGC about the possibility of corruption and collusion in and about the 2013 General Conference.
ReplyDeleteI took the issue to people from more than one region, more than one generation and to some who are outsiders such as myself and some who are involved in the governance of their regions.
I was stunned with the response I received.
No one thought that corruption and collusion is impossible in the CGGC.
All of them believe that it is, at least, possible.
And, actually, the most common reply is that is does happen and has been happening for as long as anyone around these days can remember.
Some were more concerned about it than others.
My take: The CGGC is a mess and God loving men and women need to stand up for integrity and truth.