Comments for Constitutional dentistry at http://www.pres-outlook.org , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://www.pres-outlook.org Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:37:55 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.pres-outlook.org/opinion/editorials/7418-constitutional-dentistry.html#comment-3964 [b][u]The Cost of Ignoring Stakeholders[/u][/b] Clearly, the nFoG is encountering the cost of having ignored key stakeholders - to use business verbiage - in developing its recommendations and conclusions. It was developed in relative isolation, and presented with a certain hubris as though its proposal should be adopted just because a task force recommends it. As you put it, "The odds that both a majority of the commissioners would approve and that a majority of presbyters in a majority of presbyteries around the country would ratify the nFOG proposals are tiny." That speaks to an exceedingly poor process that failed to present its case, failed to make clear the needs and advantages, failed to thoroughly connect with its audiences and failed to create a proposal and process that speaks from the ground up. The Assembly should dismiss the nFOG Task Force with thanks. And yes, it might be helpful to charge them with developing additional study materials they think would help the rest of the church to grasp their work. But I doubt more or better interpretation will help their flawed proposal. It committed our day's mortal sin, which is the audacity of dismissing decades of developed form for a version that was not developed in, of, and from our larger community. - Dave Hackett Mon, 19 May 2008 11:48:50 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.org/opinion/editorials/7418-constitutional-dentistry.html#comment-3963 I am delighted that The Outlook has made and jpublished this suggestion. While I am personally supportive of reducing the size of the FOG, eliminating some of its regulatory agancy mentality, and otherwise improving it, I am not prepared to vote for it NOW. sI think that a postlponement of a vote simply makes good sense. I also believe that there is currently too much opposition for passing it NOW. - James Pitts Mon, 19 May 2008 10:37:38 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.org/opinion/editorials/7418-constitutional-dentistry.html#comment-3960 This is a workable and sane response to the nFOG. Frankly, I'd like to see a nFOG go further in some areas -- particularly the "flattening" of the denominational structure (elimination of Synods). And how about churches getting to pick which "council" they should belong to (create their own presbyteries)? - Richard LeComte Mon, 19 May 2008 05:51:56 +0100