On the closure of congregations and the place of the Presbytery

Once again, sadly, we hear news of the closure of Uniting Church Congregations, and questions asked about the processes used to come to these decisions. These are always sad events, and are sensitive, so this discussion will stick to the processes rather than the specifics.

Firstly, what is the Presbytery's authority to close (technically, "dissolve or cease to recognise") a congregation? It is more that appropriate that this is the council of the Church to do so, it is the body tasked with the oversight of congregations. It is notable that this is one of a limited number of authorities of a Presbytery that cannot be delegated to another body. This means any decision made needs to come to a formal meeting of the Presbytery and be approved by a majority of people in a meeting that is primarily composed of people from neighbouring or relatively nearby congregations that have been entrusted to discern future directions for the Church. This is the council that would be expected to most intimately know and care for the members of any congregation effected by such decisions.

How can a Presbytery do this? 

The Presbytery's powers in this are limited by Regulation 3.4.3- the Presbytery has to satisfy itself of a particular reason, has to follow a particular process, and has to take acts to care for the members of the congregation that is being closed.

There are two clauses that guide a Presbytery's decision making in such grounds:

The first is that the Regulations require that a Presbytery shall close a congregation if it determines that it is unable or unwilling to fulfil any of the responsibilities assigned to Congregations under Regulation 3.1.1. These Regulations relate both to the congregation's participation their own and the broader ministry of the Church, but also apply to administrative matters that ensure that the Congregation lies within the governance structures of the Church. None of these are optional, as failure to live up to our legal structures may place individual members of the Congregation and the broader Church at significant risk. 

The second is that a Presbytery may determine to do such an action if it is determined to be in the best interest of the mission, witness and service of the Church within its bounds. This is a very broad clause, and relies upon the Presbytery assuring itself that the correct process is followed.

What process needs to be followed?

The Presbytery needs to meet two key aspects in its decision making process in coming to these decisions.

The first is that the Presbytery's focus needs to remain on our understandings of the Congregation, it is not just required to recognise the Congregation's special place as "the primary expression of the corporate life of the Church" but also to take account of the responsibilities that the Congregation holds. This is then expressed in a consultation process (which involves steps to ensure a level of administrative and pastoral fairness in the decision making).

This means we have a divergent approach with the two reasons for coming to a decision. When a congregation is unwilling or unable to fulfil its responsibilities, the Presbytery needs to seek to work with the congregation regarding the issue. This may lead to the congregation getting additional support (or even structural changes in the broader Church to address systematic issues, such as giving Presbyteries the authority to commission lay presiders at the sacraments in order to allow congregations to fulfil the fullness of their mission) but the congregation must ultimately be seen to moving towards meeting the fullness of their responsibilities or the Presbytery will be forced to make decisions (the wording of this part of the Regulation is shall rather than may).

It works the other way around when the Presbytery is seeking to close congregations for strategic purposes. The Presbytery does not just need to consider if the benefit of the change is sufficient to justify an act that goes against our understanding of Church, but also needs to satisfy itself that it has put in place suitable structures to ensure that the mission of the Church continues to be met in that space. In the presbyteries I have worked in, this would really only ever be agreed to if a common vision was agreed between a congregation (of often a group of congregations) and the Presbytery. 

A summary of this process and the decisions to be made will be made available to the congregation prior to the ultimate decision proceeding for a vote of the Presbytery.

What happens to the members of the congregation?

The final part of the process (among technical requirements) obliges the Presbytery to ensure that the membership of all members of the congregation to be closed is to be maintained (by transfer to another congregation) and for appropriate pastoral care to be offered to all affected by the decision.

Leading through the Red Sea

It is getting rarer and rarer for me to write on this blog, but it is good to have a space to reflect and gather my thoughts, particularly at times like this when life is getting more and more complex. These are the time when leaders are particularly prone to falling into the hurry of responding to the immediate, but also when going back to our roots is just so vital.

A number of years ago, I preached at the induction of a friend. The Old Testament text for that day was Exodus 14. I thought it might be good to remember this particular passage for our current situation with compulsory physical distancing having due to disease having such a profound impact upon the people we lead as age old practices and ways of connecting with God and each other have been lost.

The story of Moses at the Red Sea is one of great drama. The people are caught between the rampaging armies of the Egyptians on one side and the feared depths of the sea on the other. Yet still God provides a way through - not by withdrawing either threat but calling Moses to lead his people into the very heart of the chaos of the sea.

The first steps the initial leaders took in their passage through the sea must have been the most difficult of their lives. It must only have been their trust in God and in Moses, largely in part to their lived experience following Moses in other cases, that gave them the impetus to step into the watery chasm.

We have a way through this Coronovirus pandemic. It has been provided for us by the doctors and scientist whose gifts God has used for centuries to bring health and well-being into our communities. It is essential that we see this work as a gift from God even if we (probably, like the people of Israel and our Lord at Golgotha) are praying that there may be an easier way. If we, as leaders, wish to serve as shepherds keeping our people (and their families) safe from physical harm and great grief among their families and communities, we have to lead by example and provide the best support we can to the medical experts and our leaders.

The walk across the Red Sea, surrounded on both sides by the water, must have been a terrifying place. The temptation to lose faith as individuals and a group and take the chance of facing the known threat of the army must have always been in the minds of the people. There were three key factors (apart from fear) that kept the group from turning back: the clear vision from their leaders, the presence of their leaders with them and the sense of being a community on the move together.

It is therefore essential that our leaders work hard at both visioning and pastoral care. At times like this we are all stressed, and it is vital that our leaders come up with simple clear strategies of how the community may not just hold together but move forwards to a new future through this catastrophic event. This needs to be accompanied by lots of work on the part of key leaders to show that they are showing personal care to their communities, but they cannot do it all by themselves - the need for systematic and accountable systems of pastoral care within congregations has never been more critical.

So, they made their way through. In summary, the practices of leadership that helped most in this situation where

• Maintenance of their own faith life
• Clear, simple and concise vision statements
• Support for people, acknowledging they are in a place of fear
• Not thinking they can do it all alone; using the space created by the clear, accepted vision to organise, empower and release their teams and communities

There are many ways our situation is not like the Red Sea, but I hope this provides people a chance to reflect on their own ministry experiences at this time and encouragement for the way to come.

We are all going to be changed by this experience, but we will also need to acknowledge that people will always want to rebuild the security of the past. This can only be done by faith, not in the clarity of a pillar of flame but rather the One who says "Follow me"into the messy reality of incarnational, sacrificial ministry and "I will be with you always."

My prayers are with all who have accepted the responsibility of leadership in these difficult times.

Why I believe Anthropogenic Climate Change is Real

I have heard so much disinformation about climate change lately that I feel I can't be silent any more. Yesterday's release of cabinet papers that disclosed the clarity that our political leaders were given 30 years ago, while some still claim the science is not settled, was the final straw. As someone trained as a scientist, and as a communicator, I feel it is important to offer my perspective. You may have other pet scientists you may wish to listen to, but I will attempt to build my argument on established facts and will try to point out where some of the points for (often mischievous) misunderstanding may occur,

Atmospheres and Heat Transfer
The Earth is a planet whose primary source of heat is the sun, This heat is transferred by infrared radiation. The atmosphere plays an important role in this process. The moon surface, having a minimal atmosphere absorbs some of the infrared radiation, and reflects the rest of it back into space. For this reason, the part of the moon that sees the sun at any point in time sees extreme heat and the part that faces away from the sun sees extreme cold. In contrast, the atmosphere of the earth adds a number of different factors to the mix. Things such as clouds (or volcanic or bushfire smoke) can cause more of the sunlight to be reflected (technically, the planet's albedo increases) and have a cooling effect, the very mass of the material gives a buffering capacity, and the atmosphere itself has gases that convert solar radiation into heat. These are what are commonly called greenhouse gases.

Infrared absorption by greenhouse gases
The earth would be uninhabitable if it were not for the presence of greenhouse gases. These are a set of components of our atmosphere which have the property of strongly absorbing infrared radiation. I, by training, am (among other things) and infrared spectroscopist. I used the ways in which particular gases absorb infrared radiation to study the ways in which those gases interact with the surface of coal to assist in my little bit of the CSG development process. There are a number of naturally and synthetically occurring gases in our atmosphere which perform this function. The primary gases in this suite, in order of decreasing concentration are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons.

Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and the "Carbon Dioxide Hypothesis"
For decades scientists have expressed a concern that the concentration of these gases is increasing with human activity over time, and have pointed to the fact that this would be expected to increase the total (global) heat of the planet. Unfortunately, some seized on an misunderstanding that this means that this would be a homogeneous effect with all temperatures being observed to rise in all places (I must admit that this is a much more satisfactory definition of "global"), but the earth has a number of strong dynamics that effect our weather events on a local scale, and there is a difference between global averaging measurements and the effects in each individual local climate.

In terms of human effect, some people ask why we only speak about a small part of the equation. Water is by far the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, and we do not speak about it much at all. The thought is that, as this is out of our control, relatively small variations in the levels of water in the atmosphere due to natural effects have the potential to swamp the relatively small components that humanity adds through its activities.

The difference is that water has a clear mechanism by which its atmospheric concentrations are maintained at a generally stable level- the water cycle, and don't we need some of that rain about our place at the moment!

I will talk about carbon dioxide later, but wish to note that methane and some of the other greenhouse gases listed above are quite opposite to water, once these gases are released into the atmosphere there are only quite slow mechanisms for them to be removed.

Carbon dioxide is a middle-case scenario. There are a number of mechanisms by which excess carbon dioxide can be absorbed by the planer, particularly absorption by the oceans and the life-giving process of photosynthesis which occurs in plants but more predominantly in sea life. This capacity is known technically as buffering but is also known as carbon sinks or carbon banks. This makes it difficult to estimate the exact effect a particular amount of carbon dioxide released will make to the global concentration and thus the climate (and it is this factor, rather than whether there is an effect that is under discussion in mainstream scientific discourse)

While the concentration of carbon dioxide is known to be rising, this is also something that has varied over the life of the planet. However, there has been a rapid rise from a prior historical record estimated at 300 ppm to our current averages exceeding 400 ppm.

Carbon sinks v carbon banks
One of the areas in which there is some discussion is the concept of a carbon sink. The earth has shown mechanisms by which carbon dioxide has been removed from the atmosphere in the past and taken out of circulation. Two prime examples would be the deposition of limestone (carbonates) and fossil fuels, as well as the obvious examples of storage in timber.

The problem with seeing these systems as sinks is that we can assume that they will always function in the way they have historically. Our use of fossil fuels has turned that part of the equation into a bank from which we are making withdrawals on a historical scale, and the burning off of forests to either aid development or through fires also pose significant withdrawals.

The catastrophic fringe of the climate movement are warning that we cannot take the historical mechanisms and sinks for granted as they are also subject to affect by climate. I must say, that while I do not share in their despair, they do have a good point. The deposition of limestone comes from the absorption of carbon dioxide by marine life into their casings and them settling to the sea floor. While we may think that this mechanism may accelerate with increasing carbon dioxide concentration, there is another affect in play. The increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the seawater is having a small but significant impact on the oceans by making the water more acidic. The change in acidity of the water means that it is harder for these organisms to form their calcium casing that lie at the heart of this process.

All this adds up to the fact that, even though the planet has been able to handle the changes in carbon dioxide levels that have occurred to the point, there are enough reasons for concern that I believe the wisest course of action is for us to seek to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions in a planned and managed fashion (and I wish we had started this 30 years ago).

But what about the other variables?
 One of the common arguments I hear is that the earth has a variable climate, and climate change is a given. This is indeed true. However, the rapid changes have tended to be towards the cooler end of the scale (often associated with catastrophic events such as meteor strikes or volcanic eruptions) but there are examples of ecosystems which have been able to adapt to these changes over time.

One example of this is "cloud forests" where plant life on tropical mountains exists at the point where the water in the air condenses into mist. As temperatures increase and decrease, these systems would have needed to move up and down the mountain face to survive. They are currently struggling because the rate of change is higher than what they can cope with. I have a friend whose whole doctorate is in predicting the number of species of native plants in my country will be made extinct because of our current rate of change and the restriction of habitats for the ecosystems to move into.

In recent years my own country, we have had a fire in a temperate forest which is not capable of tolerating fire where the trees have been estimated as being 1000 years old, we have also seen rainforests of significant age (which also do not tolerate fire) burn in recent years. It is not business as usual.

So, how do we face this threat, who should pay?
I think this is the question that lies behind much of our opposition to action. If we choose to make changes, people are going to suffer. The sad thing to me, is that this has become a polarisation point between those who see nature as its own good, and those who see it solely as a source of materials for human flourishing. Civilisations through history have learnt that if you exceed the capacity of your natural systems, disaster occurs. Our particular civilisation has seen the growth of many mechanisms by which we can control many of these potentially disastrous factors. Perhaps we will be able to continually develop technologies to stay ahead of the catastrophe curve, but I would not exclude the re-establishment of the concept of land care as one of the developments we may need. It will mean a change for both sides of this discussion, but it is one we need to have.