April 18, 2008
Why I Did It!
I am sure the question is being asked, among CM leadership and among the aware, how could and why did he do it? That is, why did he work so hard for the defeat of the governance plan before the Executive Council last weekend? How could he go against the work that had been developed over two years? Why would he challenge the good work of the governance committee, when they developed a workable process for the future of the national setting? The short answer is that I just don’t believe this direction being offered is in the best interest of the whole church. I have been consistent in saying that very thing. Obviously, given the fact of last weekend’s meetings, several agreed with my assessment. Otherwise my voice would have been a single voice in the wilderness. Surprisingly, even to me, it was not. It was a number that is growing, wide in support and will not be denied a voice, in my estimation.
The fact is the attempt to restructure the national setting of the church has been attempted twice since the year 2000. Twice a plan has been developed and twice the plan has been rejected by first LCM and this last time, by OGM. Twice this group, led by our GMP, GM and a narrow but hard driving governance committee has attempted to say that our system will not go forward with any sense of vitality unless this particular plan, essentially the same plan each time, is adopted. I disagreed.
The fact remains that the reason given for developing and forwarding this plan has been that OCWM has continued to plummet, but in reality OCWM has begun to turn upward. I suspect it will nose dive if we stay on this current path of conflict. It has been suggested that we need this change because LCM, JWM and WCM can not survive without consolidation and no meaningful and substantive ministry will happen going forward without one group, with a near majority of executive leaders, managing the affairs of the three and controlling the assets. Again I disagree. The fact is that LCM, WCM and to a lesser extent JWM has done fairly well in these challenging financial times, much better than many might have expected. It has been OGM that has not met budget and OGM that has needed serious and real attention. It is interesting that OGM is the board that the two collegium members who are most direct in leadership are managing with less success, yet are calling most loudly for control of all the other assets and ministries of the national setting. The 2000 restructure has not been the problem or has not shown itself to need to be scraped because of performance, yet we plow ahead. I agree with many that the “mission planning table” has been a joke, that OGM needs a close look and likely elimination, that EC need serious re-visioning, that some central functions need to be thought through, but still the reason for this kind of suggested and twice voted change offered, seems tinny rather than crystal clear as some might suggest. The national setting is losing its gifted “colored” workers in amazing numbers, particularly in the GMP office, gifted staff members are jumping ship across the building, and many are coming to work only to be escorted out the door without any notice. Change is happening but in ways that are not healthy. 700 is a battle zone, plain and simple. The national center of the UCC has never found its center since 2000 or not found a common goal, except for still speaking (another staff loss) or never figured out how to work together as hoped in the last restructure. Why not work on those things that can matter, than change the whole system and spin wheels restructuring.
We are suggesting by this push of the GFT plan that those who served the church and serve in the national setting recent past leadership in recent history, were somehow without gifts that merit honor or just did not know how to bring the varied parts of the church together and they, with this plan can rectify that recent history. No. It seems the message is that the just past generation of leaders blundered in their service. No again. This generation can somehow fix the deep problems that the just past generation of leaders have left for us. Let’s remember that these leaders left us a hotel, a chapel, a surplus and a continued determination to do justice. They gave up 6 instrumentalities and agreed to become four. It took 25 years to do so. Even more insulting is the notion that some current leaders like me are somehow high-jacking the orderly process and making life for the national setting horrific. Are we who disagree, not faithful too?
It should be said that the Conference leaders just spent 5 days together in New Mexico. It was a meaningful time, but please remembers that we spent only 45 minutes on this plan that went to our boards. We gave no advice or consent. As far as many thought, it was a done deal. There was precious little conversation about it and little engagement in this enormous change proposed for our life. People keep saying that most people are for this plan (single governance) as if said enough it would and will be true. The plan was shared with the executive council with a week’s time to digest and with the conference ministers with three to five days of lead time. Again this is a plan to change the whole structure of the church. WOW. Is it any reason that people of color and others said stop, we want time to digest and to comment on this plan. We want time to find ways to buy in to this plan. We want time to even reject this plan for reasons that are faithful and reasons that are thought out. We owe our leaders, all of our leaders, that much and they owe us that much too.
I would hope that John Thomas would understand that there are many who will work right up and through General Synod, to stop this plan in its current form. I remember him saying to the Southern Region CM’s that if this doesn’t happen this time, it would be over. Its not, it goes on. Some of us simply believe that this single governance board is a Presbyterian model and beyond congregational understanding.
Now I will work hard to meet the July 15 deadline and then report to the committee our findings. I ask your prayers as I attempt this work. I ask your prayers as the future unfolds and the unknown becomes clearer with time. I hope this gives some insight into my motivation. I do not seek approval, but to be a colleague in a challenging time.
Steve Camp
No comments:
Post a Comment