There is one matter that is crucial to the process. If we are to shift our trajectory towards healing and flourishing we must be ruthless in asking very hard questions.

Are we wanting change to save our jobs and our institution? Or are we wanting to discover how it is that we may become servants to the wounded in a world that is perishing?

Will we squander our diminished resources to prop up failing policies and processes? Or will we take those resources and lavish them on the hungry, the battered and the broken at our very doorsteps?

I am clear that in either case, the former is best served by a negative response and the latter is best served by an affirmative response. We do not want to profess that the latter is our choice when our consequential actions serve the former. That is hypocrisy.

We may deceive ourselves, but we will not deceive those who are paying attention. They will rightly consider us irrelevant to the demand and the opportunity of our time under the sun.

I will add one observation from my perspective in the circle. I have served communities in the East, the West and the Prairies, both rural and urban. These communities consist of good, decent, kind and caring persons. They may well be considered as "salt of the earth" folk. In every case, they have been my friends and companions.

This said, the vast majority are followers only. We have failed to help them consider themselves as disciples; persons disciplined in the way of the gospel, equipped by the spirit to express the gifts of the spirit. Persons who make and keep their baptismal vows.

To insist on discipleship may lead to further attrition. It will also lead to the founding of a core community rooted in prophetic sensibility. That core community will become effective to bring good news into a world situation that is now set to come apart at the seams. This is what we are promised by the one whose name we bear in our respective members.

i cannot support the institution. I will give my life for the persons who inhabit that institution. It is in and through each and all of us as persons united in and through love that the spirit will blow. That blowing is what creation is longing for.

We cannot serve two masters. The time of decision is upon us. Let us choose the way of life which is life indeed. This is the example we see as folk follow Jesus, out of the temple and into the streets of the city, the towns and the villages. Then out into the whole wide world.

I say these things as one who has been excluded by the institution because an "i" has not been dotted and a "t" has not been crossed. I admit this with great sadness and undiminished love for the persons who have determined my exclusion by resort to polity.

Grace and peace be with you!

I haven't yet taken part in the "Comprehensive Review Consultations," but in very broad terms, my concern with how the restructuring is going is that it isn't being driven with any real understanding of ecclesiology (the theology of the church.) It's being essentially driven by declining resources. So, we're in a financial crunch; therefore, we have to restructure because we're running out of money and we have to find a way to hold on to what we have. That isn't ecclesiology. Or, at least, it's very poor ecclesiology. 

Making decision based primarily on our available financial resources seems to make Jesus' words applicable: "You cannot serve both God and money." If our decision-making is being driven by our financial challenges, then we're serving money, quite frankly. Where God fits in, I'm not sure. I'm sure (I hope) that the decision makers are also spending time in prayer, but I suspect that many if not most of them are praying, and then going back to making decisions based on money.

One thing that is happening that I've noted is the move toward episcopacy. Now, episcopacy is an arguably biblical form of church governance. But for 88 years we have proclaimed ourselves as a conciliar church. Now, with almost no input - this time based on (1) declining human resources, and (2) legal fears if mistakes get made - we are moving rapidly away from conciliar governance, especially in the area of pastoral relations. I've heard of one Conference which has restructured so that ministers now apply to be considered for a vacancy not to a Joint Search Committee, but to the Conference Office, where the applications are vetted, and only those deemed "suitable" are forwarded to the JSC. Such a system is loaded with the possibility of abuse and discrimination based on any number of factors, and it takes away one of the primary responsibilities of both congregation and Presbytery through their representatives.

So, as I've noted before, we are on the verge of a major battle in the United Church. My opinion is that probably more than 90% of the people who are in our pews every Sunday are oriented toward a United Church governed by congregationalism. The powers that be are moving in the direction of a United Church governed by episcopacy. If you keep pulling something in two directions at the same time eventually you tear that something apart. 

You make an inescapable point Steven But it's not an entirely either/or issue. 

And, I think, the whole idea of traditional "church" has bee flawed since the beginning. It became what it is when communities were restructured into models of civil governance: the courts of kings , princes and emperors. This meant that leaders led and followers sat back and were blessed. Aspects of those mindsets have settled into many people's very souls.

Whether or not they wear dog collars or albs on Sunday, leaders are often respected more for their position than for their wisdom, training and commitment. Lay people don't  feel much need to study or work too hard at their spirituality because their job is catering and cleaning and "stewardship". Leaders get bogged down in administration and meetings and often fail to work very hard on their spirituality and ongoing study because that's not what's demanded of them.

You see JNAC reports in which a vocation is reduced to a job, with time segmented across a range of "responsibilities" the congregation reps who've had the invidious task of writing the report feel are important… often intended more to keep the failing church open than to rejuvenate or sustain the faith of those who are there. The church building becomes a kind of lifeboat, and many are reluctant to leave even to reach an adjacent shore or to step into water that's only up to their knees. Meanwhile, ministers get on with THEIR jobs — which often means runing on "overload", while congregants wait for a miracle instead of creating one, often because they don't see how. And we see less and less effective engagement with the world outside the church. The church is making itself irrelevant and seems not to know how to change direction without losing faith. 

So the problems with the model are often deeply entrenched.  We are trying to be something that's inherently unworkable. It's not for want of good people or a faith worth sharing… the medium, (as one great Canadian said) is the message. The content is lost when the medium fails. We in the church are aware of the teaching from Matthew 9 — which is worth considering alongside Marshall McLuhan's) about putting new wine into old wineskins ("otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved"). So, what do we do with all our "old wine"? 

I see a need, not for a corporate-inspired new startegic plan, but for a spiritual renewal of the whole church: lay and ordained.

We need time and quiet for that, not frantic poring over drawing boards. If that means shedding old wineskins, so be it. Churches are being forced to close now when their resources are depleted leaving faith- and energy-drained wounded in their wake. Why not sell our riches and give to the poor while we still have some. They have become burdens. We need a reformation that starts within each of us… and let that lead into planning a fresh way to be church in society  a church where people know we are Christians by our love.

I think we should be letting go of more than we are yet willing to. How much of it is essential to the coming of god's "kingdom"???

Letting go is the only way I see of finding some reflective space ahead of the gathering crisis rather than in its wake. It's the only way I can see of sustaining gratitude for the gifts we enjoy rather than finding ourselves lapsing into bitterness for "all" we feel forced to relinguish.

It's the rich person's dilemma that we face — grieving over the loss of what was not ours in the first place — not that of the poor person, rejoicing for the alleviation of need that's on the way.

I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote, Mike. I wasn't suggesting an explicit either/or proposition; only that we need to have our priorities straight as to what guides us. That doesn't mean that we ignore anything, but that we filter all through a particular lens. In my view, the lens should be God and gospel. Too often, the lens becomes money and numbers.

I have long promoted the view that the church spends far too much time encouraging congregations to fight to stay alive, when I think congregations need to be taught how to die gloriously. Stop hanging on to every penny out of the hope that we'll keep the doors open another month, and use your resources to do real and meaningful ministry for as long as you can do it. And, in so doing, we might actually discover the secret to resurrection!

You're right, Steven. The lens hould be god and the gospel… but individually we need eyes to see.

I am afraid I sometimes wonder about our spiritual acuity, given the sort of  things we tend to fix our attention on… which god? What gospel? 

I have Mark running around in my head,  a triple whammy, something like:

• The pharisees demandied a sign from heaven… and "sighing deeply in his spirit", Jesus said, “Why does this generation need a sign? No signs, okay! Forget signs.”

Then, just afterwards:

• "The disciples had forgotten to take bread in the boat. And Jesus told them: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."

And:

• “Why are you still banging on about bread? Can't you see? Are you thick? Have  you got hardened hearts? Are you blind? Deaf? Don't you remember when I broke five loaves for the 5,00, how many baskets of scraps you picked up? …Don't you get it yet?”

… I guess we don't. No signs, eh? Just that lingering  sigh…

Thanks gents!

I hope we do not turn towards battle. Struggle yes, but with the hope of finding that narrow way between the presenting options and leading us into the promise of life given in the name and spirit by which we are truly united.

My bias is for the particular, the local and the oral. That is, I take it that the gospel is most clearly expressed in the experience of disciples leavening the communities that they inhabit. By the shared tasks of feeding, clothing, visiting, liberating and encouraging those who struggle around us we give "flesh" to the gospel.

This of course, tends towards the congregationalist side of the equation. It does not exclude the participation of a central oversight. It does mean that this oversight, this stewardship, is wholly oriented to the support of local initiatives. Hard work for our friends and colleagues who have in good faith invested much to serve the institutional norms and standards which have, till now, been considered as good and necessary.

My thinking on such things is much encouraged by "The Once and Future Church" and "The End of Christendom and the Future of Christianity".

So what is there to do? Design and teach a United Church sponsored and sanctioned "Course in Miracles"?

I admire the grassroots-driven structure of the United Church, and wouldn't want to do without it, but in order for grassroots democracy to work well, the grassroots have to act in the interest of the whole—the whole church, the whole country, the whole world, the whole of humanity—not just in their ego- congregation- and denomination-centered interests.

God's "kingdom" comes when we all get there, collectively, as a species. United we— all of humanity, and, ultimately, all of creation—stand; divided we fall.

The waters are much troubled. We in our boats are much afraid of going under. An ambigous presence approaches. Getting out of our boats in response to the invitation of this ambigous figure, we find ourselves walking on the waters; we find ourselves solvent in a surprising and wonderful way.

As you rightly say Arminius, it will be all of us or none of us.

I think of another boat on another sea. Paul is a passenger. The ship is in danger by the rising storm. The uncessary is cast off in hope of staying afloat. The necessary is cast off as the storm increases. The ship is wrecked. Not one life is lost.

I am wondering if the original poster is tuned in? If yes, would you mind joining in as we go forward? If this does not work, is there someone tasked with moving this process forward, who could join in? It will serve us well to have you present.

Also. Wondercafe is a great place for all persons. This conversation may well be considered "in house", but not opaque to public observation. With this in mind, I am asking that those who are not concerned with or implicated in this process and its outcomes, refrain from interjecting or diverting the conversation. If you would like to chime in, perhaps quote the points of concern or query and start a fresh topic line with them. I for one will be happy to converse with anyone or more of you.

George

Hi Arminius

You asked: ""So what is there to do? Design and teach a United Church sponsored and sanctioned "Course in Miracles"?"

Isn't "a course in miracles"  pretty much what the church, Christianity and the gospels are all about? Or, at least, ought to be about?  Isn't feeding the 5,000 close to the raison d'etre for a church? Have I been missing something here? A universal grassroots democracy programme, if the "leaven of Herod" is anything to go by would seem to require attack drones. Miracles, I'd suggest, have proven more efficacious. They spring from faith. But we all "get" that, right?

Hi Geo: If you meant me in "I am asking that those who are not concerned with or implicated in this process and its outcomes, refrain from interjecting or diverting the conversation", apologies. (I meant to contribute positively as a "grass roots UCC member" (and there's only four of us here so far: you, Steven, Arminius & me… and UCC Communications, of course).

Hi GeoFee, I posted the opening post for the GCO, but am not "tasked with moving this process forward." I think the place for that would be to participate in the facilitated consultation with a group from your community of faith. (See the link above.) I will highlight this link though and forward it to the Task Group.

There is also some additional discussion on the broader concepts of the Comprehesive Review happening over on the Moderator's blog in a couple of posts, especially this one:

http://www.garypaterson.ca/2013/05/23/comprehensive-review-part-1-new-wine-and-new-wineskins/

If you haven't visited you might want to take a look.

Thanks,

Aaron

Yes, Christianity is a course in miracles. But most people believe that the traditional Christian miracles were supernatural events, created by supernatural beings, and thus beyond human capabilty. Or they have forgotten, or not yet learned, how to create miracles.

Maybe "How To Create Miracles" ought to be a thread all on its own?

I am glad this discussion is happening. I am a volunteer facilator for the review process. That means I help facilitate conversations with congregations. A part of me is excited about this process. I have enjoyed meeting the congregations I have met so far, and hearing their stories of struggle and transformation. I suspect that the task force will see patterns and common suggestions when they review the information they receive. So far the congregations I have met have entered the process prayerfully and have had discussions among themselves prior to meeting. I hope that most of the congregations in the church participate.

Another part of me is cynical. We talk about how the UCCan has so many layers and is bound down by administrivia. Then we seem paralyzed to make whatever changes are necessary. I know how hard it is for big organizations to change. The UCCan is a big bureacratic structure that will resist change.

I just hope that this process is grassroots and that the people at "the bottom" are heard and that changes are made prayerfully.

Hi UCC-GCO

I participated in the conversation to some degree during the 89th AGM of Hamilton Conference.  The questions we were given to consider could lead one to the conclusion that clergy are at least 50% of the problem facing the church.  At least when it comes to calling or disciplining them.

I think that the whole question sheet is more helpful.

Currently I am in paid accountable ministry on a single point charge in a rural community of about 3000.  

Some of the words that come to mind when I think about this particular community of faith are:  open, curious, challenging, comfortable, concerned.

Our trends are a diminishing Sunday School and almost non-existant programming for youth and young adults.  The congregation is equally torn between outreach ministry and maintaining comfortable structures.  Employment is a difficult prospect, a major employer has been scaling back and it is feared that this employer will relocate operations elsewhere so most of our new young families are commuters.  If things remain the same we will have a slightly smaller congregation as attrition through death seems most likely.

In the past year we have lost three families and picked up roughly the same number so that is us breaking even with the possibility of pulling ever so slightly ahead as those families we have lost still remain connected by the slenderest of threads.  We have opportunities in that a number of young families moving into the area have made contact with us and wish to know more about who we are and what we do.  The threats to our continuing health will be the level of inflexibility between new forms and old.

Hopefully away from jargon as it builds barriers of exclusion right from the start.  I would also hope that the adoration of the institution could be dialed back so that there was less temptation to rest on whatever laurels we have remaining.

I don't see any one ministry that I would describe as vital, I think most vitality (historically) has been due to a number of ministries being present for a wide range of constituencies.  Currently we tend to want to put all of our eggs in one basket (despite the proverb) and hope that plugging one specific hole in the basket magically repairs the several other holes that exist.

I do note that the various small groups which operate in and around the faith community do not seem to struggle in the same way the whole of the faith community struggles.

These small groups manage to provide smaller communites which nurture and support the various members as well as provide outreach for the wider community.  We could probably survive the loss on any one but should all disappear we would be in serious trouble.

With respect to my dream I think that there would be more small groups and that those small groups would address a wide variety of interests while finding ways to use those interests to serve the wider faith community and the wider geographic community.

I'm not convinced that the problem is our organization.  I am inclined to think our behaviours are our problem.

The far and away problem with most of our structures is that most of our members do not know how to use them effectively.  We also tend to suck at communicating information in a timely manner and the constant frustration of that reality doesn't improve behaviours.

We appear to think that certain restrictions are in place that actually do not belong to our polity.

While there could be some improvement in the paperwork we are required to do at some junctures in the life of the Church I believe the real deficits are the people populating processes rather than the processes themselves.  While many participate to serve the wider church it is not uncommon to find folks participating to be served by the wider church in some capacity.  Combine that with the demands of institution to be served and there is a greater focus how the job gets done than on whether or not the job gets done.

I'm not sure that outside resources need to exist beyond the provision of materials in a uniform manner and possibly a uniform umpire for sorting out when there is conflict in interpretation of any given resource.

If my dream for The United Church came true it would restore the office of Elder to the honoured position of the past and ensure that all individuals called to that office were ready and able to do the work expected of them so that disciple making became a priority of the local congregation.

What is essential?  That we continue to engage our understanding of the Christian faith (and specifically our statements of faith) that we recognize the difference between Christ as head of the Church and the Church as a body.  That we measure our success not by the health of our financial bottom line or size of our building but by the lives we touch.

What can we let go of?  Our egos and success tinted lenses that make us quick to boast of our triumphs while ignoring our tragedies.

I'll deal with the questions specifically aimed at ministry staff in another post.

Grace and peace to you.

John

thank you, John. I will wait.

Hi UCC_GCO

Speaking personally I think that communication is one of our greatest deficits and I'm not talking about all the material that crosses my desk that everyone believes I censor and/or hoard.

I'm talking about the way the concerns of the wider church are effectively distilled by the various courts of the church until the conversation at the higher levels of the Church is alien to the conversation that is happening at the lowest levels of the church.  And the inevitable fallout that comes from that.

The questions confronting the local congregation are rarely if ever the questions that the higher courts of the church actually wrestle with.  For example, congregations concerned with their own survival were not looking for some corporation's products to boycott.

Even when the higher courts pass information down with the hope to get input from the grassroots there is an expectation that the grassroots are struggling with what the higher courts are investing their time in.

Maybe we need to reconsider what it was that we gave up when we rejigged the Board of Evangelism and Social Service out of existence.

Sometimes it is simply not having enough hours in the day to do all that is required of me by my congregation, presbytery, and conference.  So glad I am not on a General Council unit.

Most times it is the same challenge faced by all clergy before me.  Equipping and training the members of my congregation which would be easier if all were wanting to be so trained and equipped.

There are enough who do want to engage in that aspect of Church life that it continues to happen.

Without wanting to come across as a wise-ass it looks like support that actually supports.  The problem is not that it doesn't exist because it does.  The problem is that the support it is most excited about offering has yet to be the support I have needed and asked for.

Truth to tell, if the support for ministry within the local faith community was higher I wouldn't be looking for support from outside agencies or other courts.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thank you Aaron!

I had another minister say something to the effect when we were communicating prior to the conversation. I think it was good for her to be part of the conversation since on the ground it wasn't what the people around her felt.

Your responses are similar to what I have been hearing so far.

The answers to this question have been neat. They have ranged from social justice things like partnering with social service providers, or participating politically to providing a dinner theatre to the community. It is neat to know that people aren't letting jargon limit them...at least the people I've met.

Will your church be part of the conversation John?

Hi Mike, and all...

I very much appreciate your joining in. Though there is no formal way to keep persons not inside the UCC community, grassroots and up, from participating, I am hoping that those without a clear stake in the outcomes will understand and respect that this is not simply another topic open to all points of view.

Saying this, I am also mindful that we will want to model, for those listening in, the highest degree of civility as we share our insights and encouragements.

George

Great idea, offering helpful direction as we go forward.

Following this basic pattern, we can avoid being diverted and diffused. I would welcome a thread on "working miracles".

George

Hi Northwind,

We are discussing whether or not we will participate.

My initial suspicion is that the Review would amount to nothing more than rearranging deck chairs.  I haven't seen anything yet which suggests otherwise.

Our intstitutionalism is so deeply entrenched that we think all of our problems relate to processes and paperwork.  Admittedly we seem to think that the way to solve a problem in to paperwork it over.  That is not the reason the Church is in decline, the decline began 40 years ago the paper blizzard is a more recent phenomenon.

I suspect our primary problem, for all our emphasis on relationship is that we suck at relationships and our institutional model doesn't foster relationship simply because it presumes relationship exists prior to institution.  We put a new roof on or a new coat of paint on when our foundation is in disrepair.

So, another paint or roofing job is not going to fix the deeper problem.

The reason why there are fewer people in the pews is because fewer people are inviting people into the pews and fewer current pewsitters are willing to give up what they already enjoy to bring in people they don't know and probably will not make the effort to get to know.

There are exceptions certainly.

Those exceptions are willing to give up what they already enjoy in the hopes of getting something they might enjoy more and they are so happy to meet new people that they think those already present are baggage waiting to be sacrificed.

And somewhere in all of that is the belief that somebody other than the congregation itself has to take responsibility to make it happen.

Would love to be a part of a conversation that dealt with behaviour rather than ignoring it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thanks John!

We are prone to asking how we can fix "it" before we ask how "it" got broke. Often as not the fixing complicates the brokenness. Sound diagnosis is the key to effective remedy.

George

Yes, the solution usually is the exact diametric opposite of the problem. Once we know the problem well, we know the solution.

Ho to apply the solution then becomes the burning question?

Jesus touched people's hearts: profoundly, deeply, emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually. I think mainstream Christianity has lost that touch and impact.

Can such a touch and impact be institutionalized at all? Maybe church, as an instution, does not work because it tried to instutionalize what can't be institutionalized?

Then it is up to individuals to practice the Jesus touch. If there are a great many individuals within an institution who do that, then the institution will florish. If not, it will fail.

"Then it is up to individuals to practice the Jesus touch. If there are a great many individuals within an institution who do that, then the institution will florish. If not, it will fail." 

Well put, picking up John's notice of "relationship" as key.

We are called to be "yeast" and "salt"! 

George

Yes, George, a resounding "Amen!" to that.

The thing we seem to forget again and again, to our detriment is that the pastoral charge is the foundational unit of governance in the United Church.  Without them the structure fails.  If the groans and pains of the "people at "the bottom"" are not heard then the whole exercise is one in futility because the changes that are ultimately recommended by the "Comprehensive Review" will be rejected by the pastoral charges when the time comes to approve the changes through the remit process, which must inevitably follow.

10 4 !

Hi GeoFee,

You are welcome.

If we know something is broken we know that we need to fix it.

The how of the breakage is important only if we do not want to repeat the breaking and the fixing in the future.

So the impulse to fix is not a bad one.

We tend not to be adept at knowing what is broken and so the imulse to fix, while fairly positive, becomes misplaced and that is far from positive.

If people do not want to visit my house it might possibly be because I have let the thing fall into a state of repair and they are frightened that the roof might cave in on their heads.  I can fix that with some time, energy, materials and powertools.

If the reason people do not want to visit my house is because they don't enjoy what goes on inside the house I cannot fix that problem as easily.

We hope that our problems are minor so we only have to do superficial change.

Can't argue with that.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Didn't we diagnose this a few months ago? You suck at retaining and attracting young people. They don't care, and they stop coming. Many of them stop believing entirely.

The simple answer is to start homeschooling your, well, grandkids now.

But really, the massive shifts required to save the UCCan will never happen, because you're a church in the middle, and the world is polarizing. The atheists (and the bulk of your kids) think you're loopy, and the hard core Christians think you're going to hell in a handbasket. There just isn't the same middle ground any more, and you won't be willing to change enough to make a recovery. Everything suggests that you'll be managing a decline for the next generation.

An other fine example of your blinding humility. Makes it hard to appreciate the valid points you raise.

We know the obvious as well as you do. Some of us, who live in the house, know it all too well. Thanks for reminding us. No thanks for the lack of civility. Resort to the pejorative indicates something. Insecurity? Keep it coming and I will figure it out.

Plain question seeking simple answer. Are you here to hinder or to help?

I'd like to think I'm delivering a dose of reality, which you seem to avoid at all costs.

And personally, I applaud the children of UCCan parents who decide they don't believe, and stop coming. I really do. That's far more courageous than what I did, which was not to have a religion imposed by my parents, and only be exposed to it through proselytizing friends later in life, before coming to the conclusion that they were full of it. That's easy, once you learn how to evaluate what you're being fed. When it's spoon fed to you from birth, that's harder to walk away from. Kudos to them.

But, what I consider a victory, is a net loss for the UCCan. I wrote in the previous thread that one potential action is to make the UCCan less about God and Jesus, and more about meeting and discussion and social activities. "More United, Less Church", as I recall, was my free slogan idea. Not that you'd consider it. You'll see the last light extinguished in the last United Church before that happens.

Let's take this to another thread. Maybe something like... "I can prove that GeoFee avoids reality." Your opening post could bring forward evidence to support the thesis. I love dialogue and will be happy to respond with evidence to the contrary.

It's not worth a thread. You say what I write is obvious, but in some cases, the obvious needs to be said. You aren't saying it. You tiptoe around it. I walk right up and kick it in the gonads.

I love your self-esteem, Chansen.  It should be in a zoo with the pandas where everyone can admire it..

Your church is going to be in a cultural museum, but go ahead and take shots at me for pointing out why and some potential solutions.

The reason! The humility! I am overcome with admiration. You may convert me yet.

Still smiling...

I don't get the impression that you are.

Where I screwed up, is that I skimmed your posts. What you wrote above about congregations going out in a blaze of ministry was actually pretty good. After our last go around, I see a wall of text from you and I read it waay too fast. If you're trying to be more to the point, I owe it to you to do a better job of reading it.

I like how this discussion has evolved. Change isn't easy and institutions are more reluctant to change, especially ones like the UCCan that used to sit on a pedestal in Canadian society

Frankly, I'm not sure why chansen's remarks get such responses. Is it because he speaks the ugly truth? Are we supposed to be eternally polite in our discussion..

John, I agree with you. I do worry that we will either rearrange the deck chairs, or will get a directive from above. I suppose time will tell.

I'm on my BlackBerry, so feel limited in how I can respond for now.

Perhaps because he speaks his truth in an unattractive manner? He says very little that many here do not know. Reviewing other threads, it will be clear that I have both welcomed and affirmed chansen's insight and his, sometimes, clear articulation of the presenting situation. In one place I state that chansen's basic critique would garner the endorsement of "the prophets, the gospels and the epistles". Even so chanson seems intent only on presenting those who do not agree as wholly lacking in critical capacity. Why, I wonder?

(edit = quote added)

"I am specially grateful to chansen, who has asked pointed questions. I do not imagine my talk will be swallowed whole by him, or any other, but do hope it may indicate my readiness to embrace criticism."

Perhaps you owe it to yourself?

I have an attention span deficit and many times misread some other person's point by skimming the text and latching on to some bit that I want to challenge. Has taught me a bit about humility. Rev. John has helped as he is an astute reader who has been catching and calling me on it for a good number of years; which I have learned to appreciate.

We are here to help each other make progress along the way of insight, are we not?

Really, I am still smiling. I like a challenge and you generally offer a good one. Remember the bit about comics and hecklers?

Hi Northwind,

While true, the problem is not getting the institution to change.  The problem is getting institutionalized people to change.  Institution isn't the problem, institutionalism is.  Institution is organization, which is natural and not bad.  Institutionalism is, for lack of a better definition, worship of the institution and its forms.

Rearranging deck chairs is an exercise in institutional efficiency, at best and that fails to address the deeper seated problem that the Church is not supposed to exist to be served but to serve.  Which is why I loathe our back-pattiness as a denomination.

When we go to a restaurant, for example, we do not tip our servers for something great that happened in 1925, 1940, 1988, 2000 of 2007.  We tip them for the service they render now and the excellence of that service determines the generosity of the tip.

The United Church of Canada loves to list past accomplishments and historically they can be great it will not matter.  The question the world is asking, if it is even hanging around is, "What have you done for me lately?" and if the world is asking us to tell it we can't be offering it much that it finds to be of value.

Chansen speaks an truth not the truth.  And whether truth be ugly or beautiful is immaterial, it demands a response.  I think that there is some accuracy and some presumption in chansen's critique how much of either has yet to be proven.

Elsewhere there is conversation happening about the efficacy of splitting spirituality from religion and in that conversation it has been shown that there is a naive understanding of institution/culture and religion.  With that in play hands are somewhat tied.  So before we can take productive steps forward we need to clarify some of the language that we want to use.

Christendom is dead.  We've been saying that for years.  Despite that we are having (because of our institutionalism) a difficult time saying good-bye to that rotting and bloated corpse and moving into a new reality.

The new reality bears a striking resemblance to a period in history when the Church was not at the top of the heap and institutionally we are reluctant to change everything we did when we were at the top of the heap.

Again, it isn't the paperwork and the policies that are costing us.  It is the blinding fact that when everybody is under your influence evangelism is as simple as building a huge building throwing open the doors and letting everyone come to you.

That has not been working since 1967 or so which means we are 46 years behind the need to adapt to the new reality we find ourselves in.

Today evangelism is going to be much harder, it is going to mean we go out of those doors we have left hanging wide open and we make connections with folk, find out what they want, what they need and what we can provide.

So, probably the two most difficult things for the United Church are the things we need to exercise most at this point in time.

1) we need to go out into the world and engage it on its terms knowing what it is that we have to offer.

2) we need to shut up and listen to what the world wants instead of insisting it wants what we currently wish to offer.

Yes.  Unless the relationships we desire are hostile ones.

It is easier than doing what needs to be done.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Not long ago any one of us could have typed "United Online forum" into a preffered search engine and come up with a pretty good conversation site. This is no longer the case.

The "United Online" forum came into being as a local initiative. A small group of creative and enterprising United Church persons conceived, executed and maintained a vision responsive to emergent web culture.

Over time this initiative generated a substantial community of engagement. Not quite so slick as the "WonderCafe" but serving the hosted community very well, considering its limited resources of money and manpower.

I am not proud of the fact that I joined the exodus from the "United Online" forum. I held on at first, then came over to this United Church of Canada sponsored site.

Looking back, which is always easier than looking ahead, I wonder if things could have gone in a different direction. When the vision and budget for "WonderCafe" was developed might we not have thought to begin by acknowledging the pioneering effort of the "United Online" forum?

Could we not have decided to invest, with at least a small portion of the substantial budget designated for outreach through technology, by the "Emerging Spirit" project, to support the "United Online" forum?

I have learned to welcome John's reminder that institutions are made to serve people and not people made to serve institutions, which resonates with a saying about "Sabbath" made by our exemplar, Jesus.

I raise this to emphasize a thought expressed earlier. Can we not insist that our structures of governance work towards inspiring, encouraging and supporting local initiatives? Would this not go a long way towards making the word "oversight" relevant and welcome?

I know that there are small visions of hope being expressed in diverse areas of our broad constituency. Can we begin bringing personnel and monetary resources to bear on noticing and nurturing such initiatives into flowering and fruition?

We are asking questions that have been in view for a good long while. Have we taken Lorn Mead and Douglas Hall to heart? Are their insights and encouragements part of the present comprehensive review?

With appreciation for Richard and Charlene, and all those who worked with them.

And, no less appreciation for persons gathered to assess and recommend by the present process. I encourage you, if you are listening in, to be bold in your faith and wise in your discernment.

George

I wonder if we might have a "wink" or a "nod" indicating that someone from the review process is still tuned in to our conversation?

Hi GeoFee,

As I mentioned, I passed the link to this discussion on and I know at least one person working with the Comp Review group has visited and read it. I don't know if others have or not. 

About United Online, I used to visit that site and found it helpful. WonderCafe was originally created with an entirely different audience in mind though, and wasn't thought of as a replacement or alternative for United Online, which seemed to me to be mostly for United Church leaders. WonderCafe has morphed since then, but the original intent was to invite folks who have an interest but don't go to church or those who have some curiosity about religion, spirituality, the United Church, the liberal or progressive expression of Christianity, etc.

Hi Aaron, 

Might this objective not have well served by investigating the local initiative, perhaps augmenting it's resources and expanding it's scope?  Was this possibility even entertained? Will such potential be considered as the process goes forward?

George

Do you mean Emerging Spirit? No, because that process ended in 2010. Was the possibility entertained of augmenting United Online? No, because the target of WonderCafe was originally people outside the church and United Online had an inside the church audience (or so it appeared). They are very different websites with different needs and functions.

Hi Aaron,
.
Thanks for clarifying. I live in my left brain and my deficient right brain, though making progress, leaves me vulnerable to errors in detail.
.
I know the project was aiming for folk outside the UCC. Did it have to start from scratch? Could it have partnered with the up and running local project; building on a foundation well laid by local initiative?
.
This begs the question: Did we have to "outsource", resorting to market analysts and advertisers to further our hopes by strategic "product placement?"
.
These are the hard questions. Are they being asked inside the review process?
.
George

Question #1: Yes it had to start from scratch because it was felt it was important to do things in a new way, different than the ways they had been done before. #2: In my opinion, yes. We don't have those kinds of skill sets and experience "in-house." The Emerging Spirit program was officially reviewed for the 40th General Council. If you can find that workbook, the review is in there. I can't find it at the moment.

(Is this thread still about the Comp Review, lol?)

Hi GeoFee. You can find the Emerging Spirit evaluation in the GC40 ROP (under "Record of Proceedings, 2009") on this page: http://www.united-church.ca/general-council/gc40. The evaluation starts on page 794.