University of Virginia Library

Live or Let Die: An Administrative Dilemma

The role of the denominational officials responsible for the mission congregation is also important. Clearly, they recognized at an early date that the Congregation had strayed significantly from the objectives approved by the Presbytery. The handling of this problem understandably presented a serious dilemma. To have intervened with a heavy hand would have been to run the risk of smothering the Congregation before it had a chance to breathe. Such actions would no doubt have stifled any future possibilities for experimental congregations in the Miami Presbytery. On the other hand, to let the situation ride meant imminent conflict

within the Presbytery. This may not have been clearly foreseen at the onset. Whether deliberately or through indecision, however, denominational officials did not intervene and conflict within the Presbytery did ensue. Faced with the alternative of having no viable social mission program operating in the area, these officials chose to defend what was emerging. They did so by arguing for the necessity of flexibility, especially in an experimental situation where a model from past experience is nonexistent.

Summarizing the feelings of a review team after the mission's first year of operation, the Ministry Consultant for the Synod of Ohio wrote:

Reviewing the past tension and anticipating the future, he continued, "There has been some hot discussion along these lines already and we fully expect more of the same when the depth review is conducted in 1970." Since that time, the tension between the Congregation for Reconciliation and the Presbytery has continued unabated.

This is not to say that the Congregation is totally lacking in support among Presbyterian executives and some Presbyterian lay persons. We sense considerable sympathy. However, the complex and delicate politics of working with laity-and some clergy adamantly opposed to the Congregation makes continued support of the mission virtually impossible.