90 years ago today the United Church of Canada came into being. On June 10, 1925 at the Mutual Street Arena in Toronto, representatives of the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church and the Congregational Church joined together to create a new denomination and to act as the First General Council. Much has happened since - much that we can be proud of and much that we should hang our collective head over. But I suppose that makes us no different than any other church. The Church Union was enhanced in 1968 with the addition of the Evangelical United Brethren - and some of the most vibrant United Churches I know today are former EUB churches. I wonder what that says, if anything? Or if it's just a coincidence? And over the years several independent congregations have chosen to enter the denomination. And, of course, we almost merged with the Anglicans back in the 1970's, but the merger proposal fell apart for various reasons. All of that was before my time in the United Church. I came to the church in the late 1980's, entered the ministry in 1994, and 21 years later I'm still serving, and watching, and waiting to see what God will do with this denomination that has served as my spiritual home for closing in on 30 years now.
We're facing challenging times. Most churches are. There remain a lot of people who claim spirituality, but want nothing to do with what they refer to as "organized religion." I'll withhold comment on that. It's just a sign of the times; a reality of the current era that the church has to find some way to come to terms with. But the impact on the church has been dramatic. Attendance is going down in most places, deficits are rising in most places, membership is aging in most places. And yet, at the same time, the "spiritual but not religious folk" still often turn to the church for things like baptisms and weddings and funerals. We have to be there for them, but there's little commitment offered back. Yes, these are definitely challenging times. The truly challenging thing is that everyone says they want a solution, but they want it now - and there really isn't any way to solve the problems we face "now." There's going to have to be a lot of soul-searching. I guess, though, I wonder where we are now. We usually worry about where we're going - but I'm not sure you can set a direction until you figure out where you are, and I think that's one of the United Church's biggest problems. We're just not sure where we are or what we are right now. We want to be inclusive - but that's largely a myth. Like almost every group out there, we're mostly inclusive of those we like and agree with, meaning those we don't like (let's admit it) and those we don't agree with (who, by coincidence, often become those we don't like) don't really feel included. But we proclaim it - oh yes, and social justice. Or, increasingly, just plain justice. We stand for that, even if we're not quite sure what it means. We do stand for Jesus. Some would question that, but I don't. Even in my time in the church I've noticed a positive change. When I was a student, back in the early 90's, I don't remember there being a lot of "Jesus-talk" in the United Church. There was lots of talk about God, and lots of talk about an amorphous "spirit" (rarely named as the Holy Spirit - a trend I still notice today.) In fact there was so much talk about God and the Spirit that one of my mentors at the time said that the United Church had become a "bi-nitarian" church. It wasn't meant as a compliment. But in recent years, while the "spirit" is still often amorphous, there does seem to be more talk about Jesus - and also a bit of a pushback, I suppose, from those who yearn for the bi-nity of the 80's and 90's. But I do believe we've come out of that funk, and we're wanting to follow Jesus. That's a positive sign to me. I've also noticed a renewed interest in preaching - which is also positive. When I was studying, preaching seemed to be a bit of an afterthought in my schooling. Yes, there was a required course, but overall the emphasis seemed to be anti-preaching, as if preaching had lost its power to reach people. I think that's turned around as well. There's more emphasis on practical ministry skills in my opinion - and preaching is as practical as you get in the ministry. You do it at least every Sunday, and sometimes more often. So more people (especially lay people) seem to be being trained to preach. Now, in my view you can't really be taught to preach. You can either do it or you can't. But you can learn to be better, and I think we've placed more emphasis on that. A positive I think.
Attendance and finances and age are problems in our congregations; they're also problems in our denomination. I don't think we're handling that challenge particularly well. The so-called "Comprehensive Review" in my opinion has good intentions, but it's happening for the wrong reasons. The proposals, in my view, don't represent any real sense that this is where God is leading us. The whole process, instead, seems motivated by our fears about the future; our fears about running out of money; our fears about not having enough people left to be the church. A church can't run on fear, which is why I don't believe anything coming out of the Comprehensive Review is going to solve the problems or overcome the challenges facing the United Church. It will change the structure, but it won't change much else. It might, though, buy us more time to really listen for direction from THE HOLY SPIRIT.
I do wonder why we have so many church buildings. It's a problem everywhere I've served - too many United Churches too close to each other - but for now I'm thinking about the situation here in Niagara. I'm moving on soon, so now I can say this openly - at least as openly as this blog allows - without concerning myself with whether the folks from the other two churches in town are bothered by it: why do we need three United Churches within the city limits of Port Colborne? No other Protestant denomination feels the need to have more than one. It's a city of 20000 people - and how many of them actually "pack" the three United Churches on any given Sunday? Having one "Port Colborne United Church" would be a positive in my opinion. I'd love to see it happen. Maybe it could start with some thought of at least sharing ministry among those three congregations in some configuration. Or even a South Niagara Circuit of sorts. There's a bunch of United Churches along the Highway 3 corridor, from Ridgeway to Wainfleet. That's an opportunity that should be looked at. I've even wondered why we couldn't share ministry staff with the local Presbyterian Church. I know each denomination would have all sorts of ropes that a minister would have to untangle before being allowed to serve the other denomination's congregation. But ropes can strangle us - so why couldn't we? Why shouldn't we? Why not have a joint United-Presbyterian congregation in Port Colborne? Why don't members of the two congregations just make it happen and then dare their respective denominations to stop them? And if the denominations did tell the congregations to forget it and stopped such co-operation, well, that would be a sign to me of something not good, and of priorities being out of whack. And, of course, we are in love with our buildings, and they do get in the way of such co-operation. And we like our denominational identities, so feeling them slipping away for the sake of being ecumenical would be uncomfortable. But at least I do see some steps forward in this area. It's a matter of having the courage and the vision to make something happen.
You know - for all the problems I see, I actually have a lot of hope for the future of the United Church. I think we have a place in this society, and a role to play. We may emerge from this troubled time as a smaller denomination, but that doesn't necessarily mean weaker. If we can pool resources and learn to work together, there's a lot of hope. And if we're willing - really willing - to follow Jesus then there are all sorts of possibilities. Following Jesus means taking risks. He told us that whoever tries to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for his sake would gain true life. That applies to churches as much as to people. Trying to survive won't cut it for long. It just puts us on a downward spiral. But being willing to risk all - that's the way to make a positive difference in the world around us: pouring everythig out for the sake of those whom Jesus loved. That's a big risk. It will be tough to convince people to do it. But it's possible.
For now, as I've often said, there's always hope - because there's always God.
Happy birthday, United Church of Canada!
No comments:
Post a Comment