The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area met yesterday (Tuesday, September 9) for our
regular monthly meeting yesterday at the Presbyterian Church in White Bear
Lake. I arrived forty minutes before the
meeting and still had to park over a block away from the church.
We were told later that 197 people attended and all of
the meal tickets were sold. What brought
such a large turnout was undoubtedly the Presbytery’s discussion of the Eden Prairie
Presbyterian Church.
But other parts were just as important to me. I appreciated the thoughtful worship service
that started the gathering. Though my
taste isn’t for responsive readings, some of the words of the service touched
me.
In his report Jim Brasel, Acting Executive Presbyter,
shared that the main focus of the November meeting will be possible priorities
of the Presbytery. I was encouraged to
hear that a focus of a Presbytery meeting will not be Gracious Separation and
churches who will be leaving. Jim also
shared an article written by Joaan Haejong Lee in Christian Century on disagreement. The link to that article is here: http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2014-08/sunday-september-14-2014
In his report David Colby, Chair of the Presbytery
Leadership Team said that at their next meeting the Presbytery Leadership Team
will have a conversation about next steps regarding hiring an Interim Executive
Presbytery. He also shared that Chaz
Ruark is going to be the new Executive Presbytery at John Knox Presbytery
starting in the middle of September.
Congratulations, Chaz!
However the main event of the evening was what the Presbytery
will do in response to the actions of the Presbyterian Church in Eden
Prairie. That church was in negotiations
with a team from the Presbytery about leaving the Presbyterian Church
(USA). In June the church informed the
Presbytery that they had “voluntarily left” the PC(USA). John Ward, their pastor, informed the
Presbytery that he was renouncing jurisdiction of the Presbyterian church. Lawyers for the church threatened to bring trespass
charges against the PC(SUA) and the Presbytery if they entered or accessed any
property held by the church.
Burt Nygren shared a report from the Administrative
Commission--the group the Presbytery appointed to negotiate with the church. He re-iterated much of what was shared in a
written report from the Administrative Commission. All of the documents that the Presbytery
received for this issue and for the entire meeting can be found on-line at http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/PresbyteryMeetingInfo
David Colby then went through a document that had
questions and answers about the situation.
He shared that the document was offered as a response to media and/or
public inquiries about the situation.
The Presbytery then went into a Quasi-committee of the
whole to discuss a recommendation from the Committee on Ministry to assume
original jurisdiction of the session of the church. Kathryn Breitbarth led this
conversation. Many questions were
asked. Sue Rutford’s Twitter feed has a
response to some of these questions.
Around 6:15 we broke for dinner. At dinner I talked to a friend of mine who I
identify as being independent. This
person doesn’t trend either liberal or conservative. I asked my friend his/her thoughts about the
situation. My friend shared that s/he
thought that s/he would like to know what the dollar figures were that the
Administrative Commission asked for the property and what the church
counter-offered. Without that
information—and my friend really wanted to know that information—s/he couldn’t
make a judgment about what to do.
This idea of what made up the final negotiation before
the church left the negotiations with the Administrative Commission spilled
over into the meeting’s conversation after dinner. A motion was made to remove the
confidentiality restrictions on the negotiation and to go forward at an
indefinite time with negotiations. That
motion was amended to allow the parties to negotiate until the next Presbytery
meeting.
I was in favor of allowing two more months of negotiation,
but I wouldn’t have been in favor of removing the confidentiality part of the
negotiations. I believe that would set a
poor precedence.
The Presbytery ultimately voted not to approve those
motions. Shortly afterwards the
Presbytery voted to assume original jurisdiction of the session of the church.
It wouldn’t be surprising at all to see this issue land
in civil court.
The entire issue is very, very sad. It’s probably a pipedream to hope that the
church will stay in the PC(SUA). If that
doesn’t happen I hope that a negotiated settlement can be reached. It seems to be that everyone loses if this
issue goes to court.
I left the meeting after the Presbytery approved the 2015 budget. Many important issues were still going to be discussed, but I hadn't seen my family since 7:30 in the morning. The issues that the Presbytery discuss are important, but long meetings make it very hard for adults with children to attend. Our model of meetings doesn't fit well for everyone.
I left the meeting after the Presbytery approved the 2015 budget. Many important issues were still going to be discussed, but I hadn't seen my family since 7:30 in the morning. The issues that the Presbytery discuss are important, but long meetings make it very hard for adults with children to attend. Our model of meetings doesn't fit well for everyone.
Keep praying … God
can do something in this and every situation that we cannot imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment