<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Assembly Committee #4: Middle Governing Bodies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/index.php/2010/06/08/assembly-committee-4-middle-governing-bodies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/index.php/2010/06/08/assembly-committee-4-middle-governing-bodies/</link>
	<description>equipping presbyterians for the work of the church</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:27:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Ritchie</title>
		<link>http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/index.php/2010/06/08/assembly-committee-4-middle-governing-bodies/comment-page-1/#comment-62</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Ritchie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/?p=155#comment-62</guid>
		<description>Sorry, Bob. I put the quotation marks too wide. They should have been after &quot;now.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, Bob. I put the quotation marks too wide. They should have been after &#8220;now.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Ritchie</title>
		<link>http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/index.php/2010/06/08/assembly-committee-4-middle-governing-bodies/comment-page-1/#comment-61</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Ritchie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:58:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/?p=155#comment-61</guid>
		<description>Bob,

Provocative article. You say, &quot;I have been chasing after this COGA commission for a couple of months now.Have you picked up the phone and called Eileen Lindner?&quot; Last I heard she was one of the &quot;troika&quot; of Presbyters in the Presbytery of the Palisdades: 201-599-1111; ewlrev@aol.com.

If you send her this article, I&#039;m sure she would want to respond (if the issues are as important as you say--and I think they are).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob,</p>
<p>Provocative article. You say, &#8220;I have been chasing after this COGA commission for a couple of months now.Have you picked up the phone and called Eileen Lindner?&#8221; Last I heard she was one of the &#8220;troika&#8221; of Presbyters in the Presbytery of the Palisdades: 201-599-1111; <a href="mailto:ewlrev@aol.com">ewlrev@aol.com</a>.</p>
<p>If you send her this article, I&#8217;m sure she would want to respond (if the issues are as important as you say&#8211;and I think they are).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clark Cowden</title>
		<link>http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/index.php/2010/06/08/assembly-committee-4-middle-governing-bodies/comment-page-1/#comment-58</link>
		<dc:creator>Clark Cowden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 02:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/?p=155#comment-58</guid>
		<description>Great posting Bob.  I think the COGA commission is a game changer.  It is the sleeper that will be the most important action of this Assembly.  It has the potential to impact how we function as a church for a long time into the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great posting Bob.  I think the COGA commission is a game changer.  It is the sleeper that will be the most important action of this Assembly.  It has the potential to impact how we function as a church for a long time into the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linda Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/index.php/2010/06/08/assembly-committee-4-middle-governing-bodies/comment-page-1/#comment-57</link>
		<dc:creator>Linda Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 01:59:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/?p=155#comment-57</guid>
		<description>Just some thoughts on this:

What do you see that makes you say &quot;the need to act differently is evident and urgent&quot;....? 

This commission, along with the change in the Form of Government(NFOG), may create a scenario that could be out of controll.  At least now there are  boundaries that the current Book of Order allow   in making decisions within and between different governing bodies.  Although some ignore these boundaries,at least they are written and agreed upon. 

 I see the acceptance of the NFOG as along side this commission being both equally important in this GA.  They are interconnected as there will be a breakdown in order and major changes with
the accetance of this new  form of government.  There will
be some confusion as it is implemented.( Grady P sounds confussed already
as to the nature and purpose of these commissions)

The qestion for me is will these changes mean that the GA  (and COGA) have more power to force their agenda on the local churches......
or will churches be able to take stands on issue that they support and to join with others who support common mission and agendas.
Or is this an attempt to minimize the majority making policy (vote of the
Presbyteries) and allow more local option.  

There is a group of leaders who dislike the majority rule in our governing
bodies to set agenda  In a way this
seems like a move to allow the minority view to do what ever they want and still stay in the denomination.

How does this eliminate the connectional nature of our denomination
under the Book of Order and the Confessions if groups are allowed
leaway to do and confess and join together with opposting 
ways of doing mission.  Each Presbytery could be different with a different hand book that orders their group.  It is a more congregational style, but less connectional.  

Is there a fear that, if this commission is not established and if movement is not allowed,  more churches and maybe even
whole Presbyteries will leave the denomination?  Is that the motivation
to create a commision like this to allow movement within the
denomination? 

This movement  -&quot; the great emergence&quot;??? - will be interesting to watch and lets Pray it is God&#039;s will that is the out come.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just some thoughts on this:</p>
<p>What do you see that makes you say &#8220;the need to act differently is evident and urgent&#8221;&#8230;.? </p>
<p>This commission, along with the change in the Form of Government(NFOG), may create a scenario that could be out of controll.  At least now there are  boundaries that the current Book of Order allow   in making decisions within and between different governing bodies.  Although some ignore these boundaries,at least they are written and agreed upon. </p>
<p> I see the acceptance of the NFOG as along side this commission being both equally important in this GA.  They are interconnected as there will be a breakdown in order and major changes with<br />
the accetance of this new  form of government.  There will<br />
be some confusion as it is implemented.( Grady P sounds confussed already<br />
as to the nature and purpose of these commissions)</p>
<p>The qestion for me is will these changes mean that the GA  (and COGA) have more power to force their agenda on the local churches&#8230;&#8230;<br />
or will churches be able to take stands on issue that they support and to join with others who support common mission and agendas.<br />
Or is this an attempt to minimize the majority making policy (vote of the<br />
Presbyteries) and allow more local option.  </p>
<p>There is a group of leaders who dislike the majority rule in our governing<br />
bodies to set agenda  In a way this<br />
seems like a move to allow the minority view to do what ever they want and still stay in the denomination.</p>
<p>How does this eliminate the connectional nature of our denomination<br />
under the Book of Order and the Confessions if groups are allowed<br />
leaway to do and confess and join together with opposting<br />
ways of doing mission.  Each Presbytery could be different with a different hand book that orders their group.  It is a more congregational style, but less connectional.  </p>
<p>Is there a fear that, if this commission is not established and if movement is not allowed,  more churches and maybe even<br />
whole Presbyteries will leave the denomination?  Is that the motivation<br />
to create a commision like this to allow movement within the<br />
denomination? </p>
<p>This movement  -&#8221; the great emergence&#8221;??? &#8211; will be interesting to watch and lets Pray it is God&#8217;s will that is the out come.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: will spotts</title>
		<link>http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/index.php/2010/06/08/assembly-committee-4-middle-governing-bodies/comment-page-1/#comment-56</link>
		<dc:creator>will spotts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:51:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/?p=155#comment-56</guid>
		<description>A rather evil / sinister idea occurs to me.  I see the ability to alter presbyteries.  I&#039;m wondering - if this does not have mechanisms preventing it, if it could be used to re-form presbyteries in order to get desired vote outcomes - sort of like redistricting in secular politics?  Suppose, for example, that you know that one very large church is influential in a particular presbytery.  That presbytery is about neutral or evenly balanced on the votes that come to it (e.g. ordination standards, confessional issues, etc.), but the church is very staunchly to one side ... let&#039;s just say, conservative ...   Then suppose a neighboring presbytery is already overwhelmingly conservative.  Why not slice that large, influential church out of the moderate presbytery and place it in the conservative  one?  That way, on issues that required presbytery approval, you might go from 2 no votes, to 1 yes and 1 no.  

Seems like a lot of work - but I&#039;m not so sure that strategies of this kind are in any way out of the question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A rather evil / sinister idea occurs to me.  I see the ability to alter presbyteries.  I&#8217;m wondering &#8211; if this does not have mechanisms preventing it, if it could be used to re-form presbyteries in order to get desired vote outcomes &#8211; sort of like redistricting in secular politics?  Suppose, for example, that you know that one very large church is influential in a particular presbytery.  That presbytery is about neutral or evenly balanced on the votes that come to it (e.g. ordination standards, confessional issues, etc.), but the church is very staunchly to one side &#8230; let&#8217;s just say, conservative &#8230;   Then suppose a neighboring presbytery is already overwhelmingly conservative.  Why not slice that large, influential church out of the moderate presbytery and place it in the conservative  one?  That way, on issues that required presbytery approval, you might go from 2 no votes, to 1 yes and 1 no.  </p>
<p>Seems like a lot of work &#8211; but I&#8217;m not so sure that strategies of this kind are in any way out of the question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

