While we were on vacation in Newfoundland Ruth and I each read a novel with a Newfoundland setting. Ruth enjoyed Michael Winter's The Big Why while I read Michael Crummey's latest, a historical novel Galore. These books were perfect as we sat on the "bridge" (the narrow deck on the Change Islands house.) Galore is well written, a page-turner and a bit bawdy, but what isn't these days?
Religion, both good and bad, plays prominently in this story, which stretches across several generations. Crummey does a fine job of showing how religion helped to shape community life in outports. It is fitting because this is still the case in Newfoundland, although the reality is that the province is becoming more like the rest of Canada with its disinterest in organized religion. And folk stubbornly hold on to old conventions and attachment to the buildings rather than the essence of faith in Christ.
Religion, both good and bad, plays prominently in this story, which stretches across several generations. Crummey does a fine job of showing how religion helped to shape community life in outports. It is fitting because this is still the case in Newfoundland, although the reality is that the province is becoming more like the rest of Canada with its disinterest in organized religion. And folk stubbornly hold on to old conventions and attachment to the buildings rather than the essence of faith in Christ.
On Change Islands, with only 300 people, there are four churches; Anglican, United, Salvation Army, and Pentecostal. The Anglican structure is the most beautiful of the four and seats several hundred. But attendance is anywhere from a dozen to twenty on a Sunday and the priest is responsible for a number of congregations. In fact none of the clergy for these congregations lives on Change Islands and its hard to imagine that this arrangement leads to effective ministry.
Should denominations be more forthright and even ruthless about closing failing congregations? Should it be their decision, or should the overseeing bodies (presbyteries and conferences in the UCC) "do the deed" for the greater good? Should we just get past denominationalism?
Should denominations be more forthright and even ruthless about closing failing congregations? Should it be their decision, or should the overseeing bodies (presbyteries and conferences in the UCC) "do the deed" for the greater good? Should we just get past denominationalism?
8 comments:
I was a preteen in 1968 when the either the national church office or presbyery went through the country and closed a multitiude of churches and made 2 or 3 point churches out of others. And I am not sure who did it or the reasons for the bigger church's actions but what I do remember is the anger - the bitterness - and the frustration felt by the congregation members especially by those whose church's were closed. One Sunday my congregation was a three point pastoral charge and the next Sunday, two of the churches were closed and we were a 2 point charge with an entirely different church - one who was a rival village in school games and in the village team sports. Many of the members of the churches that were closed never came back to church.
Yet, in my adult life, I have seen where congregations worship the building and hang on and hang on - until there may only be 6 or 8 people left worshipping. How does a congregation be a ministry presence and do ministry with a weekend supply minister and generating only enough money to maintain the building and play the supply minister?
David, in Bowmanville and other communities - how many churches are within a good stone's throw of each other? How much money is spent in maintaining the phyiscal buildings of each congregation that could be spent on specialized ministers or ministries if the congregations were combined or sharing one building?
What happened in 1968 was wrong but what is happening now is wrong too.
Well said Susan. Recently I moderated a meeting involving lay reps from four rural congregations. All these folk were involved people. All admitted they were struggling. One asked me why presbytery didn't take more leadership, even if it meant closing churches since it is so hard to make the decision internally.
I like to point out the success story of the closing of Salem UC just north of Bowmanville, during that same period of the late sixties. Both St. Paul's and Trinity benefitted from the wonderful people who joined, some of them still very active.
Like Susan one of my big "discomforts" in church life today is the duplicate money that is spent( 3X for example on Church St in Bowmanville) for utilities, upkeep, insurance etc.
Someone wise once told me they thought it a "disservice to God"spending our resources that way, and I agree. (Where's the ministry in floor wax?)
Although it seems doing away with denominationalism might be too much, too fast, I've often wondered why we can't begin by sharing buildings, even while maintaining separate congregations.
I had thought if presbytery gave the leadership( giving us no choice) perhaps some of the emotion might be tamed, although Susan's experience tells otherwise.The leadership does have to come from somewhere though, and it seems congregations need an intervention (National Church) to even get these difficult talks started.
In the end,I know no one guaranteed anywhere that our faith was always going to be "comfortable" and these days
as I grapple with tradition, history, comfort vs the future/greater good, and I know God is listening in, I feel a bit embarrassed for my/our poor judgement. And that's uncomfortable too.
Salem may have been a success over time but it was very heart breaking at the time. I was a young girl and my family and extended family were very involved with the church. It was hard. A number of families did not attend any church after Salem closed. That being said I think it is passed time to close most churches and adopt a new way of worship and community.
I agree with you Laura that what we are doing on Church St. doesn't make a lot of sense. There are "campus" churches, facilities shared by several congregations. It can work but it requires a big by-in by everyone involved.
I agree with you are well Laurie. A brother-in-law and sister-in-law attend worship in a movie theatre. Not only is the congregation thriving, it is one of several affiliated churches doing the same thing.
The UCC recently committed funding to alternative ministries, such as storefront churches in malls. Why not? Everyone "worships" there already.
WWJD? (what would Jesus do?)
According to your message on Sunday he would shake things right side up.
He didn't go around telling everyone they were doing fine. He challanged the stastus quo. He took people out of their comfort zone, and got them thinking out side of the box.
We should all be asking ourselves WWJD? more often.
Our society is more tollerant these days, I don't think anyone will be crucified.
Has anyone asked other congregations about joining together?
Is there support for this idea at St-Pauls?
Are there more than a few people who care one way or another?
How can it be done so as not to loose anyone?
Look at how we treat the enviroment. The air won't kill us right now, but do we really want to change how we do things. I'll be long gone before it's a real problem.
Keep in mind that churches joining together is really a short term solution. The real problem is people turning away from church and God. There are more people living in our country, but fewer going to church.
How can we bring in new people?
Church as entertainment is a popular choice. Are there other ideas?
I'd love to see David bare chest in tap shoes. Lord of the dance? Dance for the Lord....
Okay sjd, that's a mental image of myself that I will try to erase!
It is a fine balance between welcome and acquiesing to popular cultural images. We have made several efforts to reach out to neighbours but our overtures haven't even elicited polite "no thank you"'s. I have the feeling this will change.
Thanks for your responses!
Post a Comment