By the way, if that's you let me say I wish it was me.
There was something in the article which has drawn my attention that I feel needs to be shared. This comes from the Gazette article:
The final vote tally was 1689 church members in favor of the split with 80 opposed, the church announced during an evening service.Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/presbyterian-137338-historic-downtown.html#ixzz1t4GN3td0
The shift to the new denomination may cause some members to leave, acknowledged Alison Murray, staff leader, after the results were announced.
“We grieve that and don’t want that to happen,” she said.
The church now has to try to identify those members who voted against the split and help them find new local churches within the Presbyterian Church, USA, if they want to leave, she said.
What upsets me is that it is not up to the congregation to show the door to those who dissent.
One of the questions that has permeated this process is "in the event of a split, who gets the property." Here's the Cliff Notes version of this part of Presbyterian Polity. To paraphrase, the Book of Order says property is held in trust by the Presbytery and when questions of "which group within a split get to hold the property" arises it's the Presbytery and not the congregation that decides. (There are limited exceptions to this rule, but I don't know if they apply to First-Springs.)
Obviously if the Presbytery does not agree with the congregation about the property issues, this is going to play itself out in civil courts instead of church courts again.
But in advance, First Springs has decided it is the congregation who stays and for those who aren't comfortable can find another place to worship (and we'll help!). The congregation and its leadership has taken it upon itself to usurp Presbyterian Polity by creating a process to show dissenters the way to a place where they'll be more at home. Sorry, this isn't pastoral care, this is laying a siege.
I pray it all works out well for First-Springs. I pray all works out for Pueblo Presbytery. And I hope the Reverend Singleton makes his way into the history books as the father of a new denomination. I want to wish you all love and hope, but I think I'll first offer that love to the 80 people who have become disenfranchised by their own pastors, friends, and neighbors.
It is so sad when the church reflects the worst of society instead of being a beacon of love, forgiveness, and charity. We have a couple of churches that may be leaving the denomination our Presbytery is working on a policy about the property etc so they are ready if they do. The article certainly did come off with a seek out the dissentors tone.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies if it is not appropriate to post this comment, and I'm truly not trying to start an argument here, but do you not think that the 1689 people who left, did so because they felt long disenfranchised by pastors, friends, neighbors, and their denomination, and felt there was no other way that they could be faithful to what they believe Scripture requires?
ReplyDeleteKimberly, everybody's welcome in the pool along with their comments.
DeleteIn my opinion, saying "the 1689 people who left, did so because they felt long disenfranchised by pastors, friends, neighbors," is in this case not a viable point. It looks as if these people mentioned are not disenfranchised with one another in the least. On this point they seem homogeneous. Now as for your comment about "their denomination," that is viable. That point is valid at least to the 1689.
Now I ask, where in scripture does it say "When we disagree, majority rules and we're willing to help those on the opposing side find someplace else to worship."
After re-reading your post and giving some thought off and on yesterday to your response, I think I'm coming to a better understanding and agreement with you on what you are saying in this post. Again, my apologies - without going into detail I had a horrible week last week & am still recovering, and I probably have no business trying to do any kind of thinking on a deeper level.
DeleteWhen I first read the article that you linked (which I read before I read your post), and I read the part about them helping to find those on the opposing side someplace else to worship, I read that pastorally. "We still love you as our brothers and sisters in Christ even though we don't agree with one another, and we want you to find a place of worship where your needs will be met (not that that is what worship is about in any way, shape or form, but that's another comment). But, again, after giving some more thought to it and re-reading it, I think I'm now hearing it more in the tone in which you are hearing it. It sounds for all the world like they are kicking them out of the church, and no, there isn't any Scriptural warrant for that. The only situation I can think of is the Johannine Community of 1 John, but that was a Christological issue. While we could probably discuss whether this is a Christological issue for 1st Pres Colorado Springs, I don't think it would be an apples-apples comparison with 1 John.
My understanding of the separation agreement, as least as I think I read it in the article, is that 1st Pres is going to pay the presbytery a sum of money over time for the property, but I may be wrong.
If you haven't already figured it out, I stand more on the conservative side theologically. That said, I wonder about this new Fellowship group or the Eco (quite frankly, I'm very confused as to the differences betwee the two groups). I read that there is already disagreement on theological issues. My husband says that splitting off is part of the Protestant DNA, but at what point do we stop? Because if it's always about getting our own way, and fnding the church that agrees with *us*, we'll never stop splitting off.
Sorry, I've gone off on a tangent here and gotten off base. Thanks for the conversation. I'll be checking back in on your blog.
Upon further review, my comments about "laying siege" and "playing out in civil court" were unfounded. The article clearly states First-Springs and Pueblo Presbytery are working it out and coming to accommodation. This is as it should be. This is a much healthier way of separating than some congregations and Presbyteries take and both parties deserve much credit for taking a higher road.
DeleteI too appreciate when people comment and discussion follows. I am also a great fan of rabbit trails because they can take us to very interesting places.
God bless and stay in touch.