Generally speaking, crazyheart et. al., I find the "mission statement section" of "A New Creed" to be a pretty decent summary of the purpose of the church:

We are called to be the Church:

to celebrate God’s presence,

to live with respect in Creation,

to love and serve others,

to seek justice and resist evil,

to proclaim Jesus, crucified and risen,

our judge and our hope.

If I were to add to or elaborate on that, I would suggest that the purpose of the United Church (or any church) is to invite and encourage its members, adherents and others into a deeper relationship with God through Jesus Christ that manifests itself in grace and loving service to others.

I agree with Rev SD. What's with the institutional navel-gazing, CH - church getting you down lately? Not living up to its promise and and its promises? Then what we need to work on is not what our purpose is but how to get there.  How to get our message across, how to be more welcoming (to all ages) and how to carry out our mission/purpose.  Perhaps I've been part of too many "mission statement" committees - when the statement is done, everyone forgets about actually carrying out the mission, as if making a mission statement was the mission.  We've been there and done that. Now it's time to act and speak up as the liberal voice of Christianity in Canada (and if not us, then who?).

spititbear, I am weary. It is like banging our collective heads.

Speaking as a semi-outsider (formerly UCCan, but not currently) I'd say Steven nailed it. That's certainly the church I expect to find when I darken the doors of a United Church congregation.

Mendalla

ch said "I am weary. It is like banging our collective heads".  I can empathize. In my own church I may be coming to a crisis point as all the advances I've worked to achieve over the last 7 years are threatened with being tossed out. Stay and fight or leave and keep the peace?  The next few weeks may hold the answer.  In the end I suspect that even if I leave the call will still be present; I just wish there were someplace that I was called to that didn't involve so much futile effort. But if it's not worth fighting for, is it really worth it?

I'll add - being the open church for people who can't find another place, not because of pity, but because of mutual challenge & respect.

 The most attacked, and  most precious role for the UCC is to be a church for Christians who are gay, atheist, questioning, out of the box, angry about government & social justice and so on.

(did I say atheist Christians??  I know some.  Willing to follow these teachings, and the sense of spirit that they have discovered - spirit between all people & the earth that grows in peace & justice.  They've found a church community they feel fully part of, and with room for their faith journey) 

To live out the Great Commission (whether it was Jesus' words or the early Christian's or easrly Church's words).

By that, I do not mean it as in evangelizing to and converting the world to Christianity, but living Jesus' teachings.  ( I almost typed "but simply living Jesus' teachings", but there is nothing simple about it.) 

For me, our purpose is living his teachings and healing, touching and teaching with our lives, as he healed, touched and taught with his.  

Amen SG

I agree with that. The devil, as always, is in the details.

ok... ok... but every church names that stuff as their purpose (with whatever flash they want).  Of course the CHURCH's role is to do that.  But what about the UCC - what makes it different and important when we have the choice of a zillion places?  If someone says "I'm trying to choose between Anglican and Pentecostal and United and RC - why United?"  - what is your answer?

Hi crazyheart,

I think that Rev. Steven Davis has provided as spot on an answer as any with respect to the purpose of The United Church of Canada.  I believe that SG provides the best context for the universal catholic church.  I also do not see either being contradictory.

I would argue that we are on roughly the same page belief wise and that practice wise we diverge according to our contexts and experiences.

I prefer our unity to uniformity, not that unity is automatic.  Like all things worthwhile unity is something that requires a rather high degree of investment.

As individuals or members of the denomination?

Grace and peace to you.

John

..... I am new to the UCC but if I may tell you what I have found....

The UCC has become to me a home for lepers like me.

The denomination I have been loved out of sort of placed me out in the cold spiritually.

The UCC churches I have visited in my town have loved me ....just as I am....

I want all you UCC people to know that ...... you have made a much needed and appreciated difference in my life.....

Maybe you are debating and wondering just what is it you do ..... I felt I should tell you a bit of what you have done for me...

Hugs

Rita

Thanks for sharing that RitaTG - I just hope that my own local United Church would be one of those UCCs that also would love anyone who comes just as they are.

I like that.

But is that actually the purpose, or is that a way of explaining the actual purpose in more traditional Christian language?  

Much I guess depends on one's actual congregational experience. In my experience the actual purpose was more limited to:

to live with respect in Creation,

to love and serve others,

to seek justice and resist evil.

It's hard to talk about one overall purpose, I found, within a congregationalist model. This issue relates to lots of other threads (see, for example, Brad's Ego, and Ninjafairy) 

Seems to me that the United Churches purpose is to love people and to that end they do a decent job.... however, what I have found is that in loving others, the United church seems to be afraid to say "Jesus Loves You". Evangelism and conversion seem to be foreign ideas in the United Church and I think that is unfortunate. There is nothing wrong with telling people about Jesus

" to seek justice and resist evil'

This is the crunch now for us when there is a real cost to do this boldly.  This is the place of disappointment for many.

Well, except the whole, "people will look at you funny and treat you like you're wearing a bear suit" thing.

And you know, that should not happen inside a church. Perhaps we are falling down on that part of our role as church.

I thought one of the neat things about the UCC was that you're less dogmatic, and that some members don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, or even the existence of God?  So what's the problem with some healthy skepticism?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with healthy skepticism at all. At the same time, it should be okay to celebrate Jesus without having people look at you funny.....within reason I suppose.

I'm glad for the skepticism too, even if I have a sense that *God* exists (we could debate how) or that Jesus has a central message (even if not divine)...  I'm glad that we celebrate ourselves & other people for being themselves & working towards something good, rather than excluding or diminishing them for pointless reasons.

I like Rita's & Chansen's comments - very much actually - because they describe what differentiates the UCC from other churches.  Do we have a separate calling, something that stands out from others?  Rita & Chansen describe what it is that makes me proud to be UCC, separate from other churches.  Deal breakers for me. 

Add in something about kids welcome at the table, balancing traditionalism with outside-the-box trailblazing, justice & advocacy... - I'm getting even more satisfied.

I guess my point is, that for those Christians that want to go deeper in their relationship to God, who want to experience the presence of the Holy Spirit.... most often they have to go to an evangelical church to find that kind of worship. If I want to hear about how much Jesus loves me, I don't find that in the United Church. I honestly don't know where I fit in... I'm at a loss for direction

You want lip-service paid to your beliefs?  To reinforce them, or just to make you feel good?

There are plenty of churches which exist to give you a wonderful sense of euphoria through well-understood means by telling you what you want to hear in the way you want to hear it.  Assuming you want to be played like that.

Something struck me as I read. It perhaps started with Birthstone and then RevJohn and RitaTG and it built....

Birthstone asked,
"ok... ok... but every church names that stuff as their purpose (with whatever flash they want).  Of course the CHURCH's role is to do that.  But what about the UCC - what makes it different and important when we have the choice of a zillion places?  If someone says "I'm trying to choose between Anglican and Pentecostal and United and RC - why United?"  - what is your answer?"

I would tell you, as John pointed out, the universal catholic church thing. I would argue that the New Creed just restates that also. So, I get what Birthstone means about "every church names that stuff".

Yet, I am way too open to other legitimate paths to say this one is the only one. I could say that the named purpose of most all the world's religions is honourable and to be lauded.

I cannot say that if someone asked me about a spiritual path for themselves I would automatically shout, "be a Christian!".  I would have to find out who they are, where they come from, what they already believe in or do not believe in... It would be their own spiritual path to encounter the Holy. 

I do not think Christianity is required, you know- turn or burn.

So, if someone came to me with very strong beliefs in reincarnation and veganism, could I say "Buddhist"? Yes, I could. I have many Buddhist friends and I even chant with Buddhists. Do they need converting? No. If they felt they needed Jesus or the Eucharist, then maybe. If they did not believe in the deity of Jesus and thought dietary laws of Leviticus still applied, maybe I would say "Jewish".

Personally, I did not leave Judaism because I did not find it a valid path. I did and do. I simply was not the best path for me anymone. I needed some things it lacked and could do without some things it had for me to make my journey.

Back to Birthstone's question:"
But what about the UCC - what makes it different and important when we have the choice of a zillion places?  If someone says "I'm trying to choose between Anglican and Pentecostal and United and RC - why United?"  - what is your answer?"

"United Church of Canada" would not always follow a "be a Christian" answer by me.

Did I say that? Yep, you are damn right I did.

The UCCan does not have God on speed dial and they are not the only "real" Christians.

If someone is very strong on virgin birth, role of mary, venerations of saints,  transubstantiation, daily eucharist.... Why would I not say, "Roman Catholic"?

If they are Christian but have strong beliefs on the Sabbath being Saturday and Sunday worship being wrrrrrrronnnnnng,  why would I not say, "Seventh Day Adventists" or "Seventh Day Baptists" or "Seventh Day Pentecostals"?

I mean if they said they hate cars and televisions, want a beard, lots of kids and like churning butter, why would I not say "Amish"?

I can see myself saying any number of denominations if someone was already or wanted to be Christian.

I would ask about baptism beliefs and all kinds of stuff.

I do not think the UCCan is the end all be all or that it would work for everyone. It works for me.

Other denominations could also work for me. I could be Unitarian Universalist, Lutheran with little problem (not Missouri Synod- for clarity), Anglican/Episcopalian, MCC, United Church of Christ, Society of Friends (Quakers), Uniting Church... 

What are the thoughts on historical teachings - things like atonement, virgin birth, resurrection, heaven, hell... I could find a match in a number of mainline denominations. If i go to thoughts one homosexuality, again, I could find a number of mainline denominations that could or would work. In Australia, Melbourne anyways, any number of Baptist churches are welcoming to LGTQ.

Do I feel bad saying that? Not at all!

It is not about empire building, getting pew sitters and building denominations or congregations... not for me. It is about creating disciples.

Am I way off? I would say not.

When I was planning on attending a Christian denomination, a friend (who happens to be UCCan clergy) said, "try the MCC". She knew not every UCCan congregation or UCCan clergy would be like RitaTG  descibes.

The MCC was not for me. What did I do? I went to a UCCan. Why? Because someone who worried about me personally and my personal journey and my personal relationship with God more than their collection plates, their attendance, their rolls... well, it spoke volumes to me.

It still does.

When the United/Lutheran shared ministry congregation in a moderate sized town closed, it left people with an open, inclusive approach to faith with no place in town where they could comfortably worship.  After many years of service in the Sunday School and on the board, this person I know abandoned participation in church.

There are many important purposes for the United Church.  One of them, to me, is to provide a faith community where all people interested in following Jesus, or learning about his story, or seeking spiritual enlightenment or fulfillment are welcome and able to participate in meaningful worship, encouraging and challenging faith study or discussions, and application of faith to living including outreach and justice work.

Many UCCs have downplayed Jesus because they feel he was hijacked by the fundamentalists. The challenge for the UCC is to learn how to take Jesus, God and the Bible back, and believe we have something healthy and helpful to say about it without being apologetic or obnoxious. I know of many courageous congregations who are doing just that. We just tend to fly below the radar, since the UCC likes to use its environmental & social justice work for its public face. 

 Do we need a porpoise to be saved, that's all I want to know. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Q32xIyoeo

Thank you ....quite an observation and something I would like to be part of...

Hugs

Rita

I agree completely with RevJamesMurray's comment. I think that (and I'm going to put this in ridiculously simplistic terms here so my apologies if it comes off as flip) when progressives look at the Trinity, and try to take it out of the old school, Theist, 'Gandalph in the Sky' context, it is not hard at all to do that with the Holy Spirit, which is ephemeral to begin with; and it's not even too hard with God the Father/Creator - de-anthropomorphize (him), remove gendered language, and you have the essence that is brought to all of us by the Holy Spirit. But then we come to Jesus - a historical person (mostly agreed), a male, with a widely interpret-able message, which has come down to us second- and third-hand at best, who is at the centre of our religion but  in so many different ways for different people. Human? Divine? Human AND divine? It's a really sticky wicket.

In that sense I understand the cautious approach a church like the UCC, which wants to allow and even encourage questioning, seeking, learning, and different points of view, takes. And there's something commendable about wanting to be an open, big-tent church where everyone can share and explore. At the same time, that's just it - discussing just this - the fact there are questions, and taking an educational approach while allowing congregants to still come to their own conclusions - is still inclusive and welcoming. I don't think one needs to shy away from controversy, to make room for a variety of opinions.

Other than that tangent, to the original question, I do agree that the UCC's purpose is well-encapsulated in its New Creed, as well as many of the other comments here, particularly that made by Rita and others in regards to welcoming members who still believe and want to worship, but for whatever reason, have not found a comfortable place to do so elsewhere. In that regard I feel the UCC's mission includes ensuring that 'All God's critters have a place in the choir'.

And that's a constant struggle isn't it. And because of this, many have a tendency to flock to the extremes. So it's either fundamentalist Christanity or progressive Christianity with no middle ground. I personally find "fundamentalist Christianity" distressingly simplistic, while I find progressive Christianity spiritually empty. (Please note - just my opinion.) The challenge is to find a meaningful expression of faith that avoids either extreme, since in my opinion extremism in religion leads to judgmentalism or worse.

Crazyheart;

Are you asking us to get off of our collective butts and actually LIVE the purpose?   Cuz I am sure you know what the purpose was to begin with.  Even I knew that.

Rev Steven Davis ........ I appreciate your thoughts on extremes...

Thank you

Hugs

Rita

Not only is my couch very comfortable Crazyheart but my church thinks its purpose is to entertain the community. I am not going along with that purpose but the purpose of social justice is too difficult on my own. So I do nothing.

Here are some thoughts on topic, from another place involved in the same theme:

I am now nearly 25 years in membership with the United Church of Canada; in this meeting and engaging most of my colleagues and friends. This while nearly suffocated by the machination of powers small and large. Thanks be to God who kept me in and through it all.

Emerging Spirit is now banking down its fires, preparing to leave the work to its destiny. I suspect funding constitutes a core consideration. Remarkable how short a frame is opened by even grand sums. The time has passed quickly by. We have, in this place, tried the matter on first hand. Surely our evaluation of the project has some bearing on the emergence of next things?

At about the same time that Emerging Spirit broke to the surface of awareness, I had been found out in a rather daring and radical move, in the name of the gospel I am covenanted to teach and preach. On zero budget, we began to take in persons driven from their natural habitat by police powers serving political concern. The Olympic committee was coming to town and the Hasting Corridor received a stiff brooming. The trash ended up on the doorsteps of Grace. In keeping with our expressed mandate and mission we provided basic hospitality and compassionate concern among these outcast sons and daughters of Canadian mothers and fathers.

This happened in Mount Pleasant, at times touted as Canada's poorest electoral riding. A small group of persons were investing in real estate. At the centre of this circle stood a well positioned executive with the Public Insurance Corporation. These persons began to resist the presence of unwanted persons on the property of the church. A slander campaign was set in motion, vandalism against church property, threats of arson and legal action. On one occasion I was threatened by a man waving a hammer over my head. A young Chinese immigrant, who was practicing English by baking cookies with me, witnessed all these things; as did many others. 

God's grace was with us. Soon we were supported by the Street Outreach program of the BC Centre for Disease Control, A Youth Advocacy service (DEYAS) and a Prostitute Advocacy service (PACE). Our small working team was monitored by Judy Graves, who was at that time working with City Hall to provide basic housing where and when it became available.

The only resistant partner, other than core value generators in the neighbourhood, was presbytery. Our requests for supports and encouragements were met with legalities and process. Decisions of the Grace council were overturned by presbytery executive decision. An example of the established resisting the emergent. The matter escalated to the point where presbytery entered into partnership with the neighbourhood, authorising police force to evict  the broken poor from the back porch of Grace. I was called up for a 363 review and removed from my responsibility to the mission.

I won't press forward the full volume of detail which this short narrative segment represents. It is offered to suggest that in the United Church of Canada some initiatives are greeted with applause and endorsement while others are framed in less favourable light. The key seems to consist in political acumen, the ability to negotiate processes and procedures in the service of purpose. Some of us, less adept at levers and pulleys, find solace in knowing that we, too, are not alone.

 A wee addendum. About six years after I left the work at Grace a young woman came in with a man. In her arms she had a baby. She identified herself as "Shorty", one of our guests at Grace in those past days. She proudly spoke of getting off the crack and the street. The man was introduced as her husband. They had come to give thanks.

Last word to Keith Howard:

"In a time when so many seem to feel anonymous in the larger thrashings of the world, could an intentional and respectful welcoming by a particular community who remembers the name of each, be almost as surprising and life-changing as the call of Jesus to Zacchaeus to get down out of that tree. A meal is to be celebrated! The Sacred One wants to pull up a chair with you!

In a time when the numbers increase of those whose prime interactions occur through a video screen, the invitation into a community of all ages and stages, with particular and very real hurts and passions, comes as a powerful witness to the God who forgets no one and reaches out to all. We are not alone. 

In a time when people seem valued primarily for what skills, knowledge, expertise, talents, beauty, and power they can bring, how world upsetting to be a community which welcomes children as if they were the messengers of the Community of Shalom; who seeks out seniors and grants them place and honour; who extends a hand, not of pity but of friendship, to those without a debit card or house key.

Welcoming. What kind of rebellious, status quo challenging, cutting edge, gang of misfits might be called to that kind of radicalism? Perhaps only those who have, at times, known what it is to be somewhat lost, alone, and anxious about the future can truly appreciate its holy power.

Grace, how amazing it is."