Thursday, August 8, 2013

District Discontinued in Argentina

The Church has discontinued the Tres Arroyos Argentina District.  Comprising only two branches in the city of Tres Arroyos, the district was consolidated with the neighboring Necochea Argentina District.  Prospects appear favorable for the organization of a stake from the realigned Necochea Argentina District as the district now has seven branches.  Although the closure of districts generally correlates with problems pertaining to leadership development, member activity and convert retention rates, and small numbers of convert baptisms, this particular instance has appeared warranted due to the district containing only two branches for what has appeared to be its entire duration of operating from 2004 to 2013.

There are now 72 stakes and 34 districts in Argentina.


John Pack Lambert said...

Why do they even created districts with only 2 branches? Alternately, part of me wonders if there has at some point been a decision to make it so all districts are more substantial than what was allowed in the past.

I guess there are probably pluses to having 2 branches form a district.

Mike Johnson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Johnson said...

Just as branches can be from very small "house church" size to the size of a ward (or even larger in a mission), a district can also vary from simply a district president to essentially staffed like a stake (presidency, clerks, district council, auxiliary presidencies, specialists, and so one numbering more than 100 people).

My guess is that it might be convenient for a mission president to call a district president to support two relatively isolated branches, with possibly few if any additional support at the district level. However, as a neighboring district matures more and more into what it would take to be a stake, it might be useful instead to add the branches into the growing district to add numbers and AFTPMPHs and call a member of the district council (and possibly even a member of the district presidency) to liaise with the isolated branches. Two districts merging into one may seem a step backward, but it might be preparing for the creation of a stake. In other words, we may be seeing the ability of the neighboring/absorbing district to better meet the needs of the branches in the disestablished district.

John Pack Lambert said...

That is a good thought. Giving a unit more responsibility shows in some levels it is more established. This is one reason why in the US outlying areas tend to be put in stakes, even if it makes for very large stakes.