Church Decision

After long and deliberate thought, I have decided not to name the church that is at the center of this post. Writing this has been hard and it was equally as hard to come to decision to speak my mind in the church last night after 15 years of holding my opinions and feelings in. In personal conversation I don't think I would have a problem identifying it, but not in a forum like this.

In recent months, I was coming to the decision to start returning to church after 15 years by attending Wednesday night services. I'll probably never be an every Sunday morning church service attendee but I have started to like the informal yet informative nature of the Wednesday night services and I have taken a liking to the current Pastor.

During the last year, a committee has been working on new bylaws for the Church. Last Wednesday, they presented copies of the old and new bylaws to the Church and there was to be a vote on them this Wednesday night. I read the new bylaws and was immediately struck by the fact that they could have the effect of reversing some of what drove me away from the Church and from organized religion as a whole over the last 15 years. These bylaws would remove the political power of the Church from the hands of a select few and spread it among the Church membership by rotating committee positions and chairmanships and by imposing a form of term limits. To me, things were looking up.

I attended the service last night so that I could cast my vote in favor of them (I have never given up membership in the Church, I simply stopped going for the most part). During the business meeting, it immediately became apparent that there were those who were opposed to the bylaws because they realized that their power in the Church was threatened by them. After listening to almost an hour of the debate, I finally raised my hand and said what I've been waiting for 15 years to say. I told the assembled that they hadn't seen me much for 15 years, then went on to explain why. I told them that I was disgusted by the way previous Pastors had been treated (backdoor politics and backstabbing come to mind) and that I was turned off by the fact that the Church was run by a powerful few. I concluded my stating that the new bylaws would be just the thing to help remedy those problems.

In retrospect, I should have realized that the process was doomed to fail. It did fail. The powerful few were able to garner just enough votes to make the vote fall short of the 2/3 majority by 4 votes. Personally, I think that the failure to pass the new bylaws could very well have been the torpedo that broke the ship's keel. It has led me to reconsider becoming active in that Church again. In closing the service/meeting last night, the Pastor asked if we were serving the Lord or if we were serving ourselves. I truly believe that those who led the defeat of the bylaws were serving not the Lord but themselves. I will be going through a lot of deep thought and consideration in the near future. If you are a religious person and reading this, please keep me in your prayers. There are some hard decisions to come.

Mac McCormick III
kf4lmt@comcast.net

The Gamble

I recently picked up a copy of Thomas Ricks' The Gamble - General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008. I began reading The Gamble this week and found it very much an advantage to have read Fiasco, Ricks' previous book on the Iraq War. General David Petraeus being central to the book, I also have found it helpful to have read In the Company of Soldiers, Rick Atkinson's book about the 101st Airborne in Iraqi Freedom (Petraeus commanded the 101st during that time).

I'll have more to say on The Gamble after I finish reading it, but I found it interesting that Ricks relates a story of one Republican Senator breaking with the Bush line in Iraq after reading Keegan's history of World War I, which I have just finished re-reading. The Senator compared the BEF's General's repeated attacks into German trench defenses to the US Military's resistance to change in Iraq.

Mac McCormick III
kf4lmt@comcast.net

Saxby Chambliss and Imperial Sugar

I rarely post anything political, but after reading the article in this morning's Savannah Morning News, I felt motivated to post.

In the aftermath of the Imperial Sugar refinery explosion last February, Senator Saxby Chambliss faced a decision; would he support his constituents in the form of voters that elected him to office or would he support his constituents in the form of businesses like Imperial Sugar that fill his campaign coffers with money. Before I go any further, I'll admit to having no opinion one way or another of Senator Chambliss until this event. I don't share many of his views, but he always seemed to represent the state of Georgia well.

When faced with his decision, it seems that Senator Chambliss decided to support Imperial Sugar. If the accusations are true, Senator Chambliss attempted to encourage the families of the explosion victims not to sue Imperial Sugar. He also vigorously opposed witnesses against Imperial Sugar in a Senate Committee Hearing (a committee of which he was not a member). Senator Chambliss unfortunately decided it was in his best interest to work for a business that provides him campaign money rather than to work for the people he represents: the people of the State of Georgia.

Mac McCormick III
kf4lmt@comcast.net