I wanted to readdress this issue of “Leadership Champions who honored authority of the GA today“ because some good people have taken issue with my rendition of this. I probably need to correct that to say that in the end, I don’t think anyone put their name on the line to dissent in the final product in favor of an equal cut between World Missions, International Office, and the State Office.
Still, I wasn’t there…just going based on what I was told. I was speaking to it in the only venue I was given. So, if I’m inaccurate, it is because I was informed as a participant that was not invited to be a part of the official formation of a process I was key in initiating. So, for my uninformed view, I apologize for not being informed broadly enough…but, it wasn’t for lack of effort on my part.
As the author of the motion, I thought and continue to think that it is/has been fair and right for me to speak directly to the motion(s) in whatever venue is afforded to me. On this issue, that venue is Actscelerate and Missionalcog.com. I trusted the process that was set forth by the General Assembly and specifically Raymond Culpepper. I never undermined the process. I never second guessed the process. I did attempt to add my voice to the process and my opinion on the parameters of the Substitute Motion, which was the model to be perfected and which established the scope of the cut. And, unfortunately, I waited until just a few weeks before the COA meeting to do that. Apparently, that was a $19 million per year mistake to be shouldered by our institutional missions cooperative.
I continue to struggle with how we arrived at this position on the “equally shared” cut and on the elimination of the mandated EHM fund (certainly doesn’t in my wildest imagination sound equal to me). I also struggle to find how the EHM fund was even addressed in the cut. I’ve had a few people try to explain it. And, I’m working through trying to figure it out in light of Roberts Rules of Order, the Original Motion, the Substitute Motion, and the Motion to Refer. But, I’m having trouble. And, I haven’t had one person tell me straight out that this was an “equally shared” cut. I don’t think anyone is capable of saying that.
That isn’t to say that 23 men who voted unanimously together are wrong and I’m right. But, I’m close to saying that. And, that is a massively ego-centric thing to say (though I am capable of saying that and have said it in so many words prior to the vote and prior to the outcome).
Anyway, my personal feelings and my personal conclusions on what the scope/parameters given to the COA were aside, the Executive Council voted unanimously for what was presented to the Committee of Action. That isn’t to say there wasn’t dissent over issues, including elimination of EHM and unequal reductions, along the way. I know there was because I’ve had several members tell me that along the way they expressed themselves on this.
But, the truth is in the end, this decision was unanimous among the EC (not the Steering Committee). And, when the rubber met the road, everyone got on the same page. I think that if I was a member of the EC or the Steering Committee, I would have opposed it and I would have been vocal in my opposition to it publicly so as to bring public pressure to bear on the process (just being honest…note to Cleveland- Don’t involve me in a process you don’t want me to discuss what’s going on…maybe that’s why 150 people were invited and I wasn’t though I authored the Substitute Motion).
Anyway, I believe the 2006 & 2008 General Assembly flatly rejected a unified budget, which this is (though there are some mandates for WM ONLY…still it leaves to much discretionary power in the hands of the EC). Further, I believe the 2006 and the 2008 General Assembly Chairman would not allow the reaching across the separation of the TOT and the World Mission budget to bring reduction to World Missions, International, and State aside from the fact that the General Assembly emphatically stated, they didn’t want to leave our bureaucracy unscathed while targeting World Missions. In fact, the inclusion of World Missions was communicated expressly by the author of the Substitute Motion as a concession and that should the 2004 motion be fully honored, there should be zero reduction s for World Missions.
One of the concerns I hold is the fruit of a conversation I had with one of the COA members (prior to the final COA meeting) who told me, “The General Assembly got it wrong!” They said that the vote in 2006 had “disproportionate representation” from the international COG community and altered what the General Council had determined was in the best interest of the church. If those in leadership do not fiercely support the will of the General Assembly then who will? I have real questions about the treatment of the General Assembly in our General Church practices/sentiments.
Further, I believe the 2008 General Assembly did not ask for an inequitable distribution of the cut to be felt by World Missions and an apparent elimination of our church planting mandate by merging the other half of the missions offering (per the Minutes) into the State Office Administrative fund (which now works to legalize the ransacking of our church planting and small church assistance monies). And, I am struggling through the nuance that brought us to what I perceive as a grossly liberal interpretation of the authority granted to the COA. In my opinion eliminating the EHM fund/mandate on church planting is equivalent to the COA Ordaining Women Bishops (something I think needs to be done but which is beyond the scope of the COA).
With all that said, my conclusion is that in the end, everyone voted the same. Either the General Assembly got stepped on by Group Think. Or, the entire Executive Council and a large portion of the COA are right in their interpretation and I’m wrong. I will say that the makeup of the COA was vastly unrepresentative of the COG in North America and globally. And, there was almost no deliberation among that body. There were a lot of people who weren’t prepared to speak (through no fault of their own), weren’t informed (through no fault of their own), didn’t want to speak, or found themselves in a real pickle if they did speak. This was articulated best by Darrell Rice when he referenced that they hadn’t received the Impact Study. This was not the arrangement that provides the best outcome for the body.
So, am I wrong? Or, was the conclusion of the Executive Council unanimously wrong? I would like to say the door is open to either possibility (regardless of the firm conclusion I’ve drawn). And, at this point, I don’t know that I want to know the utter truth of a conclusion distilled in black and white. The ramifications are either personally humiliating or institutionally troubling. And, I’m frightened of both. One might mean I slink into the shadows of South Florida where I’m most fruitful. The other may mean that we all just got bamboozled and would have been better off just accepting what the 2006 Executive Committee wanted us to do in the first place: consolidate World Missions, eliminate Home Missions, and spare the Int’l and state bureaucracies from most significant pieces of reduction. At least if we had done that then, we would have already been well into the actual cut.
So, here we are in a denomination we all do love, surrounded by people we love…and misunderstand. As a result of the process, our denomination is less focused on mission (institutionally), less co-operative, and perhaps more frustrated than it has been in some time. The path forward is more discussion, more openness, more interaction, more missional focus. Our systems have to be smaller (they will be…though proportionately larger than our institutional missions entities). Our mission should be bigger. And, trust is the cement that has to piece it all together. And, that’s the challenging part. I can tell you “it ain’t gonna be easy.”
