I don't understand why Connie insists that survival must include connection with God and scripture. Certainly, you can argue that this connection is at least a big part of the reason why people are walking away from more theologically rigid denominations.

Connie states her traditionalist view that only a return to conventional, traditional religion will save the UCCan from extinction. Gretta is at the other extreme of the UCC spectrum.

Will the two ever meet?

They could meet if both sides came to regard religion as art, and religious expression as metaphorical.

If spirtuality were regarded as an inner experience and feeling, and the outward expression of this feeling as an artistic expression, then both sides could be regarded as a valid artistic expression of spirtuality.

It seems to me that both ministers feel the denomination lacks a clear basis for our common identity. Both seem to see this as a weakness or problem for the denomination.

Given their answers, it seems both say "yes" to the Observer's question.

What Connie says and what you say she says are not the same, at least as I read her answers She says the UCCan needs to find a way to connect with God and the Christian scriptures, not that it needs to return to conventional, traditional religion. Nothing that she says prevents one from finding new ways to connect to those core elements that are different from how it has been done in the past. All she is saying is that the UCCan lacks an overall sense of purpose and direction and needs to find one and that that sense of direction can, and should, come from engagement with its core, which is God, Jesus, and scripture.

Given some of what I've heard about "big tent" Christianity coming out of the emergent movement in the US, I think it should be possible to have that God-based sense of direction and still have diversity and flexibility. In fact, since you are one denomination, not a movement of people from variouse ones, it should be easier.

Mendalla

Hi All,

The question in play is

Which is actually an interesting question.  In essence the question asks whether or not it is the responsibility of the United Church to employ clergy who do not advance the mission and agenda of the United Church.  It isn't simply about theistic clergy vs atheistic clergy.  It is about those who profess something other. 

Is The United Church of Canada big enough and flexible enough to employ a Rabbi to work with a synagogue somewhere?  Is The United Church of Canada big enough and flexible enough to employ an Imam to work with a mosque somewhere?

Is it The United Church of Canada's responsibility to find work for Rabbis and Imams or provide oversight to synagogues and mosques?

I respectfully submit that we do have enough clarity in our denomination to answer no.

No, the United Church is not big enough or flexible enough to employ all sorts of ministers.

What sort is it big enough and flexible enough to employ?  Those willing to advance the mission and agenda of The United Church of Canada and the financial reality shows we are struggling even to do that.

I think anarchistic is a bit over the top.  Clergy personnel can freely move from one congregation to another.  If we were so anarchistically congregational that kind of movement would be seriously curtailed.

There are some congregations which are exempt from the common property holder (not all congregational property is owned by The United Church of Canada and held in trust by the local congregation) though those exemptions are small in number.

There is a very strong streak of not liking top down decision making.  Though, to be fair, there is very little dislike of making decisions which affect courts lower.  We don't like being told what to do or how to vote we don't have any objection to telling others what to do or how we think that they should vote.

It can be argued that we haven't done the latter because we simply haven't done the former.

This speaks to comments before my time as clergy and possibly some conversations that happened before my birth so I cannot readily comment on the accuracy of the statement.

My Church history from this era is not that deep either so the fact that I have no historical awareness of things being this difficult for the denomination may simply be a deficit in my knowledge of the time.

That said, you'd think something so critical as this would have spawned enough literature that a student would find it.

I can agree with the diagnosis.  That the denomination is currently engaged in a Comprehensive Review suggests that few in the denomination are convinced that they know what our purpose and direction presently are.

I am not confident as to the treatment.

I do not think that the denomination is disconnected from the Christian scripture.  Our connections could be more secure certainly (as there is always room for improvement on that level).

I think our problem is that we engage more in theological reflection, which always feels like a self-justification exercise, rather than theological projection which would be us deciding what needs to be advanced and looking for ways to move it forward.

How our actions resonate with the scriptures looking back is an honest exercise and it can be done well or poorly.  It is always after the fact and if things have gone off the rails a sorry may not cut it.  Residential Schools anyone?

If we build on a scriptural principal and decide it will be our guide every step of the way can be measured as it is taken.  That doesn't mean that we will not still make mistakes, it does mean that we will be asking more critical questions en route and may have less occasion to resort to apology at a later date.

Grace and peace to you.

John