<$MTInclude module="nb_header"$>

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:

• Jesus Central (jesuscentral.com) – a site ministering powerfully and credibly to all ages; it offers the opportunity of interacting with others.
  
• Lee Strobel (leestrobel.com) –Strobel is by no means the only resource here; also on offer are videos, newsletters, answers to faith questions from a range of Christian authors, speakers, and academics, etc.
  
• Need Him (needhim.org) – intended particularly for those just entering the faith or young in it; questions answered online or by 24-hour phone, etc.
  
• God Speaks (godspeaks.com) – presents the Good News through simple, lucid stories, testimonies, and answers to faith questions.
  

Time to Quit?

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:

• Renewall News: Those with Internet access may already receive this newsletter of the Association for Church Renewal (to which the NACC belongs). RN provides updates on developments in Canadian and US mainline denominations. To receive it, contact renewall.acr@gmail.com. (Renewall is not a typo!)
• Age of Protection Bill: Canada’s age of sexual consent, 14, is one of the lowest in the world. Legislation to raise it to 16 died with the last parliament, and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (to which the NACC also belongs) is asking that it be re-introduced. Letters of support to MPs, the Prime Minister, and Opposition party leaders are requested.
• Twentieth Birthday: This year the COC, our sister UCC renewal group, will celebrate its 20th on April 19, at Ryerson UC in Hamilton, Ontario. For more information call 1-800-465-7186 or 905-318-9244.
• Useful insights for Those of a Certain Age: –
  • Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
  • It’s not healthy food you need, but food with preservatives.
  • Time may be the great healer, but it’s a lousy beautician.
  • You may have all the answers, but nobody asks the questions!

Happy 10^th 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 39^TH 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 34^th 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

1. 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.

2. 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.”

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 21^st 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.

“Covenanting”? – What’s That< All About?

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

Voices United

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 28^th 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”)

We’re in White Rabbit Territory!

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

Christian Leaders Connection (Evangelical Fellowship of Canada)

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

Wigglesworth Update

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”.

Snappers

• 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.

Postscript for Stormy Times

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

Until very recently, only those United Church congregations supporting the faith expressed in the Basis of Union could belong to the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations, a Canada-wide association firmly committed to the need for the United Church to return to its faith roots and to the moral standards flowing from them.

But now NACC membership has been broadened! Small congregational groups (of 6 or more persons), and individuals who want to play their part in upholding the Church’s historic understanding of its Christian faith are welcome to join. Find out more about us today and learn how to join!

For more information, please contact the NACC Office: PO Box 1022, Barrie ON, L4M 3G1, phone 1-800-678-2607, fax (705) 737-1086, or email nacc@csolve.net.

The following may be of interest

1.. . . the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations was founded in 1991 and is still actively engaged in defending the United Church’s historic Christian faith and position on morality.

2.. . . it has about 100 member congregations, reaching from Newfoundland’s Avalon Peninsula to BC’s Vancouver Island.

3.. . . the NACC stands ready to help member congregations (and others like them) to find ministers with similar views on the faith.

4.. . . it offers advice and help to congregations and ministers who are at odds with their Presbyteries, particularly when their conservative theology is the root issue.

5.. . . that the NACC’s Legal Defence Fund has so far assisted one such minister by raising over $145,000 for legal fees.

6.. . . the Alliance puts out a quarterly electronic newsletter, News Briefs, which is emailed to a contact each congregation for copying and distribution. (It also goes to a number of interested individuals, some as far away as Australia.)

7.. . . the Alliance has developed legally sound language for churches wishing to prohibit same-sex marriages/services of blessing on their premises and by their ministers.

8.. . . news and reference materials of many kinds are posted at the NACC website, www.unitedrenewal.org/.

9.. . . through its membership in the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the NACC has been able to advise the Supreme Court of Canada and Parliament on the need to maintain the traditional one-man-one-woman definition of marriage.

10.. . . as the UCC has advanced some disturbing positions on core theology, the NACC has developed a series of pamphlets making clear its own more traditional beliefs – e.g. “Who Is Jesus?”, “Authority and Interpretation of Scripture”, “Morality and the Family”.

11.. . . yet another series speaks of congregational life – e.g. “You Asked? (on congregational rights and responsibilities), “So, Your Minister is Leaving . . .” (on handling the pastoral relations process), and “Your Next Minister” (advice on what to ask when interviewing a prospective minister).

12.. . . working through just three of its congregations, the Alliance was able to block the UCC from authorizing three new baptismal formulae, including one that read, “We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, one God, Mother of us all.”

13.. . . it maintains a considerable library of materials in a variety of media, available free to congregations and individuals.

14.. . . the Alliance stays in close, active touch with a number of other North American renewal groups in mainline denominations, meeting twice yearly with them to share experiences and advice.

15.. . . the NACC Chairman visited twice with the UCC’s last Moderator. On the first occasion Peter Short said, with some emphasis, that he sees the NACC as providing an important theologically conservative voice in our denomination. A meeting with David Giuliano, the new Moderator, was planned for October, 2006, but had to be postponed.

16.. . . the NACC rotates its AGMs across the country (e.g. 2004 – Ferintosh, AB; 2005 – Lewisporte, NL; 2006 - Toronto, ON; 2007 – Lillooet, BC). In recent years the Chairman has taken this opportunity to visit a number of local congregations (e.g. 15 last year in Newfoundland). The initial arrangements for 2006 fell through, but in the Fall he was able to visit interested congregations around London, Ontario.

17. . . the NACC made available “study helps” for churches and individuals drafting feedback on “Faith Talk II”, the UCC’s proposed new statement of faith, now approved by the recent General Council as “Song of Faith”.

18. . . . now the NACC is now considering whether it has grounds to insist that this new statement requires a Remit, i.e. a vote by the whole church. (The Basis of Union says any “change of doctrine” should go to such a vote. “Song” arguably contains doctrinal changes, but no Remit was ordered.)

19. . . . the NACC’s 2006 AGM broadened the bounds of membership to include groups (of six or more) in non-NACC congregations as well as individuals in the wider United Church. (Previously, only congregations could belong.)

<$MTInclude module="nb_header"$>

Annual General Meeting

Perhaps the 2006 AGM’s most noteworthy piece of business had to do with membership. As our name suggests, membership in the National Alliance has always been strictly limited to congregations, admitted on the basis of an affirmative vote from those in full membership. (The NACC is not in the business of dividing congregations, so the requirement is that the vote be in the order of 80%, and preferably, much higher.)

However, several Regions have for some time also admitted groups and individuals, and this AGM decided to introduce those same categories at the national level. This requires that we amend our By-Laws and then register the changes with the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. But here you are getting early notice that NACC membership will soon be opened up to (a) groups of six or more from non-NACC congregations (“Associate Membership”), and (b) interested individuals from elsewhere in the United Church (“Personal Membership”). It isn’t too early to spread the good word, so if you know of anyone who might be interested, please feel free to put them in touch with us. (See the top of the page for contact info.)

Meeting #2 with the Moderator

Geoff raised two major issues with the Moderator. One was the proposed new statement of faith, which goes to General Council this coming August. He emphasized that, if adopted with anything like the theological content of the first draft (Faith Talk II), the church can expect yet another mass exodus, perhaps one approaching post-1988 proportions. In response, Peter Short said the revision would be going to GC Executive in the next week, and, while still “poetic” in form, it is probably a bit shorter, and now bears a new title – “A Song of Faith”, rather than “Statement”. He said nothing of the content.

The second issue was the way the church is making the daily life of congregations more and more difficult as the minutiae of their operation are increasingly directed by rules from above. To illustrate, Geoff offered a brief summary of the experience of three of our congregations (in one Pastoral Charge), which have now been without a regular minister for five years. The principal reason for this (not uncommon) situation is the denomination’s inability to produce enough ministers. Creative local solutions, such as that found by the Charge in question, can be stymied by the UCC’s new, restrictive regulations, sometimes, as in the case sited, imperiling their continued existence.

Peter Short replied that concerns about legal liability have prompted many of the newer regulations, but he also admitted that loss of local autonomy and flexibility is recognized to be a problem. He did not, however, expect any change of direction. In response, Geoff suggested that, at the very least, the coming General Council should consider providing room for Presbyteries to exercise local discretion if regulations are threatening the health and perhaps even existence of local churches and/or programs.

[There seems to be a decided flavour of Pharisaism to the UCC’s thinking here, although, come to think of it, beside us the Pharisees probably don’t look that bad - at least at root, their main hope was not crass avoidance of legal liability and its inevitable costs, but a hope that the Messiah’s coming might be speeded by everyone obeying the rules. Ed.]

Clergy Care

For example,

• Although 83% saw themselves as in ministry because “I am called of God”, 77% felt they acted more as CEOs than as pastors. (What does this suggest about how we see their role? Are CEOs somehow what we’re unconsciously looking for?)
  
• 80% said they felt guilty if found taking time off during the week, even though most work at least a 50-hour week. (What does this say about our expectations of them? Or about our pastoral interest in the stresses they face?)
  
• 18% could not identify a single close friend in their churches, or in their immediate communities. (What does this say about how we relate to them?)
  

It might be good for many of us in the pews – and in congregational governance – to think about what we can do, collectively and individuals, about all this. As one small gesture, might it be time to consider a Minister Appreciation Sunday? Or a Thank-You Potluck? Or a Surprise Weekend Off?

Snapper

- Collected at a hamburger joint in Squamish, BC

What, Me Worry?”

When they see that phrase, many of the congenitally irreverent among us will suddenly visualize the gap-toothed grin of Alfred E. Newman, Mad Magazine’s longtime iconic cover boy. But is his signature slogan as mindlessly goofy as his grin? Or is there something to it? After all, people find a lot to worry about these days – our heath system, world terrorism, avian flu, global warming, AIDS, natural disasters of all sorts, etc., etc.

And, for those of us who love the United Church, there are worries about the amazing, 40-year decline in the denomination’s membership. Now, thoughtful commentators predict a church of just 50,000 members by 2050 – an incredible slump from the 1.1 million of 1965. (See, for instance, “ ‘Easygoing’ Church Turns 80”, Toronto Star, Aug. 20, 2005, now posted online at www.christianity.ca) Of course it’s not just the mother denomination that’s declining; so are its congregations – they are many fewer in number, and their membership and attendance levels lower. For most of us, it’s at this local level, that our immediate worries are concentrated.

So, with all this angst, what do A.E. Newman’s memorable words have to say to us? Well, without knowing it, AEN does in fact speak a prophetic word to any Christian that hears them. They could be a slogan for anyone who believes that God is completely in control, even if his hand is hidden from us. They could be a reminder not to worry, but to commit to watchful, patient prayer and discipleship.

Quite recently, and without quite putting it this way, the Financial Post reminded us that God often works in secret and without any involvement from us. A major article on 06-02-18 described how the corporate world increasingly makes room for religious practice, by making provision for onsite Bible study, by setting aside rooms and time for reflection and prayer, by being flexible about time off for religious observance, etc. Interestingly, the article suggests this is mainly due to expectations brought to Canada by immigrants, many of them from other faiths than ours. Could God be working away below our radar?

Your Prayers are invited:

• For the NACC’s AGM, meeting April 21-22, in Toronto;

• For the United Church’s General Council meeting in August, in Thunder Bay – and in particular for what it decides when considering the proposed (and highly problematic) new Statement of Faith.

2005 – A good year for children and the family?

Speaking of worry lists, the situation of Canadian children and their families comes near the top for many. Why should anyone worry?

Well, consider the following from 2005 –

• In February the then government introduced Bill C-38, which, in an effort to accommodate same-sex couples, proposed to radically broaden the definition of marriage from the traditional one man, one woman. This despite polling showing 2/3 of the population were not in favour.

• In the same month, the federal budget failed once again to address the needs of stay-at-home parents, instead proposing a two year expenditure of $1.4 billion for out-of-the-home daycare.

• In July, Bill C-38 (see above) became law across the country in what was clearly not a free vote. The long-term consequences remain unclear.

In recent weeks, the media have shone a spotlight on declining Canadian birth rates, perhaps the most visible consequence of years of wooly thinking about the real needs of children and their families. StatsCan has reported that by 2002 the Canadian rate had dropped to1.50 births/woman, “the lowest since vital statistics began to be produced nationally in 1921.” Commenting on that, a column in the Globe and Mail remarked, “Canadian couples are not having enough kids even to replace themselves – and have not for more than three decades now.” [The commonly accepted rule of thumb figure for population maintenance is 2.1 children/couple.] The article also challenged the widespread assumption that immigration will take up the slack.

Speaking of the New Statement of Faith (above):

A relatively recent and major UCC initiative called “Emerging Spirit” is aimed at “ establishing and nurturing a relationship between the United Church and Canadians aged 30–45.” (See http://www.emergingspirit.ca/.) A reporter from Christian Week recently contacted us, asking, among other things, how effective ES might be in terms of rebuilding the denomination. A paraphrase of what we said in response: “It will not be effective as long as the UCC continues to promote ‘junk theology’. As the proposed faith statement confirms, we’re hooked on an ‘eat-whatever-you-want’, fast-food approach to the faith. That low-nutrition approach is not going to satisfy anyone’s long-term hunger.”

An Address given by Rev. J. Raymond Corbett, Nov. 6, 2005, at a Workshop at Edgewood United Church Halifax, NS

Perhaps I should begin by saying something about the organization I am representing, the Maritime Regional Alliance of Covenanting Congregations (MAAC), a member of the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations within the United Church of Canada (NACC). We are part of a small group of congregations, just over a hundred strong, which is about 2 - 3% of the national total. Some Alliance congregations, such as Breadalbane in P.E.I. are not large; others are large, such as Metropolitan United Church in London, one of the biggest in our denomination.

We also have close ties with two other Reform groups within the United Church: 'Church Alive' and the 'Community of Concern'. Perhaps just a brief word about them might be in order as we are all theologically similar. The earliest was 'Church Alive', a clergy group, which came into being in the early 1970s. I was an early member and at that time we numbered perhaps no more than 30. Today Church Alive has grown considerably and has about 2000 members, which now includes lay participation.

The principal reason it came into being was the firm belief, shared now by all the Reform groups, in the need of reformation and for the preservation of the historic faith within our denomination. In addition, Church Alive sought to uphold our Presbyterian or Reformed tradition, especially in regard to ministry, which at that period, the 1970s, was being severely challenged. The threat to our Presbyterian heritage, I believe, is still very real, but that consideration must be left to another time.

As we passed into the 1980s, that decade brought to the fore new issues and challenges seriously affecting the life and work of our church, such as: the 'The Authority of Scripture' report with its rejection of Scripture as the authority for our faith and life; inclusive language for God; and thirdly, homosexuality and in particular homosexual practice. In many ways they are inter-related, but it is the latter I wish to look at this afternoon and, of course, its extension which leads into the issue of same sex marriage.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to note the homosexual issue arose in the early 1980s, in the B.C. Conference, when a divinity student declared himself homosexual, which posed the question whether or not he should be ordained. I believe there was general consensus throughout the church that homosexual orientation by itself should not be a barrier to ordination. The problem arose, however, when the question became, especially in the light of scripture, whether those involved in homosexual practice and acts be ordained. It became clear that the General Council staff and committees wished the church to say 'yes' to such an ordination.

It was at this point, in protest that the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations came into being as did the Community of Concern. Both come from an identical faith base, the difference being, however, that the Community of Concern consists of individual church members, while the Alliance is made up of churches or congregations which have covenanted together, principally around the Articles of Faith in the United Church’s Basis of Union. As I mentioned earlier, they are about 100 in number. And, of course, Church Alive also opposed such an ordination.

I believe it is worthwhile saying that, at this point in the church's history, the Reform groups had the support of the vast majority of church members on this issue. When petitions were sent from our churches to General Council in opposition to the ordination of practising homosexuals, they were so numerous, in the hundreds, that no one could doubt where the United Church stood on this issue. The General Council, however, rather than bring the Petitions before the Council declared they were historical documents and placed them in the archives for future reference.

This did reveal to General Council, however, the hard road they would have to travel to convince Church members to adopt their policy on homosexuality. And I must admit, as a sort of backhanded compliment, that by the careful selection of teachers in our Theological Colleges, Moderators, General Council staff, and by scrutiny to silence opposition voices, they have been eminently successful in promoting their homosexual platform. Homosexuality, therefore, is now declared to be a gift of God and the ordination of practising homosexuals is no longer an issue.