tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560220615271337359.post3746432537899230079..comments2024-03-12T08:04:47.314-07:00Comments on Naming His Grace: A new dismissal policy for Sacramento Presbytery?Viola Larsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09146967423654966140noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560220615271337359.post-89030804364875638792015-05-14T08:58:26.902-07:002015-05-14T08:58:26.902-07:00Viola,
I agree with you that a policy such as the...Viola,<br /><br />I agree with you that a policy such as the one in question certainly removes virtually any option for grace. However, a less formalized policy also leaves plenty of room for a lack of grace. I've just seen some instances where the congregation got blindsided by the lack of graciousness, which can be really demoralizing. <br /><br />There is also no question that the PCUSA, at least in some of the presbyteries, is exhibiting a totalitarian streak that is disturbing. Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560220615271337359.post-63399313350438648812015-05-13T15:44:40.634-07:002015-05-13T15:44:40.634-07:00I understand what you are saying Craig, but someti...I understand what you are saying Craig, but sometimes specific policies can lack any kind of grace and turn organizations into totalitarian organizations. Viola Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146967423654966140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560220615271337359.post-28341000558975038582015-05-12T10:48:16.442-07:002015-05-12T10:48:16.442-07:00It seems like a written specific policy is a step ...It seems like a written specific policy is a step up from the other option. Even given the overly restrictive and less than gracious terms specified, at least churches know before they start the process what the process will be. At least some presbyteries seem to be opting for a more fly by the seat of their pants approach which makes it difficult for congregations to do their homework early in the process. <br /><br />Craig<br /><br />MTKA MNCraighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560220615271337359.post-40493797232270768322015-05-04T18:19:58.608-07:002015-05-04T18:19:58.608-07:00Thank you Thomas,
A good call by South Alabama.Thank you Thomas,<br />A good call by South Alabama.Viola Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146967423654966140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560220615271337359.post-91910230618369503322015-05-04T17:59:57.539-07:002015-05-04T17:59:57.539-07:00I suggest you refer back to the action of the Gene...I suggest you refer back to the action of the General Assembly which recommended presbyteries adopt a policy for reasonable pastoral concern by presbytery toward congregations in turmoil over the denomination's actions<br /><br />The language of the General Assembly is about grace rather than regulatory control for the denomination.<br /><br />Openness and Transparency: Early, open communication and transparency about principles and process of dismissal necessarily serve truth, order, and goodness, and work against seeking civil litigation as a solution.<br /><br />• Pastoral Responsibility: The requirement in G-11.0103i to consult with the members of a church seeking dismissal highlights the presbytery’s pastoral responsibility, which must not be submerged beneath other responsibilities.<br /><br />From Presbytery of South Alabama: "3. Denominational separation becomes a consideration when there is irreconcilable<br />disagreement on issues essential to faith and life. In such tragic situations, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order allows presbyteries to dismiss congregations peaceably, with property but designates the presbyteries to determine the most faithful disposition of property.<br />"Thomas L. Fultznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560220615271337359.post-25818820973420331152015-05-04T13:39:56.810-07:002015-05-04T13:39:56.810-07:00Thank you Mary,
I hope some other people will not...Thank you Mary,<br /><br />I hope some other people will not be afraid to speak up. But I understand.Viola Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146967423654966140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560220615271337359.post-90886023865695318172015-05-04T13:03:17.296-07:002015-05-04T13:03:17.296-07:00Hello Viola. Yes, there's plenty NEW in this p...Hello Viola. Yes, there's plenty NEW in this policy:<br />1. Regarding property, by spelling out the five options the presbytery is limiting the options. Giving the property to an exiting congregation is not an option. But it should be.<br />2. Regarding media interface, the proposal assumes that there is only one party in the dismissal process, namely the presbytery. Ordinarily, one would expect a spokesperson for each point of view to be available. Is there a veiled threat attached to the gag order? You cannot keep people from talking! Is the presbytery requiring a confidentiality agreement with all parties? In which case the presbytery, too, must sign on. <br />The conceptual underpinning of this document is that the presbytery is the church; the congregation is part of the presbytery but does not have its own identity and cannot represent itself independently. As for property, the presbytery seems hell-bent on maintaining ownership and control and getting as much money out of the deal as possible. The lease options only continue to tie a congregation to a body that wants to control it through its property. <br />With such a policy, I wouldn't be surprised if congregations decided simply to walk away from their buildings and let Presbytery, which wants to assert ownership, do what owners do and take responsibility for maintaining the property. The long-term effect of this trend would be a presbytery that is land/building-rich and people poor. Ultimately, presbytery would have a far greater burden upon itself with all that property to maintain or dispose of. Do they really want that?<br />From a spiritual perspective, is there anything in the document that really shows concern for the health and well-being of the Kingdom of God at large? Of all the disappointments of the last few years, this one is the saddest to me: that officialdom in the PCUSA cannot see or care about the work of the Kingdom of God in the communities in which PCUSA churches now reside. Ultimately, who really cares what name or label is put on a property, if it is faithfully proclaiming and demonstrating the gospel of Christ?<br />Dr. Mary Holder Naegelinoreply@blogger.com