| In Response to Rev William G. McAtee’s Comments on Union Presbyteries |
| Written by Rev Al Sandalow | ||||
| Monday, 23 January 2012 21:09 | ||||
|
Yes, there has been some serious discussion of “union presbyteries” in these past months. However, may I respectfully say to Rev. McAtee that “these are not your daddy’s union presbyteries”. They are not envisioned to address the same issues that created the first such presbyteries, nor will they necessarily take the same form.
Previously, union presbyteries sought to create unity and shared mission where none existed. Congregations and presbyteries are now looking at this idea to preserve a measure unity and mission that is in danger of dissolving.
Let’s face it, many congregations are now on a path to leave the PC(USA). Like it or not, that’s a given. Currently, most are leaving for the EPC. They will have no contact with their old Presbyteries and, regardless of the compensation a presbytery may receive, very few presbyteries will be able to successfully replace these congregations with a successful new church plant. A few presbyteries where many churches have left are now shadows of their former selves and may never recover.
But, in some of these presbyteries, many of the congregations that will be leaving have good relationships with their current presbyteries, even if they are disconnected from the denomination. They would happily stay connected and active in mission with their surrounding Presbyterian congregations, if there is a vehicle to do so.
So the options for some presbyteries are simply this:
What option would you take? Why is this idea so wrong or threatening? It sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
The new Form of Government has significantly streamlined outlines for union presbyteries. We were told the main reason to adopt this drastic revision of the FoG was to allow presbyteries to adopt new and creative responses to a changing world. This may well be an opportunity to see if we were actually serious about that.
No doubt this will become a work in progress. Adjustments and changes will be made. Different presbyteries will have different plans, to meet their individual needs and circumstance. But, these will not be your daddy’s union presbyteries.
Opposing the changes that are now upon us will not turn back the clock. The choices we have are only between better or worse options. If I have the chance, I will choose an solution that helps keep presbyteries united in mission with as many congregations as possible. If a union presbytery can do that, I’m all for it.
Rev Al Sandalow 1st Presbyterian Church Ellensburg, WA
Your Responses (2)
Dennis Maher
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Lake Luzerne NY I propose that PCUSA presbyteries that want to go the "union" route with ECO churches be called "masochistic presbyteries." |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville, nj The concept of "Union" presbyteries rests upon two assumptions which I think are rather dubious until proven otherwise. First that those who seek such an option want or desire to have a relationship with the PCUSA, given the amount of bile and vitrol current in the body, that may be a tad optimistic. I do not see the ARPC or even the EPC reaching out to the mother church with longings for the past, nor the other way around. And the ARPC departed about 1790. The PCUSA does pretty well talking to the UCC, its departed or wayward children, that's another matter. Second that the powers that be in the PCUSA, actually buy off on such a concept. Money walks and money talks. They hold churches for ransom until cash changes hands, and that is usually to a body that ordains women. And usually only at the end of a process where folks do actually get along and talk on both sides. Do you actaully think they would just let a critical mass walk? |
