A non-geographic Presbytery for SA?

Posted in News

Last week, a gathering of approximately 70 Uniting Church members met to progress a conversation about establishing a non-geographic Presbytery(s) for South Australia. The meeting was called after a time of prayer, with some Uniting Church members engaging in 40 Days of Prayer following the same-gender marriage decision made at the National Assembly meeting which was held at Box Hill in Melbourne from 8 July – 14 July.

The Assembly decided to honour the diversity of Christian belief among members by deciding to hold two equal and distinct statements of belief on marriage. The decision allows ministers and celebrants in the Uniting Church the freedom to conduct or to refuse same-gender marriages.

Although the creation of a non-geographic Presbytery is still in its infancy, the meeting provided a discussion forum to flesh out how such a Presbytery might be established within the bounds of the SA Synod.  Whilst the gathering was initiated as a result of the Assembly’s same- gender marriage decision, it also provided a platform to discuss greater missional possibilities for the Uniting Church in South Australia by initiating a conversation about a different structure for the current Presbytery and Synod.

Preliminary discussions regarding a non-geographic Presbytery viewed the Presbytery interrelating with the councils of the UCA with particular emphasis on their evangelical distinctive.

A three page framework was presented to those gathered. The framework outlined the Mission, Vision and Values, Structure and Ethos, Membership, Leadership and Statement of Belief.

Those gathered were asked to split into smaller groups of five to discuss the three page framework and more specifically, what people liked and disliked about the document.

In summary, the favoured elements of the framework included: evangelical action, clarity, being able to stay within the polity of the Uniting Church and the Basis of Union, that it was proactive, rather than reactive. Some of the dislikes included: the state based polity, polarisation, the amount of work and uncertainty in relation to progressing the establishment of a non-geographic Presbytery, whether it was for the whole people of God, whether it would take away from the mission of the church and that the framework document didn’t celebrate marriage exclusively.

After much discussion the group was in favour of progressing the concept further. As the meeting drew to a close, it was highlighted that Assembly tensions could not be solved through a new Presbytery and that many things won’t change with Assembly. Those in attendance were invited to continue working through the concept of a non-geographic Presbytery, that it would be a transparent process and that regular communications would be provided to interested members.

For futher information, please contact:

Andy Hogarth 0413 995 219, Turn on Javascript! 

Barry Littleford 0413 344 172, Turn on Javascript!

Jonathan Davies 0413 996 407, Turn on Javascript!

More from News

Subscribe to receive News articles by email >

Comments

Comments (3)

  1. Max Howland 19 september 2018, 17:44 Link
    In SA we already have such a system — it's called Networks. I don't think we need another system overlaid across that — and we should not be importing it just because people feel it is necessary in Synods with multiple Presbyteries.
    reply
    1. Scott D 19 september 2018, 23:21 Link
      I can see some benefits (and some negative consequences) in breaking the Presbytery of South Australia back into smaller presbyteries. Before I feel equipped to discuss the pros and cons of a non-geographic presbytery founded «with particular emphasis on their evangelical distinctive», I need to understand the terms.

      1) If a non-geographic presbytery separates out of the PofSA, what is the remainder? Do we say the Synod of SA consists of one Non-Gegraphic Presbytery and (one or more) Geographic Presbytery(ies) with holes where the non-geographic congregations fit?

      2) If the Non-Geographic Presbytery has an emphasis on its «evangelical distinctive», what is/are the alternate pool of indistinctive labels? What are they called and why would a Non-Geographic Presbytery feel a need to emphasise a distinction?

      I hope the reports and proposal rationales for the Synod meeting in eight or so weeks time provide clear explanations, so that members are able to have an informed discussion on the issues involved.
      reply
      1. Andy Hogarth 20 september 2018, 15:55 Link
        Hi Scott, the answer is “yes”. A multiple presbytery system, in my view, could equally accomodate congregations that don’t want to decide on some of these matters. There could be a “default” option for congregations to continue in a presbytery if they don’t want to opt in for one of the non geographic presbyteries. Max Howland’s comment is also helpful. The networks have helped in this regard and perhaps it’s time to take out learnings from them if we consider presbyteries beyond geographical bounds.
        reply
        1. Scott D 20 september 2018, 20:34 Link
          Thanks Andy. I think you only answered the first question. The second one remains, rephrased (after a bit more reading) as «What is the label/meaning of a Protestant Christian (or congregation), especially in the UCA-SA, without an Evangelical distinctive, and why would either group wish to emphasise a distinction rather than focus on what we all have in common?»
          reply
        2. Andy Hogarth 20 september 2018, 16:02 Link
          Hi Scott and Max,
          The NGPs build on the learning from networks and bring those learnings into the polity of the Uca.
          NGPs focus on missional distinctives rather than simply theological distinctives. There could be multiple presbyteries including a default presbytery for congregations happy to stay as they are.
          Andy
          reply
          1. Andy Hogarth 20 september 2018, 16:08 Link
            My apologies for double dipping in comments. I thought the first one didn’t go through!
            reply
            1. Scott D 20 september 2018, 20:26 Link
              That's fine. I guess the comments are moderated and reviewed before being made public. Max's was not visible when I made my comment either.
              reply
            2. David Hoffman 26 september 2018, 14:17 Link
              A year ago there was a paper brought to the Presbytery/Synod which raised the question of whether we should be going back to multiple Presbyteries. This new non-geographic presbytery proposal is certainly a different way of doing that, but I think provides a way forward for some of the concerns over the present situation which were raised in that earlier paper.
              reply