At its last teleconference, the NACC Steering committee approved that a motion of dissolution be presented at this spring’s AGM, April 30, May 1, in London, Ontario. The Alliance and one other group have now agreed to cooperate on the regeneration and revitalization of the United Church’s renewal movement. The plan is to foster a new start, a completely new entity, one with revised emphases, with a new name and structure, and with new leadership. We hope to launch this project with a breakthrough event this coming autumn. Please hold all this in your prayers, trusting that the Lord is once again saying, “See, I am doing a new thing. Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?”
We anticipate that the new initiative will preserve at least some services currently offered by the NACC, which will be around in some form for a while: the fact that we are a federally registered corporation means that working through just the bureaucratic requirements and niceties will take up to a year. Obviously you will be hearing more on all this, but for the present it is business as usual.
As we reported in NBs #12-2, the United Church has agreed to try mediation as a way of dealing with the dispute over Ted’s removal from ministry over eleven years ago. The stalling may be over, and there is finally the possibility that he will be granted a modicum of justice, including reasonable recompense. If not, it’s on to the court case.
This sad tale is long and complex, but anyone unclear as to what has happened and what is at stake can contact us, and we will be pleased to forward some explanatory materials. (Contact information is at the masthead above, or contact the NACC Office, Box 1022, Barrie ON L4M 3E1, nacc@csolve.net.)
Retired Alberta judge Tim J. Christian has agreed to act as the mediator, and the hearing dates are set for April 7 and 13, with April 20 also, if necessary. As always, donations to help with Ted’s continuing legal costs can be sent to: The Legal Defense Fund, c/o Cameron Smith, 3 Sunshine Gardens, Sussex NB E4E 2E3. Tax receipts will be issued.
As noted back in September, the last General Council ordered a number of Remits (church-wide votes). The UCC website shows six of these, five of them just for Presbyteries, the other for Pastoral Charges also. We have heard via jungle telegraph that another Remit is on the way, this one dealing with changes to the Doctrine section of the church’s constitution, The Basis of Union, to which it is proposed to add “A Song”, and several other faith statements.
The irony is that the NACC got nowhere with its careful argument that egregious flaws in “A Song” meant the wider church should have been able to approve or disapprove it through a Remit. Our case was rejected by the General Secretary, and our Appeal was denied a hearing by the Judicial Committee - of which the GS is a member. However, with the proposed insertion into the Basis of Union, there is now no escaping the vote we laboriously pursued and were arbitrarily denied. We have heard that this Remit will be going to local sessions (or their equivalent bodies) for endorsement, so please watch for it, remembering that the NACC emphatically recommends rejection.
A Reminder: In this time of clergy shortage, United Church congregations – NACC or not – needing a theologically orthodox minister (ordained or lay) may want to check out the NACC’s Pastoral Relations Service. Your contact for more information, Geoff_Wilkins@telus.net.Concluding Fluff :
God bless -- Geoff
]]>The United Church’s four renewal/reform bodies are presently considering the merits of integrating their activities, possibly even merging their organizational structures. They all differ in their mandates, of course, and in their modes of action, their focuses, etc., but they share a number of preoccupations, including a profound concern for what the institutional church is doing to itself. One hopes these preliminary discussions will lead in promising directions in the next few months. Please pray that whatever transpires will be in accord with God’s wishes.
Several actions by this summer’s General Council provided a textbook illustration of how the church’s power structure typically deals with inconvenient obstruction. Take three Proposals which appeared before the GC, the UCC’s senior court:
In the event, all three were defeated, and some people have taken considerable comfort in that, since their being approved would have had hugely negative implications.
But, the power brokers remained unapologetic and the push for all three goals is still with us. Thus, in the case of
So, our leadership continues as usual, secure in its self-righteous but misguided certainties, unshakeably wedded to keeping things under control by moving things along “two steps forward, one step back” (if absolutely necessary). Reportedly, Lenin was frank about using the same strategy to bring about the Soviet Revolution. And it worked for a while, Although at huge cost. But, of course, it worked only for a while, and the USSR is now history. Pray that the UCC doesn’t suffer the same fate.
Ex-Chairman Ted, who was improperly removed from his pulpit twelve and a half years ago – and subsequently struck from the UCC clergy - just phoned to say that, after prevarication, the UCC has agreed that a mediator might indeed be a way of avoiding a costly civil court case. This was suggested some time ago by Ted’s counsel, who named a fair-minded mediator likely acceptable to the church. The concept sparked some interest, but the suggested mediator was rejected, with three alternatives nominated in his place. All of these were unacceptable to Ted, since each was tainted by (to put it in lawyerly language) “the apprehension of bias”. (For instance, the church’s #1 nominee was a member of the General Council panel that turned down Ted’s final appeal.)
There the matter sat, with the prospect of another drawn out negotiation, until Ted’s lawyer eventually gave notice that, unless this option was picked up quickly, he would move to expedite the court case. That prompted the quick OK, including acceptance of the mediator originally proposed.
So, over a decade on, this whole sad saga may just possibly be nearing its end. Thus it is that this just might be the last time we have to appeal for funds to help with Ted’s legal costs. Incidentally, to date the Legal Defence Fund has been able to cover over $ 150,000 of those costs. If you can help with what we hope will be the final push, your donation, in any amount, can be forwarded to “The Legal Defence Fund”, c/o Cameron Smith, NACC Treasurer, 3 Sunshine Gardens, Sussex NB E4E 2E3. Tax receipts will be issued as usual. Many thanks.
(a) the mere appearance of these two Proposals on the General Council’s Agenda will cause increased distress in the church, thereby prompting further erosion of membership and attendance;
(b) if approved for Remit, that distress and erosion will be significantly amplified; and
(c) if in fact adopted by Remit, the future of the United Church as a viable denomination will be very short.
1. CTBC opens with the following sentence:It goes on to invite the church at large to provide reaction and advice, and the General Secretary has said she will forward what she receives to the General Council’s Agenda and Planning Committee.
In preparation for the 40th General Council 2009, this document is being circulated to invite the people of The United Church of Canada to prayerfully consider the vision and purpose of our church.
2. CTBC lays considerable emphasis on the praiseworthy wish to return the denomination to the vision of unity it held in 1925. In its précis of denominational history, it describes this vision as “one that would honour diversity and not demand uniformity.”Comment for #2: However, when the founding denominations eventually came to agreement over the Doctrine section of The Basis of Union (2.0 -2.20) they were clearly not thinking of diversity without limits, but of a diversity that could be honoured only within certain bounds. The NACC believes our founders would be appalled at how far the limits of an acceptable faith have now been stretched in the United Church.
3. Also on unity of faith: CTBC states,Comment (a) for #3: As mentioned above, the NACC recently argued, unsuccessfully, that to have met the requirements of sec 8.6.2(1)(a) of The Basis of Union, the church’s legal constitution, General Council which has approved those new statements of faith should have ensured they did not incorporate changes in faith, rather than mere alterations to presentation or language. “A Song” clearly does not meet that test, and, without a Remit demonstrating the wider denomination’s acceptance, it should not have been approved. However, now it has been, we foresee further confusion and doubt over the faith as local worship and teaching introduces invalid theological change. Indeed, we believe that is already occurring.
Throughout the years, The United Church of Canada has been committed to articulating, for each generation, our faith and beliefs. This commitment is evident through “”A Statement of Faith in 1940, “A New Creed” in 1968, and “A Song of Faith” in 2006, faith declarations that are held alongside the 20 Articles that formed the doctrinal portion of our Basis of Union in 1925. (p.4)
4. CTBC (pp.1-2) refers to how the Executive was prompted to embark on this present exercise by a report which states, “The United Church of Canada is populated by people who have a deep love for the church”, as well as placing “a high value” on “a wide spectrum of theological thought”, on inclusivity, on spiritual nurture, on social betterment, on social justice, . . . . .Comment for #4: The Executive appears to accept this analysis without reservation, but the NACC sees it as just another example of how our church has skewed its priorities. In fact, as Christians, the object of our deepest love should always be Christ, the Lord of the Church. It is from love of him, and from that alone, that our love for the church flows. However, we are not altogether surprised at this, since, on the evidence, Christ frequently does not hold first place in the church’s thinking. One illustration of that is how in 2006 the denomination’s highest court was prepared to tolerate the low Christology of “A Song of Faith”. In this, as in other of our official documents, our denomination separates itself from the greater part of the Church Universal.
5. Speaking of ministerial (ordained) leadership on p.7, CTBC points to the looming dearth of ordained clergy. The demographics are deeply worrying, since 70% of ministry personnel in Pastoral Charges are presently aged 50 or over, and only 3% under 35. It further notes, “One half of all ministry personnel presently serving pastoral charges will reach normal age of retirement within the next 10 years.”Comment for #5: The NACC is well aware that a crisis appears to be in the offing, but it is also convinced that at least part of the cause lies with how the church has received and treated a number of candidates for ministry. Thus, there are those (a) who contemplated ordained ministry in the United Church, but who decided to go elsewhere because much of the UCC’s officially declared theology offended them, (b) who have gone elsewhere because of the unwelcoming (and sometimes hostile) atmosphere they have encountered in a number of our theological colleges, or, indeed, (c) who, after being accepted into UCC ministry, have found the pressures to amend their faith and adjust their ministries to the requirements of the “new theology” are simply too great to bear.
This year our AGM was in Edmonton, where we were hosted by the Pleasantview United congregation. They embraced us with warmth, looked after us well, and fed us temptingly, . . .and rather more generously than was good for us.
Delegates (table officers and representatives from across Canada) numbered twelve, while there were a number of guests, mainly from Pleasantview.
Three items of business that will likely interest you:
1. Will There Be an NACC After the 2010 AGM?
On both days the delegates spent time considering the options the Alliance faces in light of the very challenging question, How is the NACC going to answer its now immediate need for new leadership? While finances seem secure and local congregations still are apparently invested in their original reasons for joining the NACC, there is an increasingly critical need for new leaders at both our national and regional levels. For example, Geoff Wilkins has made it clear he will not serve as national Chairman past the next AGM, and, despite efforts during the last year, no one has been identified as willing to take on his role.
Given that, Geoff asked the meeting to consider which of the following possibilities is worth exploring in coming months:
The delegates spent several hours of prayerful thought on all of this during the first day, returning to it as first business on the second. Barring God pushing someone unexpected onto the stage (which he has certainly been known to do), the meeting saw just two viable possibilities - the second and fourth of those options, singly or in combination.
The leadership of our member congregations (Sessions, Boards, Councils) will be asked to offer advice on those options, but you as a reader of News Briefs are also invited to share your thoughts, either with a local Steering Committee member or NBs itself, which will pass them on. What would also be of particular interest is knowing which NACC activities (local or national) you feel should be maintained. (Contact info. for reaching NBs is at the top of the previous page.)
Finally, the next, and perhaps final, AGM will be in London, Ontario, where we will be the guests of Byron United Church.
2. “Called to Be Church: toward a unifying vision”
Primarily intended for the ’09 General Council Commissioners, General Council Office issued this document earlier this year, but at the AGM, no one, other than Lester Settle, our rep. from the Maritimes, was aware of it. However, he had found some time to read it and had prepared a quick initial reaction for us.
CTBC is a nine-page discussion paper, closing with four questions about “vision”, “leadership”, “opportunities and challenges”, and “finances” in the national church. As a reward for being so alert, Lester was asked to head a small team to prepare a written NACC reaction to both CTBC and its companion document, “The State of the Church”. As you might expect, there is a good deal that is troublesome to us in these two papers, and the NACC’s reaction, presently under preparation, will shortly be shared with our congregations, with the request that they submit their own reactions. (The NACC response may be used as a reference if they so wish.) Both CTBC and TSOTC, as well as the General Secretary’s introductory letters, are available at the United Church website, http://united-church.ca/. Just enter “Called to Be” and “State of the Church” in the Search box to get them.
The General Secretary has engaged to pass on any such reactions received by her, so that the GC’s Planning Committee may consult them in framing the General Council discussions this coming August. You may send submissions to Nora Sanders, the GS, at nsanders@united-church.ca, or 3250 Bloor St West, Toronto, ON M8X 2Y4
3. Defections – An Alert
During the last two years we have had notices of withdrawal from three of our large congregations. Two of these were reviewed at this AGM. Even though the churches in question are geographically removed from each other, their cases exhibit curious and unlikely commonalities. For example, the letters of withdrawal are phrased surprisingly similarly; in each case the reasons for leaving remained vague, despite our questioning; somewhat pointedly, NACC officers were not permitted to act as resource persons (indeed, the Alliance knew nothing of what was afoot until very late); the roles played by the local leadership, including the clergy, were, to be charitable, decidedly not supportive of continued NACC membership; and so on. (On some previous occasions, the NACC has been afforded early opportunity to provide information, but not here.) All of this suggests that some external coordinative agent may be at work, and that it is targeting what it considers to be key NACC congregations.
May we therefore ask that, if what the NACC stands for matters to you, that you please be vigilant, informed, healthily skeptical of anything that seems out of kilter (especially in terms of the faith). Above all, don’t be shy about asking pointed questions and talking things over with others. And, may we stress, please get in touch with the NACC as soon as you feel that your concerns have substance.
]]>Back when a Sunday was still a Sunday, Stephen Leacock spoke of a court’s having ruled golf an acceptable Lord’s Day pastime. The reasoning was that golf isn’t really a game. It’s more “a form of moral effort”. So, a Sunday out on the golf course is obviously OK.
Some of us might go further than that, though, and say that golf is actually a religion. Consider -
T.S. Elliot may have come close to getting golf right when he wrote of “decent godless people” whose only monument is “a thousand lost golf balls”, but he was wrong in declaring these folk “godless”. They do indeed have a god – and it is Golf.
But to get serious - Why all this blether about golf? What’s the point being made? Answer: It’s to show how, if taken seriously enough, almost any human activity can become a religion – just as in our denomination some people are taken seriously when they argue for other gods than the historic Trinity (or even for no god at all). Accepting that sort of thinking ultimately leads to something quite unlike Christianity, and “A Song of Faith”, approved by our General Council in 2006, is clear evidence of where things are going for us.
As many people know, the NACC tried to provoke formal church-wide discussion about this theological grab bag of a statement. Our efforts went nowhere, with the General Secretary rejecting our criticism of “A Song”, and the Judicial Committee Executive accepting her recommendation that our appeal not be granted a hearing. That should have been the end of things – except that late last year we decided to hang in and go public with our concerns.
We cast a wide net, but so far the response has been almost invisible: nothing in the media (including the Observer); nothing has come back from congregations; nothing from Presbyteries; nothing from the Executive of General Council; and less than ten responses from General Council Commissioners, one or two of them slightly supportive, some puzzled, some scurrilously angry with us. But who cares? – others have trodden this path before. Listen to Jeremiah, who spoke to Israel in very similar times:
This is what the Lord says: Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, Ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ I appointed watchmen over you and said, ‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’ But you said, ‘We will not listen.’ Therefore hear, O nations; observe O witnesses, what will happen to them. Hear, O earth: I am bringing disaster on this people, the fruit of their schemes, because they have not listened to my words and have rejected my law.
(Jer 6:16-19)
Well, Israel had her disaster, in spades. But what about now, two and a half millennia later? Listen to what our Moderator had to say several months ago:
As a community we are learning about the ‘valley of shadows’ after a history spent primarily on the top of the world. We are experiencing tremendous change and loss as a community. The church we have known is dying. Death is always part of transformation. We don’t know where it will lead, but we do know that we no longer claim special authority and place in our culture. For a long time we rode a great white charger. Now we are learning to ride the donkey. There is confusion, denial, and pain, as well as hope, in our body. I think we are closer to Jesus.
Important words, including prediction of death, no less. But unlike Jeremiah, David Giuliano makes no mention of God’s instructions being ignored. And just where does he see room for hope? In the confused hodgepodge of “A Song”? Moreover, what makes him think we’re getting closer to Jesus?
As the NACC sees it, to get close to Jesus requires deep contrition. Is there some hint of that in what Giuliano says? Hmm, . . . . Shifting from sitting astride a “great white charger” (echoes of Rev 19:11 and the triumphant Christ“ of the Last Days”) and onto a donkey (echoes now of the self-sacrificial Jesus of Palm Sunday) seems to suggest self-aggrandizement rather than penitence. Surely a better reference would have been to Balaam’s donkey, with the discredited prophet off his mount and groveling in the dust before an angry angel (Numbers 22). Like Balaam, we should be recognizing we’ve got things badly wrong, that our course is suicidal –as was that of the Israel Jeremiah spoke to.
Still, while people like us have good reason to be concerned, we shouldn’t be pessimistic, because, to return to our opening theme, we’re just small players on one of the many holes of God’s enormous, cosmic golf course. There are lots of hazards there – elephant-high rough, water obstacles of incredible width and depth, bottomless bunkers of quicksand – but this is God’s course, and Jesus is playing it with us. Moreover, the final Masters’ Championship is God’s to award, and Jesus (he plays with no handicap) is going to take that title, hands down. Maybe, just maybe, we’ll be allowed to tag along behind him – perhaps even to caddy for him.
God bless, and please pray for the April AGM, in Alberta this year -- Geoff
]]><$MTInclude module="nb_header"$>
A Time for Steadfast Trust? – It Should Be
Joan and I very recently returned from three weeks in England. It was a trip of nostalgia and exploration, with the nostalgia very much to the fore on our first day, when we walked over from our hotel to my old school. My parents were in the Far East on three-year tours while I was there, and so, from age 11-18, I was a boarder. School was essentially home - thus, lots of memories.
Even by English standards, Reading School is venerable. Founded in 1125 as part of Reading Abbey, it has educated boys from the town and elsewhere for over 800 years. As you might expect, in that time the school had its ups and downs, one of the obvious downs coming in 1539, when Henry VIII confiscated the Abbey, . . .very profitably, I may say.
Responsibility for the school was foisted on the town’s dismayed Corporation, which registered its unhappiness by categorically refusing to pay the unfortunate new headmaster. However, on that matter Henry was uncompromising and the Council finally had to bow to the inevitable. Still, the next 100 years brought other major challenges – a nasty century for everyone in the country – with the plague, vicious religious disputes as Catholic and Protestant monarchs alternated (one of the school’s headmasters was burned at the stake), and eventually the Civil War.
However, the school survived all that - even prospered for a while - until a combination of poor leadership, mismanagement, and an uncaring social environment led to a gradual but lengthy decline, so that by 1866 there were only three pupils left. You’d think that would have been the end of things, but the public, suddenly realizing what was at stake, roused itself, new leadership was introduced, and funding was placed on a better footing. Despite some missteps, steady growth set in, until by my time, right after WW 2, there were 550 boys. (Now in 2008, the vastly over-subscribed school’s enrollment stands at well over 800.)
The secret? Over the years, the school has continually reinvented itself. The medieval abbey school became a Tudor grammar school, and then a Victorian public (i.e. private) school, and then in the Twentieth Century it moved through various special categories of state-supported school. But through each metamorphosis, the school’s purpose remained the same – to provide the best possible schooling for the ablest boys of the vicinity.
You may be wondering why I have inflicted all this on you, but that afternoon as we walked back through the rain, it struck me that this history might say something encouraging to those of us saddened by the United Church’s present situation. On the one hand, you have a school that, after about 740 years, was essentially dead. But a year later things looked quite different, and now, after roughly another 140 years, it is flourishing. (Declared this year by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate to be “Outstanding”.) On the other hand, after roughly just 80 years, our relatively young denomination is in steep decline, down to roughly half its 1966 membership. What lies ahead? The statistics suggest, and several former Moderators reportedly have predicted, it’ll all be over within the next 50 years or so.
Is there any cheer to be derived from the story of my old school? I think so, because if that institution can rise from such an obvious deathbed, the UCC can turn things around. Even if the situation were to match that of the school in 1866, the message is clear: An end isn’t necessarily an end. And all bets are off if God sees fit to intervene. After all, that’s the message of Easter. What might encourage him to do so in our case? Here’s my guess: If he saw that much of the
denomination, especially at the congregational level, had decided to take him and his purposes seriously, then he just might decide we’re worth saving. What would that take? Jesus’ life and teaching made that very clear. He tells us, for instance, to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (My emphases) (Matt 22:37-40) What a transformation that’d be!
I know I’m not even close to being up to the mark in terms of either commandment, and I don’t see a whole lot of those around me who seem to be, . . .let alone whole congregations, . . .and, sadly, least of all, our mother denomination. If we were closer, we wouldn’t be in this situation. Friends, a sea change is in order.
Geoff
Tribute to Bob Blackburn, the NACC’s Chairman Emeritus
Earlier this year the University of Toronto Libraries recognized its debt to our good friend Bob by dedicating the new Robert H. Blackburn Conference Room in the Robarts Library in his honour. Bob led the U of T’s library system from 1954 to his retirement in 1981, taking it from 36th in the Association of Research Libraries’ ranking to one of the world’s top ten. He also oversaw the building of the stunning Robarts Library which houses the new conference room. Impressive!
(And the NACC also owes him a huge debt – hence the “Emeritus”, but that’s another story.)
Snappers
<$MTInclude module="nb_header"$>
To Serve Them All My Days
The Reverend Bob Whalls, d. March 31, 2008
On the last day of March, Bob suffered a massive heart attack and could not be revived. It was a day of shocking and tragic loss. Port Lambton, an NACC church, was Bob’s first and only charge, and he pastored the charge’s three congregations and their communities for twenty-one years. Your editor met him only twice – once at Alderwood United in April, 2006, where he represented the LRACC at the NACC AGM, and again on his home turf at the Port Lambton church in, I think, the fall of the same year. I was there that evening to meet with some of the congregation, and Bob led a relaxed little introductory service, accompanying the singing on his guitar. Lots of singing, and a good evening!
Several days ago, a congregational member emailed that there were over 1200 people at the visitation, and over three hundred at the funeral. I also understood a memorial service was planned for a Baptist church in Wallaceburg, chosen as better able to accommodate the expected numbers. All of which suggests Bob’s must have surely been an unusually powerful ministry.
Others can speak on that, but my brief personal experience of this special man tells me that he was, in the fullest sense of the phrase, a Christian gentleman, a gentle man, quietly and patiently committed to loving and serving his Lord and those around him. I am confident the trumpets sounded for him as he crossed the river.
Many will sadly miss him. For my part, I have a real sense of regret that I will not get to know him better, at least in this life.
Please hold Bob’s family in your particular prayers – his wife Shirley, and his children Krista, Tobin, Sarah, and Rachel.
God bless, Geoff
NACC Annual General Meeting, 2008
Your prayers are also invited for the NACC’s coming AGM in Debert, NS, April 17 and 18. Present will be folk from Newfoundland/Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta, and BC. Please ask God to be with us and lead us on right paths.
“Of the Making of Many Books”
The full quotation is, of course, “Of the making of many books there is no end; and much study [of them] is a weariness of the flesh.” (Eccl 12:12)
That pretty well sums up how I feel about the latest “cutting edge” reappraisal of Jesus and the faith, With or Without God, by Gretta Vosper, a United Church minister in Toronto. The Observer reports that the book’s frank intent is to drop us all “into the fast-flowing waters of dis-belief (sic)” - an interesting goal for someone who presumably once felt Jesus calling her to “Feed my sheep”. But, some will say, Jesus probably never said that, and, if he did, what did he want them to be fed with? Etc., etc., etc.
In cases like this, I’m with the writer of Ecclesiastes – Who needs this stuff! But those who write in this vein nevertheless get laudatory reviews, build reputations as bold new thinkers, and so on. Well, “bold”, perhaps, but “new”? - No, I don’t think so. Nine-tenths of what they have to offer is just regurgitation of old heresies, heresies which the early church examined carefully and then firmly rejected. (But still it seeps back to the surface – see some of “A Song of Faith”.)
The Observer’s reviewer of Vosper’s book foresees “a storm on the horizon”. Personally, I hope not. Storms attract people’s attention. And so, it is that books are sold, reputations made. The secular media is happy to make a story out of it all - witness the recent major article in MACLEANS, vigorously stirring the apostate pot, assigning the huggers of theological headliners scholarly status they do not deserve. And so people become confused and rudderless. I fancy some gurus are going to have to do some fast explaining at the end of time.
More Positively – If you have Internet access, please explore these websites. They build the faith rather than tear it down:
Late in 2007, some NACC members and supporters were approached by Rev. James Love, a minister who has left the United Church. His purpose was to encourage others to follow his example, arguing “the battle for the UCC is lost”. He has established a website (www.leavingunited.com) for those who may be considering leaving the church, but, while there is some force to what he advocates there, your Steering Committee is unanimously resolved to stand by the NACC’s original decision to stay in the United Church and work for the denomination’s return to the unapologetic orthodoxy upon which it was founded. While Mr. Love believes all hope of that is gone, we disagree.
Individual clergy like Mr. Love feel very vulnerable when they swim against the tides at play in the UCC, but as a congregationally based organization, where folk feel less isolated, the NACC is determined to continue in its witness to an unadulterated faith. To be sure, the going has often been tough, but, while a great many have left the UCC, we have chosen to trust that God’s strength will carry us past what seems, in human terms, to be overwhelming odds - after all, not only are we theologically out of step with the leadership of the UCC, we are also in conflict with the culture’s militant secularism, a secularism which has deeply infiltrated our denomination.
An example of this infiltration: As you are aware, the NACC has filed a formal protest against the 2006 General Council’s approval of the UCC’s A Song of Faith, the new declaration of what it is the denomination believes. This is just the UCC’s most recent (and important) departure from the clear doctrinal statement agreed to in 1925, the Articles of Faith in the Basis of Union. As most of you know, the Basis of Union – the UCC’s “constitution” – requires that official deviation from the Articles must be approved by the whole church, through what is called a “remit”, a vote. The 2006 General Council ignored this requirement.
But does A Song in fact deviate from the Articles? Well the NACC believes it has demonstrated that it does, choosing four illustrations by way of demonstration: (1) The two statements take quite different positions on the authority of Scripture; (2) Their use of the term “Truth” are in conflict (A Song’s “Our” truth vs. the Article’s God’s Truth); (3) They name God quite differently (e.g. A Song includes “Mother”); (4) The Articles stress the Lordship of Christ, but A Song mentions that not al all.
The NACC asked the General Secretary to rule that the GC acted improperly by ignoring the requirement for a remit, but she disagreed with our position. We then appealed to the Judicial Committee, effectively the UCC’s last court of resort. In her turn, the General Secretary recommended the Judicial Committee’s Executive refuse to hear our appeal. And that is precisely what happened. Without elaboration, their ruling on our request for a hearing said that “the ground for appeal is not met”, and no more.
We were somewhat thunderstruck, since both our 8 page brief and 10 page commentary on the General Secretary’s recommendation against a hearing were both carefully thought through and included input from recognized theological authorities in the UCC. We therefore asked the Executive for some indication of the reasons for refusing to hear our formal Appeal. Over a month later, there has been no response, or even acknowledgement of receipt.
Our procedural options within the UCC would therefore seem to be exhausted. The game is over – Church Bureaucracy 2, NACC 0. However, we remain undaunted and will now pursue the matter in less orthodox ways. Once those details are worked out, we’ll let you know how we are proceeding. Be assured we intend to keep slogging away until God tells us to stop.
In conclusion, we hope this next year will be a happier one for our denomination, and, indeed for people all around this fractured world. We sincerely trust it be that way for you too. (For the NACC, 2008 at least promises to be interesting!)
God bless -- Geoff, for the Steering Committee
______________________________________________________________________Briefly:
Happy 10th Birthday, News Briefs! The first News Briefs came out in 1999, to help keep our Table Officers and Regional Presidents up to date on what was going on. A year later, the Alliance’s AGM decided to send it to all NACC congregations, for general distribution to their members. As time passed, that congregationally-based circulation broadened, and NBs now goes to a number of others, including individuals at General Council Office and even abroad.
Marriage etc., Some Editorial Thoughts Last Saturday afternoon, as my wife and I had a late lunch on the Vancouver harbour-front, we were part of an intrigued group of lunchers who watched with interest as a mysterious event unfolded at the end of the jetty beside us. The initial attention getter was a bagpiper, who played his slow way out to a small crowd at the jetty’s tip. Behind followed two young women in long burgundy dresses. After them came an older man, a young woman on his arm, this one in white, wearing a long white veil. Finally all was clear - It’s a wedding! On a jetty! Way out in the harbour! The man in front of me turned to his wife and said, “Well! Can’t get much more public that that!”, and indeed the event almost shouted, “WE’RE GETTING MARRIED!”
Given the dismal marriage statistics StatsCan has just reported, there was something touching about what we watched that afternoon - after all, we’d just heard that the proportion of married adults in Canada is on a steep slide, dropping from 61.4% (in1986) to 48.5% (2006). We’d just been watching a charming but vanishing anachronism if the statistics mean anything.
So, what’s going on? Well, over the last hundred years and more, the world has seen a flood of what is sometimes termed “social engineering” – manipulating conditions to bring about social change. Not all of it has been in totalitarian countries. No doubt some of the change has been beneficial, at least in the short term. Some has demonstrably been the opposite. But “engineering”, it is not. To use that word is a gross libel of engineers: If they built bridges, developed chemical processes, designed electrical grids in this “let’s-do-this-and- see-what –happens” way, the nation would be a basket case.
Indeed, what we’ve actually witnessed is “social experimentation”, and you and I, our children, our grandchildren, are the guinea pigs. Much of it has been ideologically driven, and the social theoreticians and their agents - governments, courts, media, even the churches - have a lot of explaining to do.
In Canada, the focus is presently on the marriage-family-children nexus, with the latest experimentation hinging on the redefinition of marriage. What are going to be the lasting effects of expanding the legal definition from the traditional one man-one woman understanding? What’s going to be the effect on families? How about children? The honest answer is that no one really knows.
But as StatsCan has just demonstrated, the slide is already well along. . Not really a surprise, actually. Consider: for decades
Families have been disadvantageously taxed;
Commerce and media have promoted life-style “toys” more than children;
which has led couples to feel the need for two incomes;
which in its turn saps the time and energy needed to be a good parent;
To compound the confusion, cutting edge genetics has blurred the whole idea of “parent”; and then
there’s the softening of social views on that classic family-destroyer, extra-marital “fooling around” (a useful phrase, avoiding that nasty word adultery”)
The list goes on and on – for instance the Supreme Court of Canada has just refused to hear an appeal of a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal that a child may have more than two legal parents. (Three in the case in question. But if three, why not four, or even more?) And now, likely just over the horizon, are decisions about polygamy. And if polygamy, why not polyandry? . . . plus whatever other “polys” people may come up with?
Quoted in the Vancouver Sun of September 15, Professor James White of UBC’s Sociology Department said, “[T]hese are questions integral to our society, but we don’t pay them much attention. We have never had a white paper on the family. We have never had a royal commission on marriage. . . . I think our valuation of children both personally and governmentally is a problem. [The StatsCan report] is a wake-up call.”
These are indeed “experimental” times, and if the experiments – with real people, and on a bigger and bigger scale – go wrong, who is going to re-bottle the genie?
Update: A Song of Faith As you may know, grave worries about the theology of “A Song” (the new statement approved in 2006 by General Council) caused the NACC to ask the General Secretary for a Ruling on whether the Manual requires the wider church be asked for its reaction before it is approved. The General Secretary ruled against us, and we have appealed to the Judicial Committee. The General Secretary has now recommended that the Judicial Committee not hear our Appeal. Taking exception to the justifications she offered, the NACC submitted a substantial rebuttal. However, the Secretary of the Committee has notified us that it may not agree to read our submission. We’ll keep you posted.
From the General Secretary: Instructions from the last General Council and continuing budget constraints have led the GC Executive to reduce GC Office staff by 20 fulltime positions, 11 of them administrative. As well as a good deal of internal re-organization and re-focusing, in-house production of AV resources will be halted, as will that of the TV program “Spirit Connection”. Mission support grants, both at home and abroad, will be reduced, as will work on adult faith formation, and (tellingly, given the editorial thoughts above) marriage resources, and family and seniors’ ministries.
Briefly: Last month (Aug 15) our national Chairman was interviewed by OMNI TV regarding the NACC and the United Church. Click http://www.unitedrenewal.org/v.html to view the short interview. If not there, there’ll be a link at www.unitedrenewal.org/.
]]>A REQUEST THAT “A SONG OF FAITH”, APPROVED BY THE 39TH GENERAL COUNCIL, BE SET ASIDE PENDING A REMIT
INTRODUCTION
It is important to emphasize that, in requesting a remit under the provisions of Basis 8.6.2(1), the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations is motivated by a loving concern for the United Church of Canada. We see this new faith statement as constituting a very considerable danger to the health of the denomination and the integrity of its corporate faith. Such a faith requires, at the very least, agreement on a substantive set of beliefs at the core of the denomination’s faith. Without such agreement there is no denomination, in any real sense of the word.
The title of the statement – A Song of Faith – is not inappropriate, its choice of the indefinite article being congruent with the authors’ understanding that this is the latest in a sequence of United Church faith statements, each tailored to its time. Nonetheless, we note that, in speaking of A Song of Faith, the church itself has very quickly moved to refer to it as “the statement of faith”. . While A Song’s Appendix A states that “This statement does not seek to replace the Twenty Articles of Faith included in the United Church’s 1925 Basis of Union”, we believe that by many it has already been assigned that totemic status. This is supported by Appendix A itself, which moves on to say, “The Twenty Articles have historical significance for the church” (emphasis added). The change from the indefinite to the definite article is of great importance, suggesting that, at best, the theological/doctrinal significance of the original Articles is thereby significantly diminished, that is of no immediate relevance to our time.
Given the various dangers which find support in A Song, the National Alliance will argue that as a faith statement it represents something very different from what many had been led to hope for – that is, a restatement of the historic faith in more contemporaneous language. In fact, A Song goes a country mile further, introducing extra-Biblical concepts and understandings of the Christian faith, while simultaneously making little or no mention of other important concepts and understandings which are Biblical. To a significant degree, A Song states a different “Christianity”, indeed a significantly altered if not a new faith.
What follows here deliberately contrasts A Song with the Articles of the doctrinal section of The Basis of Union. There are two reasons for referencing the Articles: (1) They are consciously and transparently Scripture-referenced to an extent not true of A Song; (2) They are clearly the doctrinal standard to which Basis 8.6.2(1) refers.
Perhaps criticism of A Song on Biblical grounds was anticipated by the writers, who caution that “The Spirit judges us critically when we abuse scripture by interpreting it narrow-mindedly.” However, one might well respond that the Holy Spirit also judges us critically when we abuse Scripture by interpreting it loose-mindedly. Indeed, Christ himself famously speaks of His Way as a narrow one (Matt 7:13, echoed in Luke 13:24).
Finally, A Song’s Appendix A speaks of A Song’s intended audiences, saying “first and foremost it is a document for the church itself. It is intended as a means by which the church can express its beliefs to itself and to the world, and a tool to help the church’s members reflect on their individual and collective faith.” Given that, it is puzzling that the General Council did not ensure wide discussion by mandating a remit, specifying that local congregations be included. Interestingly enough, the earlier Faith Talk II draft was submitted to the whole church for reaction (although access was not made easy). For some reason, access to the final version (A Song) was by no means as easy.
COMMENTARY
The Preamble to A Song of Faith acknowledges the United Church’s earlier statements of faith, those of 1925, 1940, and 1960. The earliest, the doctrinal section of The Basis of Union (the denomination’s foundational faith statement), points back to “the ancient creeds” - the Nicene, the Apostles’, and the Athanasian. Our frame of reference therefore extends back through at least sixteen centuries of theological thought and hard won consensus. A Song of Faith seeks to stand in impressive company, and this longitudinal view confirms that the faith described by A Song must rightly be compared with the United Church of Canada’s faith statement of 1925 for at least three reasons:
(a) That statement is congruent with the ancient creeds just mentioned, and the latter are firmly rooted in the Scriptural record, serving as touchstones in the faith for today’s Church universal. Those Articles are thus our strongest link to Christians everywhere, and to the “cloud of witnesses” in whose footsteps we walk.
(b) It is contemporaneous with section 8.6.2(1) of The Basis of Union, NACC’s prime reference in this matter.
(c) As part of The United Church of Canada Act (1924), The Basis of Union cannot be amended or set aside without the permission of the Parliament of Canada. Thus the Articles - and Basis 8.6.2(1) – cannot be set aside or contravened, even by the denomination’s highest court.
It is sometimes asserted that the United Church is not a “doctrinal” or “creedal” church, even though the statement of 1960 terms itself a “creed”. The NACC argues that the “Doctrine” section of The Basis of Union, our governing “constitution”, is sufficient evidence that the church is – and cannot escape being - both doctrinal and creedal, unless it is prepared to reject its own foundational document, as well as its roots in the Reformation and the early church. (Tellingly, while giving formal testimony on behalf of the United Church in a recent civil court hearing (an examination for discovery), a former Conference Executive Secretary conceded, after consultation, that the denomination is indeed doctrinal.)
The United Church’s roots in Methodism are deep and strong, and it is hard to see how John Wesley, Methodism’s founder, would have approved the amalgam of disparate faith elements found in A Song. Despite his emphasis on the desirability of unity in the church, he warned, “a catholic spirit is not speculative latitudinarianism”, and “This unsettledness of thought, this being ‘driven to and fro, and tossed about by every wind of doctrine’, is a great curse, not a blessing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true Catholicism.” (Sermon 34, Forty-Four Sermons, 1793) He was, of course, using “catholic” to mean all-embracing, comprehensive, universal.)
Below are four illustrative points at which the NACC believes A Song of Faith is in significant doctrinal conflict with the faith enshrined in the Basis of Union. Others could be adduced – for example salvation in Christ, baptism, and evangelism – but these four may be sufficient to demonstrate that A Song of Faith introduces changes of doctrine worthy of challenge under the provisions of Basis 8.6.2(1).
SELECTED ISSUES
1. The Name of God
The Basis of Union, Doctrine: Article I (“Of God”), names God as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (2.1), the name used in the universal church for many centuries in the act of baptism.
A Song of Faith: Preserving the tripartism of the Trinitarian formula, A Song offers such alternative names as “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer”; “God, Christ, Spirit”; “Mother, Friend, Comforter”; “Source of Life, Living Word, Bond of Love”.
Comment: (a) In Appendix B (“On the Language and Form of the Statement of Faith”), A Song declares all these various formulae (including “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”!) to be “images”, rather than “names”. (This, notwithstanding the worldwide church’s agreement that this is God’s name, see above – Matt 28:19). Indeed, the United Church itself still uses it as such in the current service book (Celebrate God’s Presence, “The Covenant of Baptism”, p. 346). Whatever the niceties of the images-name distinction, they will almost certainly be lost on most people, and this spectrum of alternatives will also come to be seen as names.
(b) In Scripture, it is God who reveals His names to us - “Yahweh” (OT) and “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (NT). We do not name him, he names himself. However, four of the five formulae offered by A Song are human constructs. Unlike the classic formula, they do not speak directly of the mysterious three-in-one God-community., the inter-relatedness of the Trinity.
(c) While A Song’s alternatives may already be in current use in some parts of the United Church, they have no Biblical basis as names for God.
(d) It is perhaps worthwhile commenting briefly on two of the alternatives offered:
To be generous, “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” comes perilously close to the ancient heresy of modalism. Instead of pointing to the three persons of the Trinity, it introduces us to a Unitarian, single-person God, who first acts as Creator, then as Redeemer, and finally as Sustainer. (A God who wears three hats, so to speak.)
The most egregious departure from the witness of the Bible is “Mother, Friend, and Comforter”. Indeed, to name God “Mother” is not merely un-Scriptural, it is anti-Scriptural, violating the unambiguous biblical account, which, in both testaments, presents mother goddesses as in opposition to the Father (2 Kings 23; Acts 19). Tellingly, while Jesus instructs us to address God as “Father”, he never speaks of his (or our) God as “Mother”.
(e) Finally, A Song speaks a number of times of God as “Holy Mystery”. The capitalization suggests this again is intended as a name. Here we have another non-Scriptural construct, one suggesting the closet elitism of Gnosticism and/or of the ancient Mystery cults. (Interestingly, while “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” appears only once in A Song, “Holy Mystery” appears four times.)
2. The Lordship of Christ
The Basis of Union: The ancient confession “Jesus Christ is Lord” is unmistakably affirmed in the Articles of Faith – e.g. Article VII (2.7) is entitled “Of the Lord Jesus Christ”. That particular Article closes with, “above us and over us all He rules; wherefore, unto Him we render love, obedience, and adoration as our Prophet, Priest, and King.”
A Song of Faith: When A Song speaks of Jesus there is no hint of that sort of language. His Lordship is confessed nowhere. Indeed, the new statement hews overwhelmingly to a “low” Christology, unduly focusing on his purely human nature.
Comment: On the matter of Lordship, the doctrinal difference between our two reference documents seems to be unbridgeable, with A Song distancing itself not only from the statement of 1925 but also that of 1940, the latter speaking of Jesus as “our Saviour and our Lord” (Article II) and as “the Living Lord” (Article X).
For their part, the Articles of The Basis of Union embrace the historic convention by which “Lord” (especially when capitalized throughout) stands for the Hebrew YAHWEH, the timeless, transcendent Old Testament God, the God in whose limitless power lay Israel’s hope of salvation. In its turn, the New Testament unambiguously assigns that name “Lord” to Jesus, emphasizing that our situation is hopeless if he is not Lord. Without his Lordship we have no hope of salvation.
A Song, however, seems to be moving in a different direction, one already charted by the denomination’s hymnbooks. To illustrate: An examination of their indices of first lines yields the following ratios for “Lord” vs. the generic “God”:
The Hymnary (1930) – 102 (Lord)/ 96 (God), or 106.37%
The Hymn Book (1971) – 72/ 81, or 88, 0%
Voices United (1996) – 34/ 251, or 13.5%.
The progression is unmistakable, and A Song is clearly part of the trend.
3. Scripture
The Basis of Union: (a) The introductory section of the Articles (2.0) states, “We affirm our belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New testaments as the primary source and ultimate standard of Christian faith and life.”
(b) That stance is re-emphasized in Article II (“Of Revelation”), which states, “We receive the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, given by the inspiration of God, as containing the only infallible rule of faith and life, a faithful record of God’s gracious revelations, and as a sure witness of Christ.”
A Song of Faith: When the new statement turns its attention to Scripture, it concedes its revelatory nature, and notes the “unique and normative place” it should hold for Christians. However, it also sees the “holy revelation” as something “we must wrestle” from the text, since Scripture’s actual meaning is obscured for us by “the human experiences and cultural assumptions of another era.”
Comment: (a) A Song’s approach to Scripture is self-consciously “free”, casting a very wide net. (Although not as wide a net as the earlier Faith Talk II draft.) Its position accords well with what was argued in “The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture”, adopted by the 34th General Council (1992). In approving “Authority”, the denomination declared the Bible an authority rather than the authority, apparently even for Christians. Under “Justice, Inclusivity, and Scripture” in Appendix D, A Song echoes that view, taking Scripture to be a source of revelation, a “faithful witness”, and (poetically) “our song for the journey”’. That is a far cry from the view articulated by the Basis of Union above.
(b) As noted earlier, while accepting the revelatory nature of Scripture, A Song also asserts that from it we are to “wrestle a holy revelation for our time and place from the human experiences and cultural assumptions of another era.” That is, we are to question Scripture, to “wrestle” meaning from it.
A Song appears to take as given that the human race possesses the capacity to ask the right questions of Scripture (that is, of God). However, Scripture, consistently rules such interrogation out of order. It sees it as presumptuous – see, for instance, the closing chapters of the Old Testament Book of Job. In its turn, the New records how Jesus consistently refuses to submit to interrogation, deflecting his questioners with questions of his own, or refusing to answer.
(c) As noted earlier, A Song cautions against “interpreting [Scripture] narrow-mindedly” and “literally” (Appendix D, “Justice, Inclusivity, and Scripture”), and adds that “The United Church of Canada seeks to take the Bible seriously but not literally”. In response, the NACC in its turn wishes to caution that a “loose” mindset has its own drawbacks, including the dangers of believing everything in Scripture is up for “interpretation”, that nothing is to be taken at face value.
(d) The Basis of Union sees things very differently. After speaking of God’s revelation of “Himself in nature, in history, and in the heart of man”, it continues, “He has been graciously pleased to make clearer revelation of Himself to men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; and that in the fullness of time He has perfectly revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh” (Article II, “Of Revelation”).
(e) In conclusion, a small telling point: in the Christian Church the holiness of Scripture has customarily been emphasized by its capitalization. So, the Articles give us “Scripture” and “Word”, while in contrast A Song employs “scripture” and “word”. The difference would appear to derive from different views of The Word of God – in one it is God’s gift; in the other it is, at least primarily, a human artifact. In one case the Word interrogates us; in the other, we presume to interrogate it. Two very different understandings.
4. Truth
Basis of Union: When the Articles of Faith speak of “truth” – which they do a number of times – they are consistently referring to God’s truth; that is, the truth implicit and explicit in the life and teachings of Jesus, who unambiguously asserted, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”(John 14:6).
A Song of Faith: Appendix C (“On the Context of the Statement of Faith”) addresses this matter under the heading “The Question of “Truth”. The nub of the argument appears to be that belief in absolute religious truth has caused much harm, harm on a world-wide scale. Hence it apparently follows that any attempt to discern and formulate universal truth(s) is to be avoided, since friction and division are the inescapable consequences. Thus, “While believing that its faith is grounded in truth, the church strives to understand that its truth need not deny the truths of others.” Further, “it is often difficult to know what ‘truth’ means”. Nonetheless, “We are in a position to wrestle deeply with the theological conviction that in Christ we have been made one.” (It is not clear who is meant by that second “we”.
Comment: The section of A Song’s Appendix C just cited contains the following telling passage: “The statement of faith [A Song] begins by acknowledging God as ‘Mystery,’ which throws into question any human claims to absolute truth.” In light of the low Christology mentioned earlier, it is not clear whether the phrase “human claims” is intended to include Jesus. The acceptability of A Song’s assertion rests, of course, (1) on one’s Christology, and (2) on whether Scripture (and its truths) is regarded as a God-given gift, or whether it is merely the product of millennia of (admittedly) earnest human thought about God. In the latter case, it is an inevitably flawed artifact from which fallible humans must “wrestle” meaning and truth.
In this, our two reference statements could not be further apart. The Basis of Union speaks from the richness of the received faith of the Reformation, whose roots rest very consciously in the early church. A Song, striving to speak in contemporary terms, takes many of its core assumptions from today’s conventional wisdoms, most significantly that which holds all truth to be relative, situational.
To illustrate: A Song makes the easy assumption – indeed seems to accept it as a truth - that the causes of much world strife are rooted in the clash of religious absolutes. That position is highly arguable, to say the least, and very good rationales can be advanced for the prime causes lying elsewhere. In those scenarios, differences over religious convictions are no more than convenient (and effective) excuses for violence whose prime roots lie in other places – in economics, hunger for power, xenophobia, etc.
But even if A Song’s assertion is accepted at face value, there is the uncomfortable fact that Jesus himself is recorded as warning that the truth of his Word would inevitably lead to division and strife (Matt 10:34-35). A “hard” saying from the Prince of Peace. Something to “wrestle” with. Perhaps the framers of A Song of Faith (and the General Council which approved it) might have kept at it a little longer.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The United Church Manual itself applies the word “Doctrine” to the Articles of Faith in the Basis of Union. The United Church has always been a “doctrinal” denomination.
The Basis of Union 8.6.2(1) declares, in part: “The General Council shall have full power to legislate on matters respecting the doctrine, worship, membership, and government of the Church, subject to the following conditions: First, that before any rule or law relative to these matters can become permanent law, it must receive the approval of a majority of the Presbyteries, and, if advisable, Pastoral Charges also, the votes of which are received by the designated date, provided that at least two-thirds of the eligible courts have responded by that date.”
Therefore, neither A Song of Faith, nor any statement of faith adopted subsequent to the Basis of Union, can enjoy formal status in the United Church unless the process described in Basis 8.6.2(1) has been followed.
Quite apart from its force in church law, the Basis of Union is part of The United Church of Canada Act, and actions taken by courts of the church which do not conform to its provisions are therefore ultra vires on two levels – that of (a) the Laws of the United Church itself, and (b) the Laws of Canada.
It may be that some will argue that church courts are free to approve statements like A Song on the grounds that they are felt to be “in essential agreement” with the foundational statement in the Basis of Union. However, the Basis restricts the use of that phrase to the declaration required of individual candidates for ordination, commissioning, or admission (Basis 11.1, 11.2). It nowhere suggests it is applicable to actions of church courts.
It is the view of the NACC that A Song of Faith is effectively, but improperly, being accorded doctrinal status in today’s United Church. Indeed, its stated intent is to represent “what the United Church of Canada understands its faith to be in its current historical, political, social, and theological context at the beginning of the 21st century” (A Song of Faith, Preamble). That accords with our understanding of the meaning of the phrase “permanent law” (see #2 above), that is a law that is in force until it is properly amended or replaced.
We’re occasionally asked why we have “covenanting” in our name. It’s an important question, and it deserves a careful answer. (Our full name is “The National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations within the United Church of Canada”. Impressive! You can see why we use “NACC” most of the time!)
A covenant is, of course, an agreement, a promise, a kind of contract. For us it means that our members promise to support each other in faithful worship and service of God, testifying to the truths he has given us. And that we have agreed to do that, even if and when it puts us at odds with our denomination.
At Christian weddings, a man and a woman make critical promises to each other – and they do it in front of God. He’s an integral part of the covenant of marriage - and he’s also part of the covenant we in the NACC have with each other. God’s into covenants; they’re scattered through the Bible; typically, it is he who proposes them.
His first covenantal proposal comes early in the Old Testament, and now, thousands of years later, here we are, apparently in our own covenantal relationship with him. Why us? – Who knows! Millennia ago, he chose to go into partnership with a dispirited bunch of slaves. Why them? Now he’s chosen a little group of mainly small congregations in the United Church. How come? And why’d he choose your congregation, my congregation? . . . It’s all a mystery.
What does seem indisputable, though, is that he has spoken to us, has called us, has chosen us. (Note: we didn’t do the choosing.) These times may feel a bit like Israel’s trials in the wilderness, but God makes us the same promises he made them: to provide and care for us, to protect us, to keep us close to him.
And what does he ask in return? – That we love and obey him, and that we love others and serve their needs in as Christlike a way as we can.
To enter into such a covenant makes us what Peter calls “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God”. (1 Peter 2:9,10) And that’s quite something.
As I write this, it’s Monday of Holy Week. Does it cost us anything to be covenanted to God in that way? Sure, but this coming Friday will remind us again of what covenanting cost him. There’s no comparison, friends.
God bless -- Geoff
From time to time, NACC congregations report feeling outside pressure to buy Voices United as a pew hymnary. In the most recent case, the congregation was told a very significant number of other NACC churches have gone this route, so why hold out?
Your Executive was startled to hear that claim, and we did a quick check of our approximately 75 active congregations. Of the 51 responses only five reported having Voices United in their pews. (And two of those five made a point of saying they feel manipulated into having them.)
Since this may come up again, be assured NACC does not recommend Voices United. Our reasons include:
Its virtual elimination of “Father”;
The virtual elimination of “Lord” from the Psalms;
The virtual elimination of the Trinitarian name of God;
The introduction of Mother Goddess language.
Significantly, we have precisely the same concerns over “A Song of Faith”, the UCC’s recently approved faith statement. (You will likely hear more on that matter.)
Snappers:
The next series of EFC Christian Leaders Connection seminars will be in Alberta – April 10 (Calgary), April 11 (Red Deer), and April 12 (Edmonton). Highly recommended for pastors and congregational leaders wanting a heads-up on issues currently facing Christians in Canada. For more information, go to www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/calendar/index.asp.
Periodically, clergy (and prospective clergy) contact us for help, advice, or comfort when facing difficulties with their congregations, Presbyteries, or whatever. The issues seem to be many, but several have reported they’ve been told they don’t fit the United Church’s “ethos”, whatever that is. The accusation seems an odd one in a denomination that celebrates how it accepts a very wide range of theologies and religious practices. Anyone care to describe this “ethos” for our Chairman, who takes a lot of these calls? (Email him at nacc@csolve.net.)
Fluff: More word fun from the Washington Post, whose readers were asked to alter, add, or subtract one letter in a word and provided a new definition –
Giraffiti (n): Vandalism, spay-painted very, very high
Inoculatte (v): To take coffee intravenously when you’re running very late
Hipatitis (n): Terminal coolness
Beelzebug (n): Satan, in the form of a mosquito, in your bedroom at 3 a.m.
Karmageddon (n): It’s like, when everyone is sending off these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and, like, it’s a serious bummer
Caterpallor (n): The colour you turn after finding half a grub in the fruit you’ve just bitten into.
]]>AMAZING GRACE This is a movie to watch for. Slated for US release in late February, the Canadian date for screening has not yet been announced, so watch your local media for this. Amazing Grace was shown at last autumn’s Toronto Film Festival, being awarded Official Selection status. It comes from the makers of the recent very popular Chronicles of Narnia, and tells the story of William Wilberforce’s long, courageous, and contentious campaign against slavery. Thanks largely to him, the practice was outlawed in the British Empire, although the British Parliament didn’t pass the Slavery Abolition Act until one month after his death in 1833. Slavery is of course still a big-money scourge today, and the topic is not of purely historical interest.
The film’s title comes, of course, from John Newton’s famous 1722 hymn, considered by many even now to be the world’s favorite. Famously (or infamously), in his early life Newton was himself captain of a slave ship. He wrote the hymn after becoming a Christian and spent 43 years preaching the Gospel. His profound feelings of guilt about his earlier life explain his gratitude for the grace “that saved a wretch like me”.
You can go online to www.amazinggraceresource.com for a trailer of the movie, a congregational resource kit, links, etc.
Moving from Film to Print, . . .
The 1996 death of much beloved writer Henri Nouwen has been memorialized by the Henri Nouwen Society’s publication of Words of Hope and Healing: 99 Sayings by Henri Nouwen, a selection of profound insights from 28 of his books. Nouwen was an academic at Notre Dame, Harvard and Yale. Ten years before his death he became pastor at Daybreak, a L”Arche community in Ontario (for people with intellectual disabilities).
Ed Hird, an evangelical Anglican priest from BC has written Battle for the Soul of Canada, an analysis of how his denomination got to where it is now. There are obvious parallels for us in the UCC. Copies are available from #1008-555 West 28th St, North Vancouver, V7N 2J7 ($15+3.50 shipping, . . . with a $2 discount if you mention the NACC!)
Seminar The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada continues its cross-Canada series of church leader seminars, with the next scheduled for March 28, in Belleville ON. The theme is “Ministry in Canada: Navigating Through Changing Times”. Presenters are Bruce Cleminger (EFC President), Don Hutchinson (General Legal Council), David Macfarlane (Director, National Initiatives). Cost is $50 (single) or $40 (groups of three or more) and includes lunch, coffee breaks, and handouts. To register call (905) 479-5885 Ext 236, or write M.I.P. Box 3745, Markham ON L3R 0Y4. Reaction to date has been very positive.
NACC Membership The NACC advertised its two new categories of membership in the December Observer - to little reaction. Next up is Fellowship Magazine, where interest will hopefully be greater. (Admittedly, the Observer ad. ended up well to the back of the magazine.)
It may be that word of mouth will be as effective as anything, so it would be great if you would take the trouble to pass the word along to any friends and acquaintances who might be interested. The news is that the NACC now has three membership categories: congregations, groups of six or more in non-NACC congregations, and individuals in the UCC. Those interested can get in touch with the NACC Office, via PO Box 1022, Barrie ON L4M 3G1, 1-800-678-2607, or nacc@csolve.net.
“Speaking Personally” When writing in News Briefs, your editor feels somewhat constrained by this being an NACC organ. So that he can speak more freely, and without compromising the Alliance, and as a personal indulgence, he has set up a “Blog”, a web log, where he can let his hair down as he wishes.
Posted most recently there are some thoughts about Orthodoxy and Heresy (neither of them terribly popular words in our denomination). Earlier items, still posted, have to do with the UCC’s “Bobblehead” ads., and “Celestial Navigation” (nautical and spiritual). If his meanderings are of interest to you, log on to http://speakingpersonally.typepad.com/.
AGM 2007 April 20-21, the friendly folk of St Andrews United, Lillooet, BC, will be hosting NACC representatives from across Canada. Please pray that they travel safely into BC’s Coast Mountains, and that they will conduct the NACC’s business in accordance with God’s will.
Fluff From the Washington Post, courtesy of Bob Blackburn, our Immediate Past Chairman, come these brand- new definitions:
Coffee (n): the person upon whom one coughs
Flabbergasted (adj): appalled at how much weight you have gained
Esplanade (v): to attempt an explanation while drunk
Abdicate (v): to give up all hope of having a flat stomach
Negligent (adj): descriptive of the condition where you absentmindedly answer the door in your nightgown
(More in the next News Briefs, space permitting.)
For those feeling low, for any reason at all:
“For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, but also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.” (Isa 57:15)
Quiet time reflection:
Lord, You have granted brokenness to Your servants.
(With thanks to “Christian Quotation of the Day”)
]]>
This issue of News Briefs is late, just like Alice’s rabbit. We apologize for that, but the main reason is that your editor’s been away on NACC business – important business. Still, we are still indisputably late, and we’re sorry. What got in the way was: first a meeting of the Association for Church Renewal in Washington, DC; then a meeting of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in Toronto; and then a mini-tour of NACC congregations between Woodstock, ON, and the US border. The whole two week package was pleasant and worthwhile, but without a doubt the tour was the most enjoyable, taking Joan and me to congregations in Komoka, Woodstock, Port Lambton, and Byron (London). The four churches concerned are all quite different – large, small, suburban, rural – but the meetings were alike in that they were with warm, hospitable people, rock solid in their faith, . . . and charitable about my poor attempts at humour. The one disappointment was that a chat with the new Moderator had to be preempted by one of the congregations. But, hey, which is more important? -- Geoff
The NACC is an associate member of the EFC, and we have previously recommended its seminars as a great way to keep on top of what’s happening in Canada, including on Parliament Hill. Three seminars are now scheduled for the Maritimes, in Saint John (Nov 14), Halifax (Nov 15), and Yarmouth (Nov 16). The presenters – Bruce Cleminger, Janet Epp Buckingham, and David Macfarlane – will speak on “What’s Happening in Ottawa”, “Why we could lose Religious Freedom in Canada”, “Preparing for Spiritual Shifts”, “Sexuality: God’s Design”, and “Same Sex Marriage Legislation: How it could affect your church”. Intended for pastors and lay leaders, these sessions are warmly recommended. To register, go to http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/calendar/index.asp
Ted Wigglesworth’s wrongful dismissal suit against the UCC crawls along in snail mode. (It is now nearly eight years since the UCC abruptly removed Ted, our second NACC Chairman, from his Pastoral Charge and subsequently from UCC ministry.) The “examination for discovery” phase (where the lawyers get to examine each other’s potential witnesses) now appears to be concluded, finally. It would be nice if the UCC were now to do the honorable thing and offer a meaningful out-of-court settlement to Ted, but that doesn’t seem likely.
Your donations to the NACC’s Legal Defence Fund have allowed us to underwrite Ted’s legal expenses to the tune of $140,000 – a staggering amount, although we believe the UCC has spent even more. However, since the actual court case now seems near, it is time for us to appeal to you again for your help in getting justice for Ted, who is effectively accused of no more than being ineffective in his ministry. (Which is by no means consistent with what we know of his record.) What is indisputable is that he was something of a nuisance to the United Church, and, as the NACC’s Chairman, a very visible figure.
If you can assist, please send your donations (tax deductible) to Cameron Smith, NACC Treasurer, 3 Sunshine Gardens, SUSSEX, NB E4E 2E3. Cheques should be made out to the “NACC Legal Defence Fund”.
Recommended reading: Not a Tame Lion: unveil Narnia through the eyes of Lucy, Peter, and other characters created by C.S. Lewis, Bruce Edwards, 2005, Tyndale House.
The International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church is scheduled for November 11 and/or November 18. Free resources are available from the World Evangelical Alliance at www.idop.org
The new UCC Moderator, David Giuliano, has advised Members of Parliament that our denomination does not think Parliament should reconsider the matter of same sex marriage (Bill C38). That of course is not the position of the NACC. We also believe it is not the position of a great many UCC members, perhaps even a majority.
This summer’s General Council approved a new statement of faith. Dissatisfaction with the first draft (Faith Talk II), appears to have caused a fair bit of revision, and thank you to those of you who sent in your critiques to the UCC’s writing team. However, grounds for concern remain, and the NACC is considering its options. We’ll keep you posted.
Jesus said to them, “Why are you afraid?” . . . They were filled with awe and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?” (Mk 4:41)
Since very early times, the true church has thought of itself as being like a boat, a tiny, vulnerable community in danger of foundering in a stormy world. But, as Mark reminds us, there’s always hope, even when things look most hopeless. God put Jesus’ disciples in that boat on the Sea of Galilee, and then he, in Jesus came to them, walking on the water. Now God has put us here. Why? – perhaps so we too will, in our consternation and fear, see Jesus coming to us out of our storm, and, in that moment of relief, finally recognize him for who he really is. God bless
]]>