Take a moment to go to the excerpts of Lance's application linked in my EXCERPTS post. Instead of focusing on Lance's answers, consider what Lance, and every applicant, responded to.
Go ahead. Do it. Ask yourself if there is anything that you consider to be, uh, fundamental that is absent.
(Replies on and off the blog are appreciated. I'll let you know what is important to me that is missing later. [Tomorrow is my day off at the store. If I have time...])
http://cggcenews.weebly.com/
Here's what I don't find among the issues addressed by the application: Truth.
ReplyDeleteAs I read the application,
A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS OR A MORMON OR SOMEONE WHO ENTIRELY DENIES THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE WORD COULD HAVE GIVEN THE REPLIES THAT LANCE OFFERED.
There was nothing in the application that challenged the applicant to declare himself/herself regarding essential Christian beliefs or CGGC doctrines.
I hope, but am by no means certain, that these things would have been addressed in the interview process but, gang, issues of fundamental truth should be fundamental among the least of the people of God, let alone among those who aspire to the highest level of leadership in a denomination!
----------------------
There were serious flaws in the process. This lack of concern over the applicant's understanding of Christian truth is only one example.
I suggest that one part of the application should have been something like:
A KEY COMPONENT OF THE CGGC MISSION IS "PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL" AROUND THE WORLD. WRITE A BRIEF ESSAY OF 250-1,000 WORDS DESCRIBING YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOSPEL.
I have known Lance for more than twenty years. I have no idea how he would answer that challenge.
I am perfectly willing to support Lance but, among people of truth in the CGGC, he starts out at a deficit due to the process that elevated him.
Admittedly, there's a flaw in my critique of the flaw. In the past, I have called on the CGGC to come together to, in some intentional and authoritative way, address and answer questions such as: What is the Gospel? and we haven't done that.
ReplyDeleteSo, if that issue had been addressed in the application, the people on the committee would have had to guess about what answer was appropriate and what was not.
Still, the General Conference in session has spoken. Proclaiming the gospel is an important part of our mission. That reality should not have been ignored.
This micro/macro thing is a nearly decade long reality that defines the essence of the CGGC.
ReplyDeleteIt is the "to talk is to walk-ism" that some of us talk about from time to time which works out to be Organized Hypocrisy on the macro level.
It seems to me that Lance and his crew will have to deal with tension between the talk and the walk on the mountaintop.
I see three choices:
1. Change the walk, which will take courage and will be risky, but righteous,
2. Change the talk, which will be easier but anger people of truth like me.
3. Try to maintain the inconsistency and hypocrisy, which will be easy in the short term but ultimately troublesome because I and those of my ilk won't stop beating the drum for truth.
Keep Lance in your prayers.