Comments for Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area http://www.presbyterytwincities.org Just another WordPress site Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:58:35 +0100 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Presbyterian Partnership Workshop 2012 by Register for the Presbyterian Partnership Workshop : Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/presbyworkshop/#comment-594 Register for the Presbyterian Partnership Workshop : Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:58:35 +0000 http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/?page_id=5773#comment-594 [...] Registrations is now available. Please click here to register. For posters and bulletin inserts, please click here. [...] [...] Registrations is now available. Please click here to register. For posters and bulletin inserts, please click here. [...]

]]> Comment on Why This? Why Now? by Jo Taliaferro http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/2012/01/why-this-why-now/#comment-581 Jo Taliaferro Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:12:42 +0000 http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/?p=5690#comment-581 I am extremely grateful to those who have worked so hard and so graciously to put together a policy I hope this presbytery never has to use. I do, however, believe it is a necessary evil and that even the process used is proof that people with diverse opinions can and have gained more insight and understanding through this difficult task. I would urge the writers not to divide this policy into the three sections of: Prologue, discernment, and procedure but to state clearly that discernment is at the core of the entire drafting and implementation of such a mandated document/policy. I would like to see throughout the policy, a clear thread reminding us that all will be done to be inclusive of people with differing views, levels of experience, ethnic and cultural backgrounds as well as disabilities. Where physical challenges are faced, where handouts are needed in a specific format, where there is a need for accessible places and spaces to meet, and where confidentiality is required in paper balloting, no one will be left out or "assumed" incapable of participating. We and I mean, ALL of us are in this together and every accommodation must, in my opinion, be made for the sake of "fearlessly following the Holy Spirit into a changing world." Perhaps someone can articulate this more clearly and vigorously so that it shall be more than words on a page and shall be evident in our actions. I would strike the words "appendices" "appendix" as this implies that the processes A and B are afterthoughts and not a substantive part of implementation of a policy of gracious re-commitment or of sacred separation from our denomination. I am extremely grateful to those who have worked so hard and so graciously to put together a policy I hope this presbytery never has to use. I do, however, believe it is a necessary evil and that even the process used is proof that people with diverse opinions can and have gained more insight and understanding through this difficult task. I would urge the writers not to divide this policy into the three sections of: Prologue, discernment, and procedure but to state clearly that discernment is at the core of the entire drafting and implementation of such a mandated document/policy. I would like to see throughout the policy, a clear thread reminding us that all will be done to be inclusive of people with differing views, levels of experience, ethnic and cultural backgrounds as well as disabilities. Where physical challenges are faced, where handouts are needed in a specific format, where there is a need for accessible places and spaces to meet, and where confidentiality is required in paper balloting, no one will be left out or “assumed” incapable of participating. We and I mean, ALL of us are in this together and every accommodation must, in my opinion, be made for the sake of “fearlessly following the Holy Spirit into a changing world.” Perhaps someone can articulate this more clearly and vigorously so that it shall be more than words on a page and shall be evident in our actions. I would strike the words “appendices” “appendix” as this implies that the processes A and B are afterthoughts and not a substantive part of implementation of a policy of gracious re-commitment or of sacred separation from our denomination.

]]> Comment on Why This? Why Now? by Paul Moore http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/2012/01/why-this-why-now/#comment-543 Paul Moore Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:48:03 +0000 http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/?p=5690#comment-543 I completely respect the group who has put together this policy. It sounds like they modeled graciousness with each other. However as of today I wouldn't vote for this policy. My primary concern about the policy is the "exit fee" is too low. I don't believe it honors our ancestors. I believe the fee should be based on property value and not Per Capita. Our Presbyterian ancestors did quite a lot to provide property to Presbyterian churches. I think we do them a disservice by not asking back some sort of value on the gifts that were given. If the way is clear, Chain of Lakes will be given a piece of property that is worth close to $650,000. It doesn't seem right to me that after we charter we could leave the PC(USA) in five years and only pay a exit fee of five years of Per Capita. I'm torn when churches leave the PC(USA). To me it's a divorce, and I wish it wouldn't happen. Congregations who leave the PC(USA) shouldn't be harmed in their future ministry. But just as a divorce is painful, a separation (even when done graciously) is painful. I think the pain has to be shared fairly by both the Presbytery and the departing congregation. I don't think that fairness is exhibited in the current proposal I understand that people will disagree with this view. I'm open to listening carefully (and already have) to different views. I'm sorry I can't attend a forum. I hope that any conversation about this proposed policy and ultimately voting won't feel rushed. I completely respect the group who has put together this policy. It sounds like they modeled graciousness with each other.

However as of today I wouldn’t vote for this policy.

My primary concern about the policy is the “exit fee” is too low. I don’t believe it honors our ancestors. I believe the fee should be based on property value and not Per Capita. Our Presbyterian ancestors did quite a lot to provide property to Presbyterian churches. I think we do them a disservice by not asking back some sort of value on the gifts that were given. If the way is clear, Chain of Lakes will be given a piece of property that is worth close to $650,000. It doesn’t seem right to me that after we charter we could leave the PC(USA) in five years and only pay a exit fee of five years of Per Capita.

I’m torn when churches leave the PC(USA). To me it’s a divorce, and I wish it wouldn’t happen. Congregations who leave the PC(USA) shouldn’t be harmed in their future ministry. But just as a divorce is painful, a separation (even when done graciously) is painful. I think the pain has to be shared fairly by both the Presbytery and the departing congregation. I don’t think that fairness is exhibited in the current proposal

I understand that people will disagree with this view. I’m open to listening carefully (and already have) to different views. I’m sorry I can’t attend a forum. I hope that any conversation about this proposed policy and ultimately voting won’t feel rushed.

]]> Comment on Musings on the Fellowship by Chaz Ruark http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/2011/09/musings-on-the-fellowship/#comment-538 Chaz Ruark Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:32:26 +0000 http://presbyterytwincities.org/?p=4603#comment-538 David, Thank you for your response. I am continuing to learn the issues associated with blogging. It was not and is not my intent to endorse the Fellowship. However, especially in the early days following their gathering last Summer there was a great deal of confusion and anxiety about what took place at their meeting and what that meant for PTCA and the PC(USA). It is my position that to address something with factual information, presented in an objective manner is better than ignoring an issue that is causing intense discussion. Providing a link seemed at the time to be a way of closing the communication loop for anyone who might distrust my wording or interpretation. Your point is well taken that to leave it in place this long could be viewed as a form of tacit approval. I will leave this up for a couple of days for folk to see this exchange between you and I and then drop it from the webpage. Chaz David,
Thank you for your response. I am continuing to learn the issues associated with blogging. It was not and is not my intent to endorse the Fellowship. However, especially in the early days following their gathering last Summer there was a great deal of confusion and anxiety about what took place at their meeting and what that meant for PTCA and the PC(USA). It is my position that to address something with factual information, presented in an objective manner is better than ignoring an issue that is causing intense discussion. Providing a link seemed at the time to be a way of closing the communication loop for anyone who might distrust my wording or interpretation. Your point is well taken that to leave it in place this long could be viewed as a form of tacit approval. I will leave this up for a couple of days for folk to see this exchange between you and I and then drop it from the webpage.
Chaz

]]> Comment on Musings on the Fellowship by David Van Dyke http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/2011/09/musings-on-the-fellowship/#comment-537 David Van Dyke Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:07:20 +0000 http://presbyterytwincities.org/?p=4603#comment-537 Chaz, I think it is highly inappropriate for you as EP to have a link to the Fellowship not only in your blog but on the Presbytery's website. They are a schismatic movement hurting the PC(U.S.A.). Your supposedly middle of the road approach to them does not represent the view of the vast majority of this presbytery. David Chaz, I think it is highly inappropriate for you as EP to have a link to the Fellowship not only in your blog but on the Presbytery’s website. They are a schismatic movement hurting the PC(U.S.A.). Your supposedly middle of the road approach to them does not represent the view of the vast majority of this presbytery.
David

]]> Comment on Learn About “Gracious Separation” by Rex Cooper http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/2012/02/learn-about-gracious-separation/#comment-533 Rex Cooper Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:28:17 +0000 http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/?p=5737#comment-533 In reading the Gracious dismissal policy I am struck by 2 things: If we need to look at going backwards 2 years to our membership numbers at that point, should we then allow those members who have moved/or left the congregation to vote? If we are counting them towards a quorum count it only makes sense that they be allowed to attend and vote if the so desire, otherwise the decision to count them seems unfair. Recently I contacted over 30 members whom had moved out of town (most of these were college students who joined our church as youth) and are now members of other churches where they are living but our church was never asked for letters of transfer nor were we informed by the member. These people have requested that their names be removed from our church roll. Why should we have to count them now if they left and never contacted us? Question #2, Why should members who are unable attend a congregational meeting due to age related infirmities, or whom are deployed in our military, be denied the right to vote? This seems very insensitive to people who may have been extremely involved in the growth and nurturing of our congregation but, due to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to attend a congregational meeting. If people are able to attend and choose not to that is one thing, but if they desire to participate by execicising their rights as members, denying them seems wrong to me. In reading the Gracious dismissal policy I am struck by 2 things:

If we need to look at going backwards 2 years to our membership numbers at that point, should we then allow those members who have moved/or left the congregation to vote? If we are counting them towards a quorum count it only makes sense that they be allowed to attend and vote if the so desire, otherwise the decision to count them seems unfair. Recently I contacted over 30 members whom had moved out of town (most of these were college students who joined our church as youth) and are now members of other churches where they are living but our church was never asked for letters of transfer nor were we informed by the member. These people have requested that their names be removed from our church roll. Why should we have to count them now if they left and never contacted us?

Question #2, Why should members who are unable attend a congregational meeting due to age related infirmities, or whom are deployed in our military, be denied the right to vote? This seems very insensitive to people who may have been extremely involved in the growth and nurturing of our congregation but, due to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to attend a congregational meeting. If people are able to attend and choose not to that is one thing, but if they desire to participate by execicising their rights as members, denying them seems wrong to me.

]]> Comment on Job Posting: Stated Clerk by Search Begins for Stated Clerk : Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/2012/01/job-posting-stated-clerk/#comment-527 Search Begins for Stated Clerk : Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:08:53 +0000 http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/?p=5724#comment-527 [...] Position Description Print PDF Share this:FacebookEmail [...] [...] Position Description Print PDF Share this:FacebookEmail [...]

]]> Comment on Why This? Why Now? by Stephanie Anthony http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/2012/01/why-this-why-now/#comment-526 Stephanie Anthony Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:57:29 +0000 http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/?p=5690#comment-526 Thanks for the added time and the more central location. I was open to hosting, but figured that wouldn't be the best spot for others. I'll be there the 16th to hear the discussions. Thanks for the added time and the more central location. I was open to hosting, but figured that wouldn’t be the best spot for others. I’ll be there the 16th to hear the discussions.

]]> Comment on Why This? Why Now? by Chaz Ruark http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/2012/01/why-this-why-now/#comment-510 Chaz Ruark Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:45:04 +0000 http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/?p=5690#comment-510 Katie, Thank you for pointing out that poor choice of words. I should have had someone proofread it before posting. In writing the blog the thought of sending the message that it was a done deal did not occur to me. To me the line showed my faith and trust in the members of Presbytery who have been involved in writing this draft. To avoid further confusion or misunderstanding I will edit that line out (as soon as I figure out how to do that) Input from Presbyters in the coming weeks will be taken very seriously as a final draft is presented at the March meeting. Katie,
Thank you for pointing out that poor choice of words. I should have had someone proofread it before posting. In writing the blog the thought of sending the message that it was a done deal did not occur to me. To me the line showed my faith and trust in the members of Presbytery who have been involved in writing this draft. To avoid further confusion or misunderstanding I will edit that line out (as soon as I figure out how to do that) Input from Presbyters in the coming weeks will be taken very seriously as a final draft is presented at the March meeting.

]]> Comment on Why This? Why Now? by Kristine Holmgren http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/2012/01/why-this-why-now/#comment-506 Kristine Holmgren Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:45:51 +0000 http://www.presbyterytwincities.org/?p=5690#comment-506 I'm one of the folks who phoned the Presbytery, asking why we needed this at this time. Thanks, Chaz, for this comprehensive overview (well written too!) on this important topic. I'm retired and have no dog in this fight anymore . . . and throughout the decades have seen this "divisiveness" rise and fall. To those of you who fight the fight, good luck! My experience (and my relationship with the "holy") lead me to believe that God is working a purpose out in all this - and that the "Lord of the conscience" is present in all this struggle. You're all in my prayers. - KH I’m one of the folks who phoned the Presbytery, asking why we needed this at this time. Thanks, Chaz, for this comprehensive overview (well written too!) on this important topic. I’m retired and have no dog in this fight anymore . . . and throughout the decades have seen this “divisiveness” rise and fall. To those of you who fight the fight, good luck! My experience (and my relationship with the “holy”) lead me to believe that God is working a purpose out in all this – and that the “Lord of the conscience” is present in all this struggle. You’re all in my prayers. – KH

]]>