NB. This is archived material from Assembly 2004

Home » What's Presbyterian? » Church governance structure » General Assembly 06 » Reports from Assembly 2004 » Council of Assembly » E1: Council of Assembly Addendum

Council of Assembly Addendum

Recommendations

8. That resourcing mission remain a key part of the services provided nationally by the General Assembly with the following organisation:

(a) The establishment of a National Mission Enabler position

(b) The continuation of the Pacific Island Co-Director position

(c) The disestablishment of the regional Co-directors’ positions of the present Mission Resource Team (MRT).

9. That the report from the Council of Assembly outlining a way forward concerning homosexual persons in leadership in the Presbyterian Church be adopted.

10. That the Assembly advise the congregations, courts and members of the Church that groups or networks within and through which convictions about homosexual persons in leadership may be recognised include: Presbyterian AFFIRM, the Association of Reconciling Congregations and Churches (ARCC), the National Association of Presbyterian Evangelical Churches (NAPEC), the cultural groups of the Pacific Islanders Synod, the Council of Asian Congregations and/or its constituent groups.

11. That the Assembly, mindful of deeply held convictions and sensitivities on all sides and debates, urges everyone to respect all other persons, to avoid depersonalising others, caricaturing their convictions or questioning their motivations.

12. That the Focal Identity Statement Task Group, with additional members, formulate a subordinate standard to replace the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and present it for consideration at a future Assembly.

13. That presbyteries review parish boundaries in the context of strategic planning for mission and in consultation with parishes, and abolish or retain boundaries as will best serve the mission of the church.

14. That the proposals in the Nominating Process Review report regarding the election of Moderator be adopted.

15. That the proposals in the Nominating Process Review report regarding the appointing of people to Assembly bodies be adopted and the Council of Assembly implement them.

16. That the Book of Order and Judicial Reference Group draft amending legislation arising from the Nominating Process Review Report for presentation to the next General Assembly.

17. That the Nominating Process Review Task Group be thanked and discharged.

18. That the proposals in the report of the Role of Moderator Task Group be adopted.

19. That Appendix D-8 in the Book of Order be amended by replacing the existing first section with the wording set out in the report of the Role of Moderator Task Group.

<typohead type="2">Report

</typohead>

<typohead type="3">1. Resourcing for Mission – A New Initiative</typohead>

Our priority as a church is to be mission driven. As part of the review of the direction of the church, and recognising the need to operate within current financial constraints, Council of Assembly has considered the national component of resourcing parishes and presbyteries for mission.

Currently the Mission Resource Team (MRT) operates on a regional and national basis providing a range of services including strategic planning, ongoing training and support for ministers, study materials, Human Resource advice, administration and so on.

Council initiated a feedback process with representatives of presbyteries, Te Aka Puaho, Pacific Islanders’ Synod, the Council of Asian Congregations and the Co-directors. In light of the feedback and the policy recommendations from Equipping the Leadership (EtheL) and Resourcing for Mission (ReforM) Policy Groups, Council of Assembly brings to the Assembly proposals concerning the mission resourcing function.

The feedback on the role of MRT has been mixed. Many presbyteries and parishes who have experienced the work of the MRT were very appreciative. Council affirms the substantial contribution MRT Co-Directors have made to the Church’s mission.

At the same time questions were raised as to the effectiveness of the current model. In some presbyteries, including those where MRT has had little or no presence in recent years, resources are being accessed from a variety of alternative sources. Financial constraints have also meant Council of Assembly has not been able to fill vacancies in the MRT.

In the changed circumstances, Council proposes a new model of national mission resourcing that will best use the resources available, building on the work of the School of Ministry

The Establishment of a National Mission Enabler Position

This is seen as a crucial position in the new direction Council is suggesting. Developing and maintaining healthy congregations is the focus for mission resourcing. The key is a concept of healthy congregations that are mission focused and part of a Presbytery that is healthy and mission focused. At the risk of making "healthy" and "mission" new catch words with a limited shelf life, Council is committed to working towards encouraging parishes and Presbyteries to take a serious look at the context of mission in which they find themselves and to look seriously at how they are placed theologically as well as practically to engage in community changing mission.

It is recognised by Council, and reinforced during recent consultations, that many parishes are already well on the way to mission health. It is hoped that more and more parishes will find new life and capacity within themselves with the encouragement and assistance of both regional and national partners. Council believes it is prudent and important that there be an overall view of mission on a national basis. The National Mission Enabler would be responsible for:

establishing links and projects;

coordinating the release of funding in Presbyteries and Synods to further the implementation of the Healthy Congregations Policy. For example, this may include parish to parish links, parish/presbytery to national Presbyterian Church links, nationally available resources to Presbytery projects - whatever is permissible and workable;

working with the School of Ministry and the Synod of Otago and Southland funded position of Lay and Recognised Ministries to provide mission resourcing to ministers and lay people on an ongoing basis. Council wants to build on what the School of Ministry is doing. Recent Presbytery consultation has also highlighted the need to consider the skills and gifts of those in lay leadership and ministries and to ensure that training and support continue to be available to them also. It is envisaged that the position will be located in Dunedin for this reason, although Wellington or Auckland are also possibilities.

</typolist>

Council recognises that this position carries with it a large responsibility, will need a person who can work across the diversity of the Church, and be innovative and strategic in their thinking. This position will be funded from the General Assembly budget.

The Continuation of the Pacific Islands Co-Director Position

Council recommends this position continue in its current form. It will be funded from the General Assembly budget for the remainder of the 2004/05 financial year. The Pacific Islanders’ Synod has made valuable representations to Council on the desirability of a position linked to the Synod in conjunction with their plan to have a Pacific Islanders’ Resource Centre based in Auckland. The Synod has made a formal written approach to Council offering to fund a significant portion of the cost of a Pacific Islanders’ position from Synod Resources. Details are still to be worked out, discussions which would be facilitated by the National Mission Enabler.

Asian Congregations
Council has also received a similar offer from the Council of Asian Congregations, which would also involve the National Mission Enabler.

Youth Ministry
Council has approved the continuation of the National Youth Ministry Position funded by the General Assembly Budget.

Disestablishment of Regional Co-directors’ positions
Arising from the recent Presbytery feedback, recommendations from policy groups and taking into account financial constraints, it is recommended that the MRT be disestablished. The positions affected are regional co-directors:

Southern South Island (signficantly funded by the Synod of Otago and Southland);

Southern North Island

Northern North Island Positions

Northern South Island (currently not filled)

</typolist>

The consequence of this is that Presbyteries and parishes will not have access to nationally funded regional mission resource personnel.

Human Resources
Human resources management currently being carried out by the MRT and the AES, particularly policy development, employment advice, resources and advice on legal matters such as sexual misconduct, will continue to be available through a proposed Human Resources position located in the Assembly Office.

<typohead type="3">2. A Way Forward</typohead>

In October 2003 a Judicial Commission of the Assembly released its finding on an appeal against a decision of the National Assessment Work Group declining to assess a candidate on the basis that the candidate was living in a same-gender relationship. The Commission found in favour of the appellants and the candidate was duly assessed.

In reaching this conclusion the Commission reported its view that the Church’s current position is that defined by the 1994 Assembly; namely, that:

"(a) to date no Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has specifically endorsed the ordination of practising homosexuals,

(b) here are currently no specific regulations barring the ordination of homosexuals,

(c) here are procedures for objection prior to the licensing, ordination or induction of any person."

In the months following, the distress of some and the sense of vindication of others became apparent. When it became clear that the matter would be placed before the 2004 Assembly the Council of Assembly asked the Moderator to initiate appropriate conversations in the Church to see if a way forward might be discerned; something that has eluded Assemblies in the past.

The conversations had four dimensions:

(a) Commiitted Conversations within which ministers, elders and members were invited to engage with others holding different views to discern insights. 81 parishes responded, 29 declined the invitation for a wide variety of reasons. 43 groups met, involving approximately 500 people from 52 parishes.

(b) Theological and Missional study, within which 13 Occasional Papers were written and distributed and a list of other resources was published.

(c) "Political", within which representatives of groups who have historically proposed different solutions (Presbyterian AFFIRM and the Association of Reconciling Christians and Congregations) and representatives of the Council met for a facilitated dialogue over two half days.

(d) Cultural, within which conversations were held with Te Aka Puaho, the Pacific Islanders Synod and the Council of Asian Congregations.

The Council has heard the convictions expressed and insights gained in committed and cultural conversations, and summarises these as follows:

Across the different convictions that were present in the conversations there was a widespread view that, given the centrality of congregations in the mission of the Church, congregations should continue to have the opportunity to call or elect whom they discern to be appropriate persons to lead them in mission.

The Church must do what is necessary to clarify the position of the Church and release for mission the energy, time and resources that have been given to this issue. There were different views about what the 2004 Assembly should do; the most common being – (a) retain the current position; (b) make a firm ruling one way or the other, or (c) make a strong statement on our shared values in sexual relationships.

Conversations found considerable common ground across their differences on this particular issue, such that the Church’s unity in Christ is not in doubt.

There are very strong convictions in some of the cultural/ethnic groups against persons of homosexual orientation or practise exercising leadership in the Church.

The Church, if its policy and practice are to remain "open", must offer places of safety and openess for members and congregations to stand publicly with integrity, whilst still respecting the views of others and being known for the grace and love that lies at the heart of being the Church.

Recognition that beneath this issue there lie deeper matters such as the interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures as the Word of God, the nature of sin, and the concept of leadership in the Reformed tradition.

Some groups discerned, in experiencing very different (even mutually exclusive) Biblically based convictions, that perhaps there is a "higher truth" we have yet to discern.

Several groups discerned a lead in Jesus’ definition of the greatest commandment(s) – love of God, love of neighbour (eg Mark 12:28-31).

A way should be found for the Church to put the issue aside, at least for a time, because (a) we clearly don’t understand enough yet, and, (b) we must set each other free for mission.

</typolist>

It is recognised that the conversations cannot be definitive or taken as representing the views of the Church, but they are significant. The full range of convictions has been present in the conversations and they have been engagements at a significant level.

The Current Position
The Council understands the current position of the Church to be:

(a) Deeply held convictions on the issue of homosexuality and leadership are present and allowed (see 2002 Assembly 02.189).

(b) In relation to the ordination and induction of ministers of Word and Sacrament, there are no regulations that prohibit the congregations of the Church or its members exercising their right to call or elect who they discern to be appropriate persons approved by the Church, subject to the usual discretion of Presbytery.

(c) In relation to the ordination and induction of elders, there are no regulations that prohibit the congregations of the Church or its members exercising their right to elect who they discern to be appropriate persons.

(d) There are no regulations endorsing or denying either of the deeply held convictions.

The third part of the 1994 Assembly decision states "There are procedures for objection prior to the licensing, ordination or induction of any person."

In the context of that decision, that means that when Presbyteries/UDCs including Te Aka Puaho, Sessions/Parish Councils and Boards of Nomination make decisions regarding licensing, ordination or induction to ministry or eldership they do so on a case by case basis without predetermining the outcome, and that in making decisions those bodies may take into account the way nominees express their sexuality.

That a person is in a same gender relationship in itself does not automatically disqualify them from being licensed, ordained, or inducted, but a court may, in its discretion, take that into account in reaching its decision.

Assembly has the power to intepret its own decisions. Council offers this view of the current position as being consistent with the Assembly’s decision made in 1994 and the recent Judicial Commission decision. The effect of adopting this report (recommendation 1) will be to accept that view of the current position. Council believes it will help clarify the Church’s stance in relation to Human Rights legislation and in guiding any future Judicial Commissions called on to consider these matters.

Differing approaches
Two mutually exclusive convictions seek a ruling or binding regulation.

The conviction that homosexual acts are sinful, and, therefore, the Church should rule that any person living in a homosexual relationship should not be licensed, ordained, or inducted, to leadership (leadership generally meaning the ministry of Word and sacraments and eldership).

The conviction that sexual acts between persons of the same gender in themselves are not sinful, and, therefore, the Church should recognise the equal right of both heterosexual and homosexual persons to the offices of the eldership and ministry of Word and sacraments.

While each holds the other conviction to be wrong, there is some acknowledgment from each of the integrity of the other, that each conviction is reached from a commitment to the supreme standard of the Church, namely, the Word of God contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. There are different interpretations of particular biblical texts, and there are different weightings assigned various texts.

Insights of the Council
As in the wider Church, so in Council, there is strong disagreement about the way forward. Some could not support the proposed approach yet recognised the value of this report being presented to assist the Assembly.

The Council finds that the desire "to set each other free" is widely supported.

For some that phrase means a dividing of the Church with grace. For others it means holding together and finding ways within the Church to provide for the integrity of each other.

The Council does not support the dividing option. There was little support for it in the conversations, and the Council is conscious that such an action (a) will irrevocably divide most congregations, and (b) will destroy the peace and unity of the Church.

In the light of the insights from the conversations in the Church in the last six months, the Council proposes that the setting each other free for mission be achieved by:

(a) affirming the current position (see above) as the best way of preserving the integrity and liberty of divergent convictions and practice in calling and electing leadership (see below)

(b) recognising groups/networks/bodies through which members, congregations and cultural/ethnic groups can take a stand with integrity (such groups/networks might include Presbyterian AFFIRM, ARCC, NAPEC, PIC Synod and its cultural groups, and the Council of Asian Congregations or their associated groups.)

This way forward has its own integrity. It is not simply a compromise or a desperate attempt to keep the Church together. This option has its own, and, we believe, sound theological and missional rationale.

This way forward enables the Church to practice as well as proclaim the Gospel of reconciliation. The ministry of reconciliation is an integral and key characteristic of a Church in mission.

This way forward affirms the validity of the beliefs lying behind each of the convictions above. No one is excluded on the grounds of their belief on the sinfulness or otherwise of homosexual acts.

With mutually exclusive convictions as expressed above it will not be possible to walk together if a ruling or regulation is made. But to walk together without ruling or regulation calls for deep grace and costly love from persons of both convictions.

On the one hand members who hold the first position, while never being forced to exercise their membership under the ministry or eldership of a person living in a homosexual relationship, will have to allow others the freedom to elect and be led in ministry or eldership by a homosexual person.

On the other hand members who hold the second position, while being allowed to call and elect a person living in a homosexual relationship to ministry and eldership in their midst, will have to allow others the right to refuse to call or elect persons living in same-gender relationships.

In both of these situations the Presbytery has the discretion to make its own decision concerning ministry. (regulation 242)

The theological and missional imperatives that lead the Council to recommend this way forward are:

It affirms the significance of our unity in Christ, the wholeness of the Church, and the ministry of reconciliation in the life of the Church.

It allows members with different Biblically based convictions to find a place where they can stand with integrity and conviction.

It allows the issue to be kept in perspective and is consistent with decisions of our closest partner churches.

It affirms that those calling and/or electing persons to lead them in mission have full responsibility of discernment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit within any limits agreed to by the Church under the oversight of Presbytery. It is not appropriate, in the light of the depth of convictions, to make a ruling to limit that responsibility.

</typolist>

1. It affirms the significance of unity in Christ, the wholeness of the Church and the ministry of reconciliation in the life of our Church

According to John’s Gospel, Jesus, on the eve of his crucifixion, prayed for his disciples. He prayed for unity:

The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:22-23)

Striving for peace and unity is fundamental to the nature and calling of the Church. This call is enshrined in both the Book of Order and the ordination vows of ministers and elders.

Throughout its history the Church has learnt that unity is something into which we grow in Christ, the One who is simultaneously the source and goal of Christian unity. It is a gift. The fullness of unity still awaits us. In the meantime, our Lord has entrusted to his Church the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18). Mission is not something separate to the ministry of reconciliation; to the extent that the Church exercises a ministry of reconciliation it is a missional Church.

The Church that is in Christ and which lives by the Spirit would appear to be a Church that discovers its proper unity neither in diversity alone nor in conformity to rules and regulations but in freedom – freedom that comes from knowing the surpassing value of Christ (Philippians 3:8), freedom that breaks down the dividing wall of hostility between people and groups (Ephesians 2:14), thereby ushering in a spirit of reconciliation, freedom that enables folk to become slaves of one another in Christ (Galatians 5:13).

This biblical portrayal of freedom leads us to be wary of the notion that the mission of the Presbyterian Church would best be served by some kind of split by which people of opposing views might somehow "set each other free". The freedom we have in Christ is discovered and experienced not apart from one another but in relationship with one another, as uncomfortable and frustrating as that may be at times.

Doctrine and belief are not rendered unimportant by this missional reality. Rather, they serve a deeper agenda and commitment that we have to one another in Christ. The tension and pain that we feel during times of disagreement and dissension reflect the tension of being part of a Church that is on the way. For now we see in a mirror dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12).

2. It allows people of different points of view to find a place where they can stand with integrity and conviction

Whilst rules and regulations are necessary to order the life of an organisation they also have the capacity to perpetuate politics of exclusion, stifle debate and enforce conformity in ways that are contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There can be a fine line between clarity and coercion.

One of the cries from the committed conversations was for the Presbyterian Church to be courageous enough to provide places for people of different views to stand with integrity and conviction on the subject of homosexuality and church leadership. The proposed approach grants congregations and Presbyteries the freedom to exercise discernment and make up their own minds on the appropriateness or otherwise of gay and lesbian people in leadership without the coercive effect of a regulatory framework. The proposed approach respects the integrity of the various networks in the Church that advocate a particular position on the issue, without imposing the views of one or the other upon the whole Church. It allows groups, bodies and networks such as Presbyterian AFFIRM, the Association of Reconciling Christians and Congregations (ARCC), the National Association of Presbyterian Evangelical Congregations (NAPEC), to be places where congregations and/or individuals can collectively express the conviction publicly if they wish to do so. It allows Te Aka Puaho, the cultural groups that make up the Pacific Islanders Synod, the PI Synod itself and the Council of Asian Congregations and its constituent groups to express and publicly affirm their convictions.

Whether or not Presbyteries have a view or policy, given the the current position, it is appropriate that they consider each situation on a case by case basis so as not to predetermine the outcome. A Presbytery may take into account how persons recommended forlicensing, ordination and induction express their sexuality. At the same time, Sessions, Parish Councils and Boards of Nomination may exercise their right to include expressions of sexuality in the criteria they employ to discern the appropriateness or otherwise of particular candidates for ordination and induction.

The proposed approach also recognises the diversity of opinion that exists not only between congregations but within congregations. For many of these congregations, diversity of opinion is regarded as a strength, not a weakness. It bears witness to the greater unity they experience in Christ. If the Presbyterian Church were to either regulate or divide over this issue congregations will be divided, and many will feel that their unity in Christ and witness to Christ are severely compromised.

Recognising places where people can stand publicly with integrity and conviction will mean that relationships are maintained, and a basis is provided for ongoing discussion about underlying issues. Such issues include the way in which Scripture is the Word of God in the life of the Church, our understanding of human personhood, and the nature of sin. It also allows people of opposing views on one issue to recognise and explore together the common ground that they hold.

3. It allows this issue to be kept in perspective

One of the constant refrains we have heard from all sides is that the issue of homosexuality and church leadership has dominated our national life for far too long. It has overshadowed every other discussion. In this context, a refusal to legislate on the issue should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness and indecision. Rather, it should be regarded as a refusal to allow this issue to dominate and divide us any further. It should be regarded as a decision that allows us to focus our energies on the priorities and goals upon which we can agree.

The proposed approach is consistent with the proposed positions of our two closest partner churches, the Methodist Church of NZ and the Uniting Church in Australia.

Many people in the Church have expressed the view that it is high time to bring closure to this issue and allow the Church to get on with its mission. The proposed approachbrings closure, not in a way that depends on a win-lose voting situation at the General Assembly, but in a way that allows people of alternative perspectives to remain in communion with one another. If this happens then the Church will not only be enabled to get on with the task of mission; it will, by the very nature of its resolve to exercise a ministry of reconciliation, be a missional Church.

4. It affirms the responsibility of those calling and electing persons to lead.

It is a fundamental principle of being Presbyterian that leadership by ministers of Word and Sacrament and elders can not be forced on a congregation. This congregational freedom to elect and/or call its elders and minister is not an absolute right in that it is constrained by any regulations or rulings determined by the Church and in relation to ministers the discretion of Presbytery. One such constraint, for example, is the recognition of the equal right of both men and women for ordination (Appendix D-5 of the Book of Order).

Beyond that, and within the constraints agreed to, a congregation is free to elect/call whom they discern. This was a principle at stake in the conflict that led to the Disruption in 1843 and agreed to in the reunion of the United Free Church with the Church of Scotland in 1929.

Recommendations

Mindful of:

the Gospel mandate to allow the calling and unity that we share in Christ to bind us together even when our different convictions threaten to drive us apart,

and the need to find places for people of different convictions to stand with integrity,

Council makes the recommendations at the beginning of this report.

</typolist>

Conclusions

The way of being the Church outlined in this report is consistent with the Reformed principle that ministry of Word and Sacraments and the rule of eldership is only possible with the call, election and authorisation of the congregation or people to and with whom the person will minister; that call, election and authorisation being affirmation of the gifts of the person being deemed suitable for the mission needs of the congregation.

In setting each other free in this way, the process of call and election of ministers and elders can be open, safe and respectful.

Our faith is in God whom we know in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Our hope is that in future we will engage with each other in the spirit of conversation when our convictions differ.

Our love of God is based on our knowledge of Christ, and our love of each other is founded on the image of God we find in each other with all our differences.

"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love"

What could "standing with integrity" look like?

The Work Group has been asked to explain what is meant, in practical terms, by providing space for people to stand with convictions with integrity – how could be this be provided? Some provisions that might be considered are:

A group/network may take a stand on the issue and publicly declare that stand, always maintaining an atmosphere of grace towards those who hold a different view. For example a group/network, such as AFFIRM or NAPEC may incorporate into its "charter" or statement of belief something like "Members of … believe the Scripture teaches that homosexual acts are sinful and that those who engage in such should not exercise leadership in the Church"; or ARCC might decide on a statement like "Members believe there should be no discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and there is no distinction between homosexual orientation and practice"

A congregation that joins any group making a statement such as these may, if they so wish, advertise their membership and advise their Presbytery of their membership, and the Presbytery should take this into account when appointing people for Presbytery responsibilities in and for those congregations.

Courts of the Church may recognise any such group/network as an affiliated group of the Court on application from that group. Such recognition does not give membership or voting rights in the court, but does provide access in that when the group/network is an affiliated group the group/network may then request to address the court . For example, a Session may recognise NAPEC as an affiliated group; a Presbytery may recognise AFFIRM or ARCC or NAPEC; or the Assembly may recognise these and some cultural groups. (Perhaps the 2004 Assembly can provisionally recognise these groups pending their application to the 2006 Assembly)

That ministers and/or elders may be excused from participating in the ordination or induction of a minister or elder on grounds relating to this issue when they so notify the court.

There are appropriate points in the processes leading to the ordination or induction of a minister and/or elder for individual members to record their dissent or objection, and there are procedures to hear those objections.

</typolist>

<typohead type="3">3. Subordinate Standards</typohead>

Paragraph 7.2 of the Council’s report referred to an expected opinion from Ian Millard QC which has now been received. A short version of it is at Appendix 5.

Mr Millard indicates that the Presbyterian Church needs a subordinate standard. On the basis of the opinion Council accordingly recommends that the Focal Identity Statement Task Group form the core of a group to develop a subordinate standard to replace the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

In its report the Task Group signalled that the notes to the Statement might form an important resource towards the formulation of a new Subordinate Standard. It will also need to consider the possibilities outlined in Mr Millard’s opinion.

The Nominating Committee will be asked to suggest names to add to the Task Group based in Dunedin.

<typohead type="3">4. Parish Boundaries</typohead>

A memorandum of 26 May 2004 to Sessions/Parish Councils, Presbyteries/Union District Councils,‘Freeing parish boundaries to encourage new initiatives’, referred to a report which went to Assembly 2002.

More than 90 parishes responded to the questions:

Do you support/oppose this recommendation and why?

What issues are raised by the recommendation?

What other processes might encourage the flexibility and freedom the Council is encouraging?

</typolist>

4.1 Do you support/oppose this recommendation and why?

59 clearly supported and 21 opposed this recommendation – with some in each group qualifying their views. Most of those opposed to the recommendation were in rural parishes and some noted that it was likely to be different in urban areas. Many respondents recognised that people were already crossing parish boundaries to attend the church of their choice for reasons including ethnicity, theology, challenge, previous association or comfort.

</typolist>

4.2 What issues are raised by the recommendation?

The functions of parish boundaries, such as:

</typolist>

Defining:

<typolist>

pastoral responsibility (this was particularly emphasised)

acknowledged duty of care

legitimate areas for canvassing for support and finance

extent of mission responsibilities and focus – particularly in rural areas

areas of responsibility for other agencies/groups relating to the church, such as funeral directors, Bible in schools, hospitals

</typolist>

Providing:

<typolist>

local identity and a sense of belonging

reason for transfer of membership to other parishes

focus for responsibility

</typolist>

Other issues included:

<typolist>

Theological nature of a church in relation to a given place

change from mission to gathered church

</typolist>

Risk of:

<typolist>

some areas becoming no-one’s responsibility, particularly in rural areas

becoming self centred and unconcerned/uninvolved with local community

congregationalism as a survival mode

overlooking areas of social deprivation or fringe areas

negative effect on mission and outreach

competition for desirable mission or programme opportunities

</typolist>

Question about what could we do that we are not doing now?

Recognition of current contexts:

<typolist>

There are already parishes in different forms

Existence of churches of particular ethnic origins

Loyalty to congregation where choose to attend for reasons of theology, style of worship, previous involvement, not necessarily for location – people make choices and are mobile

Congregations are more relational than geographic

Perception that boundaries are not in the mindset of mission – the drivers are healthy congregations,

Existence of co-operative ventures/uniting parishes and hence relationships with partner churches

</typolist>

4.3 What other processes might encourage the flexibility and freedom the Council is encouraging?

Role of presbyteries in:

Vision and mission focus with a regional overview – to reshape the perspective of parishes

Deciding/defining what boundaries are useful and where they should be

Working with parishes/congregations to promote linkages and negotiate responsibilities for developing new initiatives and outreach – particularly where establishment of new congregations is proposed; reducing ‘patch protection’, encouraging groups

Promoting co-operation between parishes and presbyteries

Developing opportunities for specialised ministries

Opportunities for congregations to:

Be more flexible e.g. develop team ministries and specialise

Work more co-operatively in mission where they are

Allow churches to network more openly, to share ideas and people

Work with churches of other denominations

Keep neighbouring churches aware of initiatives

</typolist>

Comment

The responses indicate a high level of awareness of the reality of modern life where people expect to make choices about many aspects of their lives including the particular church to which they wish to belong. There was wide recognition that crossing parish boundaries was already common. However, such choices are easier in an urban context where a number of parishes/congregations are within easy reach. In rural areas the geographic parish boundary retains important functions as outlined above.

The key functions of parish boundaries were identified around local pastoral responsibilities and relationships within geographic communities. Both those supporting and those opposing abolition of parish boundaries did so on the grounds of enhancing mission and outreach in communities. Opportunities for sharing resources of skilled people could be facilitated by abolishing boundaries and congregations could be freed up to specialise in what they did best.