September 16, 2008
PAAM participated in GFT2 because we love our Church. As many of us come from a long tradition of the United Church of Christ, especially its Congregational roots, we are not convinced that a single governance body is good for our church. It became clear that there are no checks and balances for a single governance structure. Since the interpretation of the task of GFT2 was to work on a single governance structure, the major issue became one of representation—whether two or three HUGs would sit on the Executive Council. Who is going to insure that the missional focus will be maintained—whether it be in the areas of “justice and witness,” “local church,” or “wider church”? For example, the Justice and Witness Ministries board passed a resolution asking that the planning committee of the 50th Anniversary of the United Church of Christ place the theme of the Year of Jubilee as a central focus of the general synod. This was largely ignored for the sake of a “celebrative” general synod. Once the task of the GFT2 was decided to work on proposing a single governance model, besides the issue of whether two or three HUGs representatives would sit on the Executive Council, the only remaining issues of importance were: 1) What is the role of and who would be seated with vote at General Synod? and 2) How would the total church participate in missional structures of the church, and what would these structures look like?
The present structural change is too important in the history of the United Church of Christ for PAAM to agree with the present proposal.
Sincerely,
Ronald Fujiyoshi
PAAM representative on GFT2
No comments:
Post a Comment