Thursday (cont.)--Worship Discussion
Discussion of the report of the Committee to Revise the Directory for Worship spanned all three sessions of Synod today. The committee report listed 11 directives that it had agreed upon to guide its work, as well as a draft of a new worship directory. They said they desired that this directory would be based on the worship committee position paper that Synod adopted a few years ago.
The committee requested that 30 minutes be devoted to hearing “questions, reflections and comments from the members of Synod regarding the partial and preliminary draft submitted with this report.” The time period was extended twice due to the number of people seeking to give input, and to the lengthiness of their comments. There was high praise for the committee as well as minor suggestions and significant disagreement.
Questions and comments included the use of the term “teaching elder” over “minister,” the meaning of the Sabbath morning service being a “covenant renewal service,” the differences between morning and evening services, and whether suggested orders of service should be included. There was a request that this draft be based upon or compared to the current Directory for Worship, and a question about how carefully churches follow the directory they have.
No further action was taken on this report; so the committee will continue its work toward the goal of a proposed Directory for Worship.
The State of the Church report, which draws from presbytery reports to the Synod, drew an unusually high degree of debate for this annual report. Some who called the report and the debate valuable and stimulating also expressed that it did not accurately reflect or represent the denomination. Synod voted not to receive the report.
Two committees Synod had appointed earlier in the week reported back. In response to Communication 2006-01, the committee expressed its deep concern that a small congregation be heard in its request for aid to purchase a building; however, it did not think it feasible that any one agency could provide such a large sum, or that Synod was equipped better than its agencies to make this type of decision. The matter was referred to the congregation’s presbytery for further coordination in seeking a solution.
The other committee, a special judicial committee responding to communication 2006-04, made a final judgment on the case and commended the parties for their diligence in trying to reach a fully satisfactory conclusion.
Just a few reports remain for the final session of this Synod on Friday morning. One of those reports is the report of election results for boards, committees, and other positions.
The committee requested that 30 minutes be devoted to hearing “questions, reflections and comments from the members of Synod regarding the partial and preliminary draft submitted with this report.” The time period was extended twice due to the number of people seeking to give input, and to the lengthiness of their comments. There was high praise for the committee as well as minor suggestions and significant disagreement.
Questions and comments included the use of the term “teaching elder” over “minister,” the meaning of the Sabbath morning service being a “covenant renewal service,” the differences between morning and evening services, and whether suggested orders of service should be included. There was a request that this draft be based upon or compared to the current Directory for Worship, and a question about how carefully churches follow the directory they have.
No further action was taken on this report; so the committee will continue its work toward the goal of a proposed Directory for Worship.
The State of the Church report, which draws from presbytery reports to the Synod, drew an unusually high degree of debate for this annual report. Some who called the report and the debate valuable and stimulating also expressed that it did not accurately reflect or represent the denomination. Synod voted not to receive the report.
Two committees Synod had appointed earlier in the week reported back. In response to Communication 2006-01, the committee expressed its deep concern that a small congregation be heard in its request for aid to purchase a building; however, it did not think it feasible that any one agency could provide such a large sum, or that Synod was equipped better than its agencies to make this type of decision. The matter was referred to the congregation’s presbytery for further coordination in seeking a solution.
The other committee, a special judicial committee responding to communication 2006-04, made a final judgment on the case and commended the parties for their diligence in trying to reach a fully satisfactory conclusion.
Just a few reports remain for the final session of this Synod on Friday morning. One of those reports is the report of election results for boards, committees, and other positions.
posted by RP Witness at 9:29 PM
<< Home