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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)