It would force us to prioritize---what we wouldn't have time for we didn't need in the first place. Plus, we'd have two years to make good on our decisions, leading to fuller, better work.
This is a great suggestion - one which I've been making for several years now. My primary reasoning for it is that we could put more energy into bi-annual district assemblies, which are vastly more important in terms of direct impact and connection between congregations whose relationships have the potential to grow into something meaningful. This is especially true outside of New England, where some of us travel 8-10 hours in order to attend "local" gatherings.
The problem, of course, is that this decision is in the hands of the "GA Junkies," and they're not likely to move in this direction. At least they haven't in the past when this idea has been proposed.
2 comments:
the only problem i see with this is that many national affiliate groups, and the CLF hold their yearly meetings and buisness meetings during GA.
This is a great suggestion - one which I've been making for several years now. My primary reasoning for it is that we could put more energy into bi-annual district assemblies, which are vastly more important in terms of direct impact and connection between congregations whose relationships have the potential to grow into something meaningful. This is especially true outside of New England, where some of us travel 8-10 hours in order to attend "local" gatherings.
The problem, of course, is that this decision is in the hands of the "GA Junkies," and they're not likely to move in this direction. At least they haven't in the past when this idea has been proposed.
Post a Comment