Calvin Synod Herald, 2006 (107. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

2006-01-01 / 1-2. szám

CALVIN SYNOD HERALD

7

UCC if the current direction does not change.

I am convinced that unless the leadership of the UCC takes steps to change the current climate, we will disintegrate rapidly.

I am perplexed by what I see happening. It seems that a miscalculation of enormous proportion has taken place, and the results were unforeseen by the UCC leadership. I offer as anecdotal example the following portion of an email from Stephen L. Sterner, Interim Minister and President of the Massachusetts Conference, United Church of Christ, dated Thursday, May 26, 2005: “Since I am new to all of this, I don’t know if the current experience within the UCC is typical or not. I read the press release quoting Steve Gray and others about the potential loss of congregations. I have been overwhelmed by responses from our churches to the resolutions on Israel. The pronouncement on Ministry is a hot topic among clergy. I want to tmst the Holy Spirit, but it feels like there is a train wreck coming and I am just watching it happen. Am I alone in this? If we are leaders in the church, what should we be doing? I have used the talking points. I have explained the General Synod process. I have reminded folks of our heritage of prophetic witness. However, I think the wreck is still coming.”

Our Conference Ministers’ pre-Synod gathering spent more time on the “Israeli divestment” issue than any other issue, and we also concentrated on the “alternate paths to ministry” issue, in addition to the “marriage resolution.” The UCC seemed very concerned by the divestment issue and public reaction. There was concern for the ministers’ reaction to the alternate paths to ministry. But concerning the marriage amendment, potential negative reaction was not really taken seriously. The “consensus” was there that this was a given, and other than the expected negative reaction from Calvin Synod and the Biblical Witness Fellowship, this issue would be the occasion for “respectful celebration,” which was orchestrated by the Synod leadership.

I can only guess that you and your leadership team in Cleveland were not adequately apprised of the impact this resolution would have at the local level. If this is the case, then the Conference Ministers have committed a grievous error in not being honest with you concerning what they knew about their own congregations. Perhaps the Conference Ministers were not attuned to the tenor and depth of feeling concerning this issue in their own conferences. In either instance, it would seem to me that at this point many of the Conference Ministers consider themselves more responsible to Cleveland than to their true constituents, the Associations, ministers and congregations of their conferences. And in this they do you a tremendous disservice.

One other explanation that occurred to me came as the result of a conversation at the Conference Ministers Orientation meeting. A veteran Conference Minister made a remark to the effect that “the UCC is changing,” and another veteran added something to the effect that “it has already changed and will never be the same.” The words are definitely mine, but the tenor of the conversation, the feeling I had, was that this course we are on is purposeful and, for the speakers, unalterable. The context was in reference to the more orthodox leanings as opposed to the “new” direction of the UCC. Following the end of the September 14th meeting, I had an eleven-hour drive, and these remarks would not leave my thoughts. Especially since they reminded me of charges made by severe critics of the current UCC direction: “The course

of the leadership is purposeful, the intent is to destroy the UCC.” In the past, I had ignored this negative “conspiracy” talk. My experience at the Cleveland meeting calls my previous dismissal of this charge into question.

We had occasion to speak following a worship service in Amsted Chapel. I expressed to you at that time my feelings that this all-consuming issue, the “Equal Marriage Rights for All” resolution, should be viewed as “we tried something and it didn’t work.” Unfortunately, this is a “mandate of General Synod Twenty-five,” and not so easily ignored.

I think it is a given that the UCC cannot and should not placate its most conservative critics. However, I do believe that it can and should attempt to return to “middle ground,” to a course acceptable to the greatest majority of its membership. “Open and affirming” is a fact, as is the ordination of homosexual individuals as clergypersons in the UCC. I do not propose “turning back the clock.” But I do propose that the overwhelming visible mission of the UCC should cease to be this extremely divisive topic. The unintended, unanticipated “collateral damage” the UCC is experiencing has the potential of reducing the church to a fringe element in society, devoid of its traditional membership.

The Church has a traditional role in society in addition to being a leader in social change. With the current natural disasters in the world, the UCC has the opportunity to change its focus and reinvigorate its traditional membership. I suggest this is the time to stop the public relations campaigns and return to being a “church.” Make mission in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida the visible face of the UCC. Emphasize mission to the Latin America and South America flood victims, the victims of the earthquake in the Kashmir area of India-Pakistan. Make our Christian mission, our caring for the homeless, our feeding of the hungry, our clothing of the naked, the new face of the United Church of Christ.

Sit down with the leaders of the homosexual community and help them to understand that with too many overwhelming successes like the marriage amendment, the church will disintegrate. Impress upon them that for the good of the greater church, healing must take place in those who have been hurt by the vote, and a feeling of “normalization” must set in for those who are not just in shock. Christians will understand the necessity to take their brothers’ feelings into consideration.

The UCC has to take decisive steps to end the attrition of congregations.

I have personally written to each of the Conference Ministers of the UCC, asking them to change the focus of their Associations and Conferences. A copy is enclosed.

It is my wish that the United Church of Christ should not only survive, but also prosper in the future. It is my belief that the dream of the founders of the denomination, “That They May All Be One,” is still achievable if we are inclusive not only of those whom we have shunned in the past, but of those who traditionally comprised our Church.

May the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ continue to be your guide in your ministry.

Your colleague and servant in Christ, Rt. Rev. Koloman Karl Ludwig, Bishop