Seditious thoughts about where the URC is going...
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
TheAwkwardSquad 21 July 2009, 8:52am |
I originally put this on my blog: http://theawkwardsquad.org.uk/index.php/2009/07/seditious-thoughts-on-urc-policy-and-policymaking/ but thought that it might generate more discussion to post it here. Please note that the term ‘national’ is used advisedly – referring to the British nation of England, Scotland and Wales – and not simply overlooking our national synods - indulge me, I studied politics. I’ve become increasingly concerned, over the last few months about how the URC comes to see itself and make decisions. Those who know the URC will know its a concilliar church, something we are rightly proud of. I fear we deviate from what was intended by our structures. Where a national church was meant to support and equip local churches, those same structures seem to have run away with themselves. Now at best the local church is there for the benefit of the national church – we’ve turned it on its head. We seem to be overburdening our local churches more and more: Vision 2020, Vision4Life (both very soon after Catch the Vision), climate change, world poverty, middle east peace, the dwindling of URC giving and the decrease in the number of ministers, the shape of local and Synod structures, the type of biscuit for meetings and the colour of the new vestry curtains… oh AND we’re all trying to cope with living in a recession where thousands are losing their jobs. When Mission Council comes up with more bright ideas, more packs, decides we need another new member of staff to follow up policy x and implemnt directive y the local church seems to be forgotten. Out of touch Mission Council, it seems to me, is out of touch with the local church. Its members tend to be drawn from a pool of seasoned URCers who have been involved in running the URC for years. The problem is that this leads to people being out of touch with the local church, which they are meant to be servicing. Its probably not even a result of individuals getting caught up but more likely a case of institutional inertia – institutions tend to end up working to further themselves for their own sake, whatever the original intentions. Mission Council decisions seem to be further from the local church experience every meeting. We recently appointed a ‘climate change consultant’. One letter in Reform pointed out that this consultant wasn’t going to come up with anything revolutionary, huge amounts of work on climate change have been done by the church, government and secular organisations already and we certainly don’t need someone else to tell us to change lightbulbs, fit double glazing and insulate roof spaces – especially when so few churches can afford that sort of expense. Mission Council suffers from a few problems that cause the symptoms I have outlined. For starters, those involved in MC already show more interest in the URC as a denomiation than the vast majority of our members. Most people are, quite rightly, members of their local church first and the URC second – the URC is after all there to serve these local churches right? MC needs to remember where most people’s loyalty lies. Second, MC gets caught up in itself and its own importance. At the end of the day a national committee will not bring people to Christ or further the gospel in itself. We need the local churches – who actually engage with people day-to-day – to do this bit – any training and support we can provide must further this but we need to remember this next point… Thirdly, MC needs to remember who it is working for and that those people need to be able to own the programmes it puts out. So many URC packs and programmes come from the centre down and leave people feeling disenfranchised. The centrally dreamt up ‘God is still speaking’ campaign faces falling foul of this problem to, given how few people know about it or what it really is yet. Such programmes can’t be driven from the centre, no matter how much smoke and hot air we produce. So what do we do? Sadly, I have little original advice to add on this one. I think the most important thing is for the national structures of the church to really engage with the local churches – and not via another faceless consulation from the top down. No, we need to talk on the level congregation to centre and start to understand each other again. Its easy for national church to be frustrated at local churches dragging their feet but hot air and sounding off isn’t going to fix this. We need to bring our congregations with us. We need to take seriously the problem of our limited recruitment pool for committees. Granted, we do rely on nominations and we cannot magic them out of thin air. However, getting up in a huff, despairing of people and burying out heads in the sand – claiming it isn’t something we can really do something about isn’t going to solve that one. We need to refind our roots and our purpose. This is so much more crucial as GA gets smaller, meets lest often and MC takes on ever more of its powers. If no engagement is made then the local and the national will only drift further apart. I suspect that this post is going to be unpopular – I think the problems we have are hard to face and admit. People do have a vested interest in the way things are – friendships have been created and sustained through the close knit core of URC committee memebers and we’ve been working this way for a long time. It might be painful and it will be slow but its not something we really have a choice on. At the moment these concerns are being forgotten and left behind. At the end of the day the church is a collection of people and we all have that in common – if we start to empathise with each other’s positions we might get somewhere – not to say that tempers won’t fray and patience tested. |
|
Gerry Haines 21 July 2009, 11:55am |
Well, you say that you suspect that this post is going too be unpopular - I have to say that it's not unpopular with me.
|
|
Jonblue 22 July 2009, 2:02pm |
I strongly suspect The AwkwardSquad's comments are shared by hundreds of URCs throughout the country with small congregations and just enough human resource to keep the ship afloat without more and more new projects however valuable. I am all for new ideas and getting the message across but the good Lord and his disciples managed most effectively without the latest marketing techiniques. However, I must try to keep an open mind as I feel we have somewhat lost our way and are becoming elitist and so out of touch with the man in the street. Sometimes I wish we had a more powerful voice/figurehead like other denominations--able to give a stronger lead re our basic belief. The message is still as valid today, moreso perhaps than over 2000 years ago. Other denominations appear to be capitolising on this to better effect amongst our sadly dissilusoned public searching for real meaning to their lives. |
|
biker 22 July 2009, 11:43pm |
I have to agree, there is too much glossy paper coming out. Ditch the schemes and offer some financial help to churches who can find Lay Pastors to assist the work of the minister who may be running multiple congregations. If we have new schemes then send them out on DVD, so that we can hear a persuasive argument. Recommend scemes already in existance that some one else finds workable. Dump all the none essential tick in the box jobs, like climate change etc. If people hear and respond to the Good News, then climate change will be fixed that way. Lets focus up on the good news and remember all other pet hobbies horses will be dealt with willingly by a nation that has found faith. |
|
newportdon 24 July 2009, 1:12pm |
this topic strikes a chord with me we need to strengthen congregations in local churches. that is the urc after all. the trend towards multi pastorates will not work if local churches are to grow. for this to happen you need a dedicated and committed minister to work with th elders and congregation . we do need to change but not the way we are currently doing it . it is too much top down and should be the other way round . local churches are being burdened with irrelevant initiatives from church house . their work should be drastically cut back by cooperation with other denominations working ecumenically and the resources freed up ie ministers to work with local churches. it is only by strengthening the base can a centre be supported otherwise the unturned pyramid will topple over . Local churches cannot be in maintainance mode but must have vision to be missionary. they cannot just exist but must justify their existance by being effective . Call on the holy spirit for help . I'm sure God is waiting to help |
|
MattStone 28 July 2009, 5:27pm |
Amen! We need much more focus on local mission, which means shifting financial and personnel resources away from Synods and Church House towards local churches. Whilst accepting that we need some support staff, and that most of our support staff work incredibly hard, we still have to ask the tough question: do we really need 96 lay staff, and over 30 of our ministers in synod and central posts (out of approx. 650 employees)? Almost 20% of our payroll must be for non-local posts, and this will only increase as the number of ministers drops in the coming years. How much synod and central work is actually indispensable? How much could be shared with other denominations? We also need to be much more radical with training and deployment, so that we start training youth workers, pioneer ministers, evangelists, fresh expressioners, lay pastors, pastoral workers, and suchlike. We should be church planting, not just church closing. Where are the Special Category posts for church planters? We're not moving with the times! Whilst we may not be a wealthy denomination, we are not called to be wealthy, and we should be releasing funding for all sorts of innovative posts - or we may not have a church at all in thirty years time to spend the little cash we do have. Perhaps too we need to stop spreading ministers more thinly. Should we not consider where the Spirit is moving, and where churches are actively engaging in outreach and evangelism, and focus ministry there? Is it a good use of resources to provide ministry to dying churches who have little desire to change? Apologies for my rant... it may be unpopular, but we need to ask the difficult questions! Semper reformanda! |
|
Pete 29 July 2009, 12:00pm |
I am surprised that Matt suggests more trained staff and church planting. Church Planting is outdated, we need to look for more incarnational intiatives! It seems to me that the URC needs to see itself as a movement rather than a denomination. Surly it is up the membership to get active, the Holy Spirit is moving in the URC making us weaker so that we learn to rely on God rather than our own power. |
|
MattStone 30 July 2009, 9:32am |
You make a good point, Pete, but I suppose it depends how you define church planting. I don't think traditional church planting is dead (it still works in many parts of the UK - I can think of Baptists and Anglicans doing good work here), but it must also include planting new types of communities, such as Fresh Expressions. I would still stand by the need for more 'trained' staff, simply because many churches do not have enough people with the time or energy to dedicate to such work. Nonetheless, we do need to get better at becoming more incarnational, and witnessing to the love of God in our everyday lives. |
|
TheAwkwardSquad 30 July 2009, 1:46pm |
I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in my thinking and thank you for the considered responses given. Pete I have to agree that by tying ourselves to being a dneomination and relying on staff we will get nowhere but as Matt says that is no excuse for tying ever more staff up in central offices where they are even more removed. What staff we do have should be local and responding to the needs in particular areas and I do think that, early on at least, there must be a place for having people who are trained and able to help move us from our lumbering tank like denomination to something lighter, more agile and more useful. Whether we will manage this, I think, remains the central question. People within our denomination holding these views will be of little use if the central secretariats and committees take no notice and instead carry on maintaining what we already have. |
|
Jonblue 30 July 2009, 5:51pm |
It wonder how many hits this Forum gets per day? My guess is only a tiny % of the URC log in. If we wish to widen this issue perhaps the editor of Reform could simply cut and paste the initial message/responses to widen the discussion and hence bring it to the attention of the central secretariats although I am sure , if they have any gumption, must surely access this site. Perhaps it defeats the object of our website but surely can do no harm and even encourage some to use this facility. It would be nice to see the URC step up a gear and show some urgency. Time is not exactly on out side! |
|
forummoderator 31 July 2009, 9:59am |
TO quantify the number of readers: The forum in general receives around 8% of the www.urc.org.uk traffic. This thread has had around 300 views since its inception. I'll certainly pass on this thread to Reform to see if it is of interest to them. |
|
Jonblue 31 July 2009, 11:08am |
Thanks. Yes,I guessed around 10% based on my own church but given the somewhat elderly profile of our membership, perhaps this is not surprising. My guess is that the bulk of members with PC's are still unaware of this website. The URC are still quite antiquated in some respects although it's good to see many with their own websites albeit some are rather feeble! It's a pity because tools like these are invaluable in this modern age and encourage rapid exchange of views compared to monthly magazines. This site brings the URC ALIVE and has the potential to make people think outside of the box. However, Reform still has a valuable role to play not least to alert and encourage members to make full use of this excellent facility through which I have learned so much about other aspects of the URC. I feel we have only scratched the surface re the potential here and dare I say it, a little money spent publicising our website may reap dividends. |
|
eastybeasty 30 August 2009, 3:54am |
I share a lot of the concerns about the URC; I am heartened that there is so much thought going around about the decline of the URC but saddened by the the lack of zeal displayed by some congregations. The whole of the URC needs to step back and take a long hard critical look at the number of small churches that we have. We inherited too many buildings from the coming together of the two traditions in 1972 and the third in 1981. Many of these churches were already in competition with other denominations. There are many instances of URC buildings only being seperated by a mile or two, (or even hundreds of yards) the net result is too many buildings for too few people to maintain. We have also retained the distinctions between our former traditions, people travel miles to a particular URC when there is a URC only half a mile from where they live. I also believe that the deployment of Ministers to cover more churches with the assistance of 'Local-leaders'(LL) will only work if the LLs are sufficiently trained and motivated to provide the necessary level of input to work as a team and are willing to put in the hours required. Many Ministers are frustrated because they cannot spend enough time and energy on a particular church with specific needs, because they have a sense of responsibility for the other churches in their care. I believe that it is time for some congregations to consider consolidating effort and making one large church from two or more smaller ones. But we know that the problem is often about power struggles if one church has to move in with another. So how about Churches that consider joining together selling all their buildings and moving into new purpose built, efficient buildings that meet the requirements of the 21st century? I believe that we have also (in some Synods) made an awful job of restructuring what was 'District', I think that instead of ditching District we should have had an honest review of how they worked (or not)and revamped District, there are a few folk who see Synod as them telling us what to do and they resent it. I hope and pray that the people who feel called will show their zeal for the Gospel and not worry too much about the past RE |
|
Mark Hayes 02 September 2009, 12:28pm |
It's reassuring to find I am not alone in feeling that the URC is becoming increasingly "top down", telling local Churches what they should be doing rather than supporting local Churches in developing their mission to their local communities. However, I don't think this is deliberate. It's more a natural outcome of the divide that any institution develops between those that are active and committed at a local level and those who put their passion into structures and the higher levels of an institution. A few manage to do both. My experience in the URC is very similar to that in a "previous life", being very active in a political party. You go to the national conference, get involved in national planning and then can't understand why when you come back to your local party, most of the members just aren't as fired up as you are. Gradually you realise its because of the tireless commitment most of them are making in just keeping the show on the road (fundraising, canvassing, serving as a Councillor etc.) In the URC, the privileged few go to Assembly and then find a similar problem: The local congregation are simply not excited by the latest campaign, document, great word of wisdom or whatever it is that has fired up all the delegates.Cue for much tearing out of hair and venting of frustration about local Churches and congregations. I believe a key aspect of this divide is that the URC as a national insitution is failing to demonstrate that it values its local members and what they do. Within my own Church there are many "silent saints", who steadfastly witness to their faith through their lives and the people they talk to and often care for and support. They rarely star in the Church newsletter and often they don't hold forth at Church meeting, but they demonstrate a true Christian humility in how they live out their faith. Unfortunately, the URC as an institution keeps telling them they must "change" and move out of their comfort zones, failing to recognise that their lives are already pretty challenging and what they need from their Church is at least a small amount of comfort. Let's value our silent saints, learn from them and support what they do. |
|
TheAwkwardSquad 02 September 2009, 1:25pm |
I am heartened to see even more replies to this thread and the fact that people from different places and areas are identifying this is also reassuring. "However, I don't think this is deliberate. It's more a natural outcome of the divide that any institution develops between those that are active and committed at a local level and those who put their passion into structures and the higher levels of an institution." Agreed - we do need to be conscious of the tendency and keep it in check all the same. "Unfortunately, the URC as an institution keeps telling them they must "change" and move out of their comfort zones, failing to recognise that their lives are already pretty challenging and what they need from their Church is at least a small amount of comfort." Support definitely. Comfort in some senses. The message of the Bible is constantly challenging and pushes us to make it affect our lives every more deeply. As a result I would be hesistant to tell anyone that they had 'got there' and now they could rest. I don't think that is what you are saying but it is the danger of letting people find comfort in the church. Comfort in the sense of fellowship, friendship, support in times of need, help through difficulties (whatever they may be) yes but a comfortable faith as such. Although faith does bring comfort, salvation for all those that accept Jesus and knowledge of the love of God for each one of us, the christian life is immensely uncomfortable - we see that in the disciples life with Jesus and right down christian history. |
|
Seeker 02 September 2009, 9:09pm |
My first entry into any forum and this visit to the URC website is the first for many a month! So what a surprise to see that I have not been alone in wondering just where the bodies are coming from to implement all these initiatives. (Largely untried?) I think Mark Hayes is right. The privildeged few at the top end seems to have only a panoramic view but really need to get back to grass roots and get the sounds and smell of what is happening - or not. We are URC not a PLC! Let some pastorates be paired and divided between 2 ministers; one taken from non-pastorate work and the other advertised in the normal way? Feed back would be fascinating in both directions and in time help us all. My local experience has been that so far we are preaching to the converted only. |
|
janet lees 10 September 2009, 10:19am |
Well awkward though youthought all this might be it seems that it was fairly well supported by most of the replies so far. Personally I find it far from awkwards. If we're not asking questions, we're dead. As I'm sure you know, only dead fish go with the flow. Seems we've a lot of gripes here though - so what to do about any of them - other than grip of course. 1. Accessibility of local ministry: what are your stories of how to make this work? How many folks in your fellowships have explored calls to specific kinds of ministry recently? what was there experience? What helps local ministry work? what hinders it? I chose that one because leadership is important - but you have the information that helps to debvelop new patterns - it's there in the stories of the people you know and live alongside. The same goes for many of the other issues rasied. Yes, I'm the vision4life co-ordinator. A half time staff post, I work from ... no not London but Huddersfield. Yes, sunny Huddersfield. Booklets were mentioned. Ah-ha! the dreaded booklets. Some people want fewer booklets (on this forum), some people want more (not on this forum 'cos they don't do forums). So with V4L we try to provide booklets (for those who like 'em), website, blogs (for those who life PC's), and a person (that's me) for those who like to get up close and personal. As for the issue about top down and 'close on the tail of cathc the vision' (we know a song about that). Well close on the tail of catch the vision to explore what we're catching and how we go from catching vision to growing vision. As for the content, I wuld disagree about it being top down. All of the material on booklets and website is produced by you, local people in local places. All I do is edit it (some of it). Whether it's prayer, bible sutdy, ideas for evangelism we ask that all of them be tried and tested in the local context first and then they are ready to be shared with others, not in a 'you must do this' way but in a 'we did this, want to try it' way. concilliar also means friendly, supportive, loving, and has some positive aspects not partiuclarly well covered in previous correspondence in this forum. |
|
janet lees 10 September 2009, 10:26am |
As you can see I'm getting a bit carried away (and as usualy my spelling is going to pot). However hopefully you are now ready to send me loads of local stories about hwo the bible, prayer and evangelism work for you in your local places. Then we can spread those words not dull depressing, dwindling, downward spiral stuff that's all so top down we can't understand it. Not that we just want sunny optimism (even here in sunny Huddersfield) what we want is realism. So all your stories; what worked and what didn't and why, please. and maybe together (oh, that sounds a bit concilliar) we'll get a vision that works for local churches, synods, local areas and other groups and sets the place ablaze. the message of the Bibleis constantly challenging and so I'm challenging you lot... where are your stories of how you responded to that challenge, what happened when you prayed, what faith sharing activities did for you... and maybe that will help us to transform the church from the bottom up -which is actually what vision4life is about. |
|
Mark Hayes 14 September 2009, 3:52pm |
Taking up Janet Lees challenge: First of all, I think it is a mistake to see this forum as just a series of gripes or a “whinge fest”. I think it reflects the genuine concerns of people who have the best interests of the URC, in all its manifestations, at heart (and that is not to claim that anyone who disagrees with these postings doesn’t!). For me, a significant concern is that the church has hardly started with some of the proposed initiatives. If the URC really is going to run a national advertising campaign, based on the experience of the United Church of Christ in the States, then local hearts and minds need to be pulling in the same direction. The starting point must surely be a full understanding of what our churches, members, adherents etc are already doing, and the branding must be something that resonates with them: Have we asked them if “God is still speaking ” really expresses their understanding of what it means to be a Reformed Church? I work in a very diverse sector which developed a branding exercise after careful liaison with its constituent organisations – the actual “brand” or “slogan” was not the starting point, and various alternatives were explored with members. This followed an exercise to understand what it was that we were trying to say and what we could realistically offer to our audience. Even this is perhaps jumping the gun: As far as I am aware, nobody has asked our churches if they want this exercise (please correct me if I’m wrong!). Personally I think it could work, but not if it arrives like a mailing from the Reader’s Digest. So Janet, back to your challenge: “How many folks in your fellowships have explored calls to specific kinds of ministry recently? what was there experience? What helps local ministry work? what hinders it? Answer: At least two. We attended a very helpful and supportive Enquirers conference. In my case, it helped me confirm that my calling is a lay one and I am seeking to explore ‘local leadership’ when it becomes clearer as to how this will be developed in my Synod (a very constructive consultation day enabled some of us to feed in our thoughts on this). A clear understanding of the needs of local communities, how our churches relate to these and what God’s message has to say to us helps local ministry work. What hinders local ministry is the ongoing “change” that leaves many churches confused and unsettled, just as there is an expectation of greater engagement with URC wide initiatives. Vision4Life: I found the books very helpful. I groaned last year when I opened the envelope and then repented as I was pleasantly surprised by the ideas they contain. What has worked so far? I would highlight a couple of things: • A reflective service exploring bible passages that people found helpful to them, and also exploring different types of bible story: “real” events with people like you and me in “real” places, and stories that we might describe as myths that include important truths. • Sermons that relate lectionary passages to people’s lives and the world around us, and are followed through with prayers and hymns where the theme can be seen and help offer further insight. I would offer thanks to the production team behind “Roots”. Week after week they provide themed material which, in my view, really does help lead worship that is relevant – as long as you tailor it to your knowledge of the congregation you are with. “You always use such helpful prayers” – yes, I take them from Roots! (Jan – that’s a thought for Vision4Life Prayer year – do we not already have a very helpful resource in front of us?). Anyway, lunch break is over, and I’ve already written far too much for this posting (I haven’t even mentioned Vision 2020). In summary – If all of these ‘national’ initiatives are going to work, the hearts and minds of local churches need to be won over, and that means we must understand just how much they are doing, how hard they are working, and demonstrate that “the big ideas” are relevant and value their efforts. So much of what is being suggested is already happening, I think it's the acknowledgement of this that seems to be missing. |
|
JamesC 19 September 2009, 12:50am |
Dear friends and colleagues, it is good to see this discussion taking place and I sympathise with many of the views already expressed. It is my personal view that adopting a national ad campaign, 'God is Still Speaking', from a denomination that declined 6% the year it launched the campaign is a mistake (that is 3% more than any other mainline US denomination - quibble the stats but they come from the US National Council of Churches yearbook). In the end my view on the campaign is it was wrong headed, played to people’s fears about being rejected by churches, and was in danger of slandering other mainline denominations. The URC has to do better than that! Like others on here, I do not think that national ad campaigns hold the answer. There is no quick fix answer. Only repentant lives transformed by the Holy Spirit and lived to the glory of God. In other words, we need the Gospel and we need a greater substance, not window dressing, cheap frills, or gimmicks. I do not fear challenge or change, we are a pilgrim people (rereading the Pilgrim’s Progress reminded me of that recently), but we must remember that the first note of the Gospel is not what we have done, but what God through Christ has done on our behalf. Now given what I have already expressed this might seem hypocritical to express. But I am going to express it anyway: I cannot help but think that if we spent as much time marvelling at the beauty of God’s love through Jesus, as we spend looking at ourselves and the state of the church then we would all live more joyful, thankful, merciful, and attractive lives. In the end we do not know what waits around the corner for our national church, but we know the One who owns the future. Let us be brave enough to take His hand and walk into it trusting that ‘He who has begun a good work within you will carry it on to completion by the day of Jesus Christ’ (Phil. 1:6). Grace and Peace to you, James Church |
Log in or Register to reply. See the forum policy page for forum rules. Contact us to report an inappropriate forum post
