A Pastoral letter to all United Reformed churches from
General Secretary David Cornick

Salt for the
earth. Light for the city. Yeast that would transform.
Those are some of the pictures Jesus paints of his followers,
pictures of a little going a
long way. They are challenging pictures
for they remind us what the church is for, and recall us to the true
nature of our vocation. Size
isn’t important, but effectiveness is. Those
pictures can act as a measure
of the church. They invite us to ask
questions about the kind of shape we are, the way we are organised,
and the focus of our life.
Questions have
been bubbling up all over the church. Do we spend too much time in
meetings? Are we using ministers in the right way? Do we have too many
levels of decision-making? Have we got the balance right between
national and regional structures? Can we continue to provide
stipendiary ministry for each local United Reformed Church? And if we
can, should we? Do we have a mission in each of our local churches?
All western
European churches have lived through difficult times of decline over
almost a century. Western culture has changed profoundly, and the
number of the faithful has declined steadily. For our part as a
denomination, we have determinedly kept as many churches as possible
open since in 1972, believing that each local church is a centre for
Christ’s mission. I believe we need to honour and celebrate the
courage and gritty steadfastness of those who have kept the faith
alive and made that possible. However, we cannot ignore the reality
that this has had three results. A smaller membership is more thinly
spread. An increasing financial burden has fallen on fewer shoulders.
Ministers have been asked to cope with multiple pastorates that
sometimes have no relationship to each other but economic necessity.
We now have half the members we had in 1972, and our age profile
suggests that we will halve in size again over the next thirty years.
Many factors may change that – mission, outreach, union, cultural
shifts – but the underlying demography is clear.
Mission Council
responded to the challenge of Scripture, the questions being raised
and the underlying social realities by committing itself ‘urgently
and radically to re-think the church’s priorities, programmes and
processes’ and urging wide consultation both within the church,
ecumenically, and where appropriate with secular agencies. It did so
because it perceives the church to be at a cross-roads. God’s future
beckons. God has not finished with us yet. The people of God are still
called to be salt, light and yeast. Responding to that call creatively
and imaginatively means facing difficult realities. Deficit budgeting
is not a secure and satisfactory basis for mission. We must define
what we want to do, and what we do not want to do, raise the money to
do it, and then rejoice that God has invited us to share in his
ministry of peace and reconciliation in Christ.
I would be
pleased to receive any thoughts, comments or papers as contributions
to this debate.
The Revd Dr David Cornick
General Secretary
October 2002