Post-WCG Life and Theology ARCHIVES

To quote the Chinese proverb: "Becareful what you wish for, you might just get it."
Alas this unfortunately is what happens when you ask people for their opinion ... they give it to you. ;-)
Actually it looks like Tkach and company are a bit frustrated at the opposition they received to the name Grace International Communion.
The original name "Grace International Felllowship" actually had nothing to do with any input from members as far as I can see. It was named at conferences as one that was liked by Headquarters ... I know from comments one WCG minister made that this was well known to be regarded as the "favorite".
Then however they discovered a few legal draw backs to that name. So Tkach and his hand picked council came up with the next best thing. This way they could still keep it close to the original by changing "Fellowship" to "Communion".
As Bernie stated this was a suggestion from the leadership not the members. "The requirement that our new name be novel so that others cannot object that the name has already been taken raises an important irony about the word “communion” as proposed previously by church leaders and the Advisory Counsel of Elders."
Suggestions from the membership worldwide do not seem to have matched up to the leader's favorite.
I believe for appearance's sake they asked members for their input on Grace International Communion.
If it had been just a few negative replies then I would be comfortable in saying the name would still be used. Judging by Bernie's tone it may have been much more negativity than they expected.
So now back to the drawing board and not just that they are now stuck with the process they have put in place. Propose the name then wait for feedback.
If they were to change the process by giving several suggestions for members to give input on, an idea Realist put forward, well I would just love that.
Besides looking a bit heavy handed on this, the DELIGHTFUL upside to all this mess could be a bigger problem down the road for Dr. Tkach.
Namely, that in "a matter concerning the church" they are deciding it by a form of member VOTING. That could send a signal to the membership of a change in decision making. A change where the HQ is not only willing to listen but their decisions CAN be swayed by strong member opinion.
IF MEMBERS WERE TO REALIZE THIS, WELL IT COULD BE A WHOLE BRIGHT NEW DAY IN THE WCG IF THAT WERE THE CASE !! :-)

One thing that puzzles me in regard to the request for member input on the new name suggestion is that they asked at all. It would have been easier to look at the proposed names that came in from different congregations and after vetting them for trademark etc. just made an announcement.
What I do seem to sense is a change in the membership which has been happening gradually over time. I think is just a natural consequence after all the failures and delays since 1995.
I do not think the WCG is doing very well morale wise and this maybe a growing worry at HQ. Thus an attempt to look as if they are trying to involve the members.
The main focus of the church for so long was how much things would change and how free the church would be to move forward after the campus sold. But when this happened what did the members get? Nothing. No figures, no idea where the money went and what it would be used for.
That may have been a turning point after all the failures since the changes. Members held in there for years and they were shut out at the end.
Now they have a Pastor General with a terrible track record whose word I would suggest many no longer trust.
I do think HQ misjudged the name change process. People seem to be finding their voice. That I see as a great thing but long over due.
Bernie Schnippert's reply was in typical fashion. A tone he has used before with the Pasadena residents when they voiced opposition and concern over the church's high density housing plans for the campus.
The new financial model has given the congregations a sense of their own power locally whereas in the past everyone followed the leader. But the leader has very few resources now adays and the congregations are having to fill the gap. Also the minister is more or less a local man or one that has been there for many, many years because transfers are costly. His concern has become more locally focused because of the limited and greatly reduced contact with Pasadena.
If the WCG leadership do not take substancial steps to make themselves accountable and more open to the membership I would not be surprised to see a split in the church.
Joseph Tkach made a lot of promises but after a while people may just get feed up waiting. How many more years of their lives will they have to waste hoping for changes that may very well not come?There are many accountable denominations in the greater Christian community that the congregations could affliate themselves with.