I think the idea has merit.  As I am sure you know, it would be a lot of hard work to make happen in each place.  Even our existing ESMs are a ghallenge because each one is a little different.

But it was not easy a century ago either.  There were those who were doubtful it could work. 

I am serving a two point pastoral charge in rural British Columbia. Each congregation is situated in a village facing many economic and social challenges. Those economic and social challenges are not limited to any particular social entity within the village, they comprise the shared experience of the citizens of the villages and their geographical contexts.

While new to the context, I am already in conversation with one village's Anglican congregation. We are setting up a lay group to discuss the promise and possibility of collaborative effort specific to bringing shared resources to bear on service in the village.

I am also in conversation with the Elizabeth Fry Society. We are discussing collaborative projects by which diverse resources may be directed to better addressing emergent issues of isolation grounded in poverty and social limitations of various kind.

As time goes on, I will seek out and establish conversation with the Chambers of Commerce, the Municipal Government, and other persons and groups with a stake in promoting health and well-being for the village.

This is to say that collaboration seems a present opportunity for bringing the gospel into living expression, by which discreet interests may be directed to serve common purposes. I take this to be the case as denominational traditions seem exhausted when it comes to making the shift from maintenance to mission.

Theologically, it seems that Jesus goes from village to village establishing a collaborative consensus, grounded in his person,  with the failure of temple religion in view. As one of our former moderators has it: "Walls that divide are broken down..."

One caveat.... I am wary of committee approaches to such matters, preferring interpersonal relationships expressed as freely offered time, talent and treasure.

That is a good idea in theory. As a member of a congregation that shares the building with another denomination, it is different in practice. How would the different structures, ie Bishops vs Presbyteries be handled? If a UCC is sharing with an Anglican or Lutheran congregation, what happens when the BIshop changes to a more conservative person? What about the fact that we will ordain homosexual clergy, and recognize same sex marriages? Those will be big hurdles.

Having said that, I do believe we have to change how we do things. All denominations need to change. Change can certainly be a challenging and painful process....but in the end, it would probably be worth it.

Certainly it wouldn't be easy - but as Gord notes it wasn't easy a hundred years ago either!  And I agree with George that a "committee approach" isn't the best way to go about things. The Local Union movement in the 19th century sprang up at the local levels without a lot of denominational direction. The local congregations just realized that they could accomplish more together than apart.

I have a friend who pastors a joint Methodist-United Reformed church in England. They seem to work well together. Administratively, as the minister (he's Methodist) he relates to both denominational governing bodies.

I just see a lot of communities in which all the churches are struggling badly because - as I said - they've lost the critical mass required to really do much on their own and so they basically have Sunday services and they fund-raise to pay their bills, and that's their existence. In some of those communities, think of the impact they might potentially have if they simply worked together.

One of the congregations had a garage sale this week. They earned just about enough for one month of electricity, gas and water. That money came from friends and neighbours - Anglicans, Seventh Day, Chamber of Commerce & etc.

I totally agree and recognize it wasn't easy 100 years ago. I think if we are willing to ditch the denominational mindset we will get further.

Sometimes I think we need to ditch all the structures and ways of being and start fresh. Of course, that would create a whole set of problems or challenges as well.

When I was at Presbytery last week, I heard some wonderful messages and was introduced to some writers who I will check out. Gord gave me the name of a book which I will check. I like the whole notion of conversations among believers or people on a journey of faith. I would like to see that happen, even though I sometimes wonder how possible that is these days. .........but we have to have the conversations anyway.

In my first parish we created a regional ecumenical parish - anglican and two united churches - bishop changed and brought in  a clergy who was less than happy being in such a reality - so now an anglican church and one united church ( at least that is better than the two that were there before)

This has been practiced for many years in Toronto. There are several congregations which share facilities with other denominations. However, as the United Church or another partner waned, we discovered there were no plans for closure... and that led to some interesting discussions. 

With respect to shared clergy, the minister is credentialed in both denominations. It's not an issue for us. 

In some communities it would make economic sense for various denominations to share a building.  Also - imagine the example they would be giving to the wider world of the need to be environmentally friendly.

Should more of our UCC congregations consider amalgamating with each other?  Here in Toronto, there have been a number of amalgamations, but we still have many small, struggling congregations.

Is looking across denominational lines more a possibility in rural areas?

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

I think the key is the understanding that Christianity is not a competition.  I'm not sure that our culture is less competitive now than it was then.  I would lean towards the now being more competitive than the then if only because individualism seems to be that much stronger now than it was then.

Even if it is necessary what feeds that necessity.  Previously the necessity was driven by a scarcity of resources in that such resources were not easy to come by.  While that is effectively true in the here and now I believe that is only so because their is a greater ambivalence to the mission and ministry of the Church.  Once before we were effectively the only game (or only legal game) in town.  Now we are rightly one option among many.

See this is part of the reason why I think such an enterprise would not experience the same success as in former days.  Previously it was about who would carry the banner of Christendom into the community.  Now it very much appears like who will be the last one standing and if they can be holding the banner while they do it so much the better.

It isn't about building a kingdom and being God's presence.  It has become more about holding on to our stuff.

On the surface it seems like a "practical solution" in practice I am not convinced.  More drowning swimmers are saved by strong skilled swimmers than they are by other drowning swimmers.  There is also enough experience around to know that a drowning swimmer can more easily drown a strong swimmer than for a strong swimmer to save a drowning one.

I doubt that the reality of amalgamation math changes when one crosses denominational lines.

I think all of this is possible.  I don't think any of it is probable.  It seems to me that the essential mathematical formula of the living church is supposed to be multiplication whereas the mathematical formula of the surviving church is typically addition.  While both are much more positive than subtraction or division multiplication gets you where you want to be much, much faster.

Grace and peace to you.

John 

It is more dependent upon the particular attitude of the other denomination, although I know of one United/Presbyterian co-operative venture where the United Church folks walked away.