- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Provided, however, they don’t tie supporting the initiative to TR worthiness…the phrase “supporting local leaders” could easily be taken as a reference to worthiness. I don’t believe the church should be playing that card on what is a civil matter that appears to benefit only them. We would need to know what the specific agreements and bylaws are with the people who bought the houses, and neither of us have that knowledge that I’m aware of…
Well, two can play at that game. I don’t think it’s being supportive to let people do things that overall hurt the church (like coercing people to do things against their interest). I support local leaders by protecting them from themselves by not caving in to wrong-headed demands, right?
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:Provided, however, they don’t tie supporting the initiative to TR worthiness…the phrase “supporting local leaders” could easily be taken as a reference to worthiness. I don’t believe the church should be playing that card on what is a civil matter that appears to benefit only them. We would need to know what the specific agreements and bylaws are with the people who bought the houses, and neither of us have that knowledge that I’m aware of…
Well, two can play at that game. I don’t think it’s being supportive to let people do things that overall hurt the church (like coercing people to do things against their interest). I support local leaders by protecting them from themselves by not caving in to wrong-headed demands, right?
Love it!!! We sustain our leaders by disagreeing with them when they have trouble with leadership!
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:I support local leaders by protecting them from themselves by not caving in to wrong-headed demands, right?
I think that this is a very important aspect of sustaining leaders, when done in a way that is respectful. The whole sustaining=unwavering agreement thing is very dangerous, IMHO.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.