|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Name:  | |
|
Merger with UCC and NACCC - 7/21/2010 5:57:59 PM
|
|
|
Rev. Adam Becker
Posts: 2
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline
|
I have heard a few times about some who are pushing for the NACCC to merge with the UCC, is that something that is likely to happen? If so would churches still be able to govern themselves and own their own property, would all churches have to accept homosexuals? I dont think that the merger would be that bad as long as churches could still govern themselves and own their property and wouldnt have to preach that homosexuality was moral. What are the facts on all this?
< Message edited by Rev. Adam Becker -- 7/21/2010 6:01:33 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Merger with UCC and NACCC - 8/3/2010 5:08:25 PM
|
|
|
SD Jones
Posts: 45
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi Adam,
I have heard rumblings of such things as well in various venues. I have two things on this:
First, most UCC members have never heard of the NACCC. Upon being notified there is another Congregational association out there, they are shocked. Then, upon hearing the reason why the NA exists (because, among other reasons, the UCC merger required the abandonment of certain cherished Congregational polity structures and autonomy), they have no idea how to respond to the concerns. This is, in part, because the UCC considers itself the sole inheritor of the Congregational Way, which seems to me to be antithetical to the Congregational Way. So in this regard, merging with the UCC would mean nothing of the NACCC would remain and nor would we have any influence in there structural arrangements.
Second, with regard to the cultural and moral issues, while the UCC organization, as such, may consider themselves "open and affirming" and are able to speak on numerous social issues with a particular bias, most UCC churches consider themselves to be Congregational as well and are neither subject to nor beholden to the organizations talking points. Every individual church is still considered autonomous and congregational in existence, polity and structure. The UCC organization also has the ability to "tier" its churches. Most churches who reject the open and affirming stance quit giving money to the "mothership", as it were, which drops them to Tier 2 or Tier 3, which means the UCC organizing body is less responsive to their needs and concerns, since Tier 1 churches give the most money. This engenders a sense of disavowal among the individual church which has stopped giving, thereby providing the opportunity to "break free" from their covenant with the UCC organization.
But the problem arises here in the primary difference between the NACCC and the UCC. The NACCC has no financial investment in any of its member churches. The UCC regional synods own the church property in the name of the UCC. So breaking away from the UCC could mean losing the property one's church is located upon.
I don't know if those are the facts or not, but I do know the UCC is Byzantine in its internal structure and trying to become aligned with them as a pastor is an ordeal. As an organization, they are facing the same issues of division as every other organized church body in the world right now. At least in the NACCC, we, for now, have been able to hold the diverse center of our association with one another.
I hope that is helpful, at least as a starting point to the conversation.
Peace!
Seth Jones
_____________________________
How many roads must a man walk down before he is run over by an 18-wheeler of truth?
Stephen Colbert
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Merger with UCC and NACCC - 8/30/2010 8:26:54 AM
|
|
|
Tom Richard
Posts: 37
Joined: 3/17/2003
Status: offline
|
Dear Colleagues
It has been my policy not to have Executive staff respond to Forum discussions. In earlier times of the forum, when misconceptions and disrespect had become an issue, we did intervene. When we are engaged in opinions, it has come across or been interpreted as "top-down" instead of collague to colleague.
We read the forums and when appropriate we respond to NACCC-related discussions privately and when we have opporunity to speak with individuals face-to-face.
That being said, Betsey John, and I are concerned about a rumor that is divisive and has no basis at all in reality. While it may have been the aftermath of an article by my predecessor, Doug Lob's article in the Congregationalist magazine, we are not sure.
Let let me assure you emphatically that such is not the case.
Let me also clear up another misconception. The UCC does not "own" member Churches' property, although that is constntly being tested nationally and within UCC conferneces. Most recently the Geiorgia State Court heard a case regarding the awonership of Center church in Atlanta.
When a Church leaves the UCC (and many are in recent years) there have been instances in which the question of property ownership comes to bear. In recent years several churches that have left the UCC and joined the NACCC have rceived letters, some asking, some demanding payment of loans that were taken out with the old Congregational Conference (most of these loans were made in the late 1800's and very early 1900's). Through our own legal counsel we have offered advice to those churches requesting it, citing (among other arguments) the statue of limitation with respect too those loans.
Secondly, while there ARE UCC churches today that do not know of the NACCC, believe when I say the UCC knows the NA exists. The case of the Center Church in Atlanta Georgia, fighting for their right to be called "congregational" and, in effect, for the existence of both the NACCC and CCCC as legitimate "congregational denominations" (using the term in its original meaning) was not only in the Wall Street Journal and Atlanta journal but spread throughout the country in all the Congregational circles. That case determined, once, and we hope for all, that the NACCC is one of three Congregational communions.
Thirdly, one of the more important questions we wrestle with these days is not our legitimacy, but whether we have done our best to tell the country who we have been and still are as an Association of churches and the blessings that come from being at the table of such an Association. To that question we must answer truthfuly no. There are all kinds of reasons for this, but it is on our minds and hearts to work in several ways to rectify this insufficiency.
I hope this helps.
Grace and Peace,
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Merger with UCC and NACCC - 8/30/2010 8:28:22 AM
|
|
|
Tom Richard
Posts: 37
Joined: 3/17/2003
Status: offline
|
Wow! It MUST be monday morning. I clicked OK to posting thi sbefore I saw two or three misspellings. Apologies to you all.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Merger with UCC and NACCC - 8/31/2010 12:07:35 PM
|
|
|
SD Jones
Posts: 45
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
|
Thank you for your clarifications, Tom!
I did not intend or mean to spread unsubstantiated rumors in my response.
I should have been more clear that I was going off of personal experience with UCC members, not speaking in any objective sense.
Your response is helpful and encouraging for the future of Congregationalism in general and the NA in particular, even though I agree with your assessment as to our public profile.
Peace to you!
Seth Jones
_____________________________
How many roads must a man walk down before he is run over by an 18-wheeler of truth?
Stephen Colbert
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version
