Just a few numbers we can all use to evaluate the interest in and enthusiasm for the 2017 ERC new New Strategic Plan based on information contained in the PDFs recently published by Conference staff:
1. Approximately two thirds of ERC congregations did not...
NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT...
send even one person to a Strategic Plan Town Hall meeting.
2. Based on the ERC COG's website's data that the membership of the ERC "exceeds 14,000,"...
...more than 99% of ERC members did not...
NOT!
attend a Town Hall meeting.
Or, less than 1 in 100 ERC members did attend.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
It's Easier to Get Forgiveness than Permission
"It's easier to get forgiveness than permission" is a pet saying of the guy who is the most successful pastor and most effective leader I, personally, have ever known.
Some of you who read this may know, instantly, who it is that I am quoting.
Two truths about that saying and that guy come immediately to my mind.
One is that the saying is true. Getting permission in any context can be difficult. In the institutional church, it is especially difficult to receive permission to do anything not already dictated by what is, at any given time, understood to be tradition. And, if what you do works, forgiveness will come quickly.
The second truth about that guy and his saying is fascinating to me: I never knew the guy with the saying to actually ever DO anything without permission that would require forgiveness.
----------------
I've been remembering that guy and his saying as the ERC Ad Council plans to meet this week.
According to the notes the ERC hierarchs have published from the Town Hall meetings, the hierarchs' plan to have the Ad Council rubber stamp their intention to implement the new Commission structure that will be essential to the new New Strategic Plan, effective January 1, 2018...
...even though only a two-thirds majority of the delegates to a properly called gathering of the Conference has the authority either to dissolve current commissions or create new ones.
From the notes of the Town Hall meetings, the propriety of what the hierarchs plan to do has been raised at least twice and, if I'm reading the notes properly, dismissed out of hand.
----------------
It is a fairly normal thing for ERC hierarchs to put themselves and their plans above the authority of the Eldership.
Numerous times in past decades, my friend Stanley Cordell took the floor during Conference sessions to point out that an action planned by ERC leaders, sometimes even already implemented by them, violated the covenant of the ERC community because it defied the Constitution or By-Laws. In every case when I was present, Stan was demonstrated to be correct and it was agreed that leadership truly had either ignored or defied the ERC covenant.
My interpretation of those past events is that, for decades, ERC hierarchs have had a disdain for the ERC covenant and, honestly, for the ERC community.
They have behaved like Bishops and Popes authorized to lead Christ's Holy Church, not like people employed by the Conference to carry out its Kingdom ministry.
----------------
So, and there can be no doubt about it based on the Town Hall meeting notes, in spite of concerns for the Constitution raised at least twice, the plan is, when the Ad Council meets this week, for the Council to rubber stamp someone's plan for the search for Kevin's successor...
...and for the Ad Council to, without authority, authorize the dissolving of existing ERC commissions and to create the new commission structure necessary to carry out the new New Strategic Plan.
Why?
Because the hierarchs do seem to think of themselves as leaders Bishops and Popes leading God's Holy Church, not as servants of the Conference...
...well, because...
...it's easier to get forgiveness than permission.
The idea is that they will dump the Constitutional stuff on the Conference next spring, suggesting that this is "a little official paperwork" that needs to be attended to...
...because the new New Strategic Plan is already up and running and, by the way,...
... YAY GOD!...
...everything is going perfectly, just according to plan.
As they do this, the hierarchs will be slightly concerned, but ultimately confident, that they will get their forgiveness...
...which will also be their permission.
----------------
If that happens, in my opinion, it will be the worst thing for the future of the Conference as far as participation in the work of the Kingdom of God is concerned.
For that to have happened, the apathetic will have remained apathetic and simply moaned when told, "All in favor, say, 'yay,'" and all the cynics will have done their normal thing and groaned during the vote but without any intention of embracing the plan.
AND, all of this rising group of skeptics will have either been charmed or bought off in the way the hierarchs compromise young and sincere critics...
...or they will have been beaten down and surrendered...
...and business as usual...
...albeit under a new Strategic Plan, which only the hierarchs think will work but, as will soon be clear, even to the hierarchs themselves, is merely words on paper.
----------------
To those of you on the ERC Ad Council who read this,...
...if the hierarchs do, indeed, push for the implementation of the new Commission structure in January, the issue is not the new New Strategic Plan.
The real issue has to with the people of the Conference...and with the covenant we have with each other.
The real issue is the question of whether we are people who love each other and submit to each other and who respect the details of our shared covenant, (which...
...the hierarchy are currently treating as if the covenant itself is nothing more than...
...words on a page).
The real issue is if the people on staff and other hierarchs are servants of the Conference and its covenant...
...or if they are, as their behavior suggests,...
Bishops and Popes leading God's Holy Church.
We must repent. Oh, we must repent!
Some of you who read this may know, instantly, who it is that I am quoting.
Two truths about that saying and that guy come immediately to my mind.
One is that the saying is true. Getting permission in any context can be difficult. In the institutional church, it is especially difficult to receive permission to do anything not already dictated by what is, at any given time, understood to be tradition. And, if what you do works, forgiveness will come quickly.
The second truth about that guy and his saying is fascinating to me: I never knew the guy with the saying to actually ever DO anything without permission that would require forgiveness.
----------------
I've been remembering that guy and his saying as the ERC Ad Council plans to meet this week.
According to the notes the ERC hierarchs have published from the Town Hall meetings, the hierarchs' plan to have the Ad Council rubber stamp their intention to implement the new Commission structure that will be essential to the new New Strategic Plan, effective January 1, 2018...
...even though only a two-thirds majority of the delegates to a properly called gathering of the Conference has the authority either to dissolve current commissions or create new ones.
From the notes of the Town Hall meetings, the propriety of what the hierarchs plan to do has been raised at least twice and, if I'm reading the notes properly, dismissed out of hand.
----------------
It is a fairly normal thing for ERC hierarchs to put themselves and their plans above the authority of the Eldership.
Numerous times in past decades, my friend Stanley Cordell took the floor during Conference sessions to point out that an action planned by ERC leaders, sometimes even already implemented by them, violated the covenant of the ERC community because it defied the Constitution or By-Laws. In every case when I was present, Stan was demonstrated to be correct and it was agreed that leadership truly had either ignored or defied the ERC covenant.
My interpretation of those past events is that, for decades, ERC hierarchs have had a disdain for the ERC covenant and, honestly, for the ERC community.
They have behaved like Bishops and Popes authorized to lead Christ's Holy Church, not like people employed by the Conference to carry out its Kingdom ministry.
----------------
So, and there can be no doubt about it based on the Town Hall meeting notes, in spite of concerns for the Constitution raised at least twice, the plan is, when the Ad Council meets this week, for the Council to rubber stamp someone's plan for the search for Kevin's successor...
...and for the Ad Council to, without authority, authorize the dissolving of existing ERC commissions and to create the new commission structure necessary to carry out the new New Strategic Plan.
Why?
Because the hierarchs do seem to think of themselves as leaders Bishops and Popes leading God's Holy Church, not as servants of the Conference...
...well, because...
...it's easier to get forgiveness than permission.
The idea is that they will dump the Constitutional stuff on the Conference next spring, suggesting that this is "a little official paperwork" that needs to be attended to...
...because the new New Strategic Plan is already up and running and, by the way,...
... YAY GOD!...
...everything is going perfectly, just according to plan.
As they do this, the hierarchs will be slightly concerned, but ultimately confident, that they will get their forgiveness...
...which will also be their permission.
----------------
If that happens, in my opinion, it will be the worst thing for the future of the Conference as far as participation in the work of the Kingdom of God is concerned.
For that to have happened, the apathetic will have remained apathetic and simply moaned when told, "All in favor, say, 'yay,'" and all the cynics will have done their normal thing and groaned during the vote but without any intention of embracing the plan.
AND, all of this rising group of skeptics will have either been charmed or bought off in the way the hierarchs compromise young and sincere critics...
...or they will have been beaten down and surrendered...
...and business as usual...
...albeit under a new Strategic Plan, which only the hierarchs think will work but, as will soon be clear, even to the hierarchs themselves, is merely words on paper.
----------------
To those of you on the ERC Ad Council who read this,...
...if the hierarchs do, indeed, push for the implementation of the new Commission structure in January, the issue is not the new New Strategic Plan.
The real issue has to with the people of the Conference...and with the covenant we have with each other.
The real issue is the question of whether we are people who love each other and submit to each other and who respect the details of our shared covenant, (which...
...the hierarchy are currently treating as if the covenant itself is nothing more than...
...words on a page).
The real issue is if the people on staff and other hierarchs are servants of the Conference and its covenant...
...or if they are, as their behavior suggests,...
Bishops and Popes leading God's Holy Church.
We must repent. Oh, we must repent!
Friday, October 27, 2017
Living in Community in the ERC
As the hierarchs of the Eastern Regional Conference of the CGGC contemplate the implementation of their new New Strategic Plan, I think it's important to remember that the ERC is a large and diverse community...
...and that the ERC community has created a covenant which guides the behavior of all of the members of that community.
A significant part of the covenant which guides the behavior of the members of the ERC community exists within the Constitution and By-Laws of the Conference.
The entire Conference community joined together in the creation and approval of those documents...
...and the integrity of the community itself is based on the trust of all of the members of the community...
...that everyone in the community will submit to, and obey, the covenant.
Clearly, some of the people within the Conference are, very openly, planning to abuse the trust upon which the ERC community is built.
At stake is the desire of ERC leaders to implement a new Strategic Plan.
Understand that the existence of a strategic plan is something that the Constitution and By-Laws are not concerned with. Leaders are, justifiedly, empowered to plan whatever, in their wisdom, they want to plan...
...unless and until their plans require them to do something that the ERC covenant doesn't give them the authority to do.
It is essential that the members of the ERC community understand that ERC leaders are planning to violate the ERC covenant in their rush to implement the new Strategic Plan.
Leaders have determined that a next step in making the new Strategic Plan a reality will involve two actions:
1. Dissolving Commissions whose existence is demanded by the ERC covenant in its Constitution and By-Laws.
2. Creating new Commissions, which Conference leaders, according to the ERC Covenant, do not possess the authority to do.
The notes on the ERC Strategic Plan Town Hall meetings make it clear that leadership intends to dissolve all of the Commissions whose existence is required by agreement of the Community and to authorize four other, new, Commissions beginning January 1, 2018.
There can be no question.
Only the Conference in session can dissolve Commissions it created by its authority...
...and only the Conference in session has the authority to create new Commissions.
Incidentally, these actions can be accomplished only by a two thirds majority of delegates of a properly called gathering of the Conference.
Town Hall meeting notes, simply, that this is what Steve Dunn believes.
Yet, the Constitution and By-Laws are clear that there is only one way they can be amended. They can be amended only by the two-thirds vote just described.
----------------
It seems to me that ERC leaders are going to do what they dern well want to do.
They are going to dissolve Commissions and create others on their own authority, apart from the authority of the Body.
According to the notes, there is an Ad Council meeting on November 1 at which the Ad Council, it is assumed, will rubber stamp this plan.
The ERC Ad Council doesn't have the authority to do what it is expected to do.
But, based on conversations I've had, I'm getting the impression that members of the Ad Council aren't concerned about where the authority comes from to do what they're being asked to do.
----------------
In the end, though, what matters for the future of the Kingdom as far as the ERC's concerned, is not when the new New Strategic Plan is implemented or even if it is implemented at all.
What matters is that the people of the ERC walk together in the power of the Spirit in God's will.
There are reasons for the widespread cynicism and apathy among the people of the ERC.
If cynicism and apathy are going to be overcome before it is too late, leadership is going to have to submit to the covenant that binds the ERC community.
It cannot implement the new Commission structure apart from the process dictated by ERC covenant described in the Constitution and By-Laws.
We are at a place where ERC leaders may win a battle they didn't need to engage in...
...and lose the war.
...and that the ERC community has created a covenant which guides the behavior of all of the members of that community.
A significant part of the covenant which guides the behavior of the members of the ERC community exists within the Constitution and By-Laws of the Conference.
The entire Conference community joined together in the creation and approval of those documents...
...and the integrity of the community itself is based on the trust of all of the members of the community...
...that everyone in the community will submit to, and obey, the covenant.
Clearly, some of the people within the Conference are, very openly, planning to abuse the trust upon which the ERC community is built.
At stake is the desire of ERC leaders to implement a new Strategic Plan.
Understand that the existence of a strategic plan is something that the Constitution and By-Laws are not concerned with. Leaders are, justifiedly, empowered to plan whatever, in their wisdom, they want to plan...
...unless and until their plans require them to do something that the ERC covenant doesn't give them the authority to do.
It is essential that the members of the ERC community understand that ERC leaders are planning to violate the ERC covenant in their rush to implement the new Strategic Plan.
Leaders have determined that a next step in making the new Strategic Plan a reality will involve two actions:
1. Dissolving Commissions whose existence is demanded by the ERC covenant in its Constitution and By-Laws.
2. Creating new Commissions, which Conference leaders, according to the ERC Covenant, do not possess the authority to do.
The notes on the ERC Strategic Plan Town Hall meetings make it clear that leadership intends to dissolve all of the Commissions whose existence is required by agreement of the Community and to authorize four other, new, Commissions beginning January 1, 2018.
There can be no question.
Only the Conference in session can dissolve Commissions it created by its authority...
...and only the Conference in session has the authority to create new Commissions.
Incidentally, these actions can be accomplished only by a two thirds majority of delegates of a properly called gathering of the Conference.
Town Hall meeting notes, simply, that this is what Steve Dunn believes.
Yet, the Constitution and By-Laws are clear that there is only one way they can be amended. They can be amended only by the two-thirds vote just described.
----------------
It seems to me that ERC leaders are going to do what they dern well want to do.
They are going to dissolve Commissions and create others on their own authority, apart from the authority of the Body.
According to the notes, there is an Ad Council meeting on November 1 at which the Ad Council, it is assumed, will rubber stamp this plan.
The ERC Ad Council doesn't have the authority to do what it is expected to do.
But, based on conversations I've had, I'm getting the impression that members of the Ad Council aren't concerned about where the authority comes from to do what they're being asked to do.
----------------
In the end, though, what matters for the future of the Kingdom as far as the ERC's concerned, is not when the new New Strategic Plan is implemented or even if it is implemented at all.
What matters is that the people of the ERC walk together in the power of the Spirit in God's will.
There are reasons for the widespread cynicism and apathy among the people of the ERC.
If cynicism and apathy are going to be overcome before it is too late, leadership is going to have to submit to the covenant that binds the ERC community.
It cannot implement the new Commission structure apart from the process dictated by ERC covenant described in the Constitution and By-Laws.
We are at a place where ERC leaders may win a battle they didn't need to engage in...
...and lose the war.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Kicking Reggie McNeal in the Teeth????
It's a question I'm asking, based on what I've seen in notes from ERC new New Strategic Plan Town Hall meetings published in the ERC PDF and in a report I've received from one of the people who attended a Town Hall meeting.
The ERC hierarchs are saying that the CGGC mountaintoppers have their own Strategic Plan and that it is...
..."quite similar to ours."
I just quoted the ERC PDF.
I received an email describing a different Town Hall meeting than the meeting from which this quote comes, in which a hierarch claimed that the CGGC has its own Strategic Plan and that plan closely resembles what the ERC mountaintoppers have come up with.
----------------
In 2003, Reggie McNeal wrote the book, The Present Future, which took the CGGC by storm, to so great an extent that Reggie was booked as the keynote speaker at the next year's IMPACT, which met in the Pittsburgh area, and was very well attended.
I attended. It was clear that Reggie is more impressive in person than in writing.
He absolutely dominated that gathering. All of his sessions were absolutely packed!
In, The Present Future, McNeal identifies six wrong questions that the church has been asking and which he argues has been driving its decline and he identifies six matching tough questions which Jesus followers can begin asking in order to change the Kingdom's fortunes in the future.
Fans of strategic planning take note: One of McNeal's wrong questions is,
How do we plan for the future?
In response to that McNeil says
"The better (and biblical) approach to the future involves prayer and preparation, not prediction and planning."
And, of course, he's right. The Book of Acts is filled with stories of disciples gathering together in prayer. It's a joke to suggest that they organized Strategic Plan Town Hall meetings.
So, what's the corresponding tough question?
How do we prepare for the future?
----------------
It disgusts me, but doesn't surprise me, that the ERC would plug away with strategic planning.
The current batch of ERC hierarchs spent much of the time Reggie has resourced the Missional Leadership Initiative as if participating in it is a sure-fire way of contracting leprosy.
To my limited knowledge, one ERC staff member eventually participated. But, his involvement clearly hasn't impacted how the ERC hierarchs function.
ERC hierarchs are still devoted giving A+ answers to the wrong questions.
----------------
But, if the suggestion that the CGGC has its own Strategic Plan and if as is being claimed, its plan is similar to the ERC's, I'm stunned and heartbroken.
Lance and now this new Brandon Kelly guy present themselves as disciples and besties with Reggie.
They're telling us that they're with Reggie in following a different and future-focused way.
But,...
...if they've done a strategic PLAN...
...and, if...
...as ERC hierarchs are claiming, that plan is quite like the pastor dominated, church focused disaster designed in Harrisburg,...
...there is no hope left for the CGGC.
Is it really true that the CGGC has done its own Strategic Plan?
Say It Ain't So, Joe!
The ERC hierarchs are saying that the CGGC mountaintoppers have their own Strategic Plan and that it is...
..."quite similar to ours."
I just quoted the ERC PDF.
I received an email describing a different Town Hall meeting than the meeting from which this quote comes, in which a hierarch claimed that the CGGC has its own Strategic Plan and that plan closely resembles what the ERC mountaintoppers have come up with.
----------------
In 2003, Reggie McNeal wrote the book, The Present Future, which took the CGGC by storm, to so great an extent that Reggie was booked as the keynote speaker at the next year's IMPACT, which met in the Pittsburgh area, and was very well attended.
I attended. It was clear that Reggie is more impressive in person than in writing.
He absolutely dominated that gathering. All of his sessions were absolutely packed!
In, The Present Future, McNeal identifies six wrong questions that the church has been asking and which he argues has been driving its decline and he identifies six matching tough questions which Jesus followers can begin asking in order to change the Kingdom's fortunes in the future.
Fans of strategic planning take note: One of McNeal's wrong questions is,
How do we plan for the future?
In response to that McNeil says
"The better (and biblical) approach to the future involves prayer and preparation, not prediction and planning."
And, of course, he's right. The Book of Acts is filled with stories of disciples gathering together in prayer. It's a joke to suggest that they organized Strategic Plan Town Hall meetings.
So, what's the corresponding tough question?
How do we prepare for the future?
----------------
It disgusts me, but doesn't surprise me, that the ERC would plug away with strategic planning.
The current batch of ERC hierarchs spent much of the time Reggie has resourced the Missional Leadership Initiative as if participating in it is a sure-fire way of contracting leprosy.
To my limited knowledge, one ERC staff member eventually participated. But, his involvement clearly hasn't impacted how the ERC hierarchs function.
ERC hierarchs are still devoted giving A+ answers to the wrong questions.
----------------
But, if the suggestion that the CGGC has its own Strategic Plan and if as is being claimed, its plan is similar to the ERC's, I'm stunned and heartbroken.
Lance and now this new Brandon Kelly guy present themselves as disciples and besties with Reggie.
They're telling us that they're with Reggie in following a different and future-focused way.
But,...
...if they've done a strategic PLAN...
...and, if...
...as ERC hierarchs are claiming, that plan is quite like the pastor dominated, church focused disaster designed in Harrisburg,...
...there is no hope left for the CGGC.
Is it really true that the CGGC has done its own Strategic Plan?
Say It Ain't So, Joe!
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Celebrating the Reformation in the CGGC: Who the Heck are We?
I just read, for the gazillionth time, John Winebrenner's claim, which he made on the day the Church of God was formed in October 1830, that in order to fulfill the dream and vision of the Church of God will require "another great reformation."
Understand, then, that, from Day One, the founders of our movement...
...the men and women who committed themselves to what they called "the gospel ministry"...
...whose movement peaked, sixty years later, when the Church of God listed 800 active congregations...
...shared two convictions about the Reformation:
1. It had, by their time, failed to create a scriptural form of Christianity.
2. It had to be moved beyond.
The Church of God associated with John Winebrenner and his colleagues was, from its first moment, post-Protestant. It was radical at the beginning. Radicalism is in the history of the Church of God. Radicalism is in our DNA.
---------------
Forget Winebrenner and what he said...and what he did...in 1830.
In 2009, the CGGC created a Mission Statement borrowing from language used by Winebrenner on that day in 1830.
The Mission Statement set the goal of making disciples by establishing churches on, borrowing Winebrenner's words from 1830, "the New Testament plan."
Interestingly, and importantly, it was in explaining the meaning of the term "New Testament plan" that Winebrenner claimed that to accomplish the Church of God vision required another great reformation.
----------------
I've been fascinated by references to the celebration of the 500th Reformation Day in the CGGC.
There are some churches in the CGGC where the Reformation Day is being embraced with a joy and an enthusiasm that would make any good Lutheran blush.
And, I have to wonder who the heck we are.
In the aftermath of the creation Winebrenner's radical movement, do we love Winebrenner's radical vision or Protestantism which our movement deemed to have failed.
My guess is that a few of the Winebrennerians of the 21st century share Winebrenner's conviction but most are bland, modetate and traditional Protestants.
----------------
I've said this before: There is no truth that centers the people of the CGGC, no truth that connects the people of the CGGC to each other.
There was such a truth in 1830.
And, propelled by a shared and radical truth that 1830 gathering of a handful produced 800 active congregations within 60 years.
In a couple of months, the hierarchs of the ERC are, apparently, going to foist another new Strategic Plan on the body without the approval and authority of the body.
The PDF that justifies the new New Strategic Plan envisions a transformed Conference in 2022.
It won't happen...
...for one reason,...
...there is no us.
There is no truth that connects us.
Understand, then, that, from Day One, the founders of our movement...
...the men and women who committed themselves to what they called "the gospel ministry"...
...whose movement peaked, sixty years later, when the Church of God listed 800 active congregations...
...shared two convictions about the Reformation:
1. It had, by their time, failed to create a scriptural form of Christianity.
2. It had to be moved beyond.
The Church of God associated with John Winebrenner and his colleagues was, from its first moment, post-Protestant. It was radical at the beginning. Radicalism is in the history of the Church of God. Radicalism is in our DNA.
---------------
Forget Winebrenner and what he said...and what he did...in 1830.
In 2009, the CGGC created a Mission Statement borrowing from language used by Winebrenner on that day in 1830.
The Mission Statement set the goal of making disciples by establishing churches on, borrowing Winebrenner's words from 1830, "the New Testament plan."
Interestingly, and importantly, it was in explaining the meaning of the term "New Testament plan" that Winebrenner claimed that to accomplish the Church of God vision required another great reformation.
----------------
I've been fascinated by references to the celebration of the 500th Reformation Day in the CGGC.
There are some churches in the CGGC where the Reformation Day is being embraced with a joy and an enthusiasm that would make any good Lutheran blush.
And, I have to wonder who the heck we are.
In the aftermath of the creation Winebrenner's radical movement, do we love Winebrenner's radical vision or Protestantism which our movement deemed to have failed.
My guess is that a few of the Winebrennerians of the 21st century share Winebrenner's conviction but most are bland, modetate and traditional Protestants.
----------------
I've said this before: There is no truth that centers the people of the CGGC, no truth that connects the people of the CGGC to each other.
There was such a truth in 1830.
And, propelled by a shared and radical truth that 1830 gathering of a handful produced 800 active congregations within 60 years.
In a couple of months, the hierarchs of the ERC are, apparently, going to foist another new Strategic Plan on the body without the approval and authority of the body.
The PDF that justifies the new New Strategic Plan envisions a transformed Conference in 2022.
It won't happen...
...for one reason,...
...there is no us.
There is no truth that connects us.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
The 13 Churches the ERC Lost in the Last Decade
I'm still reading and re-reading the PDF from the ERC Town Hall meetings.
There's no way I'll be able to blog all my impressions.
Here's something that may seem inconsequential but it hits home with me.
According to the PDF, the ERC lost 13 churches in the last ten years. According to the PDF, eight ERC churches closed in the last ten years and five left the denomination...
...and, I'm wondering where Faith fits in.
If you know, or have an educated guess, let me know...on or off the blog.
It would not be accurate to count Faith among the churches who closed.
But, it would be a gross misrepresentation to say that Faith left the denomination. Until the moment Dave Williams carried the recommendation of the Commission on Church Renewal, to the Ad Council, that Faith be expelled from the Conference, Faith's identity, in faith and action, was defined by the CGGC's Mission and Vision Statements.
We most certainly didn't leave the denomination. We love what the CGGC says it stands for...
...and were doing it even as the hierarchs were scheming our expulsion.
Anyway,..
I wonder about the five ERC congregations who left the denomination in the past ten years.
I think the phrase ecclesiastical thuggery accurately describes the hierarchs' method in challenging my credentials and expelling Faith from the Conference.
I wonder now if I/we were the only victims of the thuggery of the people on the top of the ERC mountain.
Under what circumstances did those five ERC congregations leave the denomination?
Do you know?
----------------
And,...
.... there is the fact that Kevin and Dave and Chuck and all the Good Old Boys were running Conference sessions as YAY GOD meetings for the last ten years when, by their own words now, on average more than one ERC church was biting the dust every year.
If any one of these hierarchs is still around in the future, and, if things do go well, who among the apathetic, cynical and even skeptical, will really believe it?
It seems to me that their word will always be subject to being distrusted.
There's no way I'll be able to blog all my impressions.
Here's something that may seem inconsequential but it hits home with me.
According to the PDF, the ERC lost 13 churches in the last ten years. According to the PDF, eight ERC churches closed in the last ten years and five left the denomination...
...and, I'm wondering where Faith fits in.
If you know, or have an educated guess, let me know...on or off the blog.
It would not be accurate to count Faith among the churches who closed.
But, it would be a gross misrepresentation to say that Faith left the denomination. Until the moment Dave Williams carried the recommendation of the Commission on Church Renewal, to the Ad Council, that Faith be expelled from the Conference, Faith's identity, in faith and action, was defined by the CGGC's Mission and Vision Statements.
We most certainly didn't leave the denomination. We love what the CGGC says it stands for...
...and were doing it even as the hierarchs were scheming our expulsion.
Anyway,..
I wonder about the five ERC congregations who left the denomination in the past ten years.
I think the phrase ecclesiastical thuggery accurately describes the hierarchs' method in challenging my credentials and expelling Faith from the Conference.
I wonder now if I/we were the only victims of the thuggery of the people on the top of the ERC mountain.
Under what circumstances did those five ERC congregations leave the denomination?
Do you know?
----------------
And,...
.... there is the fact that Kevin and Dave and Chuck and all the Good Old Boys were running Conference sessions as YAY GOD meetings for the last ten years when, by their own words now, on average more than one ERC church was biting the dust every year.
If any one of these hierarchs is still around in the future, and, if things do go well, who among the apathetic, cynical and even skeptical, will really believe it?
It seems to me that their word will always be subject to being distrusted.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Reading the PDF of the ERC Town Hall Meetings
I have several impressions. I'll write more, if the Lord gives me the opportunity.
But, from a big picture perspective, I see nothing of what Jesus taught and did in any of it.
Someone in touch with me observed that this could be the plan of any secular organization.
Certainly, there is nothing unique to Jesus in any of it.
----------------
The PDF acknowledges numerical decline near the beginning of the document and then suggests that the Conference has two alternatives:
1. To continue things as they are and risk further shrinkage,
2. Develop a new strategic plan...
That's it.
The only alternative to continued decline is to create a strategic plan?
How institutional.
How narrow minded.
Does anyone not know that there are options other than strategic plannning?
Do the hierarchs know that the Church of God had 800 churches after its first 60 years...
...all of that without a strategic plan?
There are alternatives other than more strategic planning.
But, from a big picture perspective, I see nothing of what Jesus taught and did in any of it.
Someone in touch with me observed that this could be the plan of any secular organization.
Certainly, there is nothing unique to Jesus in any of it.
----------------
The PDF acknowledges numerical decline near the beginning of the document and then suggests that the Conference has two alternatives:
1. To continue things as they are and risk further shrinkage,
2. Develop a new strategic plan...
That's it.
The only alternative to continued decline is to create a strategic plan?
How institutional.
How narrow minded.
Does anyone not know that there are options other than strategic plannning?
Do the hierarchs know that the Church of God had 800 churches after its first 60 years...
...all of that without a strategic plan?
There are alternatives other than more strategic planning.
Defrock the ERC Ad Council
☺
I've been thinking about the still, to this day, unsubstantiated rumors that in 2016 the ERC Conference in session voted to recall my ordination.
And, of the reports I have received about the hierarchs rationale for defrocking me.
I've asked a fairly decent sized sampling of people what I was charged with. All of these people are ERC pastors who are also Commission members and/or Ad Council members. Not a single, stinkin', one of these people can say what the charge against me was.
But, they all said that I do have a blog that criticizes leadership...
...as if leadership is justified in removing from the Eldership an elder who thinks leaders are failing and, then, says so.
----------------
Following that reasoning, and considering the fact that the ERC Ad Council has just reached the same opinion I was expressing at the time, in 2015, when the Standing Committee and Ad Council kicked this all off,...
...that is, they voted to reject the leadership of Kevin Richardson,...
...doesn't it stand to reason that everyone on the Ad Council who voted to search for a new Executive Director should be defrocked?
And, that the Standing Committee should recommend to the Ad Council that all Ad Council members, who are ordained, should return their ordination certificates?
After all, what could be stronger criticism of Kevin than to decide to replace him?
Where's the flaw in that logic? ☺
I've been thinking about the still, to this day, unsubstantiated rumors that in 2016 the ERC Conference in session voted to recall my ordination.
And, of the reports I have received about the hierarchs rationale for defrocking me.
I've asked a fairly decent sized sampling of people what I was charged with. All of these people are ERC pastors who are also Commission members and/or Ad Council members. Not a single, stinkin', one of these people can say what the charge against me was.
But, they all said that I do have a blog that criticizes leadership...
...as if leadership is justified in removing from the Eldership an elder who thinks leaders are failing and, then, says so.
----------------
Following that reasoning, and considering the fact that the ERC Ad Council has just reached the same opinion I was expressing at the time, in 2015, when the Standing Committee and Ad Council kicked this all off,...
...that is, they voted to reject the leadership of Kevin Richardson,...
...doesn't it stand to reason that everyone on the Ad Council who voted to search for a new Executive Director should be defrocked?
And, that the Standing Committee should recommend to the Ad Council that all Ad Council members, who are ordained, should return their ordination certificates?
After all, what could be stronger criticism of Kevin than to decide to replace him?
Where's the flaw in that logic? ☺
Thursday, October 19, 2017
The GODLESSNESS of the ERC new New Strategic Plan
Back on 09 when Ed Rosenberry created the CGGC Mission Statement, Ed had the wisdom to couch the talk in reference to Jesus Christ as Lord.
"As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples by establishing churches on the New Testament plan and proclaiming the gospel around the world."
While, in my opinion, in the last 8 years, the Mission Statement has only been talk...or, Talk-ism, it's good well-intentioned talk that actually begins with Jesus Christ as Lord.
As you know, I've received reports on the goings on at the ERC Town Hall Meetings. And, based on what I'm hearing, this is the sentence that the ERC hierarchs have created to describe the new New Strategic Plan:
"Healthy life-giving churches led by healthy life-giving pastors guided by..."
What?
The Holy Spirit?
John Winebrenner's, "the Bible as our only rule of faith and practice?"
No.
No, no, no, no...NO!
"...guided by healthy life-giving leadership."
People reporting to me have made it clear that the leadership mentioned here is CONFERENCE leadership, though I never doubted it.
I've looked up the definition of the word, godless. Two definitions apply.
"Not recognizing or obeying god," and
"Without a god."
The essence of the ERC's new New Strategic Plan is entirely godless.
It is about churches and parish priests and Conference leadership.
It does not mention God. It does not "recognize" God. It is, in its very own words, without God, godless.
----------------
I've noted in the past that you can know the truth about people by what they do when they are left to their own devices.
One truth about the ERC leaders who produced the new New Strategic Plan and have been promoting it and are calling for its implementation as soon as January is revealed in that godless sentence that captures the essence of their plan.
Their minds focus on churches, pastors and the institutional hierarchy...
...but not on the Lord.
----------------
I've not written this until now, in part, because, other than to point out the godlessness of the plan, I'm far beyond words, I'm aghast. I'm speechless.
But, all of you understand.
No one I know of besides me is talking about this.
There certainly is chatter about shortcomings in the plan and some of that chatter is rather profound theologically.
But, gang!
An entire plan for a Conference of churches that can be completely described without reference to God!?!?!!!!!
You should all be beside yourselves. Furious.
Ready to overthrow the hierarchy.
But, the most I can say is there is, behind the scenes, spirited conversation about the plan.
The, unmentioned in the ERC's new New Strategic Plan, Lord of all authority and power and grace and mercy and blessing will not bless a plan that doesn't include Him...or, even MENTION Him.
We must repent!
"As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples by establishing churches on the New Testament plan and proclaiming the gospel around the world."
While, in my opinion, in the last 8 years, the Mission Statement has only been talk...or, Talk-ism, it's good well-intentioned talk that actually begins with Jesus Christ as Lord.
As you know, I've received reports on the goings on at the ERC Town Hall Meetings. And, based on what I'm hearing, this is the sentence that the ERC hierarchs have created to describe the new New Strategic Plan:
"Healthy life-giving churches led by healthy life-giving pastors guided by..."
What?
The Holy Spirit?
John Winebrenner's, "the Bible as our only rule of faith and practice?"
No.
No, no, no, no...NO!
"...guided by healthy life-giving leadership."
People reporting to me have made it clear that the leadership mentioned here is CONFERENCE leadership, though I never doubted it.
I've looked up the definition of the word, godless. Two definitions apply.
"Not recognizing or obeying god," and
"Without a god."
The essence of the ERC's new New Strategic Plan is entirely godless.
It is about churches and parish priests and Conference leadership.
It does not mention God. It does not "recognize" God. It is, in its very own words, without God, godless.
----------------
I've noted in the past that you can know the truth about people by what they do when they are left to their own devices.
One truth about the ERC leaders who produced the new New Strategic Plan and have been promoting it and are calling for its implementation as soon as January is revealed in that godless sentence that captures the essence of their plan.
Their minds focus on churches, pastors and the institutional hierarchy...
...but not on the Lord.
----------------
I've not written this until now, in part, because, other than to point out the godlessness of the plan, I'm far beyond words, I'm aghast. I'm speechless.
But, all of you understand.
No one I know of besides me is talking about this.
There certainly is chatter about shortcomings in the plan and some of that chatter is rather profound theologically.
But, gang!
An entire plan for a Conference of churches that can be completely described without reference to God!?!?!!!!!
You should all be beside yourselves. Furious.
Ready to overthrow the hierarchy.
But, the most I can say is there is, behind the scenes, spirited conversation about the plan.
The, unmentioned in the ERC's new New Strategic Plan, Lord of all authority and power and grace and mercy and blessing will not bless a plan that doesn't include Him...or, even MENTION Him.
We must repent!
Monday, October 16, 2017
The Factions in the ERC
It would seem to be inevitable that, as the decline and putrefication of the ERC reaches the point that it can no longer be pretended away, divisions among its people would become more pronounced.
I came into the ministry young and idealistic...
...many, many...many years ago.
And, I was chagrined to see what clearly were well-established factions in the East Pennsylvania Conference of the Churches of God that appeared to me to have existed for some time.
Those groups continue to exist. But, as decline advances, I see some evolution in the makeup of the groupings within the Conference.
I see a fourth distinct group forming in response to recent events.
The four groups are:
1. What I have thought of, for a long time as, "The good old boy network."
This group consists of the hierarchs or the mountaintoppers, the people who hold the formal power in the Conference who may or may not be members of Conference staff...and their willing minions. The minions are the people who always say yes to and who unquestioningly embrace every fad and consume every Conference program and stand on the stage every year at Conference to give testimony as to how amazingly the most recent program has transformed them and their church.
This group has oodles of power. These people run the most powerful Commissions year upon year and they pastor many of the churches with the juiciest salary packages. A few are members of the laity.
While this group holds most of the formal power in the Conference, it is, by number, rather small.
2. The cynics.
This group existed when I came on the Conference more than 40 years ago. It is deeply entrenched.
It consists of people who distrust the Conference hierarchy. Many, but certainly not all cynics, are the populists I've mentioned in a previous post. Some are not driven by worldview to that degree.
This group has never organized well but it consists of people who distrust the Conference hierarchy.
For most of them, the distrust is directed toward the existence of the hierarchy itself, not to the people who are hierarchs at any given moment. Therefore, for almost all of these people, the Administrative Council's decision to search for a new Executive Director will effect no change in attitude. They opposed the hierarchy itself, not Kevin.
This group has always possessed the power to say, "Uh uh," to the fads and programs of the hierarchs. And, they do exactly that.
Why did the old new 2015 Strategic Plan end up being only words on a page? Answer? In large part, the cynics hold the power to ignore what goes on on the mountaintop. And, in 2015, as they do, by principle, they didn't play along.
One thing I've heard from the Town Hall meetings, repeatedly, is that people were asking if the new plan will have teeth. Will the plan require pastors to attend seminars and obtain CECs, etc..
Here's what that question really is: Can this plan make the cynics play along and work with the good old boy network?
I've said, over and over, that the hierarchs are making the mistake of not courting the cynics.
I'm convinced that the cynics will not be moved by the supposed brilliance of the new New Strategic Plan. And, as things stand now, they'll do what they did with the old New Strategic Plan.
Now, what do you suppose will happen when the powers that be go to the congregation of one of these cynics who is popular with his/her congregation and tell the church that the Conference is going to remove their pastor from the pulpit because s/he didn't earn a CEC?
The cynics have little formal power in the Conference but they've been exercising real power for a long time.
(By the way, again, I'm not saying that cynicism is ever a good thing. But, it is a defining reality in the ERC.)
3. The apathetic.
Apathetic toward conference things.
Since my entry into the Conference some people have not cared.
People are apathetic toward the ERC for a wide variety of reasons.
But, bottom line, they are not inclined to get involved beyond their own ministry and congregation.
These people are not a problem for the hierarchs in that they don't stand in their way. On the other hand, they are not inclined to be on board and enthusiastic about new plans and dreams coming down from the eagles who reside on the peaks of the ERC mountain.
4. The skeptics.
This group has emerged as a function of recent events. The decline of the Conference is now so serious that the hierarchs felt the need to address it and to go on record with a plan they tell us they think will reverse the trend of generations.
There is a boatload of people across the Conference who are hesitant, at the very least, to embrace the new plan.
Some of them are in conversation with me and, based on what I'm hearing, many more of them are in conversation with each other.
At the very least, these people are not enthusiastic about the plan. Some of them are respectfully criticizing it among the ERC eagles. Many of these people are convinced that the plan will fail.
One problem I sense, among the skeptics, is that they are not unified in their objections to the plan. From what I'm seeing and hearing, there are, at the moment, nearly as many critiques of the new New Strategic Plan as there are skeptics.
A sad possibility is that the plan may become reality when many of the people of the Conference oppose it yet can find no serious alternative to it that has substantial support.
----------------
So, what's the best thing for the Kingdom of God as far as the ERC is concerned.
First, I think that the Good Old Boys need to humble themselves and face the reality that the Town Hall meetings have been moderately attended at best and that far more people are either cynical, apathetic or skeptical about their plan than support it.
ERC decline has been taking place for about eighty years.
The hierarchs are in panic mode when they suggest that they can develop a plan that will,
1. Be effective, and
2. Be supported,
in this time frame by this method.
The cynics need to engage...before the plan is in place. Their thing has always been to let the hierarchs do their thing and not participate.
Honestly, for this to happen, it will be the Good Old Boys who need to reach out.
The apathetic need to engage and understand that the church is a body that exists beyond themselves and their own ministries.
The skeptics hold all the best cards in this hand.
This is a new faction made up of people who used to be Good Old Boys who are disillusioned or cynics who are giving engagement in the Conference a, if only brief, chance to work.
------------------
Skeptics,
Eternity is a long time.
Generations of decline and decay cannot be reversed through a mere Strategic Plan, particularly one composed with this haste in this panic and through this process.
Don't vote no on this thing, simply say, "Not this. Not now."
You, my skeptical friends, hold the key to the future of the ERC.
I came into the ministry young and idealistic...
...many, many...many years ago.
And, I was chagrined to see what clearly were well-established factions in the East Pennsylvania Conference of the Churches of God that appeared to me to have existed for some time.
Those groups continue to exist. But, as decline advances, I see some evolution in the makeup of the groupings within the Conference.
I see a fourth distinct group forming in response to recent events.
The four groups are:
1. What I have thought of, for a long time as, "The good old boy network."
This group consists of the hierarchs or the mountaintoppers, the people who hold the formal power in the Conference who may or may not be members of Conference staff...and their willing minions. The minions are the people who always say yes to and who unquestioningly embrace every fad and consume every Conference program and stand on the stage every year at Conference to give testimony as to how amazingly the most recent program has transformed them and their church.
This group has oodles of power. These people run the most powerful Commissions year upon year and they pastor many of the churches with the juiciest salary packages. A few are members of the laity.
While this group holds most of the formal power in the Conference, it is, by number, rather small.
2. The cynics.
This group existed when I came on the Conference more than 40 years ago. It is deeply entrenched.
It consists of people who distrust the Conference hierarchy. Many, but certainly not all cynics, are the populists I've mentioned in a previous post. Some are not driven by worldview to that degree.
This group has never organized well but it consists of people who distrust the Conference hierarchy.
For most of them, the distrust is directed toward the existence of the hierarchy itself, not to the people who are hierarchs at any given moment. Therefore, for almost all of these people, the Administrative Council's decision to search for a new Executive Director will effect no change in attitude. They opposed the hierarchy itself, not Kevin.
This group has always possessed the power to say, "Uh uh," to the fads and programs of the hierarchs. And, they do exactly that.
Why did the old new 2015 Strategic Plan end up being only words on a page? Answer? In large part, the cynics hold the power to ignore what goes on on the mountaintop. And, in 2015, as they do, by principle, they didn't play along.
One thing I've heard from the Town Hall meetings, repeatedly, is that people were asking if the new plan will have teeth. Will the plan require pastors to attend seminars and obtain CECs, etc..
Here's what that question really is: Can this plan make the cynics play along and work with the good old boy network?
I've said, over and over, that the hierarchs are making the mistake of not courting the cynics.
I'm convinced that the cynics will not be moved by the supposed brilliance of the new New Strategic Plan. And, as things stand now, they'll do what they did with the old New Strategic Plan.
Now, what do you suppose will happen when the powers that be go to the congregation of one of these cynics who is popular with his/her congregation and tell the church that the Conference is going to remove their pastor from the pulpit because s/he didn't earn a CEC?
The cynics have little formal power in the Conference but they've been exercising real power for a long time.
(By the way, again, I'm not saying that cynicism is ever a good thing. But, it is a defining reality in the ERC.)
3. The apathetic.
Apathetic toward conference things.
Since my entry into the Conference some people have not cared.
People are apathetic toward the ERC for a wide variety of reasons.
But, bottom line, they are not inclined to get involved beyond their own ministry and congregation.
These people are not a problem for the hierarchs in that they don't stand in their way. On the other hand, they are not inclined to be on board and enthusiastic about new plans and dreams coming down from the eagles who reside on the peaks of the ERC mountain.
4. The skeptics.
This group has emerged as a function of recent events. The decline of the Conference is now so serious that the hierarchs felt the need to address it and to go on record with a plan they tell us they think will reverse the trend of generations.
There is a boatload of people across the Conference who are hesitant, at the very least, to embrace the new plan.
Some of them are in conversation with me and, based on what I'm hearing, many more of them are in conversation with each other.
At the very least, these people are not enthusiastic about the plan. Some of them are respectfully criticizing it among the ERC eagles. Many of these people are convinced that the plan will fail.
One problem I sense, among the skeptics, is that they are not unified in their objections to the plan. From what I'm seeing and hearing, there are, at the moment, nearly as many critiques of the new New Strategic Plan as there are skeptics.
A sad possibility is that the plan may become reality when many of the people of the Conference oppose it yet can find no serious alternative to it that has substantial support.
----------------
So, what's the best thing for the Kingdom of God as far as the ERC is concerned.
First, I think that the Good Old Boys need to humble themselves and face the reality that the Town Hall meetings have been moderately attended at best and that far more people are either cynical, apathetic or skeptical about their plan than support it.
ERC decline has been taking place for about eighty years.
The hierarchs are in panic mode when they suggest that they can develop a plan that will,
1. Be effective, and
2. Be supported,
in this time frame by this method.
The cynics need to engage...before the plan is in place. Their thing has always been to let the hierarchs do their thing and not participate.
Honestly, for this to happen, it will be the Good Old Boys who need to reach out.
The apathetic need to engage and understand that the church is a body that exists beyond themselves and their own ministries.
The skeptics hold all the best cards in this hand.
This is a new faction made up of people who used to be Good Old Boys who are disillusioned or cynics who are giving engagement in the Conference a, if only brief, chance to work.
------------------
Skeptics,
Eternity is a long time.
Generations of decline and decay cannot be reversed through a mere Strategic Plan, particularly one composed with this haste in this panic and through this process.
Don't vote no on this thing, simply say, "Not this. Not now."
You, my skeptical friends, hold the key to the future of the ERC.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Two Jesus Essentials Absent from the ERC Strategic Plan
I am wondering, again, if ERC hierarchs even read the New Testament.
I was reading over a recounting of one of the Town Hall meetings I received and, I'm stunned by how, well, anti-Jesus and theologically corrupt the plan is.
Here are two principles that were foundational to Jesus missing, or even opposed, by the new New Strategic Plan:
1. The Kingdom of God.
According to the Gospels, the central message of Jesus was that the time had come the KINGDOM OF GOD was near and that the appropriate response to those realities was for people to repent and believe the Good News.
I've read a lot of and about the new New Strategic Plan and I've not heard a word about the Kingdom.
I hear about healthy life giving churches but nothing about the thing that stood as the center of the focus of Jesus, the Kingdom of God.
One of the deadly sins of the CGGC in recent decades has been "Ecclesiolatry," the sin of worshiping the church, not the Lord of the church.
The new New Strategic Plan embraces that sin.
2. Servanthood.
Jesus said that to be great in the Kingdom is to be a servant and to be the greatest is to be the slave of all. For, as Jesus said it, even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many.
Yet, the new New Strategic Plan is about churches being LED by healthy, life giving pastors guided by healthy life giving (Conference) leadership.
Jesus must be weeping buckets of tears as He sits at the right hand of God.
In a kingdom there is only one leader: the King!
-------------------
There is no way the Holy Spirit will empower and bless this plan.
It disregards, even opposes what was the core of the ministry and teaching of Jesus.
I was reading over a recounting of one of the Town Hall meetings I received and, I'm stunned by how, well, anti-Jesus and theologically corrupt the plan is.
Here are two principles that were foundational to Jesus missing, or even opposed, by the new New Strategic Plan:
1. The Kingdom of God.
According to the Gospels, the central message of Jesus was that the time had come the KINGDOM OF GOD was near and that the appropriate response to those realities was for people to repent and believe the Good News.
I've read a lot of and about the new New Strategic Plan and I've not heard a word about the Kingdom.
I hear about healthy life giving churches but nothing about the thing that stood as the center of the focus of Jesus, the Kingdom of God.
One of the deadly sins of the CGGC in recent decades has been "Ecclesiolatry," the sin of worshiping the church, not the Lord of the church.
The new New Strategic Plan embraces that sin.
2. Servanthood.
Jesus said that to be great in the Kingdom is to be a servant and to be the greatest is to be the slave of all. For, as Jesus said it, even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many.
Yet, the new New Strategic Plan is about churches being LED by healthy, life giving pastors guided by healthy life giving (Conference) leadership.
Jesus must be weeping buckets of tears as He sits at the right hand of God.
In a kingdom there is only one leader: the King!
-------------------
There is no way the Holy Spirit will empower and bless this plan.
It disregards, even opposes what was the core of the ministry and teaching of Jesus.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Being the Body of Christ
Last week Frank Viola sent out another in a series of articles on the Kingdom of God.
Viola addressed the reality that Christian leaders today don't work together.
He suggested two reasons. The second he mentioned struck me powerfully.
Viola cited Watchman Nee's book, What Shall This Man Do? as capturing a key principle that explains the failings of Christians today to advance the Kingdom.
Nee's book notes the distinctiveness of the ministries of Peter, Paul and John. Nee points out that each of these men were crucial in the advancement of the Kingdom of God in the early days...
...but each served a different function.
Peter was an evangelist, Paul was a builder of the community of believers and John was a restorer of the body when it began to move toward ruin...he was a prophet.
A compelling strength of the early Christian movement is that it was a able to maintain connection with the power of the Spirit by embracing each of these three very diverse ministries.
----------------
Perhaps the most compelling weakness in Western Christianity today is that it refuses to allow the Spirit to empower servants of Christ with each of these diverse passions and abilities.
In my group, as is the case of many in which there is numerical decline, only the Paul...community building...sort of giftedness is embraced.
As a result, the group fails to reach new people and to live in the attitude of repentance John calls for over and over again in Revelation 2 and 3...
...and it may, very well, be on the verge of extinction.
We must allow the Spirit to empower ministry as He wills.
We must repent.
Viola addressed the reality that Christian leaders today don't work together.
He suggested two reasons. The second he mentioned struck me powerfully.
Viola cited Watchman Nee's book, What Shall This Man Do? as capturing a key principle that explains the failings of Christians today to advance the Kingdom.
Nee's book notes the distinctiveness of the ministries of Peter, Paul and John. Nee points out that each of these men were crucial in the advancement of the Kingdom of God in the early days...
...but each served a different function.
Peter was an evangelist, Paul was a builder of the community of believers and John was a restorer of the body when it began to move toward ruin...he was a prophet.
A compelling strength of the early Christian movement is that it was a able to maintain connection with the power of the Spirit by embracing each of these three very diverse ministries.
----------------
Perhaps the most compelling weakness in Western Christianity today is that it refuses to allow the Spirit to empower servants of Christ with each of these diverse passions and abilities.
In my group, as is the case of many in which there is numerical decline, only the Paul...community building...sort of giftedness is embraced.
As a result, the group fails to reach new people and to live in the attitude of repentance John calls for over and over again in Revelation 2 and 3...
...and it may, very well, be on the verge of extinction.
We must allow the Spirit to empower ministry as He wills.
We must repent.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Hire an Intentional Interim Executive Director
As a member of the Enola First Church of God and as a person vitally concerned about the future ministry of that congregation and about the Eastern Regional Conference as a whole, I've read, many times over, Kevin Richardson's announcement that the ERC has decided to search for a new Executive Director.
One of the details included in that announcement is the detail that Kevin will remain in the position of Executive Director until the search for his successor has concluded.
In my opinion, the decision of the Administrative Council to keep Kevin in place is unwise and foolish.
Because of my concern for the future of the Conference, I have read through the ERC Constitution and By-Laws several times recently.
One article that is relevant to the current state of affairs is one that empowers the Administrative Council to appoint an interim Executive Director "for a period not to exceed 18 months."
Based on conversations I've had with people Lew now calls "snipers," the sense among mountaintoppers in the ERC is that the Conference has benefited from the practice of appointing Intentional Interim pastors when a congregation experiences a change in pastors.
It seems to me that this is the time for the Ad Council to exercise its authority to appoint an interim Executive Director.
How will keeping Kevin in the corner office help the Conference reverse its failing fortunes?
It's time to focus solely on the future.
I've received positive off-line feedback from the sniper universe on my suggestion that the ERC amend the qualifications for the position of Executive Director. Currently the universe of possible candidates is extremely small.
That universe is made up primarily of people who are indebted to the old, failed ways that have driven our decline for generations.
To most people, I think, changing the qualifications for the position makes sense as we move forward.
Appoint an interim and use the time s/he is in the position to prayerfully look to the future.
What good reason is there not to appoint an interim Executive Director?
One of the details included in that announcement is the detail that Kevin will remain in the position of Executive Director until the search for his successor has concluded.
In my opinion, the decision of the Administrative Council to keep Kevin in place is unwise and foolish.
Because of my concern for the future of the Conference, I have read through the ERC Constitution and By-Laws several times recently.
One article that is relevant to the current state of affairs is one that empowers the Administrative Council to appoint an interim Executive Director "for a period not to exceed 18 months."
Based on conversations I've had with people Lew now calls "snipers," the sense among mountaintoppers in the ERC is that the Conference has benefited from the practice of appointing Intentional Interim pastors when a congregation experiences a change in pastors.
It seems to me that this is the time for the Ad Council to exercise its authority to appoint an interim Executive Director.
How will keeping Kevin in the corner office help the Conference reverse its failing fortunes?
It's time to focus solely on the future.
I've received positive off-line feedback from the sniper universe on my suggestion that the ERC amend the qualifications for the position of Executive Director. Currently the universe of possible candidates is extremely small.
That universe is made up primarily of people who are indebted to the old, failed ways that have driven our decline for generations.
To most people, I think, changing the qualifications for the position makes sense as we move forward.
Appoint an interim and use the time s/he is in the position to prayerfully look to the future.
What good reason is there not to appoint an interim Executive Director?
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Don't Make Kevin the Scapegoat
Last week Kevin Richardson announced that the ERC Administrative Council has decided to begin a search for a new Executive Director and that he would not be the person in executive leadership to lead the Conference into the next strategic plan.
Kevin made that announcement with grace and with class.
I've said repeatedly that, despite the attacks against my credentials and the ministry I participated in here at Faith during Kevin's tenure, I still love Kevin and I still like him.
I'm not surprised that Kevin was able to announce what amounts to his own firing as graciously as he has.
Clearly, Kevin loves the ERC and continues to wish the best for it.
Shortly after I read his note, I began to assess, in big picture terms, where it all went wrong for Kevin.
Here's what I think was his greatest error: Kevin bought into the old ERC ways.
By that I mean that Kevin embraced everything that his predecessors in the previous regime were doing...
...ways that were miserably failing...
...shepherd ways...
...institutional ways.
Kevin chose to champion church, not Kingdom, and to focus on parish priest leadership, not apostolic servanthood.
He was a good ERCer.
The Lord of all authority and power and grace and mercy and blessing has never blessed those ways. ERC decline continued under Kevin because the Lord never will bless those ways.
But, understand.
It was the ERC ways and its theologically corrupt values, not Kevin himself, that drove the ERC decline during the last decade.
So, don't scapegoat Kevin.
His biggest sin was that he bought into ways already in place long before he ascended the mountain.
If there is any hope at all for the ERC, it is to acknowledge that even a man of Kevin's grace and class could not incline the Lord to bless the ERC shepherd oriented, parish priest dominated mess.
It's time now to thank Kevin for trying and to repent of the beliefs that have transformed a once thriving spiritual movement into a cold and dying institution.
We must repent.
Kevin made that announcement with grace and with class.
I've said repeatedly that, despite the attacks against my credentials and the ministry I participated in here at Faith during Kevin's tenure, I still love Kevin and I still like him.
I'm not surprised that Kevin was able to announce what amounts to his own firing as graciously as he has.
Clearly, Kevin loves the ERC and continues to wish the best for it.
Shortly after I read his note, I began to assess, in big picture terms, where it all went wrong for Kevin.
Here's what I think was his greatest error: Kevin bought into the old ERC ways.
By that I mean that Kevin embraced everything that his predecessors in the previous regime were doing...
...ways that were miserably failing...
...shepherd ways...
...institutional ways.
Kevin chose to champion church, not Kingdom, and to focus on parish priest leadership, not apostolic servanthood.
He was a good ERCer.
The Lord of all authority and power and grace and mercy and blessing has never blessed those ways. ERC decline continued under Kevin because the Lord never will bless those ways.
But, understand.
It was the ERC ways and its theologically corrupt values, not Kevin himself, that drove the ERC decline during the last decade.
So, don't scapegoat Kevin.
His biggest sin was that he bought into ways already in place long before he ascended the mountain.
If there is any hope at all for the ERC, it is to acknowledge that even a man of Kevin's grace and class could not incline the Lord to bless the ERC shepherd oriented, parish priest dominated mess.
It's time now to thank Kevin for trying and to repent of the beliefs that have transformed a once thriving spiritual movement into a cold and dying institution.
We must repent.
Monday, October 9, 2017
Suspend the Strategic Plan; Amend the Constitution
Now that the ERC Administrative Council has made the big move and decided to seek a new Executive Director, new possibilities and new crises are in play for our ministry.
According to Kevin's own word, the path the ERC Administrative Council chooses to determine how it will search for the next E. D. will be settled after it meets in November.
What I write next feels prophet-ish.
Normally when I get that feeling I let the impression simmer before I seek words for it but I don't feel like I should do that with this one.
As a body of believers, we have defied the initial wisdom of John Winebrenner and created a Constitution and By-Laws and we are bound to them (in spite of the apparent inclination of our current leaders who want to implement the new New Strategic Plan without the Eldership's authority).
The By-Laws make demands on the Conference as far as who may and may not assume the position of Executive Director.
I was actually on the Task Force that created those requirements. At the time, I was fully on board. But, at the time, I also thought that the Shepherd Mafia was a good thing for the Conference.
Now, I'm certain that the qualifications the By-Laws require create potential for future disaster.
----------------
To be qualified to be Executive Director, a person must have been ordained in ministry in the CGGC for at least ten years and have been a local church pastor for at least five of them.
The purpose of those requirements, as I recall, was to insure that the Executive Director be fully vested in ways of the Shepherd Mafia, that has been running things...
...and, as we must certainly know by now,...
...has run Winebrenner's movement into the ground.
It seems to me that if the ERC has any future at all, we're going to need to be able to consider a wider range of candidates.
Also...
...the impression of the people who are keeping me filled in...just the impression now...is that the new New Strategic Plan is very largely Kevin's brain child.
If that's so, bringing in any new Executive Director to execute this plan would be foolish...
...at the very best.
I really think that it's time to change who is qualified to be E. D. and to give the new person the chance to give input on the ERC's future path.
Amend the Constitution. Suspend the Strategic Plan.
According to Kevin's own word, the path the ERC Administrative Council chooses to determine how it will search for the next E. D. will be settled after it meets in November.
What I write next feels prophet-ish.
Normally when I get that feeling I let the impression simmer before I seek words for it but I don't feel like I should do that with this one.
As a body of believers, we have defied the initial wisdom of John Winebrenner and created a Constitution and By-Laws and we are bound to them (in spite of the apparent inclination of our current leaders who want to implement the new New Strategic Plan without the Eldership's authority).
The By-Laws make demands on the Conference as far as who may and may not assume the position of Executive Director.
I was actually on the Task Force that created those requirements. At the time, I was fully on board. But, at the time, I also thought that the Shepherd Mafia was a good thing for the Conference.
Now, I'm certain that the qualifications the By-Laws require create potential for future disaster.
----------------
To be qualified to be Executive Director, a person must have been ordained in ministry in the CGGC for at least ten years and have been a local church pastor for at least five of them.
The purpose of those requirements, as I recall, was to insure that the Executive Director be fully vested in ways of the Shepherd Mafia, that has been running things...
...and, as we must certainly know by now,...
...has run Winebrenner's movement into the ground.
It seems to me that if the ERC has any future at all, we're going to need to be able to consider a wider range of candidates.
Also...
...the impression of the people who are keeping me filled in...just the impression now...is that the new New Strategic Plan is very largely Kevin's brain child.
If that's so, bringing in any new Executive Director to execute this plan would be foolish...
...at the very best.
I really think that it's time to change who is qualified to be E. D. and to give the new person the chance to give input on the ERC's future path.
Amend the Constitution. Suspend the Strategic Plan.
Friday, October 6, 2017
ERC is Searching for a New Executive Director
From multiple sources, I just received a copy of Dr. Richardson's note announcing that the ERC Ad Council has decided to begin to search for a new Executive Director.
-----------------
I've said many times that I love Kevin and that I still, after all that has been done to me AND TO THE PEOPLE IN MINISTRY WITH ME HERE AT FAITH, under his leadership and with his approval and, even, through his direct action...
...I still like him.
And, it's not difficult for me to forgive him.
---------------
Kevin,
You'll recall how vehemently I advocated for you when you sought the E. D. position. At the time, as I've said, I saw apostolic potential in you which never bore fruit.
Now, in my opinion, the ERC needs a prophet and forerunner to prepare the way for an apostle.
Evie and I wish you well as you seek the Lord's will for your future.
-----------------
I've said many times that I love Kevin and that I still, after all that has been done to me AND TO THE PEOPLE IN MINISTRY WITH ME HERE AT FAITH, under his leadership and with his approval and, even, through his direct action...
...I still like him.
And, it's not difficult for me to forgive him.
---------------
Kevin,
You'll recall how vehemently I advocated for you when you sought the E. D. position. At the time, as I've said, I saw apostolic potential in you which never bore fruit.
Now, in my opinion, the ERC needs a prophet and forerunner to prepare the way for an apostle.
Evie and I wish you well as you seek the Lord's will for your future.
Suspending the ERC Constitution? Getting a Lawyer to file an Injunction?
I've received a couple of reports that suggest to me that ERC hierarchs are planning to usurp their authority in what is, to me, a horrifying way in implementing the new New Strategic Plan.
Integral to the new strategic plan is the revamping of the conference's commission structure.
The conference's commission structure is written into the conference's Constitution. And, the Constitution can only be amended by a two-thirds vote of the delegates to the conference in session.
Nevertheless, the word I'm receiving is that the membership of the new commissions is already being formed. And, that the plan is that the Ad Council will approve the new strategic plan next month and that the new strategic plan will be implemented in January.
This defies in every way the authority of the eldership of the conference. And I'm wondering if anyone cares. And, how much money it would take to get a lawyer to file an injunction against the implementation of this new strategic plan. Clearly, based on the little knowledge I have of the law, the conference's action would be dead.
The fruit of what the ERC hierarchs are doing suggests that they have no respect at all for the rules that guide us and particularly and specifically are intended to guide them.
They may seem like a sweet, gentle, nice guys. But they know how to act like dictators.
If the current President of the United States attempted to set aside the Constitution in the way these guys are, he would be run out of town in an instant!
Pay attention, people.
We live in a church community defined by the rules that we set for all of us, including the hierarchs. The Lord will not bless what these guys are attempting to do.
Integral to the new strategic plan is the revamping of the conference's commission structure.
The conference's commission structure is written into the conference's Constitution. And, the Constitution can only be amended by a two-thirds vote of the delegates to the conference in session.
Nevertheless, the word I'm receiving is that the membership of the new commissions is already being formed. And, that the plan is that the Ad Council will approve the new strategic plan next month and that the new strategic plan will be implemented in January.
This defies in every way the authority of the eldership of the conference. And I'm wondering if anyone cares. And, how much money it would take to get a lawyer to file an injunction against the implementation of this new strategic plan. Clearly, based on the little knowledge I have of the law, the conference's action would be dead.
The fruit of what the ERC hierarchs are doing suggests that they have no respect at all for the rules that guide us and particularly and specifically are intended to guide them.
They may seem like a sweet, gentle, nice guys. But they know how to act like dictators.
If the current President of the United States attempted to set aside the Constitution in the way these guys are, he would be run out of town in an instant!
Pay attention, people.
We live in a church community defined by the rules that we set for all of us, including the hierarchs. The Lord will not bless what these guys are attempting to do.
Dropping the ERC from our Wills
Since the first day I, a member of a very liberal UCC congregation, attended the Mt. Joy Church of God with my girlfriend Evelyn, I have loved the Churches of God.
It was in the Churches of God, in that day at least, that I first met people who loved the word and preached it and were committed to living out the gospel.
I was baptized as a believer there. It was as a result of that ministry that I became aware of a passion for God's truth that was so profound that that it became, and still is, the central focus of my life.
Evie and I have no children. So, when we were old enough to think about writing wills, we decided that the beneficiary of our meager fortune should be the church body that matured us and had become the focus of our life's work.
However, after the attack on my credentials and the expulsion of our ministry from the Conference by ERC leaders, in spite of my personal loyalty to CGGC doctrine and the ministry's devotion to the CGGC Mission and Vision Statements, leaving our money to the Conference didn't seem like a natural fit.
So, last evening we signed new wills disinheriting the church.
So sad, in our geezerness, to have come to this place.
A large chunk of our money will go to a mission whose work reflects our red letter beliefs.
Sad.
It was in the Churches of God, in that day at least, that I first met people who loved the word and preached it and were committed to living out the gospel.
I was baptized as a believer there. It was as a result of that ministry that I became aware of a passion for God's truth that was so profound that that it became, and still is, the central focus of my life.
Evie and I have no children. So, when we were old enough to think about writing wills, we decided that the beneficiary of our meager fortune should be the church body that matured us and had become the focus of our life's work.
However, after the attack on my credentials and the expulsion of our ministry from the Conference by ERC leaders, in spite of my personal loyalty to CGGC doctrine and the ministry's devotion to the CGGC Mission and Vision Statements, leaving our money to the Conference didn't seem like a natural fit.
So, last evening we signed new wills disinheriting the church.
So sad, in our geezerness, to have come to this place.
A large chunk of our money will go to a mission whose work reflects our red letter beliefs.
Sad.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
Critical Truths about the Response to the ERC Town Hall Meetings
Except that his brain is slowly shutting down, my dad is extremely healthy for a man of his age. He's dying but his heart and all his organs are healthy. He's dropping weight dramatically. There's no reason to weigh him but the last time he was weighed, he lost 5 pounds in a week. But, he's probably still 20-30 pounds away from wasting away.
It's hard to watch. And, my time has been taken with visiting him, hoping to catch a wakeful, lucid moment and helping mom through her intense sadness. They've been married for 65 years.
---------------
But, I have been chatting with people who've attended a few of the ERC Town Hall Meetings. Most of what I'm hearing doesn't surprise me but I've reached a conclusion that is new to me and I've received some valuable insight/observations.
I've talked about cynicism here ad nauseam. Nothing new there. The meetings, as far as I can tell, have sported a modest turnout but nothing spectacular. The fairly large number of cynics, of course, have not been attending. They are not being wooed and they won't join in. This is sad. It's a lost opportunity for the hierarchs but it's par for a course ERC mountaintoppers have been playing on since before I entered the Conference in the 1970s.
What I'm newly concluding is that most of the people who are attending are, as far as this new New Strategic Plan is concerned, not cynics, but skeptics.
I'm hearing that no one is wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the plan...except for Dr. Richardson.
I'm also hearing that everyone sees weaknesses in the plan but that there is no agreement on the way the plan is lacking. (I've observed that this is inevitable because there is no core truth that unites the people of the Conference. This lack of unity about truth is a function of Shepherd leadership.)
The sense I get is that the skeptics are going to give Dr. Richardson, and probably Dave and Chuck as well, a chance to make this work...
...but that they will be on a short tether...
...and few, probably really no one, expects them to succeed.
Tonight, October 5, is that fancy, online Strategic Plan Round Table Meeting.
I'll miss it because it comes at the end of a day in which I will have spent emotion-depleting day with mom and dad.
It's hard to watch. And, my time has been taken with visiting him, hoping to catch a wakeful, lucid moment and helping mom through her intense sadness. They've been married for 65 years.
---------------
But, I have been chatting with people who've attended a few of the ERC Town Hall Meetings. Most of what I'm hearing doesn't surprise me but I've reached a conclusion that is new to me and I've received some valuable insight/observations.
I've talked about cynicism here ad nauseam. Nothing new there. The meetings, as far as I can tell, have sported a modest turnout but nothing spectacular. The fairly large number of cynics, of course, have not been attending. They are not being wooed and they won't join in. This is sad. It's a lost opportunity for the hierarchs but it's par for a course ERC mountaintoppers have been playing on since before I entered the Conference in the 1970s.
What I'm newly concluding is that most of the people who are attending are, as far as this new New Strategic Plan is concerned, not cynics, but skeptics.
I'm hearing that no one is wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the plan...except for Dr. Richardson.
I'm also hearing that everyone sees weaknesses in the plan but that there is no agreement on the way the plan is lacking. (I've observed that this is inevitable because there is no core truth that unites the people of the Conference. This lack of unity about truth is a function of Shepherd leadership.)
The sense I get is that the skeptics are going to give Dr. Richardson, and probably Dave and Chuck as well, a chance to make this work...
...but that they will be on a short tether...
...and few, probably really no one, expects them to succeed.
Tonight, October 5, is that fancy, online Strategic Plan Round Table Meeting.
I'll miss it because it comes at the end of a day in which I will have spent emotion-depleting day with mom and dad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)