Congregational Meetings
I don't know if anything was accomplished tonight, but one thing I do know, if this is the way we will be engaging our congregation in the future to get insight, I want more of it. There was a spirit of genuiness among us as we asked questions and made comments. Everyone seemed comfortable to share their heart, even when what they had to share was in opposition to the proposals set before us.
Every pastor knows that the hardest thing to do is propose a change to the constitution. After all, if it seemed to work ok, why does it need to be changed. Some folks can get defensive, confused, fearful and even militant, but none of that seemed to be present.
There was a lot of prayer ahead of our meeting tonight from both sides. The leadership of the church worked diligently in preparing the proposal and the members have been praying about the discussion in anticipation of the final vote being taken in February.
We will have a couple of other meetings for discussion. I hope they go as well as this one seemed to go. If they do, I can live with whatever decision is handed down when the final vote is taken.
Every pastor knows that the hardest thing to do is propose a change to the constitution. After all, if it seemed to work ok, why does it need to be changed. Some folks can get defensive, confused, fearful and even militant, but none of that seemed to be present.
There was a lot of prayer ahead of our meeting tonight from both sides. The leadership of the church worked diligently in preparing the proposal and the members have been praying about the discussion in anticipation of the final vote being taken in February.
We will have a couple of other meetings for discussion. I hope they go as well as this one seemed to go. If they do, I can live with whatever decision is handed down when the final vote is taken.
posted by jawbone at
12:02 AM
4 Comments:
I AGREE THE MEETING WENT WELL. I LEFT THERE WITH THE BELIEF THAT THE ELDERS WOULD TAKE SOME OF THE OPINIONS THAT WERE GIVEN BY THE MEMBERS AND INCLUDE THEM IN THE NEXT AMENDMENT OF THE BY LAWS. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED IF THAT WOULD BE THE CASE AND IT WAS ANSWERED BACK TO THE MEMBERS AS THAT IS THE REASON WE ARE MEETING.
WHATEVER HAPPENS, WE ALL KNOW ONE THING, THAT GOD IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE ON THE THRONE AND HIS WILL WELL BE DONE.
T.G.K.
I APOLOGIZE FOR USING CAPS
By
Anonymous, at 11:55 AM
I am relieved that the meeting went as smoothly as it did. I think it's good that several people gave their opinions without raising any heated debates.
I must say though I am disappointed in the answers that were given as to the purpose of the proposed constitutional changes. One question in particular: "What can't the church do under the current constitution that it wants to do under the new constitution?"
The answer given was, "It's complicated".
No further explanation was offered. Therefore, I believe it's likely that many in the congregation would be confused as to the purpose of changing our constitution.
After eight months of rewriting the current constitution, I would think each elder could explain the motivation behind these changes. This explanation is what I expected at the beginning of the meeting. I look forward to this answer at the next meeting.
Bill L.
By
Anonymous, at 11:46 PM
Just think, if this revised Constitution had been in effect in the year 2000, Alfred Bashlor would be our pastor as he was the person first approved by the elders. He was, however, not approved by the congregation,consequently J. L. Rivera was the fall back candidate and was approved by the congregaton.
It is also worthy of note that the reason given for making the changes to the constitution was to more closely conform to the New Testament pattern for governance.Nowhere have I seen that the early church had a constitution, so to be strict conformists we would have to abolish the constitution altogether.
EPT
By
Anonymous, at 1:26 PM
We will soon be having our second meeting on the change to the church constitution. I have these simple comments:
1.) Members of our church have always been very happy and comfortable knowing that important decisions ALWAYS would be voted on by the congregation. The proposed change says we "may" bring it to a congregational vote. That means we may or "may not". This puts power in the hands of a very select few, eliminating the people from having a vote. I am in opposition to this change. It is totally opposite of what I have always loved about Christian Hills Church, even from the very early years.
2.) We are not abiding by our present constitution because we do not have the required number of deacons that our present constitution calls for. We need more deacons not only to do certain tasks, but also to interact with the elders and be a "check and balance" when godly decisions need to be made...especially now.
3.) Putting decision making power in the hands of just a pastor and his elders (could possibly be just one or two) is just not what we are used to in this church. An "elder board" consisting of both deacons and elders better brings forth the wishes of the congregation, as it always has in the past. If we had more godly deacons at the present time, they would be a valuable asset for the elders when discussing these proposed changes.
4.) I believe that elders must ALL be of one spirit and one mind and if they are not, then more prayer is needed until they are unanimous. I believe this is biblical.
I hope that the next meeting will not have a "cut off" time when people obviously need more time to discuss what is on their hearts. I appreciate Pastor extending the time last month. We all love our church - let's keep in prayer that God guides our reasons and our decisions.
-Sleepless in Orland
By
Anonymous, at 12:11 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home