Good question, kaythecurler. Hard to say if the decline in membership will result in the death of the denomination. 

I don't know about the other denominations in my area. The congregation I go to is a busy one. There's an Anglican church that is busy with outreach activity- always people coming and going- the nearby Catholic parish always looks so quiet (haven't made a point of looking in the past year though), I rarely see anyone going in or out, the Baptist church is very busy as are a couple of non-denominational urban churches of a more conservative evangelical persuasion, and the JW's- although not sure where they fit- in my neighbourhood are always having meetings and a table set up on the sidewalk. I see people coming and going all the time. They seem to be going strong in my area anyway. They have a quite a small building, almost a store front space, but it seems well attended.

30 years at the outside.

ok, serious answer.  there are significant shifts in all churches which are ramping us as the money depletes and people die off.

The questions will be around if the demographics shift..and it is about if people can find a place in the community.....and the community has value.

Who knows what 30 years will bring , but we can gurantee it wont' be the same as today.

I suspect it will be very different 5 years from now. Is the UC dying? Changing certainly. Too quickly for some; too slowly for others. Other denominations are doing the same. Even the so-called evangelical denominations are showing signs of slippage. The end of christendom made that inevitable. Indeed, there were signs of it happening even before the end of christendom were obvious. The western church became a part of the establishment rather than a counter culture. In the era of christendom many were in the church because it was the thing to do and not because of any particular commitment to Christ. So the church became artificially large and bloated and powerful. Which dulled our ability to live the gospel. It's going to take a lot of years to sort out the damage christendom did to the church. Christendom made us forget about a basic principle Jesus laid down - "my kingdom is not of this world." But once the church gained worldly power and riches we bought very quickly into being a worldly kingdom and we're finding it hard to adjust to our loss of power and prestige. That's making this transition back to being a smaller and less influential counter cultural movement very hard, very painful and very frightening for many.

"The church" will survive in some form because it is of God. There are individual congregations that will both survive and flourish because they find the faith and the courage and the leadership to adapt to a changing world. Whether "The United Church of Canada" survives along with it only time will tell. I do think that a lot of the current restructuring is pointless and doesn't take into account the basic problem I've just outlined.

Can you explain what you mean by  "christendom", Rev. Steven Davis?  And what you mean by "the end" of christendom?  Thank you.

I think the national church gets it – it’s the pews and many of our clergy that are stuck in the past and constantly stick up for the way things are.

We have a few congregations that get it.

Just the discussion of the new model makes it clear that many refuse and/or don’t want to look at options.  The possibility of home churches with no clergy can be seen as a threat.

Growing up I was always told the church was a good couple of decades behind the times – still true. 

Is the UCCanada dying? Yes, I believe it is. Along with, at least North America, mainline denominations such as Presbyterian, Anglican, and Lutheran. Will these denominations totally die out? That remains to be seen. In the case of the UCCanada, I feel that in order to continue, and even grow and thrive, it must become about something. What I mean is that I don't feel that the UCCanada's "big tent" philosophy has served it well. I feel that the denomination must focus itself more sharply if it is to survive.

Meanwhile, from what I know, the major evangelical denominations are holding their own, and the fastest growing denominations are in the pentecostal-charismatic camp.

Kaythecurler,

As long as the true head of the Church wants it to be.

Historically this is not the first time a denomination has fallen into the doldrums.  Events like "The Great Awakening" happen precisely when the night looks darkest.  Is another great awakening hovering just below the horizon?  My vision doesn't curve so I don't know that it does or it doesn't.

Just by observation I do note that there are some conversations happening in some quarters that bode well.  Frankly I think the UCCan is long overdo on candid discussions of evangelism.  Not simply how it is defined but how it ought to be practiced.

Fires need fuel to burn and the UCCan by ignoring any kind of evangelical imperitive have starved themselves to the point where any flame we have is on the verge of going out.

Christ, in describing himself points to a passage which promises he will never snuff out a smoldering wick.  So long as a spark remains there is promise of a brighter flame to come.

I can well imagine that my bringing the word evangelism into the conversation turned some folk off.  If you have to call it by another name I don't care.  If you refuse to engage in it you are a self-snuffing wick.

It is that plain and that simple.  Fires don't burn forever if you won't attend to yours it burns out.

There are also conversations taking place about our mission and our vision and those conversations rightly and clearly point out that the UCCan has not been doing a good job of articulating that as a denomination.  By default congregations have abandoned a larger dream for the much smaller and pressing dream of survival.

Survival of what?

Survival of a comfortable place is the quickest and most common answer.  At least in this mode everyone recognizes the necessity of bums in pews.  Combine it with an aversion to go and gather fuel for the fire and you have the frozen chosen.

So yeah.  Things look dark.

The Spiritual but not religious crowd still exists and represent a very harvestable fuel source.  Set that ablaze and fire will sweep.

At present we all appear to be waiting for someone else to take responsibility for that.

The light on the horizon is that some folk are getting wrestless at the lack of anyone gathering wood and they may become desperate enough to get up themselves.

Will it happen?

Again, I cannot see beyond the horizon.

I'm not going to lament something I have no control over.  Even if I don't have a match I can gather dry sticks and hope somebody else finds a spark.

The fact that the UCCan is not alone in the doldrums indicates that the problem is wider than just the UCCan.  Even more traditionally evangelical denominations are suffering from decline which means they have the same smoldering wick problem we do. 

Which suggests to me, at any rate that we need to be looking at historical Christianity rather than any specific expression of it for some kind of answer.  While this doldrum is somewhat unique to this very young denomination it is not at all unique to the Christian family tree.  Which means that a UCCan solution isn't likely going to solve the UCCan problem.  In fact, it is not unreasonable to suspect that a UCCan solution is simply going to accelerate the UCCan problem.

Sometimes you need to look beyond your own experiences for help.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Broadly speaking, "christendom" refers to the era in which the church acquired and wielded worldly power - political power, riches, land, etc. All the baubles. So the church could simply impose its will rather than do the hard work of actually bearing witness to the gospel. And, blinded by worldly power, the will of the church was often at odds with the witness of the gospel. The end of christendom refers to the fact that these things are being stripped away and the church is becoming less and less able to not only impose its will but even to influence the agenda. The result is a fanatical movement on both extremes of the theological spectrum to take control of the political agenda. The "Christian right" has been more successful at least in gaining notoriety but there is a "Christian left" as well which tries hard. But both in their own way are trying to hold on to power rather than surrender power - which is the way of Christ, "who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but humbled himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming human. He humbled himself to the point of death - even death on a cross .."

The church today at both theological extremes tries to both serve and control society's agenda. The church as founded had no concept that it could control society's agenda and so didn't try and used what resources it had to reach individuals and change individual lives with the gospel of grace, something which doesn't fit easily with worldly power. You never see Jesus or Paul, for example, criticize the Roman authorities. Both, in fact preached co-operation with the Roman authorities to an extent. Jesus said "pay your taxes" and Paul claimed his rights as a Roman citizen but demanded nothing more. We lobby governments and try to influence the secular powers to change things to our liking. I agree that the New Testament would see that people of faith are called to honour God over state, but it also clearly sees the church and the state as separate entities, both having a God-given role, both - under the leadership of imperfect humans - not always performing that role as God desires. Thus, while we honour God over state, and bear witness when the state acts in ways we believe to be ungodly (there's the rub, eh - we as Christians don't agree on what's ungodly, so we act on the basis of personal conscience, which is fine and necessary, but we demonize those Christians whose consciences lead them in a different direction, assuming that "I'm right and you're wrong") we are also called to be humble and unconcerned with power and control over society. We also worry about holding on to our property tax exemptions and maintaining charitable status and keeping the doors open. All of which gets in the way of our witness to the gospel. 

Amen!

Putting it another way, there was a time when if you wanted to get a job, you joined a church that had influential people in your area of work.  If you wanted to hold a meeting, the person started with prayer. When ministers were at the table to say a prayer at the opening of the meeting.

These weren't because of faith.

It was because of power and control and perceptions of what made you or your committee/organization legitimate.  

It was the era when you went to church because it was the right thing to do...

The challenge is that the church with the influx of people forgot what the right thing for the church to do was.  The concept of country club though painful and in some cases unfair comparison, hurt because there were elements of truth in it.

As Christiandom -- the power of church in society - became less powerful and people started looking at what was actually delivered.....less joined, some joined looking for that power in relationships or deliverables and then left when not deliered, some joined looking for the gosepl, but then looked deeper at the overaching principle versus actual delivery and  left...

It was predictable ....an organization grew exponentially in the 50's and could not sustain the growht or hold on to the goals of the founding members ...got distracted by the growth instead of the original vision/mission.....think RIM / blackberry but over a longer time frame..

Basically, have to rip back to the basics...focus on the basics, not the memories and burdens of christiandom.  

Again, if you think of Rim, selling off buildings, lettng go of staff, determining what are the key focus deliverables, that is what the church needs to do.  the challenge is we are not a top down structure, we have lots of small sites each autonomous who can bleed the organization dry chewing up and destroying all of its human and financial capital prior to eventual collapse.

Agreeing with you PInga but I see one problem. What exactly are the basics we need to get back to ? Ask 10 different UCCan members & you might get 10 different answers.

This is the frustration some are expressing with Fishing on the Other Side. It is all about structures and not about the mission or values which drive the church. 

that is no different than RIM...or other companies or organizations who have experienced rapid growth.

sigh, one of my favourite authors hasn't produced the 3rd book in his trilogy.  in part his fame sidetracked him (books to sign, conventions to attend) as did his money...in part life shifts.

So, how do we get back to basics, then? Is it a process of deciding what we can do without? Buildings, history, etc.? The tangible things many have grown to love, I suppose, which makes it a difficult journey. 

Or do you mean something else, Pinga? 

"The purpose of the church is to draw people to Christ... And then lead them in becoming like Christ. The church exists for no other purpose. If the church is not doing this, then all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the bible-studying, are a waste of time."

C. S. Lewis

Parodox, if you compare it to RIM< there are good people letting go, or leaving, ..good product ideas that may not make it to fruition or sections that just quite being funded.

Blackberry made its mark based on security..but lots of stuff that they do is awesome....and important to their bottom line..

it takes guts to do selective trimming. You don't make friends.  people are sad.  That is part of what wondercafe is experiencing.

It also takes commuity conversation, listening, creativity, thinking outside of the box, letting those who are committed come up with vibrant solutions, having tough conversations (as compared to decrees)

Sadly, I don't see the latter happening.

That would make a good topic for a thread, SaulnowPaul. 

How would we define the purpose of our church? Why do we exist? 

Pinga, 

Yes, there is selective trimmiing going on & many of us are sad about it here on wondercafe. Aaron said other programs have been trimmed as well - - I guess these are just not visible to me. 

The Comprehensive Review represents an effort to engage in conversation, listening and new solutions. Ditto for United Future. Sadly it has spun off in the directon of structures. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, some would say. 

I may be somewhat critical of these processes, but I must admit I have no answers. Do you? 

Well, Jesus has been pushed aside, and UCC is really just another staging point for the battle against the bible on all kinds of points. Like who is sleeping with who, what is and isn't sin, movable truth, relativism.

Look at most of the church websites. Rainbows. If Jesus is mentioned, it's just like - oh ya, that guy - we have a little likeness of him over in that corner, no wait, maybe it was that corner.

C.S. Lewis was a good Christian of his time. However, we are not living in his time. In our day, I feel it's best if the Church stops focusing on having missions to individuals, and concentrates instead on being part of God's great mission - to redeem communities, and ultimately the world.

I think change is a better word than dying to describe what is likely happening.

My own church is struggling with Sunday morning attendance - but our outreach in the city and our mid-week activities are increasing.  Rather than thinking of closing, or almagating, we are looking into new ways to 'be the church'. 

I personally get a great deal out of our outreach program of providing food and welcome to the many disadvantaged people who come to our door because they have heard this is a good place to be.    But I also think that worship and development of our spiritual lives is an important part of 'being the church'.  I'm hoping that at some point we can revitalize this aspect of who we are.

I hope that the UCC will be around for my grandchildren - but don't expect it to be the same as it was when I was younger, or how it is today.

It is kinda funny.  I asked my husband, are we still contributing to the church? Do we have our receipt.  Neither of us have been to our congregation more than once or twice in the last few years, otehr than christmas/easter.  We are. We likely still are in their top % of contributors locally via PAR and used to give a lot more with our "discretionary" spending for particular missions or outreach programs.    We also used to give a lot of time.  That is no longer occurring locally but is in select missions and programs in the wider church.

The one place that I still really was engaged in the united church of canada was wondercafe...and so, i felt called to continue giving to ministry in the church.

I need to podner this one....there are a few united church of canda related missions that are important to me, but, overall, is the church what i thought it was, is it living out its mission.  i don't know.  ..i am sure in the next 3 years that decision will be made by our family. 

How does that work?

The church that my grandfather helped build and run, that I grew up in, is dying. There seems little doubt of that. I cannot see the big, somewhat centralized, bureaucratic UCCan continuing to exist in the face of shrinking numbers and revenues.

What could a future UCCan look like? The proposals being discussed in the current effort seem to be leaning in a more UU'ish direction. More congregational with fewer courts and higher courts being more coordinating and supporting bodies to local ones than centralized governing bodies.

I'm not sure it's the church my grandparents' or parents' generation would be happy to see, but I think it would be more locally accountable and adaptable model to change than the current one.

So, as others have said, perhaps change or transformation rather than dying, though the death of old ways of doing church may be part of that transformation.

Mendalla

We consider the world as God's mission field, and reach out to our corner of it - our neighborhood. Rather than bashing people over the head with the Gospel, we introduce them to their local church, part of the greater Church, as a community of love, and over time, and as a part of a growing relationship, invite them to join us in that community of love. When we conduct Bible studies, sermons, etc. we no longer speak first to the separate individuals who together comprise the church community, but rather to the community itself first, and then the individuals who are within. We make known the present and coming Kingdom of God in all that we do, and that it is God's single mission of redemption that we are on.

Rich blessings.

be still.  be present.  be mindful

(learn to be still, present, mindful...your g_d is always challenging you, giving you puzzles...)

what tricks are your g_d playing to wake you up?

i posit that the UCC came aboot because of skilled & experienced individuals, who made something that the rest of UCC members, who had less skill & experience, could follow...analogy:  i know how to use a tv even though i can't build or fix one

...do such skilled & experienced individuals still exist in the UCC?  if so, how are they allowed to use their skill & experience?  are they limited (in the same way that gov'ts tend to limit their citziens because they don't want any idea to be able to spread automatically and be adopted by their citizens...)?

just some rhetoricals and observations from a UCC outsider...

First, appreciation for Steven's clear, concise statement of the dynamic in play!

It was some years ago. I was at a meeting of the Manitoba Northwest Ontario Conference executive. During a lunch break, I chatted with the executive secretary. An exemplary servant to the Church, giving time and talent to bring and maintain order as the Church transacted its "business". His name is Roger Coll, and he has since passed from keeping company with his companions on earth.

I asked Roger: "What is the source of your energy and commitment for your service to the institutional church?" To his credit, he asked for a little time to think it through.

I caught up with him as we were heading back to our work. This is what he answered: "I suppose I do what I do in the knowledge that if the United Church of Canada fades away the Gospel of Jesus Christ will carry on through the ages."

Roger's answer blessed me. By his example I became aware of the many persons of faith who still leaven the lump we call the United Church.

All forms come into being to serve the purpose of the divine word. No forms are adequate to define or contain that word. It is free as the wind. It is in clinging to forms that we are made liable to the consequences of idolatry. It is in following where the living word leads that we find that life which is life indeed.

We are in a time of decision. Some will cling and some will relinquish. Wisdom consists in distinguishing between what helps and what hinders.

George

Hi InannaWhimsey,

In the corner of my left eye, I saw Raven wink, and in my right ear, I heard Coyote chuckle.

I am a real romantic. Just about thirty years ago I met the one who would walk with me in the way of intimacy and companionship. Sitting together, sharing a cup of wine and a bit of something to chew, I asked her: "You do know that I am going to die one day?"

One day I heard death walking down the street of the town where I lived. I heard death's steps coming up the stair. I heard death open and come through the door. I saw death standing by the foot of my bed. No quivering or quaking. A simple statement: "If you are here to take me, take me. If you are here to scare me, well tough luck."

Enjoying Allan's voice and insight as I key the thinking of my limited shelf life brain with my soon to be cold fingers.

But, for now, off for a cup of tea and a cookie, with my dear companion and intimate friend.

Cheers...

George

It seems almost like an unsolvable quandary this issue about the future of the UC.  From my view it seems tragic that entire congregations failed to present their young people with an example they wanted to follow.  The weight of all those buildings and treasured history seems to prevent much movement forward.

A local UC member of advanced years once said to me "Every night I pray that we can keep our congregation alive long enough to provide me with a decent burial'.  

Every living thing dies, even God dies. 

I would say the church died a long time ago, perhaps 1000 years ago when the Holy Roman Empire was created by Charlemagne. It dies after a long illness that likely started around 400 AD (the process outlined by Stephen)

Howvever many remember the church. THe formation of the UCC was an attempt to ressurect the church. So me the question is not will the UCC die, but will it be successful in helping ressurect the church. MAny would say only God can do tha, but I believe God calls humanity to be a partner with her, and wants our help.  Howevr we are foolish to believ we can do it by ourselfs.

And I would say that for many founding members like my grandparents,  the UCC was created to die, it was meant to become part of a ressurected church. That is why my grandmother, who played oragn in the UCC for 40 plus years always sent my father and his brothers to Christmas Eve Mass evry year  (she herself could not attend a Catholic mass as a UCC organist in PEI during the forties and fifties),

The current review basically ignores that the UCC is suppose to be part of a greater church. And it is just a make work project, that will not contribute to change, untill we realise we are not alone. That we live in Gods world, with others.

So while God died and was ressurected, will the church be ressurected and can God do it alone without people being ready to partner with her and other humans.

One of the interesting things about WC was that it brought together various people in the UCC together with others (beleivers and atheists) to hold a converstation and be in community together.  Something that could serve as a model for the church.

True enough Alex.  Maybe that is why they decided to shut us down eh?  As a group we were doing what the church organisation was failing at!

smile@Kay

I just believe they did not give any thought to WC. Once the money from the trust/endowment ran out. AFter all IMHO it  never belonged in the communication dept of the GCO, and only did so becasue the higher ups did not understand that online communities are possibel. (oor perhaps even communities) Whcih lead to the indifference.

Howver we are the church, so the renovated cafe will provide the opportunity to teach us and others how community works in this time, where denominational walls, and being defined by theology are less important.

I agree with Mandella.

I think the old church is dying, but her death could a transformation, or a chance at transformation, rather than an absolute end. I think the quest for meaning and truth, and the desire for spiritual communion and community, will never die. It will just take on different forms. On-line communities, like our wondercafe, is one of these forms. Others are local communities, social service clubs, house churches, discussion groups, etc.

I too see the UCCan go in a UUish direction. Whether this will be enough to save the United Church as a national church remains to be seen.

The problem with any large organization is always its bureaucracy, and the inherent inflexibility of a large, centralized bureaucracy. The early community around Jesus was not handicapped by bureaucracy.

Amen to Stephen's and John's posts!

Well said, Stephen.

In response to Kay's comments, there are too many United Churches where the children and grand-children of the members don't go because there was little or no effort made, compromise offered, to make church a place where they felt like they belonged too as adults.

Not just UC congregations - also Anglican and  Lutheran.  More recently I hear of young people leaving the more 'Bible thumping' type churches.  They are claiming that their chuches are behind the times with their rigid rules of behavior - anti GLBTQ in particular.  I can't say that the official acceptance offered by the UC translates into truly welcoming local congregations though.  Don't even

ask me about local churches and their attitudes towards 1st Nations people!

"The problem with any large organization is always its bureaucracy, and the inherent inflexibility of a large, centralized bureaucracy. The early community around Jesus was not handicapped by bureaucracy." (quote)

This has been true in our church, for sure.  The bureaucracy shut us down, took control, and then expected us to rejoice when they "helped" us gain some control again and handed the keys back to us.  There, of course, has been no admittance of mistakes or wrong-doing on the part of the Presbytery, but they certainly made many, and now we are barely hanging in there.  I'm sure the Presbytery is different in different parts of the country, but in our Presbytery, it has been all about control.  --- And yes, many of us are bitter. 

Our annual report read baptisms 0,  marriages 0, new members 0, and deaths 5.  -- Rather telling, right?

or maybe.....

we are the model of what can be.

get back to basics and let good people work together in community .

it is too early to tell, but never underestimate what is possible when we work together, rather than looking to others to solve our problems or keep us in a box.

let geofee's seeds and positive imagery lead us.

HI venture111,

The questions are:

1)  What do these statistics tell?

and,

2)  Who are they telling them to?

Scoring 0 on baptisms, marriages, new members while scoring 5 on deaths tells me that this congregation is as close to dead as congregations can come.  If the situation does not change then the congregation can expect some spikes in the death count until there are no dead left to bury the dead.

Who is being told this?

Any with ears to hear.  You as a member of the congregation appear to hear it isn't certain to me if you clearly do hear because the noise I am hearing is that Presbytery is to blame.

As if Presbytery can prevent children from being born or folk from getting married.  As if folk attracted to Presbytery X attend Church Y because that is the only way they can express their attraction to Presbytery X.

What nonsense.

You want to know why there are no baptisms at your Church?  The answer is simple.  Nobody of child-bearing age is having children to be baptized.

You want to know why there are no marriages celebrated at your Church?  That answer is simple as well.  Nobody looks at your Church as a place to celebrate a wedding.

You want to know why there are no new members in your Church?  There might be some complexity required to give that an accurate answer.  Speaking personally the fact that you blame Presbytery for all your problems doesn't attract me.

The only thing, apparently, that your congregation hasn't messed up yet is the ability to die.  Keep complaining about what others have done to you and that will be a trend that changes.  Your people won't stop dying, they just won't think of your Church to be a place where anything can be celebrated.

Let's accept that all you say about Presbytery making mistakes is not only true it is thousands of times worse than that.

What makes a Church?

It isn't bricks or mortar or policies or procedures.  It is relationship and vision and mission.

I'll wager you've got enough bricks, mortar, policies and procedures.  Given the statistics you have shared and the bitterness with which you share them I bet it will be difficult to find relationship, vision and mission enough to turn things around.

You could blame Presbytery.  They aren't responsible for any congregation having a mission or a vision.  Local context leads.  Presbytery is certainly not responsible for how members of a congregation relate with one another.  Never has been and never will be.  Those failed relationships land right in the congregations lap.

If member X has a strong relationship with member Y how can Presbytery come between them?  Presbytery can't unless X and/or Y allow it.  And what X and/or Y allow is something they should rightly take responsibility for.

You are willing to go on a national website and blame Presbytery for its mistakes.

You'd serve yourself and your congregation better if you taught them how to take responsibility for their own.

You've shared tales from your congregation several times over the years and it is more or less the same thing.  Presbytery did this to us and Presbytery did that to us.  Have anything to share about what your congregation is doing for itself or others?  Beyond complaining because if you don't that answers why your Church is scoring gooseggs in every category but deaths.

Bitterness and misery fail to attract.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Presently our congregation has active committees in outreach, pastoral care, Christian education, communication, and an active UCW.  We are now being allowed to work on a JANAC.  But, expenses still over ride income, even though income has picked up.

When I have come here, I realize that is has usually been to let off steam, but I felt I had to do it somewhere without, at the same time, revealing too much. I also realized how I could also be looked upon as a negative person.  Maybe I am too sensitive a person, but am not usually a negative person. This website has been my sounding board and I appoligize for that.

Your comments have sometimes been helpful, and as of now, quite scathing.  I realize that you do not have the whole story and I cannot tell it all, so I will have to forgive for some of the assumptions that you have made.  Rest assured that I will not address this subject again. 

HI venture111,

Even without knowing the whole of the story.  I know what Presbytery is and isn't responsible for and when it is being blamed for dysfunction on a Pastoral Charge.

The truth is that Presbytery cannot simply waltz in and screw up an otherwise healthy and happy congregation.  Happy and healthy congegations do not need Presbytery's intervention for anything and the officers of Presbytery typically have enough on their plate that they will not interfere in a congregation that is working.

That said, even in the event that Presbytery decides without any justification to step into a congregation and meddle in its affairs it cannot force a congregation to become divided against itself.

Presbytery cannot force a congregation to become unhospitable and unattractive to newcomes and it certainly cannot force a community that loves one another to push away from themselves.

On a very basic level the congregation that no longer is able to attract others needs to examine itself and start finding ways to address that deficit.  Presbytery cannot force a congregation to do that or to not do that.  Only the congregation itself can decide to do or not do that.

On a very basic level the congregation is not seen as a place people want to celebrate a marriage or birth of a child.  Presbytery cannot force people to not do things.  Congregations can and do make folk think twice about celebrating such events within their bounds.

I have no way of telling whether or not you are typically negative person.  You say you aren't.  What I can say is that you apparently have no problem venting and pointing the finger of blame elsewhere.  If that is par for the course among members of the congregation you belong to then the only way things will change for your congregation is if there is a lot of looking in the mirror and taking personal responsibility.

As far as addressing the subject goes, pointing the finger of blame elsewhere is not addressing anything.  It is simply a demonstration of your anger and unhappiness.  I cannot change how you feel, it isn't my responsibility to even try.  That is your work, if you won't take responsibility for those feelings then there will be consequences for that.

I have seen Presbyterys make mistakes.  Big ones even.

I have seen congregations collectively suffer because of those mistakes.  I have yet to see a congregation turn on itself at Presbytery's say so.

I have seen congregations turn on themselves with alarming swiftness for one reason or another (I have yet to see a reason named for such behaviour that even comes near credible or rational for such behaviour).

Blame Presbytery all you want for whatever you want.

That isn't a real solution and is most likely one more symptom of problems internal to the congregation.  Blaming Presbytery won't fix things it is an avoidance mechanism.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Rev john, although I agree that presbytery cannot break a congregation in good health, i do understand that processes under the jurisdiction of presbytery sure can upset the apple cart in a pretty big way

Congregational oversight visits poorly handling an item and congregation leadership not prepared for fallout

Lengthy processes, some might say excessive for joint needs, search and call

Both of those items will be seen as presbytery even if root cause is the congregations handling of communication and actions related to task

Rev john, although I agree that presbytery cannot break a congregation in good health, i do understand that processes under the jurisdiction of presbytery sure can upset the apple cart in a pretty big way

Congregational oversight visits poorly handling an item and congregation leadership not prepared for fallout

Lengthy processes, some might say excessive for joint needs, search and call

Both of those items will be seen as presbytery even if root cause is the congregations handling of communication and actions related to task