Well at Armidale UC, most people seem to have accepted R84 (without necessarily agreeing with it in total). We have not had a congregational meeting about it, nor have we had any real discussion raised at Church Council or Elders.
Presbytery has been a different story - I was not there, but I'll say a couple of things based on what I have heard:
1. Where congregations have resolved in opposition to R84, members representing the minority view in those congregations are put in a difficult position at presbytery - should they voice their personal views, or should they be moderated by the congregational view? In practice, I don't think there is a simple answer to that, either.
2. It appears there have been sentiments expressed along the lines of "less talk, more action" - that we have been discussing the issues for years, and only got ourselves deeper into the mess; that the presbytery needs to act decisively and quickly, for various reasons. It hardly needs to be said that this is at odds with R84 itself, and with consensus procedures. But I'm sure it has some influence on people choosing not to voice their views.
3. I think it would be unfair to criticise the chairing of meetings - these are not easy meetings.
NENW Presbytery is having a special meeting on 13 Sept, where it seems likely that adoption of a "policy statement" will be proposed. It seems to me that there is a high risk that undue haste will lead to a bad job in this matter. (By bad job, I mean bad wording, open to ambiguous interpretations, unnecessarily divisive, the whole box & dice.)
But I suppose the big question about all of the things which Wendie is observing is: is there any orchestration going on behind the scenes. Personally, I doubt that is the case (though I may be wrong - what do others think?).
I think it is more likely that lots of individuals are acting out of the anger generated by the media sensationalism, Fred Nile comments, EMU statements, etc. If that is the case then there are good reasons not to act hastily, and it is appropriate for chairpersons to haul on the reins, even if that attracts criticism.
Kind regards, Lindsay Brash.
At 12:17 PM 5/09/03 +1000, Wendie Wilkie wrote:
I am seeing a growing number of emails and letters expressing dissatisfaction and alarm over the way discussion and decisions are being taken in presbyteries and congregations in relationship to proposal 84 and the assembly processes. This correspondence indicates poor chairing, alternate voices not being heard, poor wording of proposals that are unclear but not allowed to be clarified, lack of time to read wording, lack of discussion, rushed meetings, generally not following the process laid down in the manual for meetings, assumptions that people should already have a mind about the proposals being put forward, some congregational meetings not really representing the total membership as some people avoid the conflict, or do not get notice of the meeting. This would seem to be at odds with much of the content of the letters from congregations and presbyteries sent to us who criticize the assembly for its processes. Is this a pattern others see or is it not really representative of what is happening?
Wendie Wilkie Associate General Secretary ph 02 8267 4203 This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this communication. If you have received this message in error please delete the email and notify the sender.
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/lists.htm ------------------------------------------------------
