The other UCA

UCA will always be first for me the Universalist Church of America. But it can also mean the Uniting Church of Australia.

Link: The anitpodean UCA

I’ve been interested in the Australian church for some time, and this interest has been resparked over the question of distance learning for lay ministers and those on an ordination path. Of course, given the UCA’s significant rural constituency and Australia’s remote settlements, distance learning would be very important.

Their models are rather keen, and I wish there was something like them for the US. The good news is that I don’t see anything in the following two institutions that suggests an American couldn’t enroll in a course by extension, and many would be a good value.

(Ditto the theological faculty at the University of South Africa, which can be found at http://www.unisa.ac.za/contents/faculties/theology/default.asp

Links:
Victoria and Tasmania Centre for Theology and Ministry: http://ctm.uca.edu.au
Coolamon College: http://coolamon.org/

I would love to see comments from alumni drawn here about the programs.

Lay pastors and their training

This would be “If I were planting . . . . VI” but it is time to call a thing by its name.

If there are going to be more Unitarian or Universalist (or both) Christian churches, some are going to be too small, too poor, or too remote to call a minister in fellowship. Some, if not most, will have to raise up one of their own for service. (I distinguish the traditions because when speaking of them in terms of Christianity, they really have different meanings.)

Of course, this is probably true for new churches in the UUA whatever the theological background, if we got down to encouraging churches of different sizes for differing populations.

Earlier, I mentioned the old Universalist licentiate. But that implies some kind of credentialing and training, and I don’t see clear models in-house for that, Leadership School notwithstanding. (This is an exception and not quite what I’m getting at; as you can see from the bottom of the page, I’ve been interested in this for a while.) It is worth surveying the ecumenical neighborhood for ideas.

Like the Presbyterians (USA) and their Commissioned Lay Pastors or perhaps the American Baptists, who have a patchwork (it seems) of lay ministry training opportunities. (Like this in Michigan.)

Then there is the Lay Ministry Training Program of the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches, though there’s little detail on their website.

Have you seen others?

If I was planting . . . . V

I have been reading works related to linked house churches to (a) think outside that ever-present box for my own church and (b) get fluent in missional language to help Universalist Christianity move in mission. (Even if I’m not going to be doing it, I would like to be a help to those who are.)

Dick Scoggins makes his group’s case — and he’s clear that this is what worked for them, and that there’s not a single biblical model for the church; I doubt any member church in the Unitarian Universalist Association would qualify in any case — that conventional churches are weighty in time, capital, and energy while leaving “kingdom building” undone and the laity unactivated as the universal priesthood because of a program-driven clergy. Well, ouch.

Cell churches (those with a central worship core, but where much of the “church life” is in small groups, often called “cells”) are (to him) only a half (or less) measure. He advocates house churches in networks because they are best apt to multiply. Part of that is building indigenous leadership into every church, and that’s a very different than what Unitarian Universalists (or much of the rest of the mainline) does.

Amazingly, a church planter’s goal is to raise up plural eldership (or more often one elder and one almost-elder) within at least three churches which are themselves in fellowhship with one another. So here’s the rub: so would I give up my pride of place (and assumed paycheck) to raise up no fewer than six peer-elders who themselves would lead semi-autonomous churches? Exchange “centralized clericalism” for a destributed, plural, consecrated ministry which activates the priesthood of all believers?

The funny thing is I am equally skiddish (“What about the learned ministry! what about my Geneva bands! what about my paycheck!”) and tantilized. But more about that later.

I am trying to think of a way of having it both ways, and not knowing if it can be done.

One idea is to form an area mission with multiple churches where the seminary-trained pastor serves in a role like that of an old Universalist State Superintendant. His or her role would be that of lead missionary and trainer — and the pay would be mission support; not a bad idea, really — to churches led by unordained lay pastors, the old Universalist licentiates, whose nominal existance in the UUA was only axed in the last couple of GAs. (A move I vaguely approved of, since it esentially devolved the right of credentialing licentiates to whomever who would take up the challenge. The UUA, after all, hadn’t done anything with it.)

Back to the neo-Convention model. The Universalist idea of Church works better for this than the Unitarian. Looking over old Universalist polity docs, I see the image of Church penetrating or filling a set of relationships which are themselves not unlike concentric circles. In one sense, every person, by virtue of birth, is a part of the Church; in a more specific sence, all members of the universal Body of Christ. But the Universalist General Convention, as a part of the body of Christ, is also the Church, and this character of Church devolves to the state conventions and the particular company of believers within a parish, the latter being an administrative unit or vessel.

The different “levels” of the Church are responsible to the others through a series of relationships, one of which being that odd usage found in some Universalist-heritage church bylaws (including my church), that we “recognize the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the” — it now say Unitarian Universalist Association — “Universalist Church of America.”

"Manual of the Universalist General Convention" (1891)

Earlier I mentioned I was putting a significant Universalist polity document online — seeing as it is my day off — and what I have online.

See http://universalistchurch.net/universalist-history/1891-universalist-general-convention-governance/ [2009. Moved from original posting. URL correct.]

I’ll finish it when I have a chance, but the “Laws of Organization” piece alone will give you a good insight into how the Universalist General Convention worked.

If I was planting . . . . IV

My concern for planting new Universalist Christian churches and my love of Universalist history meet in the subject of Universalist polity. It seems to me that if someone wants to try something innovative, there will be the problem convincing the powers-that-be that the project is “really UU,” as if the Unitarian Universalist Association was itself the keeper of a double-vowelled transcendent reality.

Of course, something innovative (i.e. not a quick start “programmed” church) plus Universalist Christian is bound to set off two red flags. What then, is a planter to do?

Claim the history, of course, and know what methods and values Universalists used, and understand that these were (are?) not always the same as what Unitarians valued.

That brings me back to the polity. Last night, was I search my computer’s hard drive for anything I might have saved about Universalist polity. Lo and behold! I found a mostly completed typing project that I had long forgotten, but a tiny part of which is General Plan of Organization [of the Universalist General Convention] (1891). I was working on typing in the whole booklet, Manual of the Universalist General Convention. It is about 80% done, and given that tomorrow is my day off, I’ll try to get as much of the other 20% done and put what I’ve got up tomorrow.

It is a fascinating look into what was, and what might yet be.

If I was planting . . . . III

I’ve been looking into the simple church/house church movement as an opportunity for Universalist Christian church growth (hi Derek!) but more about that later.

For now, the question of how a small church — “conventional” or house-based — would worship remains. I am not thrilled with the “anything is worship” (both from Unitarian Universalist and Christian postmodern sides) or the “charismatic meltdown” options that I seen. So let me start with resources, and the pleasing worship that came out of UNMC’s summer experience.

We worshipped in the parlor instead of the sanctuary, and didn’t have a pianist for the hymns. All of the parlor-based services were lay-led. It wasn’t what we usually do (though the liturgy was about the same) but it certainly did felt real and nourishing. It was well within the scope of a house church, and would be good, even if simplified a few notches.

So, what kind of resource would you want “in the pews” for a church that worships like that all the time, and, of course, has no pews.

Which hymns? Which psalms? Anything else? Since there is a Universalist worshipbook tradition that is finally getting some recognition, I need to ask: would a worshipbook be useful? And what would be in it?

I have ideas, but I’ll let you, the reader, add your comments first.

If I was planting . . . . II

If I was planting a church, or rather, encouraging a culture of church planting in the UUA, I would encourage a gander at those smallish and medium-sized denominations that have a passion about extending the Gospel through new congregations. From there, we should take notes about their attitude, even more than their practices.

Like these:

If I was planting . . . . I

Watch and Pray (Derek Parker) talks about church extension. I’ve been looking over the snippets of notes about a hypothetical church start, and helpful resources great and small that come from a few years of well, note taking. (Call it my mental hobby before blogging, and some are good for established churches, too.) Call this and other entries with the same title (numbered in series) links to helpful resources.

  • Open source LINUX programs for church administration. Healyourchurchwebsite.com outlines some that I would like to see in action. Article: “But if I move to Linux, what happens to all my sermons in Word?”
  • Printery House notecards. Inexpensive, none-too-flashy, made by monks, and can be custom imprinted. A good option for the quick pastoral note. I use them. Printery House notecards
  • Lee-style portable field altar. Used by the Armed Forces, I would love to know how a church-on-the-move could (legally) acquire such a useful item. The altar itself looks like a tall version of the aluminum folding tables our church has several of. Field Items. (dead link) (scroll half way down, though the page has several interesting items. Perhaps something from Southern Aluminum would do. (I’m guessing 30″x72″ with adjustable “H” legs would be useful for a new start.) 2006 November 18. Here’s a new link for the dead one above.
  • 2009 August 15. Now that link’s dead. This shows what a Lee field altar looks like.

The right hand of fellowship

This afternoon, after worship is over, I’ll head to the airport and fly to Providence. From there, a car to suburban Boston, to the
First Parish Church in Weston where my friend
Peter Boullata will be ordained to the Christian ministry. I’ll offer him the right hand of fellowship.

I’ve seen people try to get clever with the right hand of fellowship, and it never
seems to work. The reference is to Galatians 2:9. Here it is, with the verse following:

And when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.

(NRSV)

Certain themes are clear: commission, affirmation, unity. These are appropriate for someone
entering ordained life, of course. The act reminds us of the different labors that
ordained ministers might find in their vocations. It also reminds us that none of us is commissioned
to save the world, but that we can and must share the task.

But recall, too, that it is — or at least, is ours by right — our practice to welcome
new members, the overwhelming number of whom are not ordained, by the right hand of fellowship. And with
it, more than a handshake, they too receive a commission, affirmation, and a sign of unity.
And a share of the mission.