church_pain2

Change, pain and leadership

The point I want to make is three-fold:

a) Change is a constant
b) Change is very often uncomfortable and is therefore to be avoided and/or resisted
c) It is the function of the leaders of any institution to anticipate change, to prepare the "troops" for the impending change, to provide sustenance, encouragement and guidance while change is taking place, and to empower during the rebuilding stage.

a) There is a saying (Chinese in origin, I believe) that one cannot step in the same river twice. The meaning is clear. Even in that far-off time when this saying was coined, they had figured out that nothing ever stays the same.

In this day and age we can easily testify to the veracity of that observation. As a matter of fact, change is said to be so overwhelming, given the development of our modern communications capabilities, that many of us are suffering from information overload. The result? A longing for the tranquility of the "good old days" when one could leave the front door unlocked and women and children didn't have to fear the dark.

This longing itself is an indication of :
b) the fact that discomfort seems to be an inseparable byproduct of change. Change therefore is to be avoided if possible and resisted if not. This attitude is alluded to in the adage: "Don't rock the boat!"

The examples of recent significant changes (since WW2) that caused grief and anxiety are easy to come by. We all remember (not in chronological order):

the sexual revolution,
the introduction of the New Curriculum,
the failed amalgamation talks with the Anglicans,
the booklet "The Comfortable Pew" by Pierre Burton,
the years of the hippies and the yippies,
the influence of the "Chicago 7" and Martin Luther King jr,
the booklet "The Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran,
the book "Honest to God" by John A. T. Robinson and the reaction to it.
the book "For Christ's sake" by Tom Harpur
the book "The late great planet earth" by Hal Lindsy,
the study about the sexuality of the human race,
the issue of the ordination of homo sexual ministers,
the study of the authority of the Bible,
the introduction of the new Hymnary,
and now this latest issue of the "Humanity of Jesus"

Admittedly, not all the items mentioned above were specific to the United Church of Canada. Since however they all contributed to a certain mindset in which the changes could grow and take place, they have been included as food for thought.

Given humanity's penchant for resisting change, what actions were taken by the United Church adherents to oppose the proposed changes? The short answer is that, apart from those who left after 1988, several thousand members/adherents refused to leave the comfort and protection of the United Church of Canada but banded together and formed the Community of Concern and the Community of Covenanting Churches. They did choose to remain members, but often decided to withhold their giving (support) to the M&S. Agree with their tactics or not, it can't be denied that the dissenters are sincere people who genuinely suffered a sense of loss as the changes were implemented and became the new tradition.

But while the traditionalists circled the wagons, God's Spirit can be seen to have been quietly at work in the congregations and the seminaries. It may not seem that way to many United Church members, but a changed attitude in the majority of members towards gays and lesbians, gender neutral language and a change in our theological understanding about the physical world around us and our relationship with the members of the other world religions, tell a different story. In addition, read the comments from several other participants on the U-O Forum to the effect that they and others had been making similar statements for years, and then contemplate the soil from which Rev Bill Phipps came forth.

Seen from that angle, it is not surprising at all that Rev Bill Phipps said what he did about the divinity of Jesus. The timing may have been the only puzzling thing, but even that, seen in the light of biblical history as we know it is nothing strange. The late Paul Tillich called it the Kairos moment. It is the moment that everything comes together and events just take place. When this moment was ripe, Rev Bill Phipps was there and assumed the mantle of authority.

If it be argued that he was entitled to speak his own mind, but ought not to have spoken as the representative of the Church, think of an iceberg. As we all know, ice floats with 90% of its bulk submerged. Bill Phipps is the clearly visible 10% that represents the unit. Over the past few decades the iceberg has been growing and developing till the Kairos moment was reached and Bill said what he did.

And this brings us to:
c) It is the function of the leaders of any institution to anticipate change, to prepare for change, to provide sustenance, encouragement and guidance while change is taking place, and to empower during the rebuilding stage.

Who are the de facto leaders of the United Church? The ministers! Have they provided the necessary leadership required to prepare the membership for change? Have they given sustenance encouragement and guidance during this moment of turmoil and questioning? Are they prepared to lead and empower during the time of the re-build? The answer would depend on one's point of view.

On the one hand they have faithfully performed the duties that go with the job of being the minister of a parish. In doing so they have upheld the tradition as it was handed down to them. On the other hand it can be argued that in doing so they have perpetuated the customs and mindset of a Christianity that, in the light of much recent contemporary knowledge, has become harder and harder to defend on biblical grounds.

From that perspective they, as a group, have neglected to anticipate the gravity of the changes that are now upon us and they are not now providing the necessary sustenance, direction and guidance while the change is taking place. One only has to read the "debate" which is taking place on the United-Online Forum. That "debate" does not have much to do with providing the membership with food for thought. It has everything to do with the question of who is right.

The question may well be asked if their training has the proper focus to prepare them to deal with issues of this sort. Were they themselves acquainted with the questions that the Church now has to deal with, and if they did, how did they use that knowledge to prepare their congregations? Finally, .....can such a sweeping statement be made and defended? The answer is yes!

Recently Bishop John Spong was the featured speaker at a conference held in Winnipeg, Manitoba. His message contained the good news that we, the adherents of the United Church of Canada, were no longer required to feel ourselves bound by a literal reading of the Bible as the *meaning* of the biblical message had been set free by the latest scholarship. Another part of the good news he brought was that the present ordained ministers had been exposed to this kind of thinking for at least the past 50 years, and could therefore be expected to know what was going on. He peppered his lectures with examples of what he was talking about.

When the opportunity was presented to the delegates to put questions to him, one of the first inquirers proceeded to demand an explanation as to the reasons this knowledge was not in the public domain. To the absolute delight of the lay delegates he answered that for the most part this was due to the fact that the vast majority of ordained ministers acted as bottlenecks rather than as conduits for this sort of good news.

After the cheering had died down, he explained why this was so. His explanation: Without taking anything away from the responsibility of the minister in this area, ministers are swamped with extra curricular activities and administrative chores. As the diverse reports have to be in on time, they become the priority when doing the "business" of the church. This goes to the detriment of the spreading of the Gospel in terms of the latest scholarship. In addition, he added, show me the lay people who are so interested in studying the Bible that they pressure their ministers to run proper and consistent Bible study classes. The shoe this time was on the other foot. The ministers cheered, and the lay delegates sat there with glum faces.

If more proof is needed that this dissemination of developments in scholarship in Biblical interpretation is lacking, please read what Prof. James D Smart has to say about it in his book "The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church".
In chapter 5 (page 69) he tells of an encounter between a senior minister and three of the members of his church. Asked what they were discussing, they expressed their concern about the liberalization of the interpretation of certain Bible passages. To allay their concern he told them that they ought not to worry about such things as he knew all about them as they had been widely discussed while in seminary.

Rather than this allaying their concerns, one of them exploded at him and said: "You have known this for all that time? Then why in hell did you never inform us?"

How does that sit with us? All this "stuff" has been out there for decades, and we (the UC members) are generally known as Bible illiterates. Nice? Not!

But this is not a time for recriminations. The words have been spoken and the fallout is upon us. How are we to proceed?

Can we avoid change? No!
Can we escape "pain"? No!
Can we rise up and support one another regardless of our position in the institution called the United Church of Canada? Yes!.

Hopefully the de facto leaders of our church (the ministers) will rise to the occasion, will take stock, will engage their lay people and will work together to provide an atmosphere that is conducive to the growth of the Whole People of God towards their ultimate destination.

Hopefully too, the lay people of either gender will awaken to the fact that they have a responsibility of their own, and will pursue a path of greater interaction with their Bibles.

It is a long process we are faced with and we'll all be needing a lot of patience and caring support with and for all. May God grant us that gift!