The good news is that there’s some good discussion going on in terms of the why’s and wherefore’s about restructuring and some of the actions taken by the various Synodical entities make more sense. There was also a hiccup with electing a new president – a tag was mislabeled so an advisory delegate that took a voting delegates’ place was voting when they were not eligible to do so. That has been cleared up and we should have a new SP by the end of lunch.
The bad news is that this is too little, too late, and it’s incomplete – there’s been no explanation for the sudden change in course, the difference between the current proposal and the Act and Bylaws, why the Act and Bylaws was not acceptable to this mysterious group, and the like. In addition we’re supposed to take Bugbee’s word on it that the proposed structure – which only came out a little while ago – got such a positive reception without the benefit of any names.
We also have the current SP admitting he hasn’t been out to ABC District while at the same time we’re supposed to regard the SP as the “chief pastor.”
I wonder what should happen to a pastor that neglects to tend to 1/3rd of his flock? Particularly when that part of the flock is in crisis?