Hi RevJohn, 

The proposed circle model is an interesting concept, but it could still function as a hierarchy - - with the connectional space replacing our current structure of presbytery and conference. Although some of the responsibilities of the present bodies will move to the new College. 

There will be many implications for clergypeople if a College is created for them.  

What will the new regions look like? Will they correspond to the present Conferences? 

thanks Rev John for posting this.  I saw it flash in my inbox but wasn't going to look at it.  Just finished reading it....then went to the forum website....

It would be kind of fun to post each question as a topic here.

How many have read the report?

I'm just reading it this evening - came back to my computer to look up who the players are on the task group.  Good idea about posting the questions as threads here 

Good Idea, Jobam

Hi Paradox3

Connectional space will be a fluid enterprise with no clear boundaries.  Essentially it will be whatever is needed by whomever wants it for however long.  It will also overlap along interest lines rather than geographical boundaries.

We haven't been prohibitted from operating in that fashion we haven't shown a great deal of enthusiasm for such operation.  Although we have examples of it in organizations like Affirm or any of the historic renewal groups.

In all fairness many courts of the Church are looking for ways to centralize these functions with some kind of paid staff person.  For some Presbyteries the cost is too prohibitive to have a dedicated staff person doing HR related stuff.

There will be yes.

I expect that there would be some tweaks here and there.  N & L would be difficult to mix with maritimes.  There are several conferences in Ontario which could be combined.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thanks RevJohn.  I will print this out to review.

Hi RevJohn, 

Connectional space has been identified as one of the key points for discussion. The report mentions several times that it will not have decision-making authority. However, I picked this up on page 7: "Distinct supporting and decision-making functions would be assigned to the three circles ..."

I guess it is important to remember that this is a discussion paper with many details still to be hammered out. 

Interesting: 

I have given it a read over but not an indepth study. Some initial thoughts:

• The more congregational governance structure proposed is closer to how UU'ism operates, though still more centralized. We are almost purely congregational, with CUC as more of a coordinating/support body for the congregations with no real oversight or governance function. Credentialing of ministers (calling them into fellowship is our term) is handled by the UUA with CUC piggy-backing on them rather than trying to start our own. There is no college. Discipline and credentialing are handled by an office of the UUA. There is an association, though, called the UUMA though I think it is an initiative by the ministers themselves. It even has its own annual conference, usually after the UUA General Assembly.
• Taken to its logical extreme, it is a pretty radical change from the current setup and I think it will benefit some congregations and maybe not so much others. Expect some resistance, esp. from older folks used to the traditional structures. Expect some glee from those chafing at presbyterial/conference oversight.
• The redefinition of focus from traditional "churches" to communities of faith seems a good thing. Even leaving aside implications for the future of something like WC, the ability to accomodate house churches and other faith groups that may not fit the traditional model or have the resources/need for professional ministry will be a boon.
• How the college will function, esp. with regard to professional discipline and theology, will be interesting. Done right, I see it as a good step for more efficient, consistent approach to ministry as a profession. Done wrong, it can turn into a heavy-handed tool for trying to reign in ministers who stray from what is seen as "mainstream". I think it is a good idea but the devil is, as always, in the details.
• The association is a good idea. As noted, we have one in UU'ism. Could it address some of the issues that the ministers pushing for a union are trying to deal with?
• It is very sketchy on some fronts so I can see it taking a while to hash it all out. 2015 seems rather optimistic for any action.

Overall, I think it is good that this group is willing to look at a fairly major restructuring effort. OTOH, it doesn't address the issue of what is the real purpose/mission of a mainstream Protestant church in an age when the religious landscape is much more fragmented and fewer folks are interested in mainstream Protestant churches. Without a clear vision or corporate image to focus on, it will continue to be hard to market the UCCan as an option to those who may be currently unchurched (or losing faith/interest in their current church) but are still interested in some kind of religious community.

Mendalla

Hi All,

I have read the report through once and will do so several more times before I am finished with my responsibilities to Presbytery to provide some direction in one of the four exploration areas.

My thoughts so far are thus.

What will rearranging the deck chairs (which is what this is) solve the fundamental issues facing congregations of The United Church of Canada?

Despite many protests to the contrary I have yet to see a congregation actually drowning in a sea of red-tape where all of that congregations best efforts and intentions are actually stymied by prohibitive processes and draconian enforcement of the same.

My observation, from my Pastoral Oversight position indicates that congregations slit their own throats, more often than not, by disregarding processes primarily because they want the freedom to make their own decisions.  Decisions which include, paying their clergy less and demanding their clergy do more. 

I have also seen officers and members of various Church courts supervent process because "rules are made to be broken" and worse, it pleased them to take short cuts and do a crappy job.

Not having somebody look over those particular shoulders on a regular basis means there will be trouble sooner rather than later.  Which may not be a bad thing.  Perhaps part of our problem as a denomination has been the impulse to smooth things out rather than allowing such congregations and individuals to earn the poisoned reputation they are working so hard to win.

Imagine not being guaranteed a minister simply because you are a congregation or being guaranteed a congregation simply because you are a minister.  Now some sort of ability to demonstrate some proficiency as being either is what counts.

I think the new system will demonstrate survival of the fittest and that probably isn't a bad thing though it isn't necessarily as compassionate an ecclesiology as we have shaped ourselves into believing must exist.

I don't think our governance model has been our achillees heel so I'm not convinced that a new governance model solves our real problems.  It will lighten the loads of many if nothing else.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Noticed this on my first reading of the paper, Pinga. 

Unfortunate timing, isn't it?

Not wanting to put you on the spot, Revjohn, but I would be interested to know how you would define the "fundamental issues" facing our congregations. 

Let me take a shot: No one is coming? Fewer believe? Revenue is falling while expenses aren't?

The problems aren't difficult to fugure out. The solutions, if they exist, are.

I know this wil sound nitpicky Chansen, but you might be naming symptoms rather than fundamental issues.

And I agree with you, the solutions are difficult to figure out and may not even exist. 

Okay, let me try again: Your church is based on a belief system that is virtually incompatible with modern life and current knowledge. You can try to twist the bible and pretend it isn't, but even your own members start to feel like they are being fed lies. By virtue of your more liberal positions, your members are not so rigid in their beliefs that they refuse to listen to doubts. Your young people are dragged to church while their parents have control, then stop coming once they move out or become independent. Most don't miss it. They recognize they don't need church to be good people, and there are better and more fulfilling things to do on Sunday mornings.

And I have yet to see any report from the UCCan that addresses these things head-on. They can't. They can't say that people don't believe for good reasons. They can't be completely truthful because that would undermine the faith of those who remain.

So, you'll re-arrange deck chairs like John said, you'll stall, you'll talk, and you'll lose congregations the entire time. Anything but actually say out loud that people don't believe like they used to.

I think your only good option is to become less religious, but that would mean most of your older members would revolt, because they're still married to this immoral idea that somebody died for their benefit.

Your less ethical option is to become more evangelical and more rigid in your beliefs, and start brainwashing the children still in your care, if you have any, that their eternal souls depend upon them believing a certain way. Hammer it home. Don't make it seem optional, at all. Be arrogant, be ignorant, and be controlling. Consider hiring unsafe.

I am going to both agree and disagree with chansen.

I agree that simply rearranging the deck chairs isn't going to solve anything and this report is at least partly about that.

On the other hand, a more congregational model where much more responsibility is held locally can allow for more diversity theologically, socially, etc. You see this in UU'ism where an area has multiple congregations. Often, you'll have one that is more "churchy" and open to theistic understandings and another that is more humanistic and less theistic in outlook (and, to be honest, the former is usually the larger of the two). So, in UCCan terms, you could have a traditional, middle-of-the-road theistic congregation in a more or less traditional church, a more humanistic church that focusses on Jesus as a teacher and prophet and not on things like resurrection and atonement (e.g. West Hill), and maybe a home church that is very theistic and evangelical in outlook all in the same general area but drawing on different segments of the church.

The question is whether the centralization of doctrine and ministerial discipline at the denominational circle and college will allow this potential diversity to happen. For it to work, you almost need to become more UU-like and focus on uniting around principles rather than beliefs and doctrines.

Even if it did, would the members in the home church or even the traditional church accept such a diversity if it meant having a congregation that did not espouse traditional doctrines?

And if you go that route, what's to stop a UU congregation from switching teams and joining you? IOW, does that end up where Arm keeps wanting to go - the UCCan follows the old AUA (American Unitarian Association, the UUA's predecessor) in becoming a more humanistic, non-sectarian religious association rather than a traditional Christian denomination? And if you that far, does that then mean a merger with UU'ism is in the cards? I still don't see it unless you completely lose your conservative, traditional base but how far can you go in accepting diversity in your church without ending up there?

Odd note on ministry in a diverse church: a UU church in the States has called a rabbi. You heard that. A woman trained and ordained as a Reform Jewish rabbi is going to be ministering to UUs and that apparently has been accepted by 96% of the voting members of the congregation (that was the vote in favour of the call) and by the UUA offices responsible for ministry. Apparently, some of the Jews aren't as whacky on the idea. My point being that I can't see that happening in the UCCan, even if it does allow room for someone like Rev. Vosper. You will always be Christian in some regard, even if you define that very broadly as a kind of religious humanism. Hence my skepticism when Arm talks about UCCan and UU coming together.

Random thoughts all.

Mendalla

First off as one on the fringe I just want to say that I persoally will be actively praying for solutions for the UCC.

After reading the above link, I was wondering:

1.) what happens to any charitable bequests left to the church? Do they go to the whole church or are they given back to the parish of the giver?

2.) will the local churches allowed to promote a "stepped up giving" strategy to their congregations. We've certainly seen here on Wondercafe how many would pay to have this site survive.

3.) It seems to me that if a church needs to be sold, that it will no longer be "head office" issuing the edict but the individual church themselves will decide. Is this correct? That appears to me to be a harder solution than deferring the decision to a head office. Does this mean the minister and congregation essentially terminates their own church and ministers job? Is that likely to happen even if it's necessary?

4.) Of the churches that are still viable, has anyone approached them to see why? What they are doing differently, geography, personality of the minister, message, outreach programs,.....etc? Are these included in the strategy's for survival?

5.) What does it cost to shift the dynamics of a national church? Is the cost saving immediate?

6.) Are there enough up and coming young ministers to support a college or will it be mostly used for current ministers? Does the United Church actively recruit potetial candidates? Could there be a shortage someday? Would the college include training for lay ministers or just a resource?

7.) What will actually make a church "viable" or worth saving? How much they give? How much they do in the community? Size? How much they pray?

Maybe silly questions, just wondering.

Waterfall,, what makes a church viable? ......MONEY. Doesn't matter how many people, how good the service is, how good the children's program is. The bottom line is MONEY

This is an interesting question. Is there any conscious effort in the UCCan to draw new blood into the ministry, esp. younger folks coming right out of university or still early in their post-university lives (we often hear about ministers coming into it as a second or even third career and I've known many ministers and candidates who fit that profile but it has been a while since I've met a UCCan minister who went straight into ministry)?

In my UCCan days, I don't recall there ever being any kind of effort to get people to think about ordained/commissioned ministry beyond informal, word of mouth type stuff. Eg. an elder commenting whether I was considering following in my grandfather's footsteps (he knew Grandad) after I did one of my lay supply services? The answer was no and it was left there.

Under the regime proposed in "Fishing...", would recruitment be Denominational Circle or College or both?

Mendalla

No, not necessarily. What makes a church viable is people willing to provide whatever resources are needed to make the church work as a community. Money is but one of those resources, albeit an important one because it lets you pay for other resources.

A simple home church or small church in a rented space with lay leadership does not need a lot of money as long as the members are willing to put in the work. It is when you have property and staff that money becomes a dominating concern. I see this regime as opening the door to, and hopefully promoting, more of these smaller, less resource-intensive communities of faith. Doing so will require one thing - the recognition that a community of faith need not have to pay for professional ministry and the provision of training by the denominational level to facilitate that kind of lay leadership (much as the CUC provides the training program for our lay chaplains). Weddings could be a problem but maybe the model under which the CUC works with governments to license lay chaplains could be adopted by the UCCan as well.

Mendalla

Well maybe they should do what alot of retirees do......reverse mortgages on their churches and buy some more time. Kidding...... maybe not.

You wouldn't have to pay it back until you die. LOL.

Mendella there's alot of attachment to austere buildings isn't there and ironically it's probably one of the things the young people are put off by. It represents a dark and musty era when they are brimming with life.

Older people associate it as so much a part of how their faith is represented it would be hard to let go of.

It is an attachment that will ultimately kill those churches and undermine much of what the comprehensive review is trying to accomplish (or at least what it should accomplish). I know of no UU congregation in my part of Ontario that has a traditional church. Many are in rented or owned and renovated commercial spaces that are more efficient to maintain and better suited to renting/subletting out for other purposes when not in use as a church. Even then, you can run into property-related expenses if you own.

The Christian church did not start in big, expansive, expensive buildings. It began in people's homes, community gathering places, and even in unlikely places like the Roman catacombs. While I would not go so far as to suggest going back to meeting in what are basically caves, the idea of meeting wherever it is suitable to gather rather than in a special, purpose-built church space has great merit in this day and age. There is a Christian Reformed congregation in my part of London that is current renting a school auditorium on Sundays (their office is, I believe, someone's home office) but used a Famous Player's Theatre before that.

Mendalla

and so looking at my presbytery agenda-for our twice yearly meetings-I can't find this at all. Wonder if we will discuss it?

I'll let you know on Monday.

Not if it's called a "United Church". We already know that. We've seen this recently from DKS on Facebook and in that other idiot minister's YouTube crying session. People are not going to want to be part of the same denomination as a minister like Gretta Vosper, regardless of the model. To them, she's a laughingstock to other denominations, and that hurts their feelings. She's also a handy scapegoat for the reasons people aren't coming to church, because, apparently, they're "confused" by an atheist in the pulpit of any church. This apparently causes confusion and they never arrive at church on Sunday morning because they've driven into trees.

Whereas I am the other way around. A few more Gretta Vospers and I'll be more than happy to rejoin the UCCan.

Mendalla

Yeah, but you're almost as much of a heathen as I am. You'd be welcomed in a congregation, because you represent a filled seat, but you wouldn't be welcomed as a minister. Not by many ministers we've heard from, or the likes of Cruxifusion.

Chansen, he would be welcomed by many of the congregants and all of the ministers tha tour church has called.  

Concerning "fishing" on the other side, I just pointed out, on George's Society of the Spectacle thread over on Religion and Faith, the many meanings of the the UCCan logo, the vesica piscis, the fish or fish bladder. Advertising the many meanings of our logo, and actually steering our church in the direction of actualising these meanings, would be "fishing on the other side" indeed, except we have already captured this particular fish, but not yet fully explored and exploited its many meanings.

Hi paradox3,

My understanding so far is that connectional space will be fluid and any one congregation may belong to several such connectional places.  Affirm represents a connectional space in that it connects like-minded congregations and individuals without concern for geography.

What these connectional spaces do will be up to them.  They will not have the ability to set denominational polity of process.  So, for example, the boycott of any corporation will likely never become a denominational matter.  Connectional spaces could decide on a boycott but it could never be accurately described as the Church making that decision.

Mind you there will be a national gathering perhaps every 5 years or so and such a decision could be brought to that body.  It will likely be too slow and cumbersome to be truly responsive to any social issue.

Grace and peace to you.

John

LOL. Ministry is not for me, else I'd be sporting a dog collar (UCCan or UU) by now. Lay supply suits me just fine, maybe a lay chaplaincy once I'm retired.

Mendalla

Hi Pinga,

This does represent a change from current policy.  Of course in the current policy there are certain guarantees in play which do not actually translate, as far as I can see to the new model.

The new model evidences a more congregational feel which means congregations will sink or swim all on their own.  There will be no Presbytery to oversee and be appealed to. 

So WonderCafe.ca could fit as a vibrant community of faith.  It would suddenly need to become self-supporting or it would cease to exist as a vibrant community of faith.  There would be no support from General Council (which would continue to exist though is a much more slimmed down fashion).

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Waterfall,

Lots of lawyering is required to sort it out.  Gifts given to Presbytery in the event that Presbytery disappears between the time the will is written and the time the will is executed would take into account successor bodies.

Most likely lawyers would create a trail showing how the bequest had it been recieved prior to any organizational house cleaning would have moved to a successor body.

So what happens to Presbytery money when Presbyery ceases to exist?  It gets disbursed (at present) by the Conference with oversight and to the net benefit of the Church as a whole.

The same consideration would apply.  Since the denomination will not cease to exist the money will stay within the denomination.

If the denomination changed that would be another matter.

Between 1925 and 1935 The United Church of Canada contested several wills in which bequests were made to the Presbyterian Church.  The rationale behind the challenge was that the Presbyterian Church is one of our founding partners.  Of course, the whole of the Presbyterian Church in Canada did not join at union so the Presbyterian faction which opted not to join made the case that they were the proper successor body.

If I remember correctly the United Church lost every will they contested.

That's right folk.  We fought another church for dead people's money and lost.

Apart from membership fees or association fees (similar to the assessments we now pay) congregations are free to spend their money as they see fit.  The change to a new governance model would likely not have much impact in this regard.  National Budget should be slightly smaller.

Head office does not close churches.  Presbytery alone has that power at present and Presbytery is very loathe to exercise that power since it is an exercise nobody would ever thank them for.  Congregations for the most part decide when to pull the dirt into the grave they have been digging for themselves.

Nothing would really change in this respect in the new governance model.  Other than I expect many Churches would die without the supports currently provided by our current governance model.

What changes is that congregations will not be guaranteed ministers and ministers will not be guaranteed congregations.  Everyone will be in competition of one kind or another.

Churches will not be able to hire clergy not approved of by the College but that doesn't mean there will be enough spots for everyone in the College and there will be no seniority considerations either.

No.  We tend to be afraid of the change the answers might demand.

At any rate it is no longer an issue.  Sink or swim is the model being proposed.  Helps will be available bailouts will not be an option.

To be determined.  Much of what is now "volunteer" will fall to paid individuals.  That represents a cost increase though much of the other work traditional done by staff will fall to the wayside as those staff positions disappear.

The College will not be a school but a professional association.  It will not matter where our clergy are trained so long as they demonstrate competency.  It will proscribe what training we expect and assess individuals to see that they have obtained it.

Its ability to survive with its own resources.

The questions aren't silly at all.  All of them are very sensible and I hope others think to ask them in their own contexts.  The new model  has pros in that it turns work over to people who will be dedicated to doing that work and does not leave it for volunteers to ignore or do half-heartedly.  The new model has cons in that it is far more pragmatic than our current church structures.

The end result will be stronger and healtier churches.  It will also mean many fruitless branches are pruned and used for kindling fires.

Which may not be a bad thing.  it certainly will not be an easy path.

Those thinking that their congregations are hindered by current process and polity are likely to get such a rude awakening that they die from the shock of it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi crazyheat,

Seems like the obvious answer doesn't it.

Counter-intuitively though money does not make a church viable.  My experience is that money is what kills congregations.  They settle in thinking it will always be there and they fail to notice as the years pass that the money is less and less and less and finally they wake up to the reality they have been bleeding red ink for years.

Money makes a church comfortable.  It doesn not make a church viable.

If the service is truly good it will attract new members.  If the childrens programs are really good they will attract families.  Those new members and new families will in turn bring money.  People pay for what they value.

If nobody is coming then the service is not good enough to attract anyone.  If there are no children in the church then the program is not good enough to attract any and if that is the case that congregation exists only so long as they have reserves to draw from.

That isn't a viable congregation.  It is a dead one walking.

Grace and peace to you.

John

OK I sent an email to our presbytery minister-who sent out the agenda.   Apparently I was right. We will NOT be discussing this at our Presbytery meeting this weekend. Reason given was not enough lead time to fit it in the agenda.  I'm disappointed.

Two things to add to John's nice musings.

Will we really end with a very congregatonal model and no accountablity to others.  Will there be real oversight.  Things like universal scale in salaries, will that disappaer and it truely a free market for wages?  Things llike medical  coverage.  Wiill that also be up to individual cong and thus a free for all.

The college idea if I follow other such examples will need some personal to oversee and some strong rules... like lawyers of docs do.  How much will they be able to over see and prortect those within the craft.?

I am not sure the ideas hold water and do no address the core issue of who are we.

From my experience as a member of a professional college, I would say that the College's role will be to oversee its members - - not to protect them. It will be the Association's role to provide support. 

Colleges exist to develop and uphold standards of practice, monitor continuing education requirements, respond to complaints, discipline members and so on. And you are right, personnel will be required to do these things.  It could be fairly expensive and I would expect the cost will be borne by the members.

This is the way it works in other professions. In my case, I was a member of the College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario, mandated by the RHPAO (Regulated Health Professionals Act of Ontario).  I am retired now but the last fees I paid were several hundred dollars per year. 

Addendum to above: 

By contrast, the fees paid by the members of the College of Teachers of Ontario are much less because their profession is much larger. 

Hi Tabitha,

That is unfortunate.  That said, nothing is more hopeless than trying to have good conversation about a discussion paper that nobody has read.

The CR was looking for feedback from Presbyteries by end of June, perhaps some time could be found in your Conference AGM for a discussion?

Grace and peace to you.
John

Hi Panentheism,

My understanding is that these issues will now be overseen by the college itself.  How it will be overseen I'm not clear on.

Good question.  I haven't seen detail on this issue.  I expect most disciplinary oversight will be on a complaints only basis and much of the day to day will simply disappear.

No it is simple rearranging of the deck chairs.  It will allow fewer folk to do the work that we need many volunteers to do and there will be real cost to the Church for that.  It will take responsibility out of the hands of various courts which I find problematic from my Reformed perspective.

Since core issues of identity are not being discussed they will not be addressed.  We are putting bandages on wounds that need sutures.

Grace and peace to you.

John

As I posted on another thread,  the core issues for the UCC are a lack of clear vision and the lack of a clear mission based on the relatively low commitment of most members to spiritual practices or personal faith development.

The viability of a congregation depends on the lived out commitment of its members to the life, work, and mission of te congregation as servants of Jesus/God and hosts to others.

I have come to realize that the church proposed in this document will not be the church I serve. I grew up in one church, served in another and will retire, in a few years, in whatever this results in (I'm not expecting much). I refuse to get particulalrly would over it.

I agree.
.
.
Howevr the consultation comprehensive review report says its first
finding was "There is a clear United Church identity (faith, hospitality, justice, open theology/spirituality, intercultural)".
.
Obviously not reflected by 90% the UCC in the ottawa area. in addition general Council in kelowna confirmed the same when it rejected a resolution to require churches to match secular groups obligations under the law to include the diasabled and LGBT people. The debate show how docided the church was. now this report 4 years later claims the church believes in hospitaity and justice.

How did this lack of clear vision and mission come about, would you say? I am not disagreeing with you, by the way, I am just trying to understand how we got into this situation. 

I am now also wondering what will stop congregations that are folding from sellingntheir property, or stopping church sericesmbut continue to profit from operating as a business,(parking lot etc)

Hello,

I think Jim's observations are important. If we do what we have promised to do as the first step in Church membership, we will not need to be asking the questions now before us. Does it really matter how we structure our community, if that community is not living out its essential mandate?

Jesus accomplishes a clearly defined purpose. In the Nazareth synagogue we hear the expression of a mission mandate. It is a clear statement of determination for remedial engagement of the needs of the most vulnerable, under the jurisdiction of religion and politics seduced and subverted by the attractions and promises of power.

We have in the main abdicated the mission set before us in the gospel. Our concern is much more addressed to the securing and preserving of private gain and benefit than it is to the securing of the health and welfare of the growing number of persons wholly excluded by the structures of exploitation and oppression touted as humanity's pride and glory.

The Jerusalem church organized in response to the demand of "nets overflowing to the point of breaking". It did not organize to preserve existing norms and standards. Indeed, it was treated with hostility for its breaking of those norms and standards, as it took up the opportunity for self negating service in the name of their crucified and resurrected friend.

George

It was midnight on the sea,
Band playin' "Nearer My God to Thee"
Cryin', "Fare thee well, Titanic, fare thee well,"

- Huddie Ledbetter

How? If they sell the property, then the parking lot is going to go with it. No one is going to buy a church without a parking lot, even if they aren't going to use it as a church. Heck, even if they knock the building down to redevelop the site, they will want the parking lot even if just to give them more land to work with.

And what other business could they do once the property is sold? Now, I suppose that rather than selling the property, they could stop having services and such and simply rent out the building but that strikes me as a rather odd way to do things. They would likely get more money, more quickly by selling.

I think the more likely scenario is churches selling property, investing the funds, and using the income to lease space somewhere else. It is certainly one thing my UU fellowship has discussed doing and I think that for a small, or shrinking, congregation it would be a more sensible way of doing business than dealing with the work and expense of the upkeep on the owned property. Certainly more flexible. If you need to grow or shrink your space, you just renegotiate the lease or move when the lease term is up. It has its downside, too, to be sure (less control over the property and neighbours, having to renegotiate the lease every 5 years or whatever term is used, restrictions on how you can use and sublet the property, and such like).

Anyhow, if you read the report, it is clear in the report that the denominational circle will retain some control over use of property, even if less so than presbytery currently has. 

Mendalla

Even if we regard the Gospels as pseudo-biographical legends, it seems clear that the core message of Jesus' teachings is service to others, specifically the most vulnerable. Today, the natural environment that sustains us is critically endangered, and needs our protection more than ever before. So, to serve, protect, and empower the powerless, and to protect and serve our natural environment, ought to be our foremost aim, our vision and mission. If this sounds like mere humanism and environmentalism, then so be it. I think the trappings of conventional doctrinal church are dragging us down, not to speak of the trappings of a cumbersome bureaucracy.