There is one 3.4 km away, but driving it would be 7.6 km.  Due to a major road, it wouldn't be easy to walk/bike to it.  I've never actually been there, or seen it.

I live about 1 kilometer from the United Church of Canada that I go to.  If I had to go to the next nearest one, it would be about 150 kilometers.

According to Google, the nearest United Church to me is about 1.7km away, however I attend one that is 2.9km away.  There is also one that is 2.1km away.

The UCC I previously attended was about one klm away - I occasionally walked.  Now I attend one of the two that are about 2 klms away (within three blocks of each other).    There are three other UCC in this small city - all on the other side of the river, but all within a 20 minute drive.   Sometimes I do pulpit supply in the surrounding area.  Today I drove over 1/2 hour to the closest, and then another 15 minutes to the second.  It took me over 3/4 hours to get home, part of it highway driving.

While I'm glad I don't need to, I think that I would be willing to drive an hour or so for church.  People in rural areas of this province will drive an hour to town for shopping or a movie or hockey game. 

The closest UCCanada to me is Richview United Church, which is 1.7km away.

I attend a Baptist church which is 3.9km away.

When my family lived in Elk Point, Alberta for a few months, the nearest UCCanada to us was Elk Point United Church, which was 220m away, a three=minute walk.

The closest UCCan to me is 1.9 km away. The UCCan that I go to is 2.4km away. My wife goes to a UCCan that is 9.4 km away.

My UU fellowship is a good 14km or so away. It is the only one in London so not a lot of choice. That's the price of belonging to a small, somewhat rare church.

The United Church that I attended in the summer and may go back to occasionally is 6.4 km. There may be one closer but I haven't found it (one that might have fit the bill is now closed down) and I quite like this one.

Mendalla

The closest is 10 km but I go to one 90km... the reason is the theology in each, one would be too hard to sit there week after week, the other my wife is the minister 

I have one about 1.5 k away but I go to the other one in town 4k away.

My church is about 2kms away. The next closest one is 75ks and the other is 300+kms or a four hour drive. Oh, and I forgot the one that is 200 kms away.

My church is about 12 kms away.

There are at least 5 United Churches that would be closer to home. 

Where we were living it is a half hour, in either direction, to a grocery. In that same half hour drive, one would encounter 5 year round UCC's. There were 7 full time a few years back. We had been driving 20 mins to church with one two doors from our house, before ministry took me away from home. LOL

I live about 0.5 km from the UC church - but I am not a member.

SG - your words are interesting.  I can't begin to imagine an area with so many churches of the same denomination 

Logic suggests that it would make sense to amalgamate some of them and quit supporting buildings.  I have seen a bit of this type of thing near here. One story goes - a congregation wants the church to remain in a village that has dwindled away to a handful of houses, no store, no post office, no school, no anything.  Somehow they manage to believe it impossible to drive for church even though the drive for everything else!

This topic begs the questions:  how far would you be willing to drive to attend the church of your choice?   and why would you choose it if there were other  (UCC or otherwise) churches considerably closer?      With a Baptist (Anglican, RC, Presbyterian, Pentecostal) church next door, why would you drive 30 klms to a UCC church?  

kaythecurler,

At one time there was a significant difference between the congregation a few doors down and the one 25 kms away (though served by the same minister). It would have made amalgamation difficult. However, I agree that having 5 UCC's between here and "town" is a bit much. The "town" church certainly has attendance numbers better than the others. They each week have a handful to a dozen and one with a few dozen.

That was another reason for our drive to another church. It is hard to feel "community" when, counting the organist and the minister, there are 5 people. For me, it is also absolutely absurd to think a congregation of 5 people can possibly pay utilities, upkeep, repairs, and their share of even a half-time minister.

In the town near my appointment, there are 9 UCC churches, I know because I had a Presbytery meeting when I first arrived and had to try to figure out which one it was at. Each of them likely has their own challenges as it relates to funding. There are dozens more I drove by heading "to town". So, I decided to see how many are nearby using Wondercafe's "church search. Within 20 kms of "town" are at least 4 pages of UCC's.

seeler,
There were times when I drove about 40 miles, miles, to go to a synagogue.
When we went to the Metropolitan Community Church, we drove 60 kms.
I would drive an hour to go to services. Perhaps that is why I do not understand those who refuse to drive 10 kms.

If the UU fellowship were to close down, the nearest UU would be Sarnia-Port Huron, a good 45-60 minutes drive from my part of London. And, having preached there, I'm not sure it's what I want (they are lay-led and rather humanist). Which means Kitchener, which is even further (though I like their minister and what I've heard about them and I've even had correspondence with a member via WC). I would not be willing to do that. Means losing most of my Sunday just to get to church, minimal opportunities to get involved outside of services, not to mention the environmental impact. In that case I would probably attend the UCCan that I mentioned was 6.5km away and hope they can tolerate an agnostic pantheist UU in their midst (they seem fairly liberal, if not progressive, so far).

Mendalla

SG - I shake my head in bemusement.  All those buildings that use power, require maintenance, so few people using them, probably no-one using them to attempt to spread wholeness into the world or to make a meaningful difference.

On a sentimental level I can understand why it is hard to abandon the church you attended as a child - but I can't see any real reason to keep pouring money into them.

Out of curiosity I checked the 'Church Search' function using my home postal code.  I discovered that there are nine UCC within 10 klms (6 in the city and 3 nearby), there is one more within 20 klm and another 20 within 50 klms. 

However this isn`t an accurate picture. Some of these churches in surrounding area have since closed. Others are part of a three point pastoral charge that only has two services a week. (ie one 3-point charge has services in two churches for 8 or 9 months of the year, but holds services in the third church during the summer. Another pastoral charge switches back and forth between two buildings.)

I`m somewhat familiar with most of these churches. I look them over and try to see which might be a good mix for amalgamation in the near future. In the city, I see a need for two of the three churches on this side of the river. One of the two nearby might also be a possibility. On the other side of the river I also see a possibility of two joining, with one of the nearby ones also coming in. I`m considering differences in theology as well as distance between or suitability of the buildings.

In the surrounding area - some have already joined. Some would probably come to town rather than travel an almost equal distance to join with another small church.

Probably everybody in the Presbytery is glad I`m not in charge of reassigning them.

And if I lived within 50 klms (an hour`s drive) I probably would attend the church I presently attend most of the time, with perhaps an occasional (running late or bad weather) visit to the nearest one.

Five towns I lived in I could walk to the United Church: Wolfville, Amherst, Yarmouth,. Inverness, & Whycocomagh.  Growing up in the country we could drive to the country church but once it was closed we drove the five minutes to town.  My last house I had to drive twenty minutes as the town had a Catholic church only.  Now I'm five minutes to town and the UC.  All is well :)  

The "outside town churches" heat the bldgs all month for people to be in the building about  4-8 hours a month. There are no rentals for marriages or hall rentals, the water in most is from dug wells. So, signs say the water is not potable because they do not want to test or clean a well.  Many have holding tanks. They have not put in a septic, a well, a UV system... However, they do outward or cosmetic stuff like painting and siding. Keeping up appearances...(don't get me started). They may put on a roof or side the church with a congregation of ten or twenty.  Many no longer have telephone service or anyone in an office to answer a phone. They contribute to M&S and during the holidays the food bank. They amalgamate when money forces it. Then when money gets tight,  they sell a building, make some money and it all continues... They are already dead. They just have enough money to die a slow and very painful death.

That all sounds very sad to me SG.  It shouldn't be too hard to join forces with another nearby church.  Chances are all the people in all the congregations know most of the other people - meet them at the grocery store etc. Keeping one or two buildings operating has to be easier than several.

Kaythecurler,
The sad reality is they enter into "last man standing" mode. The animosity builds during thst competitive time...

Deleted duplicate post

I am probably uninformed but I don't see a lot of expense involved in keeping the 'outside the town' churches as long as the people want them and can afford to pay the minister.  They sit on land that was donated by a farmer or woodlot owner 150 years ago.  They are heated and lighted for two hours each Sunday.  (At least one I knew was headed by a wood stove, and a member of the congregation lived next door and brought the wood with him to build the fire each week.)   They don't have plumbing and therefore don't worry about the water freezing.  Eventually one or another will need a new roof or other major repairs - then they will have to make the decision whether they can manage it - or join with the other church in the pastoral charge.   It wouldn't occur to the secretary or the woman who plays the keyboard or the man who shovels off the steps in winter that they should be paid.  It's their church.

Seeler,
I will speak to that. Yes, the land was donated and there is no mortgage. Yet, they are far from expense free. The exterior painting is an expense. It usually gets put off meaning the job gets more expensive. When the bill for scraping gets too high they decide to go with siding. The heat needs to keep the plumbing from freezing in a place with no insulation, a crawl space and single pane drafty windows. One hydro bill on equal payments was $250 a month and that was with the sanctuary closed in the winter. One went to get sided and they found the snow load had taken a toll on walls and a 10, 000 bill later... upkeep costs money. Putting it off costs more money. Divide a minister salary between a couple dozen folks. It means deficit spending.

SG, 

How many rural congregations are in this situation . . . do you have a sense of this? Is it a common thing? 

SG - I think we are talking about two different types of experiences.  In my example the building didn't have water (I know many rural churches that don't have water).  No water, no need to heat the building when not in use.   Exterior painting - either by volunteers (and a single drive to raise money for the paint) or let it go.  Eventually the church will be closed.  In many areas in NB the countryside is being depopulated - people are moving to the cities or Alberta.   If a few families want to hold onto their church as long as the building is standing and they are able to attend - why the rush to close?     They often find creative ways to keep open - services in alternate churches on alternate Sundays, or close one for the winter months and the other for the summer.    It's different with city churches. 

Paradox3,
I could name 5 within a half hour drive of where we lived.

Many rural churches are on lots in small towns and a septic could not go in because of the rock or the lot size. They put plumbing in with holding tanks.

They added on a hall and a bathroom or two to a space never heated in the winter. It was dandy when there were no worries of frozen pipes and you just built a fire Sunday. It means heating the place. There was no place for a furnace in the hall addition so the heat is baseboard hydro. In this area and these winters?

So, yes they built nice halls on, but all the wells were dug. They didn't drill one. They stayed "the way it always was". As people aged nobody cleaned the well or shock treated it. They just drank it, because "we always have". When letters came to test the water they didn't because they didn't want to have to buy a uv system or such. They eventually posted signs saying the water is not potable. That means not using the hall except for coffee and tea after church.

Less attendance. High utility bills. No rental income...

The painting didn't get done... it then needed scraping... and that didn't get done... they side it.

And for who? When it goes on the market in a few years it won't matter because it needs ripped off for insulation and such or just to restore the old girls beauty. And it will happen and it has because they cannot afford more than half time ministry and cannot use the hall, are 80... have a dozen or maybe two dozen (the good attended) on a Sunday...

When they sell it is life support and keeps the others connected to it going even though there is no sign of life and the diagnosis is terminal..

When we cut corners we need to be careful where we start. When we spend we have to do it wisely. Some never did and it is too late to start.

Seeler, I believe that if we cling to our bank account with clenched fist or spend the last of our savings on ourselves without thoughts of a future or ministry... or those in greater need...simply for a familiar place to sit each week... instead of meeting elsewhere and helping those in need... then dare we call ourselves Jesus' followers?
I know of a place... cannot recall the name. They faced approaching death with honour and dignity...and IMO as followers of Jesus. They sat down and divided their assets among various projects, missions, charities... and they ended their life as they knew it. It was brave. They do not die, they live on.

SG - there are no assets.   The bank account was never much, they used whatever they had, and now it is close to nil.   The building is worth about $100 on the market - they may not be able to give it away.   The community might be interested in keeping up the graveyard that surrounds the building.  The furnishings are old, the pews uncomfortable.  The banners and decorations meaningless and worthless to anyone but the congregation.  But the people meet to worship.  They exchange news about people in their community and elsewhere.  They care for their neighbours and each other.  They contribute to M&S.   Why wouldn't we call them Jesus' followers? 

In my area, there are more than a few with bank accounts and GIC's and "investments" because of each building sold.
If, in your area, there are no assets to hold in a clenched fist and they are giving to M&S, then what I said was not meant for them.