By Rev. Dr. Allen Churchill
Our denomination membership is in radical decline to less than half since 1965. Attendance at worship is down to 200,000, and the youth are staying away in droves.
Clergy are losing respect for the historically orthodox Jesus. This began to be obvious from the studies of Prof. Reg Bibley some twenty years ago. In January 2005, le Observer (pg11) reported reasons for ignoring Jesus “and including televangelists’ appropriation of His name; a move away from past use of Jesus’ name in an imperialistic way; a greater freedom in speaking about the Spirit or God; a fear of being judged when talking about Jesus; the fact that Jesus has been overanalyzed; that ministers are ashamed to use the name of Jesus; that there isn’t agreement on who Jesus is, and that many of the people in paid accountable ministry are in spiritual crisis and don’t know Jesus.”
Clergy have lost their belief in the necessity of atonement for sin through the cross. Some professors in some theological colleges in the 1980’s reduced marks for work done by orthodox or evangelical students. This was brought to light and stopped when complaints were raised. One theological college discouraged orthodox or evangelical students from applying for taking courses.
Some moderators have described our church in different but telling ways. One stated that we are in “free fall”. Another, that we are “dying”. Another that many ministers confess not knowing what to preach, or how to apply the presence and power of Jesus in times of personal depression. Unfortunately, no one has addressed the cause. Without an accurate diagnosis, a cure cannot be prescribed.
The recent attempt to engage in evangelism has not been overly successful. The reason would seem to be a failure to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, the need for a dynamic doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the exercise of effective prayer, and an intimacy with our heavenly Father.
In preparation for the 40th General Council, the document “Called to be Church” has attempted to consider the vision and purpose of our church. This is a laudable call embodied in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. What is less than helpful in this document is the emphasis on “story”, especially when referring to the Bible as “a sacred book of stories” (p.4). The Bible itself is adamant that its contents are based on eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-4; 1 John 1;1-4; 2 Peter 1:16). To deny this is to ignore the history of the people of God, the history of Jesus of Nazareth, and the history of the early church.
These are substantive histories, especially when taken together. To deny this is to ignore also the otherness of the Holy Spirit, who takes us beyond “story” to a radical experience of faith seeded by the Three in One who takes us into a deeper encounter including an historical one.
If the category of “story” is overemphasized in this document, then it is not surprising to read “we find its messages most powerful when it is not read literally…”(p.4). But if the gospel is incarnational as the Bible claims in nearly every book, then not to read it literally in an historical sense is for us to control the text. We then make ourselves greater than the Bible, and make the Bible to mean what we want it to mean.
What do the writers of the document mean when they also say “we recognize that the Word of God is larger then the Bible?” What does “larger” mean there? There are three aspects to the Word of God: the incarnate Word, the written Word, and the proclaimed Word (Acts 8:35). These are not in competition with each other, but are complementary. They work together co-operatively. They interconnect. One cannot function without the other. This is the richest understanding of the Word of God we can have.
The proposal (No. 1) to declare the Twenty Articles of the Basis of Union as only an historical document should be changed top reaffirm the authority of the Twenty Articles as the historical, theological, and legal foundation of the worship, life, and work of the United Church of Canada. Since the issue is of extreme importance to the future of our church, the Pastoral Charges should vote on any remit held. Moreover it should be noted that the proposal (No. 6) dealing with discrimination includes every group except non-believers and traditional or orthodox believers! The Lord has a wonderful sense of humour, much needed in these challenging days!