Advance
The Advance report/discussion at UBC met my expectations, but only because I expected it not to be what I was expecting. The presentation itself was quite brief, and the accompanying handout outlined some of the church's major strengths, the Great Commission, the names of two more task forces that will continue the work, and goals for improvement. The Advance task force itself did not really recommend anything for the church to do regarding its direction or vision.Then there was the discussion, which was mostly dominated by a spiffy pseudo-senior named Betty. (I am fairly certain she qualifies for the senior discount but is in denial.) She brought up a few points: she is a traditionalist and attends UBC because of its traditional style. She is concerned about programs for the youth and the senior citizens. She is terrified of the risky youth activities (i.e. tubing) but is thankful that youth leaders are willing to do them. Others latched on to the discussion about youth (maybe because the middle-school Sunday School class was sitting in the room): There needs to be a full-time youth pastor. There needs to be a Youth Sunday (I was surprised to learn that there isn't.) The youth are the future of the church. The youth will only stay if we have a service with a contemporary worship style. (Honestly, I thought the "contemporary vs. traditional" argument was over a decade ago, but apparently not.)
There was also considerable discussion about ministries for international students, including English classes. One participant thought very strongly that the program should literally "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19) by getting students dunked while they're here and sending them home to evangelize. I wanted to say something about how odd it is that UBC is very happy to teach English to well-to-do international students but doesn't seem to offer anything for those members of our society who have less resources: working-poor immigrants - legal or not - who need to learn English to survive. It's as if we offer English classes for speakers of any language but Spanish. (Unless you're actually from Spain.)
There was even some mention of a hidden agenda in the Advance: a desire to start a new capital campaign for needed HVAC work and maybe some other projects. Nobody mentioned the addition of a steeple, which I've heard rumblings about before.
Apparently the two-day Advance itself was more of a presentation than a discussion, which was not what people were expecting, but the takeaway point of that presentation was that the church may have plateaued, focusing on doing programs instead of on having a vision, and that it should get back to a vision. Well, that was half of it. The other half was sort of like succession planning, trying to confront the reality that the senior pastor is eying retirement in the next few years.
Amanda never really got to say what she wanted to say, since they didn't ask for our input and filled the time with other discussion. Her input was that it feels like the church doesn't really have much to offer for people at our station in life: young married couples (without kids, for another few months). Every church seems to struggle with this. Churches often have classes or groups for singles, college kids, and young families, but the young couples seem to drift away, so there's nobody to group with. Do we drift away because there's nothing offered for us? Or do we drift away for independent reasons, making it impossible for churches to offer us programs? Whatever the reason, if the youth are the future of the church, then young couples are the church's immediate future, since youth tend to become young adults or die trying. And maybe it's OK to ignore this segment of the population, since once young couples have kids, they tend to return to church (either for free childcare or because they want their kids to grow up in a church).
Don't get me wrong; inclusion was discussed, as both a current strength and a goal for improvement. Discussion focused on how to get new people plugged in, and small groups were mentioned. Once again, there are such offerings for youth and seniors... and that's about it, other than Sunday School. The goal for inclusion reads, "Become a friendlier, more inclusive church without compromising our core values." This sounds a little like a veiled statement that inclusion is good up to a point, until it threatens our comfort levels. There is nothing about being more progressive or welcoming and affirming people regardless of disability, sexual orientation, income, etc. The church mostly seems interested in attracting young families. Amanda pointed out that this goal could be strengthened or clarified by specifying exactly what would compromise those "core values" and would not be allowed.
So I don't think the Advance gave me confidence that UBC is on a fast-track for change. Of course, there are new task forces that will do more studying and reporting, and I know patience is a fruit of the Spirit, but I am impatient. It seems as if these committees will be working on how to fit new people into the church's mold, rather than molding the church to meet the needs that exist in the community, needs that other churches aren't serving.
In Sunday's worship service, the Gospel lesson included the "dust off your feet" verse, which we have heard before from someone threatening to leave a church in Chapel Hill if the church didn't get serious about environmental ministry. Do we need to shake the dust off our feet?
One last note. The pastor's column in last week's newsletter was fairly confrontational, questioning whether the church has gotten mixed up regarding its mission and the means of achieving that mission: he pointed out that the mission was evangelism, with worship and other ministries the means. I could go on for a while about whether this is good or bad, but I'll focus on something Amanda noticed: This confrontational, challenging tone (which is somewhat energizing and welcome, from my perspective) seems to appear in the newsletters more than in the pulpit. It's the same guy, though. Is he passive-aggressive? Does he want to limit his challenges to the membership instead of Sunday visitors? Amanda came up with the most compelling potential explanation: the radio. Sunday services are broadcast live. We wonder if that makes the preaching get watered down a little to avoid offending any listeners. Just something to ponder.
posted by Peter @ 16:58
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home