A faithful reader emailed me on the important experiment her congregation has entered into with another in the city of Kingston. St. Margaret's, her church home was established as a suburban congregation in the 1950's, judging from the architecture. The city has grown so they are no longer in "the burbs," the population in the area has aged, and the congregation has declined. Queen Street has a beautiful, historic limestone building inn the downtown that is in disrepair and needs a million dollars worth of work. The experiment is joint worship with the view to amalgamation. One of the ministers retired recently, so a sticky issue has been avoided, to a certain degree.
Our reader, who happens to be the music director at one of the churches, speaks of renewed vigour in congregational singing, a doubled choir, a new energy. I'm impressed that these two faith families could overcome the grief that often comes with decline, and the suspicion of the other to at least try something innovative. The story has developed enough buzz to make it into the local newspaper. Churches getting along is news! http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1323469
These choices aren't automatic success stories because congregations have their unique characters, which don't always meld. During my days on a national committee I spoke in a church on the West Coast that was a combined congregation.When I offered my congratulations after the service a member told me that amalgamation wasn't exactly a grand success. The members from one congregation sat almost exclusively on one side of the centre aisle while the members from the other sat across the "great divide."
This doesn't mean we should give up on the idea of collaborative ministry. What do you think about efforts to reimagine and reconfigure how ministry happens in communities? Here in Bowmanville we have two very well maintained congregational physical plants less that two blocks from one another. Meanwhile the growth of the town stretches to the north, farther and farther away from the United Church presence.
Who should take the lead in proposing innovation or should nature just take its course?
6 comments:
Oh boy, oh boy! How often I have thought how ridiculous it is that we are trying to maintain these two churches. I do get that this is a very emotional issue but perhaps it's time to put emotion aside and look at the practical side of amalgamating. I had a great idea (or so I thought) about exchanging choirs for a Sunday. When I shared this idea with a few people I was met with "it won't work". Well maybe it won't but if we dont' try you're right "it won't work". "We know we are Christians by our love"? Yeah, maybe not so much....
Thanks David for giving our story a wider audience. Exciting times indeed for the two churches. Please pray for us- for wisdom, patience and Christian love one for another- as we go through this process.
At times I feel selfish as we work so hard to simply maintain two United Church buildings and programs. Seems to me these doubled resources could be used more wisely in God's name....a little tolerance.....and a leap of faith....and think what might be possible...Kudos to Kingston!!
I realize there is always much to be lost as any church closes, amalgamation or otherwise, but I do fear what is to be lost today and for future generations in maintaining the status quo.
Does the National Office offer any wisdom to this issue, David...
Laura and Lynn, you both speak to the important issues of trust and "keeping our eyes on the prize" which is sharing the Good News of Christ in the most effective ways possible. My understanding of the Kingston situation is that Queen St. could have spent some of its money in trust on repairs, but why in the long-run?
In the 1960's the United Church was bold in pushing amalgamations and closures, where necessary. There was so much negative feedback that Presbyteries have taken a more cautious approach. But that was 40 years ago!
What we need is a spirit -- no the Spirit -- of openness.
Thanks for "outing" yourself Shirley. I'm sure you're looking to your next music in that photo, but it seems as though you are asking for divine guidance!
Here in Saskatchewan, amalgamations look very different. In our presbytery, we have two pastoral charges that are shared ministries. Both churches are an amalgamation of a Lutheran church and a United Church. This is happening all over Saskatchewan, mostly between Lutheran churches, United churches, and Anglican churches.
In the small rural communities, the churches are getting older and smaller and it just doesn't make sense to have three or four churches in a community with twenty or less people coming to each.
In our community, we have a small Lutheran church that has about six people in worship on a Sunday. The pastor is about 85 years old, and there is a sense of waiting from most people to see what will happen when this pastor finally retires or isn't able to lead worship anymore. Will the Lutheran and United churches combine? Will the Lutheran church just cease to exist? Decisions like these are being made all over this province, and although it is sad that memberships are declining, I think it is a great opportunity for churches to share and look beyond their differences to be able to serve God and their communities in other ways.
Thanks for adding this perspective Deb. Years ago a Christian speaker at a conference offered that we can't live in our different denominational castles with the drawbridges up anymore. It's good to hear that some are taking this seriously.
Post a Comment