MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

CHANGE: it's urgent!

The UCC's cumbersomely and off-puttingly named Comprehensive Review Task Group is getting serious: change is coming and it's going to have to be sweeping.

 

The Moderator's latest blog is an IMPORTANT read for all UCC members:

 

http://www.facebook.com/UnitedChurchCda

 

A consultant is comparing the church's position with that of a burning oil rig: "if you stay on the platform… you fry; if you jump into the ocean, you have 20 minutes before you freeze" — "choose possible rescue instead of certain death."

 

Convinced? The Moderator says "we’ve now hit the point where we simply must change… maintaining the status quo is certain death"

 

He is calling the UCC to find a new vision of "church"… what's it to be?

 

--------

 

 

Role? Buldings? Staff? Activities?

 

What's the essential core? Worship? Spirituality? Advocacy? Community?…

 

"We know we’re in trouble, but I’m not sure we’re convinced that we have to jump," says the Moderator. "We have had, in the past, a habit of always punting our concerns to the 'next General Council'.”

 

What do you think?

Share this

Comments

DKS's picture

DKS

image

Man the lifeboats! Grab the lifejackets! Sound the alarm! Things must change! Yes, I know. And it has to happen TOMORROW!  Right.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Panic change leads to bad decisions and this sounds an awful lot like panic to me. Yes, there are urgent problems to be dealt with. However, the analogy is bad. The UCCan isn't facing the choice of death by fire or death by freezing. It's facing a problem of adaptation. There's a new reality in which church/religion is no longer seen as mandatory or even necessary by a growing percentage of the population and among those for whom it is still important, a growing percentage aren't Christian (mainly Muslims). Like any organism facing fundamental environmental change, the UCCan needs to evolve and adapt, but that isn't like facing two instant life or death choices. This about change and how to adapt to it, not about escaping a sinking oil rig.

 

Mendalla

 

DKS's picture

DKS

image

Mendalla wrote:

Like any organism facing fundamental environmental change, the UCCan needs to evolve and adapt, but that isn't like facing two instant life or death choices. This about change and how to adapt to it, not about escaping a sinking oil rig.

 

Exactly.

MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

The Moderator seems to be in a lather over it. And the consultant seems to be a panic merchant.

 

So what's up? 

somegalfromcan's picture

somegalfromcan

image

It's fairly obvious to me that things in this denomination do need to change. Two years ago, when I first joined presbytery, we had 20 pastoral charges. Two churches have closed since since then and I'm hearing strong rumours that two others may not last the year. That's 20% of the United Church congregations in this area. Sadly, if we don't make changes, we will die. That said, pannicking is not going to help anyone! We do, however, need to start planning and trying new ways of being church.

DKS's picture

DKS

image

MikePaterson wrote:

The Moderator seems to be in a lather over it. And the consultant seems to be a panic merchant.

 

So what's up? 

 

This quote from a Chinese academic in this morning's New York Times on change in China sums it up nicely.

 

Quote:
“Everyone is talking about reform, but in fact everyone has a fear of reform,” said Ma Yong, a historian at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

 

DKS's picture

DKS

image

somegalfromcan wrote:

It's fairly obvious to me that things in this denomination do need to change. Two years ago, when I first joined presbytery, we had 20 pastoral charges. Two churches have closed since since then and I'm hearing strong rumours that two others may not last the year. That's 20% of the United Church congregations in this area. Sadly, if we don't make changes, we will die. That said, pannicking is not going to help anyone! We do, however, need to start planning and trying new ways of being church.

 

Toronto Conference expects to lose 30% (240 to 180) of its congregations in the next ten years. I think it will happen sooner rather than later.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

DKS wrote:

MikePaterson wrote:

The Moderator seems to be in a lather over it. And the consultant seems to be a panic merchant.

 

So what's up? 

 

This quote from a Chinese academic in this morning's New York Times on change in China sums it up nicely.

 

Quote:
“Everyone is talking about reform, but in fact everyone has a fear of reform,” said Ma Yong, a historian at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

 

 

Exactly, and as applicable here as it is over there. Change can, and does, bring a certain amount of chaos with it, not to mention unfamiliarity. The Chinese of the current generation have a well-founded fear of chaos since many of them lived through at least the great leap forward and cultural revolution and some (my in-law's generation) can still remember the Japanese invasion and civil war. My middle class Chinese relations would rather see reform happen slowly and thoughfully than risk a repeat performance (plus they saw the mess that was Russia post-Communism).

 

In our case, though, the problem is that most North Americans alive can't remember anything more chaotic than the sixties (which were a tempest in a teapot compared to what was happening in China at the time or what previous generations witnessed in the wars and Depression) so change = the unknown and that can be just as scary as chaos.

 

Change has to happen, but it needs to be thoughtful change that makes the church more adaptable in the long haul, not panic change that creates a temporary, illusory stability until the next wave of change hits. It isn't just a UCCan issue. All churches, even UUs, are confronting it.

 

Mendalla

 

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

Some would say that the new mission field is North America but who should be the missionaries?

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

A question I would raise is this: Are there areas where you need to sell the church as being relevant rather than changing the church to make it relevant?

 

There seems to be a lot of talk about changing the church to make it relevant to the times but not much about how the church may be where it needs to be in some areas, not necessarily all, but just isn't presenting that face to the world properly.

 

Take a look at UU'ism. Our open, diverse approach to spiritual growth, spiritual life, and worshiop should, on paper, be relevant to at least some of those who have left traditional churches (indeed, that is where many of my fellow congregants came from) and yet not all UU congregations are successfully milking that (some are, by the way, but mine doesn't seem to be one of them). We have something that is relevant to a segment, but we aren't always reaching that segment in a way that gets them interested or keeps them interested.

 

Could the UCCan be missing similar opportunities where they don't need to change the church, but change the image?

 

Mendalla

 

Matt81's picture

Matt81

image

Change = Chaos.    Chaos ≈ change.

Someone once said that organizations only change in the crisis.  In the 1990's a minister in the Harris government in Ontario, said in speaking of need to change that they would just 'create' a crisis. 

the consultation will be interesting.  as will it be to observe which parts of the UCC organization become sacred cows that no one dares to touch.  As one book writer, I think it was Bill Easum said, Sacred Cows make great Hamburger." ( No slight to those who have true sacred cows intended or implied. His words)

Point is, organizations and people tend to protect their own turf.  Their own source of livelihood.  Full disclosure - I'd like to keep my job until I retire.  Full truth - there are lots of people who said the same thing, now unemployed.  As my college roomate used to say - don't panic dude.

Gary Paterson's picture

Gary Paterson

image

Friends,

I so appreciate that this dialogue about change in the church is happening on Wondercafe.   I agree that "panic" is not helpful, and that's not what I was intending with my blog posting... rather, the operative word would be "urgent."  I am very grateful that the Comprehensive Review Task Group carries breadth, diversity and wisdom, and has a couple of years to listen and discern.  In the near future, there will be a consultation process that engages the wider church in conversations, eliciting grass roots wisdom about what is already happening, and what changes might be helpful... adaptive, diverse, context-specific (one size does not fit all).  But I do believe that change is absolutely necessary... a creative response not just to numbers and finances, but a changed situation in the culture and society in which we find ourselves. 

I encourage you to post comments on my Blog  to expand the dialogue circle.

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Human culture evolves; religious institutions evolve along with it.

 

I think the Church has remained static for too long, and suddenly realizes that there is one hell of lot, pardon me, one heaven of a lot of catching up to do.

 

The reason most unchurched people I have talked to don't go to church is because they "don't believe in any of that stuff."

 

As I read history, unquestioning belief in doctrine was not necessary in the early Church around Jesus. I think Jesus taught social justice and basic humanism, albeit from a spiritual perspective. When Jesus said, "Your faith has helped you," I think he meant that the feeling of and the trust in a spiritual dimension has helped us, rather than the unquestioning belief in a particular religious dogma or doctrine.

 

If the public were more ware that unquestioning belief in doctrine is not necessary to belong to the UCC, that a dedication to humanism, social justice, and environmentalism is enough, then more people might attend. Then the UCC might become more like the UU.

 

The early community around Jesus, like most other early religious movements, was largely mystical. The essential element of faith was spiritual or mystical experience. Then Christian faith was politicised and dogmatised. Unquestioning belief in doctrine replaced  mystical experience as the essential element of faith, and remained so to this day.

 

I think that we, the UCC, need to reverse this particular Fall from Grace. We need to "de-doctrinate" ourselves, and take a step back into spiritual or mystical experience as the essential element of faith. At the same time, we should take a step ahead, embrace the latest scientific discoveries, and unite them with the insights of spiritual experience. Spiritual experience would be achieved by turning inward in meditation, contemplation or meditative exercise. The Church, apart from being active in the fields of social justice, humanism and environmentalism, would facilitate such a turning inward by providing the appropriate training and venues.

 

 

Matt81's picture

Matt81

image

"How many church members does it take to change a light bulb?"

Whaddaya mean CHANGE??? That light bulb was given in memory of my Grandmother! My father installed it with his bare hands! He donated his time AND the use of his ladder to do it, too! My family's been members of this church for four generations! And if you think you're gonna come in here and make a bunch of changes all of a sudden, Pastor, you've got another thing coming!

GO_3838's picture

GO_3838

image

When I watched the GC livestream this summer, I remember something Ross Bartlett said: He would like the United Church to declare a three-year moratorium on despair.

I have done that for myself: I've declared a three-year moratorium on despair for all my committees and all my dealings in my own church.

I focus on what we do have, not on what we don't.

I focus on the resources I have, not what I don't.

I focus on the people that do come, rather than fret and lament for the times when the pews were full. (When actually, I've never known a time when the pews were full. I'm part of the minority "under 50" age bracket.)

That's why I don't like the "oil rig" analogy. If it is a burning oil rig, then it's a disaster. But suppose we adopt the attitude that we're not on a burning oil rig?

We are shrinking: money, resources, members, adhnerents are all shrinking. But it's such a waste of energy to despair over that. Instead, accept it, and work with what and who you have. Now that means letting go of expensive buildings. (And that's not the end of the world.)

Jesus worked with huge crowds. Jesus also worked with small groups. When the one leper returned to thank him, he accepted the thanks; he did not despair that the 9 others did not thank him.

Let go of despair. And then maybe we can make effective change as a church.

 

 

 

DKS's picture

DKS

image

GO_3838 wrote:

Let go of despair. And then maybe we can make effective change as a church.

 

Yup. Well said.

kaythecurler's picture

kaythecurler

image

Change has to be brought into being by individuals and congregations, I think.  Someone at 'Head Office' saying ALL CHANGE will probably have as much lasting effect as water sitting on the back of a loon.

 

Presumably there are some lively, commmitted, diverse, welcoming congregations out there to balance the ones that haven't yet accepted the desirability of changing to a 'new' hymnbook like Voices United.  One ex UC friend told me she got tired of waiting for Mrs Churchpillar to decide to share the key to the kitchen so other church based groups could use it.  Why would she keep supporting a congregation and also pay the local Seniors Group for the use of their hall and kitchen? I expect Mrs Churchpillar was thought to be a 'big giver' to the coffers - but I doubt she gave enough to balance the money lost as younger people left the building for the last time.

Jobam's picture

Jobam

image

I have to be honest - I like the sinking ship analogy – we don’t do change well.

When is the last time we changed??????

 

We have included the Comprehensive Review Meeting from Gary's blog in our bulletin this week.

kaythecurler's picture

kaythecurler

image

Back around 1980 a UC minister asked me what would make me consider joining the church?

 

I suggested a series of discussion groups around the types of things many people think about  - 

Angels

Heaven and Hell

Is Spirit only known via churches?

How do you know which Bible version is closest to the original?

Can you be Christian if you doubt the Bible?

Can you be a worthwhile person without being Saved?

What does being Saved mean anyway?

What is the point of being Saved?  It doesn't seem to change behavior.

Is the God  of all the major religions the same God?

How can we know ehn something is sinful?

If someone says 'this' is sinful does that apply to everyone? Why?

Is the God worshipped at the UC a white folks God?  There don't seem to be any people attending that have black or brown skin.

 

I suggested advertising, especially by word of mouth,  inviting people to share there thoughts - especially people like me who don't go to church.

I heard absolutley nothing about this idea for ten years when someone told me that the minister had suggested starting some discussion groups but no one wanted to go. 

 

 

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

That's probably why we're all gathered here Kay, it fills that need for me too. I recall Steven said that when he tried that instead of a sermon it went over very well and the men were more involved.

DKS's picture

DKS

image

Jobam wrote:

I have to be honest - I like the sinking ship analogy – we don’t do change well.

When is the last time we changed??????

 

The last time we changed? In the 1970's & 80's arounf worship and baptism practice. In the 1990's and 2000's when we said that sexual orientation is not a barrier to consideration for ministry. In the 1990's wheen we brough in Voices United. All of these things too years if not decades. That the United Church expects change to occur so rapidly in a conciliar organization shows that ir is simply not in touch with both change systems and our own history.

 

Quote:

We have included the Comprehensive Review Meeting from Gary's blog in our bulletin this week.

 

I would not depress my congregation with it. We face our own threats.

Jim Kenney's picture

Jim Kenney

image

Talking about the need for change invites a number of questions.

 

Why change?  Answering this leads to more questions.

Whose church is it anyway?  If it is God's church, and God allowed millions of species to disapear over hundreds of millions of years, then either the church is serving God's purposes, it cannot stay the way it is.  Would God's purposes be better served by closing and leaving space for something new?  Is there something we need to become.  Are we at the caterpillar or cocoon stage in our evolution?

 

If it is the community's church, then what does the community need of the church?

 

If it is our church, why should anyone ellse want to be part of what we are doing?

 

If it is our ancestor's chrch, then maybe we should have it join them in the cemetery or mausoleum.

 

There are Paulo Nelson's 6 questions beginning with do we want to live or die?

 

I feel a bit sympathetic towards General Council because of the challenges that are there.  I was disappointed when they did major structural changes without a clear sense of purpose -- what a waste of energy, commitment, time and money along with good will.

 

I suspect a great deal of the anxiety is held by keen social activists and ardent liberals sensing the end of an organization that provided a lot of support for their point of view.  If they had not been so uncomfortable with evangelism and stewardship, our situation might be better.  While I am saddened by the prospect of the reduction of voices for inclusive congregations across the country, I see individual churches with lay and ordered leaders that are doing very well in their communities at living out thorough inclusivity.  In them I see hope for the future.

 

What I hope will come out of the commission's work is a way for the essential tasks of the wider church to be assigned to the appropriate courts with a minimum of overlap, and a provision for flexibility.  One size does not fit all. 

 

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if all of the higher courts closed, and individual congregations had to work together to create a new structure.

DKS's picture

DKS

image

Jim Kenney wrote:

 

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if all of the higher courts closed, and individual congregations had to work together to create a new structure.

 

Pure Congregationalism of a hundred years ago. The only reason Congregationalists had any structure was to negotiate union.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

DKS wrote:

Jim Kenney wrote:

 

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if all of the higher courts closed, and individual congregations had to work together to create a new structure.

 

Pure Congregationalism of a hundred years ago. The only reason Congregationalists had any structure was to negotiate union.

 

Congregationalism is a blessing and a curse. UU'ism is highly congregational, with the national bodies being more for coordination than governance (esp. here in Canada).

 

The blessing is that you have a great deal of leeway for adapting your practices and activities to fit the local congregation and community. There's no one to say that you must do somethiing a certain way. For instance, there's no requirement that a church have a minister and at least two UU congregations in Ontario are lay-led.

 

The curse is that without the tight ties created by a national presence (like your GC) and regional bodies (like the Conferences/Presbyteries), isolation tends to settle in. We here in London don't have nearly as much contact and connection as we should even with nearby congregations like Sarnia-Port Huron and Kitchener-Waterloo. Being part of a governing body like a Presbytery with them would provide a basis for building that connection.

 

Mendalla

 

somegalfromcan's picture

somegalfromcan

image

Gary Paterson wrote:

Friends,

I so appreciate that this dialogue about change in the church is happening on Wondercafe.   I agree that "panic" is not helpful, and that's not what I was intending with my blog posting... rather, the operative word would be "urgent."  I am very grateful that the Comprehensive Review Task Group carries breadth, diversity and wisdom, and has a couple of years to listen and discern.  In the near future, there will be a consultation process that engages the wider church in conversations, eliciting grass roots wisdom about what is already happening, and what changes might be helpful... adaptive, diverse, context-specific (one size does not fit all).  But I do believe that change is absolutely necessary... a creative response not just to numbers and finances, but a changed situation in the culture and society in which we find ourselves. 

I encourage you to post comments on my Blog  to expand the dialogue circle.

 

Welcome Gary!

 

I look forward to that consultation process. It seems to me that we need to take a closer look at those churches that are being successful in attracting and keeping new members. Is there a secret to their success, and what is it? How can it be modified and applied by congregations in different situations?

Jobam's picture

Jobam

image

DKS – I beg to differ – ordination – can you honestly tell me that all congregations accept queer clergy…NOT!!!! 

Change – my work changes yearly – those with computers and tech toys know that what is good now is only “new” for 6 months. 

No, whatever nationally we say we embrace, never gets down to the roots of our congregations - at least not in a timely fasion.

You are not living in the real world.

Why do you think we have the top 40 list – cause it changes…..two hymnbooks in how many years…really – still 40 years out of date!  We will never be current in our current state.

Don’t get me started….LOL

Jobam's picture

Jobam

image

Wow, DKS – have you ever pushed my buttons…wow…had to go take the dog for a walk.  I don’t understand – we have youth that need our support and very few churches that are equipped to take them in – of the youth we had at Rainbow Camp 97 percent had tried suicide and/or some sort of self-harm…Where is your local United Church on this – where is your welcoming…..social justice – we have M&S so that we don’t have to get our local fingers dirty – stats show the age of the folks attending church…DKS, really!!!!!    DKS – put your money where your mouth is and sign up as a volunteer – actually all of you saying that we move to fast….wow….you aren’t in the trenches….people are dying due to yourself righteousness in your own back yard.  We see time and time again comments on here about folks not wanting to do anything.  You know I could go on and on……on a local level most United Churches are useless – only serving themselves….lots of reasons for it…..but at the end of the day…..we aren’t moving too fast (ok, maybe to the local commentary but that’s it) ….come on now….what do you drive – a car made in the 80’s…..bet you don’t want to buy a new one to soon as change is not good……life for most folks – those under 50 changes very quickly – our churches have never kept up – and won’t in their current form. 

How can we justify paying into M&S, Conference dues, Presbytery dues etc when in reality we are doing it for the continuation of the “business as usual”.  Very few Presbyteries and Conference have local ministries and/or mission – how can we in good faith, and good stewards, keep putting funds into courts and forms of church government while not acknowledging what is going on in our own back yards…..

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

DKS wrote:

Jim Kenney wrote:

 

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if all of the higher courts closed, and individual congregations had to work together to create a new structure.

 

Pure Congregationalism of a hundred years ago. The only reason Congregationalists had any structure was to negotiate union.

 

Congregationalism is the direction we've been going for some time now. I've been saying that for years. The speed of our move in that direction is increasing dramatically.

MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

 

There are some glaring issues.

 

The FIRST is…

 

Buildings…

 

Consider: most of Christianity’s first dedicated church structures — modeled on pagan temples and Jewish synagogues — were built by autocrats and aristocrats to weasel their butts into heaven the best way they knew: by buying it.

 

Monasteries  owed their existence to landowners and rulers.

 

Competitive righteousness among the rich drove raised the bar so medieval churches were often magnificent, and included a family mausoleum or crypt handily located in the lap of god… as well as a saint’s relic.  One of the oldest surviving churches of this sort is in Prague: it’s an amazing structure. The original build, in the 10th century, was paid for by Wenceslas I, Duke of Bohemia. It housed one of St Vitus’ arm bones.

 

And these grand structures had secular uses too: as banquet halls, fair venues and granaries.

 

 Aristocrats are seldom fast on the uptake but, by the 20th century, most realized that all of this was an unnecessary expense… either because they realized their butts were irredeemable or because they saw through the scam.

 

So ordinary folk tried to keep the old relicts standing. They sold pews to the rich folks, but now everyone wants to sit down through services.

 

So — not least  if not always, with the intention in mind of being buried like an aristocrat in the holy, consecrated ground of the churchyard — they built new churches with the sweat of their brows, their life savings and their bequests… topping up sometimes with bank loans and the like… not fully appreciating that, less and less, are buildings erected with permanence in mind.  

 

Certainly they have seldom afforded the art, the beauty, the aesthetics of medieval potentates. Blame the Reformation if you like, but how many churches can even think about giving worshippers respite from the architectural and occupational ugliness of “modern life?

 

Besides, these days, few buildings in urban areas are built or expected to last more than 30-40 years.

 

So, join a church “family” and you find yourself fettered to an ugly, failed or failing not-necessarily-so-old building that no longer fits the size of the congregation or the theology that makes the worship accessible… not to mention the environmental implications of the heating bills.

 

You need middle class folk with deep pockets in there to keep it all going. But their incomes, in Canada, in real terms, haven't gone up in decades but job and income security has fallen away…

 

And there are now plenty of well-resourced secular clubs, organisations and facilities in most larger communities to provide for the sorts of social activities the old community churches used to host and sponsor — so the facilities get powered up a few times a week for the benefit of local groups who can’t or prefer not to afford better facilities of their own.  

 

Most Canadians in most communities can now get along without ever needing to go onto a church. Many younger ones haven't.

 

They may be the “smart” ones.

 

Meanwhile, denominational schisms and the proliferation of traditions and sects since the Reformation have deepened the problem, not only by ensuring an over-supply of church buildings but also by witnessing Christian fractiousness. Any onlooker can see that they can’t ALL be the “one way”.

 

 

 

Most of the un-churched people I know are put off by the churches.

 

It’s that simple. They don’t need more debt in their lives… no matter what it’s for, or whether it’s contractually or morally incurred. Nor do they need the divisiveness they see…  so they find it cheaper and easier to undergo spiritual replacement therapy in the forms of entertainment and pharmaceuticals. And nothing attracts them to the buildings, not even curiosity.

 

 

Meanwhile, caught in the closing vice of rising costs and dwindling revenues, churched people tend to lapse deeply into nostalgia for the days of yore: just read your average JNAC report.

 

Few bustle with calls for for change or relevance, for bulldozing the burden of old buildings and finding fresh ways to express their spiritual vivacity and invigorate the depressed zones of their  community with the hope and delight of lived-out faith.

 

They have become defeatist and depressed by the balance sheets and have no energy beyond following the old routines even if they lack the spiritual connections of the past… many churches have become social centres of spiritual indifference. They risk taking the church as community down with them.

 

It’s time to renovate — not the buildings but our reliance on them. And our priorities. And, if your church community is mostly over-60s, you scarcely have 10 years to do it.

 

 

DKS's picture

DKS

image

Jobam wrote:

DKS – I beg to differ – ordination – can you honestly tell me that all congregations accept queer clergy…NOT!!!! 

 

Perhaps in your corner of the church, but in mine we have (and ordain and designate and commission) people for whom sexual orientation is not an issue. We also settle them. We employ them as conference and presbytery staff. Is it perfect? No. But then there are congregations who have reservations about women in ministry, too.

Quote:
Change – my work changes yearly – those with computers and tech toys know that what is good now is only “new” for 6 months. 

No, whatever nationally we say we embrace, never gets down to the roots of our congregations - at least not in a timely fasion.

You are not living in the real world.

Why do you think we have the top 40 list – cause it changes…..two hymnbooks in how many years…really – still 40 years out of date!  We will never be current in our current state.

Don’t get me started….LOL

 

The church is not a technological world. Never was. The comparison fails. You can easily introduce technology. It is a lot harder to change people. I've lived all of those changes over the last 35 years.

DKS's picture

DKS

image

Jobam wrote:

Wow, DKS – have you ever pushed my buttons…wow…had to go take the dog for a walk.  I don’t understand – we have youth that need our support and very few churches that are equipped to take them in – of the youth we had at Rainbow Camp 97 percent had tried suicide and/or some sort of self-harm…Where is your local United Church on this – where is your welcoming…..social justice – we have M&S so that we don’t have to get our local fingers dirty – stats show the age of the folks attending church…DKS, really!!!!!    DKS – put your money where your mouth is and sign up as a volunteer – actually all of you saying that we move to fast….wow….you aren’t in the trenches….people are dying due to yourself righteousness in your own back yard.  We see time and time again comments on here about folks not wanting to do anything.  You know I could go on and on……on a local level most United Churches are useless – only serving themselves….lots of reasons for it…..but at the end of the day…..we aren’t moving too fast (ok, maybe to the local commentary but that’s it) ….come on now….what do you drive – a car made in the 80’s…..bet you don’t want to buy a new one to soon as change is not good……life for most folks – those under 50 changes very quickly – our churches have never kept up – and won’t in their current form. 

How can we justify paying into M&S, Conference dues, Presbytery dues etc when in reality we are doing it for the continuation of the “business as usual”.  Very few Presbyteries and Conference have local ministries and/or mission – how can we in good faith, and good stewards, keep putting funds into courts and forms of church government while not acknowledging what is going on in our own back yards…..

 

You really are spouting your own biases and anger towards the church, nothing more. You haven't a sweet clue about me, my situation and what I and my congregation do in real ministry in our city. Please get a grip on your anger.

DKS's picture

DKS

image

A hint of where we might be headed.

 

Quote:

WASHINGTON (RNS) The National Council of Churches is moving its headquarters from the historic "God Box" in New York City to Washington, a change that the cash-strapped ecumenical group predicts will save as much as $500,000 over time.

 

The move is part of a restructuring that has eliminated six administrative positions and outsourced human resources and other NCC departments. In its 2011 annual report -- the latest available -- the NCC showed $4.3 million in revenues and $5.6 million in expenses.

 

The venerable ecumenical agency has dramatically scaled back its operations and staff levels over the past decade as it struggled to find its voice and retain financial support from its member churches.

 

http://huff.to/WOexOX

 

BTW, the United Church Archives are moving this summer to the basement of 40 Oak St., a building owned by the Toronto United Church Council and in the centre of Regent Park. The location will be temporary, until the new national offices are ready, some time near the end of the decade. You can see the new building under construction if you use Google Maps and type in the address of 40 Oak St., Toronto.

 

Quote:
Regent Park is characterized by a high rate of poverty and unemployment, and is home to an immigrant and marginalized population. It experiences a higher rate of violence, crime, drug abuse, and social ills compared to many other Toronto communities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_Park

 

Jobam's picture

Jobam

image

Thanks DKS - more frustation I think than anger.....

I agree with Mike - the buildings are a whole other issue.

DKS - you may be correct - about my biased, in my neck of the woods things haven't changed - in our conference, very little has changed....I see the same issues in the Observer and coming out of General Council.....still issues with the queer clergy - do you miss the whole debate in the thread about where to hold Presbtery due to one of the congreations stance.....etc...etc...

...but its more than that.....we seem to think that we don't need to reinvent ourselves....

 

DKS's picture

DKS

image

Jobam wrote:

Thanks DKS - more frustation I think than anger.....

 

 

I know. I have lived that, too, altough not from a queer perspective.

Quote:
...but its more than that.....we seem to think that we don't need to reinvent ourselves....

 

 

We do. But it is the "how" that is stymying us. Although I heard this week of some really cool grass roots stuff bubbling up in my congregation in response to our financial pressures. Can't say more because I'm not supposed to know (I trust the place and people it came from, though). That's the kind of creativity we need.

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

i'm curious as to the UCCers here:  when all is said and done, would you say that the UCC has had a good run so far?

MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

A good run? Whaaaa..???? Whatever, Whimsey. I've never thought of that as the meaningful "purpose" of a faith… or a church…

But with church buildings, there is no way out, no future. 

 

 

 

The real reason we need to let go church buildings is that they have become spiritual burdens. Nothing in our religion says we need them. We need communities of faith that are communities of faith every day, not once a week, and that are really willing to render to god what is god’s.

 

 

If we think we can consecrate other places… any place… with our holiness as a place of worship (and of course we can) — then we will be able to think straight, and move on.

 

But we’ll need to be prepared. What happens as worship in church today won’t work "in the wild". It’s too often unintelligible, cold, inarticulate, repetitious, tedious, irrelevant. I attended a service to launch a newly established presbytery recently: it was one of the most shamefully empty and pompously fatuous liturgies I’ve ever experienced. It was led by leaders of leaders and that’s not good enough.

 

There are changes happening in the admission process for ministry, but for what sort of ministry?

 

Should ministry be emphasising the spiritual or the religious (doctrinal) streams? Spirituality without the insight and guidance of religion is often confused by its own subjectivity… a losing struggle between vanity and mystery. But religion without spirituality is just another petit-regime, a not-very-interesting book club.

 

There's a balance here that has long gone unexamined.

 

I have some of my deepest conversations about faith and “god” with people who are alienated from religion (not just Christianity). I think we have to own up to a failure here.

 

We need leaders who understand how to read, understand and integrate history, poetry, science and popular culture.  And who recognise that popular culture does not much respect or understand traditional Christian symbols, and certainly is not moved by them.

 

We need leaders who witness a personal faith discipline. This can be an irritant to congregations. How long should a minister spend in focused, undisturbed, personal prayer each day? I'd suggest 3-4 hours as a healthy norm for most.

 

How many JNAC reports speak of the need for prayerful leadership?  A minister who doesn’t take time to pray is a fraudster in my book: listening to the mystery is the necessary first step, the starting place. Would you trust a doctor who never consulted a medical text, colleague or journal? A leader who treats the Bible like a history text is functionally illiterate. A leader who has no poetry in his/her soul is functionally inarticulate. A leader who cannot find the MEANING in science, society and the arts is out of touch. (The parallel would be a surgeon who never learned anything about physiology or how to use a scapel.)

 

I’m NOT trashing our ministers here. Most are overburdened with administrative and pastoral work that lay people should be training themselves to do with love and sensitivity. Rather, I’m trying to suggest what training for ministry in the future must address as bedrock stuff. It’s got to be fairly tough because regular education doesn't do this work nearly as well as it might.

 

We are living in a society that is not simply secular. People at large aren’t unthinking and oblivious: they are in thrall to an oppressive system called the “economy” that is NOT neutral towards religion: it actively denies the value of spirituality of any sort.

 

Our entertainment, our news media, our economy, our education systems… all actively deny or over-rule what is spiritual. They tolerate and are even amused by religion, especially loopy religion (in fact, the loopier the better). What we are living with closely parallels the Roman form of religious tolerance. As long as the Emperor comes first… it’s okay, ours is an open-minded, "liberal" dictatorship. But, reach past the Emperor to the spirit and the hammer comes down, the crosses go up.

 

So we render to Caesar whatever Caesar wants and render the leftovers to god? That's easy but wasn’t the teaching… the second part was: “render to god what it god’s.” 

I hear that as “give Caesar the falsehoods, the violence and the trash that suffocates your soul… give to god the truth, the beauty and the wisdom of your deepest self.”

 

But the UCC has to work out what this means to the way its conducts its mission. Congregations won’t get around to it without some real push from the visionaries. They are old, tired and hungry.  Feed them; let them rest.

 

This is just an observation… but the church at large always seems to have done quite well under a bit of persecution; I’ve met new, younger Orthodox adherents in Eastern Europe who are discovering it all afresh after generations of suppression under communist and, previously, Ottoman rule. They include some of the sanest, most passionate, most intelligently committed Christians I’ve met. Interestingly too, they are alienated from the West, from the EU, from “the Americans”, from the banks and the big businesses that own their countries… they are looking for a “higher” authority.

 

In Canada, the church is persecuted: insidiously, gently but dangerously effectively — the language of “law-abiding” corporations and economists, for example, is all over us… we talk about "finacial crises" and are encouraged to see our options in material terms, and many within the church do see the issues and primarilly centred on membership levels and financial statements — and that's giving to Caesar a whole lot of "leverage" (to use an imperialist's term) and a good bit of god's stuff: our faith.

 

There’s no more potent way to control and weaken what the church might become.

 

I believe we’d all do well by living a little more dangerously (and a lot more discerningly).

 

MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

Matt: The only reply to your lightbulb adherents that is, "would you like a blessing on the way out?" 

 

There's no future in worshipping lightbulbs.

 

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

MikePaterson wrote:

In Canada, the church is persecuted: insidiously, gently but dangerously effectively — the language of “law-abiding” corporations and economists, for example, is all over us… we talk about "finacial crises" and are encouraged to see our options in material terms, and many within the church do see the issues and primarilly centred on membership levels and financial statements — and that's giving to Caesar a whole lot of "leverage" (to use an imperialist's term) and a good bit of god's stuff: our faith.

 

instead of creating a demon called 'materialism' and/or 'imperialism', why not just acknowledge an empirical fact that everyone needs to eat?  The UCC needs money to stay the UCC and do UCC things, right?  So people should be finding out how to do that...find out what their intended audience desires and needs and find out a way to fulfill this

 

and, perhaps, they should also accept that businesses come and go, boom and bust, have to do layoffs as the economy and society etc changes?

 

money isn't an automatic and absolute disgusting evil.  it can be quite deeply spiritual :3

 

(i'm writing all of this from a commie-pinko self-loathing of money background)

 

who knows, maybe the UCC will have to adopt a business model based around the Jewish conception of wherever you are, that is where your church is?

 

maybe the UCC will have to try to consolidate with other faiths?

 

have people actually tried to define the 'problem' and is the problem objective or is it just a matter of sombunall members of the UCC saying there is a problem?  i take a look at Reginald Bibby's research and I see no problem there...

MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

I think your sensitivities here are being a bit selective, Whimsey.

There are many ways to eat.

Reliance on the economy  — on maximising profitability through the food chain — helps generate the gap between poverty and privilege… and it's one of the costliest ways to eat: easy but costly in every sense you can imagine.

 

Check it out:

 

 

See video

 

That's some "creation" alright.

 

 

The UCC needs money to prop up structures it doesn't need.

 

Oddly, there are parallels here with eating. How big are our bellies???

 

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

*giggle*  I'm not sure if you're going to win UCC members over by comparing them to pigs in a factory farm...

 

...hopefully some other people will be able to think on what I wrote and, perhaps, write aboot it :3

MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

There was NO comparison with UCC members, Whimsey: it's about food and "having to eat" the way we do, Whimsey… a topic you introduced. As I said, there ARE other options.

 

And it wasn't me who first challenged materialism, Whimsey. I believe it was Jesus. But this is a derail of the thread. So let's go back to what options the UCC can explore.

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi Jobam,

 

Jobam wrote:

do you miss the whole debate in the thread about where to hold Presbtery due to one of the congreations stance.....etc...etc...

 

I respectfully submit that is a revision of the actual conversation held.

 

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/where-presbytery-meets

 

The issue about where to hold Presbytery was initiated not by a congregation which rejected gay celrgy.  It was initiated by a gay clergy member who publicly rejected a congregation.  The issue was compounded by the executive of the Presbytery acting in an ignorant and heavy-handed manner by denying the congregation the right to defend itself.

 

Only after that injustice had been confronted by the congregation in question did the Presbytery and the Executive learn that the "offending affiliation" that precipitated the issue was in the process of being dismissed.

 

As shown on the thread in question it wasn't those who reject the idea of gay ordination who were or even caused the problem it was one clergy member pulling a stunt and an executive that acted stupidly.

 

If it were not so, I suspect that the Executive would never have reversed their decision and offered an apology for their unjust treatment of the congregation in question.

 

That said, there are congregations all across the country who are lead by their prejudices.  In some the prejudice is against gay clergy, in others the prejudice is against female clergy, in others it is against ordained clergy, and in others it is against bearded clergy.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

Well, the beards issue I can understand, John.

 

DKS's picture

DKS

image

MikePaterson wrote:

Well, the beards issue I can understand, John.

 

 

I draw the line at moustaches. Beards are heathen.

MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

So what is ministry going to become? I hope there are some ideas for change, or are we just going to drift into the future and hope it lasts long enough for us to get what we want out of it?

 

I sometimes feel ministers are the conservative, change-resistant ones in this discussion… how many UCC ministers would minister whether or not they had a church-sourced income? How many would let go of a church building? How much do they value spirituality and opposed to dictrine? How many spend several hours in prayer a day? Is that feasible? How would ministers LIKE to see things unfold (realistically)?

 

Or is the UCC doomed? Is thje blazing oil platform not sych a bad image after all? 

 

 

 

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Note to comprehensive review committee.

 

All things are not on the table.  My beard is on my chin and there it shall stay.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

Hi Mike,

I've been thinking about this thread for awhile and your questions have weighed heavily on my mind mainly because I  think it is the duty and obligation of every person that does believe to ensure that they are passing on Gods love to future generations. So what is ministry going to become? This prompted me to google the question, " How to bring the unchurched back". There's a plethora of information out there that gives information about this. People that have taken the time to study such things. Everything from what they have observed when they do enter an unfamiliar church right up to what they see about the actual "building" that turns them off.

 

First off what I've been reading is that this new generation of "nones" do not have a memory of what church is. They are unfamiliar with any aspect of it. Consequently the past model of the 80's and 90's that attempted to bring in the unchurched by incorporating new and modern music, gyms, unrelated church activities, etc....does not work anymore. What the "nones" are saying is that if they want modern music they have an Ipod, if they want social activities they have other facilities that they can access and Starbucks and Tim Hortons do coffee hour better than any church. These things apparently worked for the previous generation because they at least had some "memory" of church but what we have now are a whole new group that are totally unfamiliar with "church". The Bible is unfamiliar and spirituality may just be a longing and not a known. Gathering to worship is foreign to this group.

 

It has been noted that mega churches that have sprung up have not necessarily grown by increasing their numbers from the "unchurched" but rather from recruiting and appealing to the generation that still hold the memory of church and mostly these congregants come from other already established mainline churches. A new way to worship has appealed to this group but even these new churches have failed to bring in those that have never gone to church. Thus we have a whole new generation out there that have a longing for a spirituality but are not quite sure what to do with it or how to express it.

 

It has been noted that the number one reason that someone from this generation decides to attend to church is because they were invited by a church member to come. Out of 85 people being asked it has been noted that only 1 of that number may actually start to attend a church. So it takes alot of invitations from the church to reach people.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

Continued.....

Surprisingly also when asked about how they see the actual building most "nones" say that the things that are important to them are an inviting worship area, clean and modern bathrooms (surprised? so was I until I remembered all the gas stations I would avoid if I needed a bathroom) and a place to gather after worship. They also mention that a church that is in good repair suggests that the ministry is successful and is appealing to people.

 

Of course this is just a "skimming" of the pot from all the research out there but after reading all this it occurred to me that most of the mainline churches these days are searching in the wrong direction for church growth and ignoring their greatest asset that is right under their noses. What is that you ask? Well IMO, it's the people that currently attend. What seems to be happening is that churches that are struggling because their population is aging are bemoaning the fact that because the average age of the parishoners is increasing, that the church will eventually fade off into extinction as they grow older, rather than utilizing this amazing resource. The elderly are being written off and only maintained rather than be inspired to push themselves further than the walls of the church. Lets face it, when it comes to the reality, you have to work with what you've got and what the churches that are dying have plenty of are the elderly. Somehow everyone needs to feel the urgency of caring enough to ensure that the furture generations knows what they know. Now I realize that there are alot of people sitting there out of habit or no where else to go for socializiation and perhaps their faith needs renewal too but overall, combined they hold the memory that needs to be passed on. These people are the lifeline for the church IMO.

 

Yesterday I went to see the movie "Quartet" . I didn't find it particularly amaziing but rather a quaint movie that was pleasant to watch, but what I did observe throughout the movie is that these people were encouraged to pass on their love of classical music to future generations and at the same time acknowledging that the younger generation gets to bring their own version of what music is, to the table. They become alive with the prospect of sharing what they know and the blessings they received from it.

 

Evangellizing is a grass roots operation and truly needs a source of inspiration, from clergy and from those that sit in the pews that have a deep love and respect for what Jesus and the church have to offer. Jesus himself was the inspiration for the most unlikely of people to do this. He only had 12, yet he changed the world with the message he proclaimed. They were fearful and fearless at the same time.

 

 

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

Here's a site: 62 ways to connect with the unchurched (some, not all may appeal)

 

http://transformingchurchesnetwork.org/resources/community-impact-ideas/...

 

Five things the Unchurched See When They Come To Your Church:

 

http://www.outreachmagazine.com/features/4924-thom-rainer-what-the-unchu...

 

Article about why we're not reaching the unchurched:

http://www.churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-article...

 

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

DKS wrote:

.BTW, the United Church Archives are moving this summer to the basement of 40 Oak St., a building owned by the Toronto United Church Council and in the centre of Regent Park. The location will be temporary, until the new national offices are ready, some time near the end of the decade. You can see the new building under construction if you use Google Maps and type in the address of 40 Oak St., Toronto.

 

Quote:
Regent Park is characterized by a high rate of poverty and unemployment, and is home to an immigrant and marginalized population. It experiences a higher rate of violence, crime, drug abuse, and social ills compared to many other Toronto communities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_Park

 

 

DKS, I don't understand this, possibly you could explain this to me? Why is the UCC building new national offices while churches are being closed and finances are questionable?

Back to Church Life topics