In her book A Church
with the Soul of a Nation, Professor Phyllis Airhart suggests that the
United Church of Canada was founded on two principles. One was a vision of the
Christian life which combines personal faith with social action.
 |
| Phyllis D. Airhart |
“The United Church sought to balance care of souls with care
of society. Its approach to lived religion tapped the root meaning of ‘pietas’:
personal duty to God and to others that included right relationships.” (p. 104)
The other principle was the Christianizing of the Canadian
social order. The architects of Church union were motivated by a vision of
Canadian society permeated by the values of (Protestant) Christianity, where being
a good Christian and being a good citizen were pretty much the same thing.
Both of these principles are at odds with the mainstream of
Canadian culture. Both contribute to the minority status of the church. But
while one of the second has long since lost its relevance, the first is still a
vision worth preserving and strengthening.
Phyllis Airhart suggests that the goal of Christianizing
Canadian society was already obsolete in the 1920s when an increasingly secular
and individualistic culture began to diverge sharply from the idea that a
common religious faith can contribute to social cohesion.
But that foundational impulse is still deeply embedded in
the consciousness of many congregations. Many churches still want the boundary
between church and community to be as permeable as possible and the commitment bar
to be set as low as possible. This is a vestige of that original desire to be a
church that includes everyone. A lot of really nice, committed United Church
folk are deeply perplexed that it doesn’t seem to be working. They can’t
understand how they came to be so marginalized. Still in their DNA is the
expectation that their brand of Christian faith will be widely acceptable to
society at large. They simply can’t comprehend why their neighbors, friends and
family members aren’t attracted to their church, when what they say and do is
so innocuous and non-threatening.
The decline in the United Church is partly rooted in an
outdated vision of the connection between church and society, and a failure to
understand cultural change. Phyllis Airhart: “Though often described as a
modern church, [the United Church] was not well suited to cope with some key
cultural dynamics that ran counter to its founding vision.” (p. 259)
On the other hand, a model of Christian life that joins personal
faith and social witness is a valuable inheritance that needs to be embraced
wholeheartedly. It is the special gift of mainline Christianity, and our
culture will be greatly impoverished if it fails to survive. However,
commitment to such a life also sets us at odds with the pervasive individualism
and consumerism of our culture.
So, one way or another, the United Church will never achieve
that original goal of representing the mainstream of Canadian society.
We need to make sure, however, that anxiety about loss of
status doesn’t divert attention and energy from cultivating robust expressions
of that public-private faith that is the genius of mainline Protestant
Christianity.
Ironically, our desire to be mainstream and inoffensive has
obscured the very thing that could make our churches more compelling – transforming faith that touches the heart, combined
with a credible commitment to meaningful action in the world.
On the other hand, the church would have a far greater
impact on society through a critical mass of people discipled in the way of
Jesus and deeply committed to living a vision of the Kingdom of justice and
peace than through a mass of people for whom church attendance is simply one
more expression of cultural conformity.
If we’re going to be a
minority, we need to make sure it’s for the right reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment