Moderator Mardi Tindal's blog: The unity of the United Church

Posted on: 05/15/2011 15:02

There aren't many news outlets with religious writers these days, so I'm grateful that the National Post has Charles Lewis on staff to shed light on the religious life and experiences of Canadians. I appreciate particularly that Charles seems intrigued by The United Church of Canada.

Intrigued but also seemingly puzzled by a church that refuses to enforce a single “orthodox” point of view. In his eyes, I suspect, we appear to be going out of our way to raise questions that ought not to be raised, or provoke arguments that should be nipped in the bud.

But this kind of questioning is in our very DNA—and has been from our beginnings. It’s one of the ways we express our faith. And, at our best, what may look like an argument from the outside is often nothing more than a family discussion where passions run high. (Okay, maybe sometimes it’s an argument. The point is, we make up and carry on because we’re a family of faith.)

Charles’ most recent article, “The split in the United Church,” takes the church to task for its “intense engagement with the surrounding secular world” and its “severe lack of orthodoxy.” From my point of view, frankly, I think the critics he quotes just don’t get us—which doesn’t mean that we can’t sometimes learn from our critics—but just that we should think carefully about how we respond.

This is especially important for our conversations with each other. For those United Church members who may agree with the critique and those who don’t, let’s take this as an opportunity to strengthen our capacity for a broad conversation about our faith and identity as the body of Christ, and as a national church, in this country, in this century.

Yesterday’s article could be a gift to those conversations. To that end, I’d like to contribute to the conversation by sharing a few of my "wonderings" in relation to the National Post article.

There are many points in “The split in the United Church” to which I could take exception. I am concerned, for example, that readers may be left with the impression that the United Church is not a Trinitarian church. When Charles asked me if our church is Trinitarian, I said "Yes." Yet the article references only my personal belief as if it were distinct from my church’s belief. Not so.

I also wonder about this curious notion that there is a line between religion and society that must not be blurred. I don't understand how anyone could read the teachings of Jesus and think that religion can remain detached from any aspect of life.

But rather than go through the article point by point, I’d like to focus on the nature of doctrine in our church, because I think that’s the nub of the issue.

Here’s a key paragraph from “The split in the United Church”:

"When asked what is the minimum a member of the United Church should believe before entering the faith, she pauses for a long while. She is reluctant to come up with a specific doctrinal answer, in the way a Catholic or even many Protestant denominations would."

Let me say a little bit of what was going through my mind during that long pause.

I thought, briefly, about the affirmations we ask people to make in our membership liturgies. Strictly speaking, I suppose, naming those would have been the "correct" answer to the question. I decided not to go there. How could I possibly reduce belonging and community to the recitation of a few words?

I thought, at somewhat greater length, of many good and faithful United Church people I know:

young adults who have come for community and stayed to grow in faith
Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and people of other faiths who, for whatever reason, find from time to time a place of safety or nurture in our pews and join us in building the realm of God
people I think of sometimes, not flippantly but affectionately, as “the walking wounded”: people whose capacities do not fit them for success in the world but who are cared for in community, and in that same community are enabled to contribute—sometimes by setting up tables and chairs, sometimes by helping me to remember that we are all, at times, among the walking wounded

These people have “entered” the faith. They belong. Why would we ever subject them to a test?

And so, instead of answering the question directly, I talked about the way we engage with our understanding of faith. I told Charles that we regard scripture as our primary authority. I talked about the way we continue "renovating the house" of our faith as we have since our 1925 Basis of Union:

with the 1940 Statement of Faith
with our popular Creed, “We are not alone,” which was first produced in the 1960s and has seen revisions in 1980 and 1994
more recently, with our Song of Faith

These and other words and acts of heart and soul in scripture and beyond bring our faith in Christ alive to every generation.

None of this made it into the article. But that’s neither here nor there. What’s more important is how we as a church answer this question.

To me, the minimum requirement for "entry" into the United Church is a desire to follow the way of Jesus, to “do justice, show kindness, and walk humbly with God.” As evidence of that desire, I don’t need a recitation. I’ll take showing up, and living one’s faith.

So, now that I think about it, I was more than “reluctant” to come up with “a specific doctrinal answer.” In fact, I refused to accept that way of framing the question.

But my answer isn’t necessarily yours. What emphasis do you think our church needs to place on doctrine?

Let’s take this opportunity for broader, deeper conversation in the love of Christ. The kind of conversation that we see as healthy in the United Church.

Scripture sets a standard for us as people of Christ: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34–35).

Mardi Tindal's blog

Comments

Pinga

Posted on: 05/15/2011 16:23

Well done, Mardi. There are times when no answer is a right answer. I can picture you pausing as you considered how we include...the United Church of Canada is hard to define.

I am thankful for those who walk in faith with you, with me...with us...We do not always agree, we come from various backgrounds.......we are on differing journeys...but I am thankful that we walk together at times.

peace & blessings to you this day.

RevJamesMurray

Posted on: 05/15/2011 17:04

I appreciate Moderator Tindal's response. It is always difficult to know what a reporter wil make of an interview, especially when they have their own message they are trying to make. The UCC is not the only mainline church which is in decline, and other more conservative and traditional churches than we are in much steeper declines. There is no correlation between theological position and growth or decline.

http://www.ncccusa.org/news/090130yearbook1.html

DKS

Posted on: 05/15/2011 17:22

It really is hard to explain the concept of essential agreement to people who ask for orthodoxy.

giastorm

Posted on: 05/15/2011 19:02

Excellent response, Mardi! I'm so happy that you put your thoughts together on this blog.

just_debra

Posted on: 05/15/2011 19:05

I guess you pretty much had to speak here and try to addres the train-wreck of the NP article - and the Toronto Star article about the transgendered pastor was this weekend as well. Not stellar moments (in a long-line of many not-so-stellar moments) for the UCofC and their failure to 'walk the talk' when they say they are open and inclusive but then fail to support their LGBT ministers and parishoners.

Pinga

Posted on: 05/15/2011 19:48

sigh.....What I read in that article was a process that was flawed in someone coming out to their congregation in avery very touchy uncommon situation without adequate preperation for congregational support and dialogue. You can't force people to be welcoming, a church can't...it involves so much more....I felt badly when I read the article, and the process seemed very broken...i wonder who decided that she would meet with a few people and then send a letter...I don't get it.. I am guessing that the only one who could speak to that decision is the minister herself.

Unless you know the individual personally, then I wonder at your willingess to name this as not walking the talk.

However, I know that you have mentioned a personal situation with your partner not being supported and naming it as due to your sexuality.....so it's possible that you see things that I do not possibly from your own hurt..

I'm not sure why we would it a trainwreck, btw. Any news...any conversation which results in an atheist discussing with me....my faith..and my understanding of God/Jesus due to my posting of an article and making a comment...well, dang it...that is good!

Folks, this is an opportunity to discuss where your faith is....and exactly what Mardi was referencing the diversity and the walking together on the journey....or as DKS said, the concept of "essential agreement"

C'mon....instead of shooting at each other, why not choose to use it for good?

Birthstone

Posted on: 05/15/2011 21:01

Excellent response, Mardi!

There was a strong bias present in that article, and clearly a sense that if' one doesn't appreciate orthodoxy and rules, then one mustn't appreciate Jesus or faith at all...

that frustrates me a lot. Your response was really really good!

just_debra

Posted on: 05/15/2011 21:21

The point I always stress is this: The UCof C subjected their LGBT clergy to years of 'debate' about whether or not they were fit to be clergy. Can you even begin to imagine what it must have been like for closeted LGBT clergy to hear, over what? three General Conferences? from collegues and parishoners and leaders, debates and arguments over whether or not they were fit to do what they were doing? To maintain pastoral and vocational relationships with people who were trashing them? How many good pastors did UCofC wound through that? And then finally, they're 'welcome at the table' (the one they've always served) but no one creates a safe space for them. No education from the leadership to assist in the transition. Just a headline or two.

And then the UCofC grabs national headlines supporting same-gender marriage. But, LGBT couples have to go shopping to find one. How many LGBT parishoners have been told "uh, no..not here'. Again, where is the eduction from leadership to assist in the transition? Where is the safe place, the inclusive church?

The 'UCofC' supports LGBT pastors and same-gender marriage-but individual churches? they can do what they want. I don't care about the organizational structure or how the organization is 'managed'. I don't care that each church is free to make their own decisions. When the UCofC makes statements like this but individual churches run contrary, you bet people are going to be confused and annoyed. Suddenly, it's just like everyone else out there making claims but with the fine print "some restrictions apply" or "your mileage may vary" or "not all models available at all dealers"

I might add it's against the law to discriminate in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation. It against the law to allow bullying in the workplace. And again, I don't care if churches are exempt under 'religous freedoms' - it's against the law. And it's not right. Shouldn't that be enough? Think of the message this has sent to the LGBT community - if they would allow this to happen to one of their own, what will they let happen to me?

A gay youth said to me recently, "oh, [your wife is] with the chill church" - and then asked me where he could find a welcoming congregation and I had to tell him "not here".

Can you imagine that gay youth, knowing Rev Wife is a UCofC minister, seeing her working with LGBT youth on a Pride Prom planning committee, hearing her on panel discussions, reading the 'supports same-gender marriage' headlines, seeing the couple of UCofC churches at Pride Toronto-that young man spots the crest and walks in to his local UCofC expecting a welcome and instead "uh, no ...not here"

When I see the golden arches of MacDonald's, I know what I'm going to experience; I've watched the ads, read the news. When I see a UCofC crest over the door, can I say the same?

If I sound annoyed, I am. I'm tired of people taking shots at the UCofC; I'm embarrased by how many of them are right. This is not what our faith community and worship is about but it has become that because of the 'mistakes made in the process'. There shouldn't *be* a process for doing what is right. Yes, maybe it provides for dialogue..but 2000 years of dialogue? I'm tired of hearing things like "well, maybe we should let gay guys in-they're usually good-looking and have lots of disposable income" and "okay, but use the back-door, don't bring your agenda to our planning meetings and don't expect us to give you and yours the same credence we give us and ours'. I'm tired of dissuading my LGBT family from hearing my wife's brilliant sermons because I can't tell them they will find welcome or see themselves there. I will not march in a UCofC contingent within a Pride parade because I will not send the message to my community that the UCofC is safe, welcoming and inclusive faith community. Because people don't see the individual church banners...they see UCof C.

If I sound like a 'one-trick pony', I am. There are real-live, flesh and blood individuals being hurt by UCofC - all the moreso because they come to the door having been 'promised' they would be welcomed (promised by the newspaper headlines etc), come to the door full of hope, willing to try one more time to offer their gifts and take their place at the table, only to hear " uh, no ... not here"

Pinga

Posted on: 05/15/2011 22:11

So, Diane...what do you want. Do you want a decree from up high somewhere? if so, it isn't going to happen.any more than it already has. and yes, churches have different rules than the state/government..and yes, that is the way it is....just as women have the vote,but some denominations do not allow women to be priests.....just as the united church married people in some churches before it was allowed to be done within the state.and just as the church gives sanctuary to people....so yes...church is different from the state.

Sure things need to change...adn they are. So, when a youth comes to you, hopefully you will be able to point them to a church that is affirming..and gone through the process. I know I would. If anyone comes to me and asks me about a church, I will typically suggest to them an afifrming church..why? it is a church that is willing to risk and grow..to learn and understand

you know, in my workplace, a person said to another group within earshot of a woman -- I'm not working for that l***** b__ch. You can't legislate welcome. Yes, it was taken on head on by HR....yes.....it was suitably and appropriately handled...however, you cannot force welcome....it takes time...and if forced, the hate will go underground ..you will know it is there...it just will show up more subtly.

People will tell you that there are still places, many places where there are barriers against skin colour within the church....and that there are barriers against women. ....and this has been many many many years after welcome and the walls came down in society. In the late 70's, I was aghast when I found out my parents would not welcome the man that I was dating into the house. How could that be? Somethings take time ..years later I celebrated as my mother voted for Affirm she understood welcome and love. People can & do change. There are physical barriers in many churches to our friends who physically challenged, and yet we sit on multiple properties..properties that could be sold to transform another church or to build a ministry of outreach. Sadly, there are barriers to full participation. We are broken. My guess is we always will be broken...for there will always be someone who sees an opportunity to be more inclusive...to be more welcoming ....and to name past failures.

If you want a church that will state "this is the way it has to be", then, that work needs to be done in a church where there is a clear "you must believe in this". I am not an expert in those types of churches, I left them a long time ago and do not seek them out. If I want one where people are allowed to think....and that does mean that sometimes they come to a different conclusion than you or I....then I will stay where I am.

mickey_elle

Posted on: 05/15/2011 23:13

Thanks, Mardi for the response! I agree that just because we have less orthodox beliefs, it doesn't mean that we haven't just as strong a biblical and theological basis for them. Recently I was discussing how it seems that even our members sometimes actually believe that we are "wishy-washy" instead of passionately claiming our inclusive and progressive beliefs for what they are. But the things with inclusivity is that it means you don't generally tell someone else what they should believe (which unfortunatly includes being welcoming, etc), and it also makes it very tough to define ourselves, and it's true that people typically like having a clear identity. Sometimes I think that this is our cross to bear...

Mendalla

Posted on: 05/16/2011 12:26

Nice response and clarification. I'm not surprised to hear that some critical parts of your answers didn't make the printed article. That's the press for you.

Some personal thoughts after reading it:

A UCCan that I can consider returning to needs to have this kind of attitude:

Moderator Mardi Tindal wrote:

If you are going to have a minimum standard for doctrine, this at least sets the bar low enough that there's room for discussion and growth. Enforced sameness with no room for discussion is not what I want. I'm not someone whose faith is easily pinned down to doctrines and I value being able to interact with diversity. That's why I'm UU right now. I'm not suggesting that the church needs to be structured around my needs, but the kind of openness that this quote shows can bring in people who might not get involved if they have to subscribe to a list of doctrines to get in the door.

Mendalla

SophiaWisdom

Posted on: 05/17/2011 15:19

Thank you Mardi for you response to this article. What a bias! I am very proud to be a part of the United Church. I love its inclusiveness, its willingness to ask the difficult questions, knowing that some people may inadvertently be hurt, and its stand on justice issues. My belief has Jesus doing all of these things.

Scott Boughner

Posted on: 05/17/2011 16:15

Gretta Vosper has done damage to the popular perception of the UCC. Upon hearing that the United Church has an atheist minister, most people will laugh out loud (lol) and make jokes about our denomination. Hearing Rev. Vosper on the radio talk about her disbelief will not cause people to "think more deeply about the nature of our faith." They will pick up the remote to watch the next Mad Men rerun, click the mouse on the latest YouTube pick or post a comment on their Facebook page. Without a doctrine that has a basis in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, folks will continue to find their spirituality in popular culture.

mosquito

Posted on: 05/17/2011 23:04

Yep, the luke warm church I left, is still unable to stand proudly, her response reads like a politician asked to explain something she has no idea.... very sad. Perhaps she should join the NDP and let someone else lead the Church, someone that can give clear concise answers and actually seem to know the Bible.

I grew up in the United Church and it has slowly been dying beause it won't take a stand and has become all inclusive to everyone but God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Bible... the luck warm church.

The UC I left had hired a new music director that had turned the music up so loud many were complaining and some were leaving yet when I tried to talk to them about it I was insulted and told I was interfering...

The music was loud enough it gave me a headache (those that hadn't left now sat as far away as they could, several had left because it was so loud), the sermons lasted 10 minutes at most and the whole service maybe 45 or 50 minutes including announcements, people taking God's name in vane was common at the coffe afterwards ... it wasn't a Church anymore it was a social club for those that wanted to pretend they were in a real Church. The final straw was someone coming to the Church from the exec and saying we could learn about God from other texts... what rubbish, read these other texts, they have nothing to do with the God of the Bible!

The UC isn't teaching who God is or who Jesus is or trying to build a foundation for their congragations anymore, it is a social club to do environmental and fund raising to try and keep the doors open.

Jesus warned that we needed to take up our crosses and follow him... yet the UC seems unwilling to teach or follow. I strongly agree with what Prof. Daniel B. Wallace (wrote the textbook on ancient Greek & Greek translation) said in an interview in the book "The Case for the Real Jesus" says "It's disturbing that when it comes to the Christian faith, people don't really want, or know how, to investigate the evidence" and many in the United Church don't want to know about the God of the Bible and most are happy with the LIbEral distortions we see.

There are good Christians there but I have sadly found most to be 10 minute Christians (the 10 minutes each week the minister speaks.) and they will be those we see in Matthew 7 that are turned away sadly. They only want to be able to SAY they are Christians, they don't want God and Jesus to interfere in their lives.

Matthew 7
21" Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

God's offer of salvation is free to those that ask but pride, selfishness, greed, lust... all bind or blind so many today,

John 3
36"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

GospelCrazy

Posted on: 05/18/2011 17:01

"Clear, concise answers" are only possible when the question allows them. If the question is loaded with values and assumptions that will undermine your attempt to define yourself, you have to go to the trouble of addressing those first.

Ultimately, all this teaches me is that Charles Lewis doesn't understand the United Church and the National Post wants to sell papers.

Thanks for responding to the article, Mardi. Good to know what you were thinking during the interview.

CJN

Posted on: 05/18/2011 17:50

Perhaps the United Church faith family is more self-organizing than more orthodox denominations .

Jons

Posted on: 05/20/2011 12:12

The secret of the U C CAN is that it does have room for outsiders. We just consider everyone worthy of a warm welcome and and opportunity to grow. Among those of us who have led worshiping congregations are some on the "right" and some on the "left" and some all along the spectrum - religiously speaking. We have always been willing to listen to and proclaim a wide spectrum of faith and commitment while always trying to encourage more of both. We actually believe that this is the Way Jesus pioneered for us.

MonAsksIt

Posted on: 05/24/2011 11:13

Hi, Pinga, I am wondering if I can quote some exerpts of this blog response - I was particularly touched by your comment about referring people to affirming congregations because that shows the willingness to risk and grow. The chair of my board has asked me to look into the process of becoming affirming, and the board is indecisive. By tying it into hospitality and justice, as well as evangelism, there might be more support of the issue. It's a tough thing for this particular congregation. The younger people see it as an obvious no-brainer, the older people remember the pain of losing many members in 1988 and don't want to talk about it. You know, the "we're already welcoming everyone, why do we need to do anything special?" It's complicated by the fact that the congregation almost became one of the schism churches as well, and there are some who probably would be more happy if they had. Quite the can of worms. But your comments get past the sense of squimishness about physical behaviors around sexuality and go to the heart of the matter. Well done!

RevLGKing

Posted on: 05/26/2011 18:41

Unity? I my humble opinion, we will have true unity, when we learn how to love all forms of variety which honours the Golden Rule: I choose to give you good will (agape) regardless of the circumstances, or who you are.

Pinga

Posted on: 05/28/2011 22:53

MonAsksIt, sorry that i missed your request -- of course, you are welcome to quote anything that I wrote...