I'll just cut and paste two comments I've made about this article on Facebook:

(1)

Pretty good article depicting the current state and challenges of the United Church of Canada. As a believer in the divinity of Jesus I also sometimes struggle with our denomination, but I don't think the problem is that we ignore Jesus. We talk a lot about Jesus. And we talk and we talk all over the theological map. The problem is that we don't know what to make of Jesus. The cornerstone sometimes seems lacking.

(2)

On both sides of the spectrum we spend too much time worrying about "morality" - getting into sticky details about the private lives of people and how they live them and what's right and what's wrong and what's allowed and what's not, which is what ultimately leads us to forget the concept of divine grace and forces us to adopt either legalism or license as our way of expressing faith. The gospel is neither legalism nor license. The message of Jesus was about building healthy, loving and life-giving relationships with God and others. It is those relationships that lead us to understand and eventually surrender ourselves to and be transformed by the gospel - the good news of God's presence with his people through Jesus and God's love for his people expressed in the solidarity represented by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

We had Prof. Kevin Flatt and a team of researchers at the last Swell youth worship service in London.  I'm looking forward to seeing if his bias comes through in his analysis of our worship gathering of 350 young people  -- the criticism that we're not sufficiently Christian.

In the very least, I expect he will extol the zombie-thespian abilities of Rev. John Maich, a Redeemer graduate.

Brad Morrison

Grace United Church, Sarnia

That's not a graph - that's a ski slope.  It's also wrong to extrapolate the data in a linear fashion to zero.  The decline in Sunday School attendance will be more of a curve that slowly approaches zero, but I can see why The National Post wouldn't want to use a curve-fitting method, because those are hard to draw with rulers.

I'm partly in agreement with Professor Flatt, in that I think the best way for a church to survive is to hold fast to outdated beliefs.  But what happens when you realize the basic tenets of Christianity are batshiat insane?  Now what the hell do you do?  You still want to keep the church alive, but forcing people to believe crap just isn't the ethical answer.  Some of these leaders like Mardi and Gretta are between a denBok and a hard place.

The notion of a split in the UCCan is a lot older than the post-theist thing. It was going on in the eighties, esp. during "The Debate". Isn't it still just tension between more conservative elements who want it to remain a fairly middle-of-the-road, mainstream Protestant church and those who want a more doctrinally open, liberal, socially conscious version of the Gospel? Gretta Vosper and other "post-theists" may be even more radical than those of us who supported gay ordination and embraced more liberal theologies in the eighties but it's the same ongoing tension that's driving the reaction to her presence in the church. To some extent, it could be even be argued that the post-theist movement she represents is the product of those tensions.

Vosper has become something of a public face for the "progressive" wing of the church, but I'm not sure how representative she really is. Both of the United Church congregations that I've flirted with here in London represent as "progressive" or "liberal" but neither seems to embrace her version of post-theism. Rather, they tend (in my eyes, at least) more towards a stance like that taken by Borg in which they embrace a more liberal theology while still retaining and, where necessary, reinterpreting tradtional images, music, and rituals. At First St. Andrews, for instance, the motto is "where liberal theology meet the best of tradition". Still not traditional, but hardly the atheism that Vosper has become famous for.

Mendalla

Yawn. Sandra Beardsall sums it up well for me. The progressive - orthodox debate is absurd and old. Churches will grow and die. I spent a fabulous morning with my own congregation, looking at our possibilites for renewal, with Bonnie Green and Ron Ewart. . There's life in the bones, but the bones may look different.

Fossilization has that effect.

You really are a mean, nasty person.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Interestingly enough, the criticisms are actually the things that draw me TO the United Church. 

Hi Rev, Steven Davis,

Maybe not lacking so much as forgotten.  Article 2.7 still exists as the cornerstone it doesn't appear to get much engagement.

Amen.

Grace and peace to you.

John

 The comments crack me up.

You get those who want to be told what to think....advising people "come on over to xyz denomination"

You get those who say...see God hates homosexuals..it's all because of your sins.

The reason that I came to the united church of canada was through my husband...but the reasont that I became active was because of the lack of a "you must think this way'.  my faith has grown in my time in the church.

why?  i have learned that it is less about what you say you believe, and how you act out your belief.  

I have learned about faith, i have learned to listen to other people's understandings and been given lots of opportunities to learn and to grow and sometimes argue...or disagree..

so....I thank God this morning for a diverse community of faith...that didn't say "you are not a good enough believer" and in their support, allowed me to grow in faith.

thanks be to God. 

Such splits in mainline churches are, as I understand it, one key reason evangelical churches are growing.

National Issue ???? - we had our own issues when our Minister was quoted in the following article....he recieved several nasty emails.....

http://www.saultstar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=3092566

Wow,  there was this article, plus one in the Star discussing transgender, and then an ethics question from Rev. Ken Gallinger.

wowzer.

Hi MorningCalm,

Where do you get that understanding from?

Most studies on Church populations show that there is lateral movement within Denominations (I don't liike my UCCAN congregation so I go to another) or not at all (I don't like my UCCAN congregation so I quit going altogether).

There is some near Church movement (I don't like my UCCAN congregation so I will try the Presbyterian or Anglicans close by) and then there is a smaller segment that is actually willing to try a completely different flavour (I don't like the UCCAN anymore so I'm going to go to the RC or Pentecostal Church).

I suspect that evangelical churches grow at their own expense.

One of the interesting things I noted during the five years I served in St. Anthony was how the Denominations tended to be divided along generational lines.  In five years the Pentecostals had 1 funeral service and they had to import that body from elsewhere.  Meanwhile my Anglican Colleague and I were presiding over an average of 1 a month.

It wasn't that Pentecostals are immune to dying it was that in that community Pentecostalism was for the young not for life.  At some point the happy clappiness just didn't satisfy and the choices for the devoted were Anglican, Salvation Army and United.  Anglican and Uniteds seemed to pick up an even split.  The Salvation Army was more cohesive and lifer oriented.

The Pentecostals kicked both United and Pentecostal backside with respect to infant dedications.

In St. Anthony that was simply the way it was and we all accepted and worked with it.  In all my years of ministry I have never had a ministerial that was so solidly in agreement as my five years in St. Anthony.  Everything since has been a bit of a let down as fellowship takes a backseat to brinksmanship.  I eventually withdraw since being right has become more important than being Christian.

Around here, if one went by appearances one would be tempted to think that the Baptist Church is growing like blazes.  The sub-surface reality is that the number of Baptists hasn't increased so much as the number of Baptist house of worship has increased.  If the split is amicable then well and good.  Rumour, which I don't trust completely and cannot discount fully is that two groups of people simply couldn't tolerate each other.

That isn't a sign that the Baptists are growing it is a sign that some baptists really can't stand other baptists.

If the rumours have any basis in truth I can imagine that neither of these congregations is going to grow to equal the numbers they had before the split.

I know that the United Church has gone from 12 congregations in 1988 to 6 now.  Retaining members was not a problem for any of these congregations, discipling new members certainly was.  There is also one particular congregation which has just gone through its second amalgamation (lean cow imagery anyone).

The six defunct congregations didn't leave the UCCAN and go to any of the new box churches.  The six defunct congregations amalgamated with the six survivors meaning that if you take one congregation of 60 year olds and merge it with another congregation of 60 year olds you sitll end up with a congregation full of 60 year olds.

The newer churches that I don't remember growing up are made up primarily of people who were unhappy with their original evangelical churches and so started new ones.

Probably not the kind of multiplication God had in mind.

Grace and peace to you.

John

 It's a pity that Tindall couldn't smell where the reporter was coming from. Instead of saying that Vosper doesn't speak for the UCC, Tindall left the door wide open for the reporter to drive his cliche in. 

The real story on growth and decline is much more complex, and more interesting.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/25722/mainline-church-membership-decline-continues-but-more-slowly

This, from the guy who once told me "Lives are indeed fluff. It's our relationship with God which matters?"

I may not be Mr. Congeniality, but you're dangerous.

As I said, you are a mean, nasty person.

PSST! You can get the Yearbook cheaper at Amazon.ca. Free shipping, too.

thats not what i've read at all....

all the research i've seen regarding canadian churches is that the evangelical churches grow from one church to the next... in that members go from one evangelical flavour to the next. 

the reason for the decline in the UCC is simply that the membership is old, and as they die there are no new members replacing them, imho... at the church i attended in ottawa, it was not uncommon for someone to drag out the phrase 'we can't do that now, just wait until [name of church elder] dies, and then we'll look into that.'

you know, chansen, i appreciate that you are here, and i love your insights into the craziness of my faith.

but sometimes i wish you wouldn't be so fucking rude.

 In case you missed it in the Blog section:

Moderator Mardi Tindal offers a response to the recent article in the National Post about The United Church of Canada, "The Unity of the United Church."

http://www.wondercafe.ca/blogs/moderator-mardi-tindal/unity-united-church

 A well done blog -- thanks Aaron.

you know, sighsnootles, I love your authenticity.

 Even when I disagree with you, it's refreshing to know that you're honest about your feelings and that you lack hypocrisy.

Good on ya, possum!

I don't want to highjack this thread but did anyone hear CBC radio this afternoon re the Anglican Church priest near Toronto - re Elvis....I really enjoyed his point of view...I am going to seek out his church the next time we go south....just to see what all the buzz is about.

Jobam- to continue this topic drift, I listened to that show too. I would probably find that the Elvis thing would get monotonous after a while - even classical music enthusiasts would probably get bored after a few decades of nothing but Mozart. But several things in the show stood out.  First, that the Anglican priest involved basically was kicked out of his denomination by a heirarchy opposed to unorthodox ways of connecting with people. Their take was basically "my way or the highway".   I believe Christ died to prove this to be wrong.  God welcomes all who come to God, regardless of class, age, gender, or musical predeliction. Christ prayed for the unity of his followers the night before his death and Paul urges this many times in his writings - not that we do things the same way but simply that we have the same purpose.

Secondly, there was a serious lack of listening on the part of the orthodox critics, who objected that faith had to be serious (ie. challenging) and that anything that was "fun" detracted from the message. Yet the "Elvis" priest said that he did indeed make serious and challenging points in his sermons.  The point of the "Elvis" approach wasn't so much to be "fun" as it was to be uplifting (a combination of inspiring and joyful - which is under discussion in the thread by LBMuskoka). God is praised when God's people are uplifted - and moved to live love.

This whole issue seems to highlight an issue with "sacred cows" which are sacred not to God but to our wish to find the sacred in the static.  Jesus compares the Spirit to the wind, which is just about as nonstatic as you can get. 

So to get us back to the original thread here - any organization has "splits". Are you trying to tell me that Conservatives or the NDP or Shriners or book clubs don't have markedly different viewpoints. Of course they do. So do all churches - even RC. The issue is more about how important it is to outwardly appear homogenous.

revjohn and sighs, you may well be correct. It might be that I'm just noticing a correlation.

The evangelical church to grow, though, not just as people move from one church to another, but also as people on the outside encounter a conversion experience.

well, as i'm always fascinated to observe, correlation doesn't equal causation. 

awwww... thanks!!!

Conversion experiences do not necesarily mean the the convertee will go to an evangelical church. I certainly didn't. I friend of mine had an experience and is workng more prominently in the catholic church. some others continue to do God's work in the Anglican church.

The one thing that the church/Christ offers, that the world can't, is Grace. Any church that practices and teaches this, no matter what the denomination,  is fulfilling Christs mission IMHO.

 A lot of people are converted by evangelical churches, but after a few years "graduate" to other denominations like the United Church and Anglicans. That's what I see anyway.

Does "graduate" suggest a hint of superiority? Is there less "sin" in other churches?

Yes, yes, of course not.

musicsooths, I didn't say that all who have a conversion experience join an evangelical church. I merely said that some people do join evangelical churches after such an event. I am one of those individuals who did so. I was UCC growing up, stopped going to church as a late teen, and in 1993 I repented of my sins and asked Jesus into my heart. I believe at that time the Spirit of God baptized me into the body of Christ. Shortly thereafter I became a member of the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada. There are certainly, I believe, true Christians in the UCC, and in the Anglican and Catholic denominations, etc.

Some people move from the evangelical churches to the mainline churches. Some move from the mainstream churches to the evangelical. I am one of the latter.

I thought Mardi's response was great, and I was very disappointed that the NP publishes such biased articles.  I'm sure many do (I"m not naive) but this was beyond fair.  The evangelical ministers quoted should be regretting it too, knowing they've been presented as full out snubbing many of their wonderful colleagues. 

It seems to me that news reporters have a tendency to get UCC quotes wrong.   Whether intentional or not - this is not the first time a a reporter only quoted a partial answer, gave it a slant not intended by the speaker, and distorted what was said.  Perhaps they simply cannot understand; or perhaps it is deliberate.  Or they pick one single controversal point out of a long and complicated statement and blow it up as though it was the only thing talked about. 

Right on! 

Only one "evangelical" minister is quoted in the article - Connie den Bok. The other United Church figures (at least the ones I know to be United Church) are Mardi Tindal, Bill Phipps, Greta Vosper, David Giuliano and Sandra Beardsall - none of whom, I don't think, would be closely associated with the "evangelical" movement in the church; all of whom seem to have had their positions represented fairly by the article. The article has been posted and shared widely by several UCC ministers on Facebook (including by me) and from what I've seen has generated mostly positive comments as being a thoughtful article that deals with the challenges facing the United Church and that encourages discussion. I thought it presented both sides of the issue in the UCC, which might be the problem for some people. Presenting anything other than liberal "orthodoxy" in our denomination is generally frowned upon. I believe in the divinity of Jesus. Otherwise, my theology is pretty moderate  by UCC standards. But on that basis many people make assumptions that I'm some sort of raving, judgmental fundamentalist. At my last Conference E&S interview before being ordained I was taken aside by a member of the Committee (after being recommended for ordination) and told by him that unless I changed my silly ideas about Jesus I wouldn't last 6 months in the UCC ministry. I've been told over the years by some of my more liberal colleagues that I don't belong in the United Church. I was told by someone when I left my last Pastoral Charge that they were surprised that I was going to another United Church because I really should "go Pentecostal." Why they thought I should "go Pentecostal" when my theology is anything but charismatic I have no idea. Oh wait. I do. I was being snubbed by some representatives of "liberal orthodoxy" who think that because I believe in the divinity of Jesus I don't belong in the United Church, and so it's OK to snub me. But Connie den Bok raises what I (and many) agree are legitimate questions and she should "regret it," because she's snubbing "wonderful colleagues."  Right.

(Oh. I almost forgot about the Conference staffer who once called and offered a thinly veiled threat about the problems that could be created in my pastoral relationship because I had publicly stated that I disagreed with Bill Phipps position on Jesus and the person who once told me that my only job as a United Church minister was to "toe the party line.")

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

And even what the Reverend den Bok said is a valid point that is worthy of consideration.

I had to deal with the same accusation while in the discernment process.  What made the issue worse, in my estimation, is that the labelling of me as a fundamentalist did not happen in the face to face element of a discernment meeting where discussion could be had.  I was so labelled in the Discernment Committee's debriefing for that particular meeting.  Had the comment never been minuted I never would have know that I was having the label applied to me.

Evangelical I will wear.

Christian Fundamentalism simply does not apply to me or the theology I espouse.  If it is being used as a pejorative (I'd estimate that the pejorative use within the context of the UCCAN is probably close to the 97% area, if not higher) then it doesn't really matter if the attempted character assassination is a clean hit I can bleed to death by the collateral damage.

I may still have the letter my minister sent me expressing the same thing after the Session of our Church met with me and decided to present me to Presbytery.

To be fair we don't know that Birthstone would have approved of your being snubbed so it is difficult to try and treat them as equivalent.

It does point out a reality that is present in our denomination namely there are enough who are willing to treat others as shabbily as they believe they, or others they sympathize with, have been treated.  That isn't really a theological issue though it is a maturity one.  Perhaps instead of emphasizing essential agreement we should focus on having candidates prove that they are not essentially children with no self-control.

One of the interesting things about the collection of anecdotes concerning shabby behaviour is the similarity of behaviour demonstrated even if certain details change.  If you were to reverse all of the theological qualifiers we'd be sharing each others stories and most likely identifying strongly with them.

I'm hoping that our ability to be petty isn't our Church's strongest unifying thread.

Grace and peace to you.

John

 Agreed, John. Nor was I trying to draw an equivalence between Birthstone's opinions about Connie and what she would have thought of some of my experiences .I was simply noting that snubbing takes place across the spectrum, and I was suggesting that I thought the comment about Connie "snubbing wonderful colleagues" because she spoke her mind about what she perceives as problems in the United Church was unfair to Connie, who I know and who I don't believe would "snub" anyone - although she'd let them know if she disagrees with them. But that's not snubbing.

More to the point, there is nothing in the article to suggest anyone was responding directly to statements quoted in the same article.  They could all be commenting in much more general terms, and would discuss (most likely disagree on various things) differently were they all in the same conversation at the same time.

Unless John is right and the ability to be petty is what unites us...

a bit of a drift - James is correct that marti's response re vosper was too open to misunderstanding.

In the hard debating aspect of theology - like in academic gatherings- one can be very critical of the position of the other, and yet respect the voice.  I respect Vosper but find her theology slight - and have been criticised for saying so - but that comment comes in what is an academic context, and fully outlined in how it is slight.  But we could easily go out for coffee ( or beer) and enjoy a conversation of disagreements.  One can move back from personal attacks.

It is interesting that there are few times I agree with connie but read her to help me in my thinking.  Yet on this site John and Steve and I agree despite being in different theological camps - John and I have really gone at one another at times, and shared a coffee and support.   Theological thinking is a process of rethinking tradition to remake tradition - it is not a static discipline.

Yet we when I have moved out into ministerial land some of the evangelicals have condemned me, and it was because they feared for my soul.  It was a bitter comment not unlike what the common of concern did to me.  In such situations I ignore because i know the source of the words.

Steven, I was one of the writing group in Bay of Quinte Conference that drafted the motion of deep concern to GCE over Bill Phipp's remarks back in the day. I took it to BQ Conference Executive and spoke in favour of it. Doing that, and several other similar acts over the years have not damaged my pastoral relationship.

Nor did it ever affect mine, David. Just noting that the threat (at least that was my interpretation) was made. I ignored it and went happily on my way.

I was in bofq and was supportive of phipps, and that did not damage my relationship with david -

Yes, on all sides and at all points of the theological spectrum there are those who are less than supportive.

"Common of Concern?" Do you mean the Community of Concern? Believe it or not I once spent a 2 year term on their Board of Directors. It was suggested to me that I'd enjoy involvement with them because they would support me in my concerns about the place of Jesus in the United Church and because they wanted to bring some younger ministers on Board. I didn't know a lot about them, and what I discovered on the Board unfortunately was what I refer to as a bunch of angry old men who spent very little time proclaiming Jesus and most of their time bashing the United Church over the same sex issue. I think the breaking point between us came when I was asked to preach at their annual meeting. They were disconcerted I suspect because rather than join in the United Church bashing I actually suggested that the Community of Concern needed to show more humility and perhaps repent of some of their unfortunate excesses. I spent significant time at the Board meetings I attended arguing for a more positive approach and particularly suggesting that the CoC newsletter "Concern" needed to stop being so totally negative. For a group that supposedly was trying to keep people in the United Church most of their publications seemed to promote just the opposite. I was also put off by the fact that a good number of the Board of Directors of "The Community of Concern Within the United Church of Canada" weren't "within the United Church of Canada." They had moved on to other denominations and had no intention that I could see of returning but seemed to use their position to vent against the United Church, under the guise of "loving" the United Church. I served my term, moved on and have never looked back. It was a most uncomfortable two years.

Hi GordW,

I didn't say that our pettiness is what unites us.  I hoped that our pettiness was not our strongest unifier.

To be sure we can be petty.

I'm certain that there are things other than than pettiness which bring us together.

Grace and peace to you.

John