But in some ways we _can_ get along together -- the existence of the 
ecumenical movement, of the WCC and other such bodies, can show that we 
_do_ get along, at least at some times and at some levels.

The same can be said of the UCA when we can show that despite the diversity 
in our midst, we can get along (instead of bleeding our wounds into the 
public arena, as we've done at times).

But we keep shooting ourselves in both feet when we do things which 
directly contradict that, which show and create division rather than 
diversity.

Regards,

Rohan

Rohan Pryor
Manager, Information Technology Services
Synod of Victoria and Tasmania
Uniting Church in Australia

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph: (03) 9251 5243
Fax: (03) 9654 4110
Website: http://vic.uca.org.au

-----Original Message-----
From:   Darren Wright [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   Thursday, September 09, 2004 11:49 AM
To:     insights
Subject:        Re: Reason for the end of denominational allegiance

I guess that a part of the problem for me is that this has been
mentioned alongside aculture of people "shopping" for churches. This
naturally assumes that people are actually consuming to find a church. I
wonder if the church should do exactly the opposite and loose all logos,
all denominational tags because people aren't shopping for us. The move
back towards re-claiming denominational tags is almost like reclaiming
our logo's (logo's not logos) and frankly I'm sick of the church
assuming that theyve got something that they can sell, something they
can market.

In a world where people shop for almost everything and that people are
wary of advertisements, logo's and the big corporation I wonder why we
assume that we can still sell something. Our message is constantly
drowned out by a million others each day.

Two things that come to mind:

1. I was reading a book the other month (an article on it by me can be
found at the becoming disciples site
http://disciples.unitingchurch.org.au/index.cgi?tid=21) that suggested
that people were not shopping for us at all, in the heirachy of needs
"consuming" is not one of the needs, family and belonging however is.
People do not consume/shop for family, they date for it. If they are
dating us then why try and "sell" ourselves rather than focussing on the
rituals of dating, which is going out with one another, getting to know
one another, doing things together, doing things the other person
likes... etc

2. A sermon by Andrew Dutney couple of years back, (which I hope I'll be
able to find on my pc sometime soon so I can type out the exact quote)
suggested that one of the reasons that people might not see much hope in
the church was infact the issue of denominationalism. Basically the idea
that Christians, who preach about a God of love of wholeness etc etc
that quite simply cannot live together paints a picture to the public
that we actually are living a lie. I think he was right there, that to
the public we cant even get along with one another, the idea that each
demonination knows best is one of the biggest misunderstandings that our
Denominations have..

Frankly, I don't think it is a change of idealism, because
denominationalism has only helped us in as far as helpiung us sell our
own church to someone rather than Jesus.

On another point, Lindsay wrote "people are no longer either so
theologically literate or so theologically motivated as they were in the
past." To which I wanted to respond with in the past? I can't seriously
think that people were more theological in the past than they are now,
the church over the last 100 years has tried its darndest to remove any
sense of theology from its ministry. It's been a sociological issue, an
anthromorphical issue... infact its been anything but theological. The
ministry books since the baby boom have been about how to keep people in
church, programs, social patterns, census data, ministry books have been
about how to do church well or do youth group well rather than theology.

I'd also ask if people seriously think that people in the church and
outside the church 400 years ago were actually more theologically
literate than they are now. Sorry Lindsay, that seems fairly ignorant,
besides, from my understanding Denominations in the States, UK,
Australia and many other countries were actually ways of distinguishing
between Class levels and Colour than Theology.

Greg also then stated that "Perhaps a good way to promote the
distinctive "DNA" is to use a large noticeboard which is frequently
changed." Personally I wish I hadn't read that line whilst drinking my
morning cuppa because I've accidently sprayed some of it onto my
laptop... Well, yes, if your DNA suggested a "you come to us, we'll stay
here and do sermons each Sunday and run a couple of programs" style then
perhaps a noticeboard would be a good idea. If however your DNA
suggested a "We want to get alongside the comminty and participate in
it" DNA or a "we are here to suffer with the poor" DNA... then a
noticeboard would do everything BUT communicate the DNA of the church,
the DNA is communicated by it's members, action and worship rather than
a noticeboard.

Anyhow, I've got some more work to do and should stop babbling.

Shalom

--
Darren Wright
Fool
Youth and Family Worker

UCA NSW Synod
Presbytery of Canberra Region
GPO Box 221. Canberra. ACT. 2601.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

02 6248 9311 (office)


"The Gospel must be constantly forwarded to a new address, because the 
recipient is repeatedly changing place of residence."
- Helmut Thielicke

------------------------------------------------------
- You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 
'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1))
See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm
------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
- You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe 
insights-l' (ell, not one (1))
See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm
------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to