Comments for Presbytery Sentinel

Comment on On Rebukes and Advent by Jim Bennett

Jim Bennett — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:54:46 +0000

The feeling (sentiment) is mutual, even though I am not familiar with the details. But, perhaps God him/herself is angry, and causing the destruction. As you note, this kind of, sort of, thing has happened before. We were at a service this past Sunday which was generally not satisfactory, but the story of Moses being stopped on the mountain at the edge of the Land of Milk and Honey was used both for scripture and in the sermon. My own reaction was contemporary: Hey, folks, Moses was 120. Could it be that God was not really mad at Moses, that his “words” chastising him for making a mistake were for public consumption of those reading the Torah and needing the discipline, and that, in fact, God said “Moses, you did it. It is even better on the other side. Go in peace. I will take care of your flock as I always have.” What kind of message would that be, today?

Peace be with you in your work. That work is going on all over by many of us.

Regards,

Jim

Comment on On Rebukes and Advent by Paulotarso

Paulotarso — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 02:34:11 +0000

Danna
I felt really sad over those things taking place at our meeting, as well. That group is very aggressive. I haven’t seen such an attitude before, so I felt powerless.
Paulo de Tarso Ribeiro

Comment on Split the Presbytery? by Sam Schreiner

Sam Schreiner — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:43:54 +0000

What Dana seems to be raising is not too different from a congregation that has two morning worship services with different times, worship elements and styles of music. While many who attend those services may feel greater affinity to “their hour of service” they are still a part of the whole church. A presbytery with different groups of affinity and accountability can still share support, conversation, executives and clerks. Two worshipping congregations still share a place, a pastor and even an admin or two. I would rather see this idea tried than force us to fight out each ordination and overture we (sometimes deeply) disagree over.

Comment on Options? Options! by graywolf37

graywolf37 — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:36:46 +0000

Dana, thanks for putting this up. Seems like lots of “options”. One thing I noticed, though, is that everything seems to turn around “ordination standards”, i.e. whether or not chastity should be held to in our book of order.

That to me is only a “side effect” or “symptom’. The issue is authority of Scripture. Is it truly God’s Word, inerrant and true, or man’s interpretation?

As the Bard says, “therein lies the rub”.

Comment on Split the Presbytery? by Dana

Dana — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:48:46 +0000

We probably can’t afford two Presbyteries if the model is a continuation of the past. But if we are essentially a faith community of people who are joining God in mission in the world money would have nothing to do it.

Comment on Split the Presbytery? by David Mellon

David Mellon — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:41:38 +0000

Interesting article by Dana re: maybe splitting the Presbytery. Sounds hard to do. If central cities were put together for example, would such include (besides Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport) Boston? In that event geography becomes important because it is highly unlikely that travel would not be a significant question.
Also since some churches are already pulling out (homosexual questions & our GA decisions), would those churches left be split between conservative & liberal?
Also since our Presbytery has less than 10K members now and is it 30+churches, not sure if we could afford a Presbytery that was any smaller.
It is a puzzlement.

I am an honorably retired member of PSNE and have been since l972 if I recall correctly. I was the exec. of both the Capitol Region Conf. of Churches and the New Britain Area Conf. of Churches.

Comment on Split the Presbytery? by Barbara Hager

Barbara Hager — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 21:09:07 +0000

I appreciate all the comments regarding our connectedness, theological differences, and what hypothetically two presbyterys might mean, spiritually and otherwise. But, when it comes to practicality (sorry, can’t help that bent): I don’t think we can financially afford two presbytery’s – we can barely afford one. Would each presbytery have its own stated clerk, executive, etc.??

Comment on Split the Presbytery? by Dana Lindsley

Dana Lindsley — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:11:47 +0000

The reality is this: we are separating and if that separation means going to a different denomination then we lose any interaction at all. The benefit of having two presbyteries within one is that we at least give ourselves the opportunity to interact and benefit from each other’s perspective, and if, Lord willing, we want to become one again the way is easy.

Comment on Split the Presbytery? by Arthur Shippee

Arthur Shippee — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:19:10 +0000

(Btw, my 1st post is listed as 1:16 a.m., Sat. July 2 — but here in the same time zone as PSNE, it’s 9:18 p.m., Fri. July 1. Where are the hosting servers? Iceland?)

Comment on Split the Presbytery? by Arthur Shippee

Arthur Shippee — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:16:49 +0000

Echoing, I think, Jim Bennett, one aspect I’ve come to value in a geographic (i.e., less coherent by other measures) presbytery is needing to come to grips with people of (sometimes widely) different views, esp. when you come to find them nice & likable. George Orwell noticed the same thing — it was hard to be politically polemical with folks you knew personally.

If a difference between friends and family is that you can pick one and not the other, and if Christians are sisters and brothers in the body of Christ (and given the uncomfortable answer of Jesus to the question of who is ones neighbor), then the annoying parts of a geographic presbytery may be God’s blessing.