I can already tell you where that money probably would have come from - Missions or Evangelism/Discipleship. As sad as this fact is, since I’ve been on staff we have CUT our missions budget $10,000. (Not a good move in my opinion…I view missions as about the last thing to get cut.)

I know many other churches were very worried about where to come up with the money this year as well. David’s proposal did a lot to keep the overall feeling towards South Mountain on the positive side. I know that our church would have gotten a negative view of being forced to pay with very little warning. Now, we know what is coming and can prepare for it.

Also, since it has been 10 years, I don’t feel that a 10 month delay will affect us too much if it means keeping the people’s opinion positive.

I must admit, my feelings toward South Mountain are somewhat mixed. I agree with Matt Rampey on many of his comments, including his closing one. Its going, so lets “get ‘er done.”

I was at conference 10 years ago when South Mountain was first passed. No one in the Brevard delegation was happy at all at the way things went (I was 14 at the time, and helping with sound). I also remember when the promises that had been made started to slip. Again, not very many positive feelings. I wish things would have been a little more realistically viewed from the start.

I appreciate the way that Bob Allred and Bake came at this last proposal. They were apologetic at having to break the promises that were made, but ernest and realistic in their view of the need. It seemed like with previous proposals (even the initial one to start SMRCC), it was presented that if you weren’t for it, then you weren’t a good Christian/Wesleyan/person.

Whatever mistakes have been made in the past, I believe that we now have a leadership team in place that has learned from previous mistakes and can lead South Mountain forward into completion and make it into a place where lives can be transformed. Hope I didn’t ramble on too much! I enjoyed reading all of the other comments.

It’s absolutely true that you can’t put a price tag on the things that happen at camp. Believe me, when I was younger my whole year revolved around camp and I have some incredible memories of what happened in my life and the lives of others. Matt, I still remember praying and talking with you when I was on a ministry team from SWU your first year at NC West camp. 10 years later I still vividly remember it. I’m sure many of us can use the “you can’t put a price tag on that” when it comes to our camp experience.

But the same can be said for many things like church planting, organizations like World Hope (where it costs something like $30 a month to free a child from being a sex slave), and many others.

I guess I see the South Mountain thing as representative of larger problems. One, when it was first proposed I thought the motivation behind it, if you pulled back all the fancy and “holy” talk, was pride. We wanted OUR own place. 10 years ago there was another (and WAAAAY cheaper) option to buy into the East District campground that would allow co-ownership and the money from buying in would finance some great and desperately needed improvements.

Two, I think that deep down South Mountian is a “the church exists for the church” rather than a “the church exists for the world” issue. I know, I know. People will be called to ministry there and people will be saved there. But deep down I think the whole mentality of wanting our own camp is based mostly on inward thinking.

I think it was also short-sighted seeing as how districts aren’t buying and developing campgrounds anymore. They’re selling them because it’s not cost efficient. Just because we don’t have our own camp doesn’t mean we can’t do camp. What have we been doing the last 15 years? We’ve had great camps where lives have been changed. What’s going to significantly change just because we do it at our own place? The price won’t change significantly. At the end I think what we’ll have is a great camp where great things happen, but the cost will be significant and, ultimately, I don’t think it’s being a good steward of what God has given us.

But nothing I’ve just said really matters because we’re in way too far to pull out. So, go ahead with the whole thing, “git er done”, and expand God’s Kingdom with it.

It is unfortunate that such promises were made. In recent days I have been told that the South Mountain project would never have passed without such promises. If that is the case, then it is more that unfortunate. It is tragic. That means there are a group of people who voted “yes” who would never have voted “yes” under the present circumstances. That must be understood and appreciated.

I’d encourage you to talk with the SMRCC board to learn about the master plans. I’d encourage you to talk with Bob Allred or Bake Garman (I’d be happy to provide you with contact information, if you so desire).

So, my resulting attitude is one of hope that churches will feel that the decision to increase budget by 1% is not a burden, but an opportunity to stimulate the camp and not allow it to continue to be a “dead limb” of our district for another 10 years.

I also pray that the SMRCC board will be good stewards of the resources they have been given.

Also, it was noted by one of our pastors that because of this resolution, they would have to find $6000 in their budget to account for the 1%. My thoughts at the time were, “I just wish 1% of my church’s income amounted to $6,000!”