2/2/64

Whose Church?

Scripture: Isaiah 61.

Last Sunday, we were ably led in worship by young people of our Pilgrim Fellowship. When Jack Roller stood before us to preach the sermon on that Youth Sunday, he presented a plea that we be a living church here in Wisconsin Rapids. And he made specific suggestions as to the points where we may take hold in order to make of our fellowship a living church. You recall that Jack pointed out that we can (1) join in the various church fellowship groups; (2) volunteer to teach in church school and in vacation school; (3) promote Father-and-son programs and sport activities; (4) pledge our financial support; (5) join the choir and help to expand it; (6) be a willing usher; (7) welcome newcomers and new members.

These are some of the ways in which all of us can help to make this a living church, growing in useful service here in Wisconsin Rapids. Today, let us continue our thought of the church by asking, "Whose church is it?" Some of the greatest issues and debates in history have arisen out of this question: "Who owns the church ---- really owns it." This question is not theoretical --- far from it. The answer to it strongly influences the way churches live, what they attempt to do, and how they go about doing it. Further, our answer to this question affects our understanding of human organizations, associations, and institutions.

Let us not limit our thinking, here, to the holding of property, though that is an item of concern. We of the congregational tradition have taken satisfaction that our houses of worship and other possessions are owned by the congregation or its trustees. No bishop, conference, or association other than the local congregation itself can interfere with this right. And it is a right that is carefully preserved in the United Church of Christ. I, for one, am glad that this is the case. But, to ask, "whose is the church?" is to pose a question that probes deeper than title to real estate and to funds.

It goes deeper than any inquiry as to how much I must contribute in order to have a voice in the ownership of the church. Truman Douglass has a caustic comment about the obnoxious character who puts a quarter in the Sunday collection plate and, in return, claims the right to complain of everything from a speck of dust to the arrangement of flowers or to the length of the anthem. Such a "manager-at-large" or "chief-critic-extraordinary" poses no profound question about the ownership of the church. He merely demonstrates the need for less pettiness and more piety in the church.

There are more significant attempts than these to answer the question, "whose is the church?" Some have to be taken seriously, for they affect profoundly the church’s policies and actions. One answer, given in some quarters, has been: "The church is owned by the clergy." It is not usually stated that directly. But it has frequently been implied. Those who give this answer have assumed that God has assigned the management, and turned over the ownership, of the church to those specially appointed earthly representatives who are the clergy. Do they not make certain the church remains the church? Do they not safeguard its teaching and doctrine; proclaim its truth? Do they not maintain its sacraments? Is not the church maintained by those who lead in the prayers and praises to God? Are not the clergy necessary to the very existence of the church?

Well, this is one answer, and it is not necessarily all bad. For there have been ministers and priests who have had an exalted and disciplined sense of their ministerial responsibility. The fruits of their humble, dedicated, faithful, self-forgetful service have been a great benefit to mankind. But this concept of whose the church is, has more serious lacks. Were does the laity fit in with this idea? Do the layman and laywoman have any role except to support the clergy? Is their task simply to do what may be assigned by their ministers? The idea that the clergy owns the church has had a profound influence in Christian history. So has opposition to this idea. In the 16th century, the movement known as the Reformation was partly a protest against clerical ownership of the church. The Reformers had the notion that every Christian had responsibility in, and for, the church. Luther said, "Every man must do his own believing, just as every man must do his own dying." It would have been just as true for him to have said, "Every person must do his own praying, offer his own thanksgiving, make his own gift of service to the common good."

That does not mean that Christianity is one’s own private, individualistic affair. But even in the church or Christian community, which is essential, our religion is personal; your service of God must be yours; my service to Him must be mine; none of us can delegate that to someone else.

The Reformation was, in part, a restoration of the church to all of the people --- the members. The Bible was translated from the ancient tongues, understood only by a few scholars, into contemporary language. And the language into which it was translated was not the scholarly tongue of the nation, but the real language of the people. Luther, for example, spent much time on the streets, at the market place, in the taverns of his time listening to ordinary people talk, so that he could translate the Bible into the kind of language his people really spoke.

The church service was rescued from a language that was to many a dead language, and was given to people in living speech. In all this reform, there appeared an idea that was new --- the idea that lay members did not exist for the sake of the clergy, but rather the other way round. Actually it was not so much a new idea as the recovery of an old idea that dates clear back to the time of Christ’s apostles. There was a growing insistence that ministers, like any Christians, were more truly Christian when living with their fellows "in the form of a servant," coming "not to be ministered unto, but to minister."

I. One answer, then, to the question, "Whose is the church?" is "it belongs to the clergy." And much of Christendom decided, long ago, that this is not a satisfactory answer.

II. An alternative answer --- a second answer, if you will --- is that the church belongs to its members. This conclusion is widely held in the United States, reinforced somewhat by the plain fact that in so many Protestant churches, the property of the church is owned, legally, by the members. Likewise the church is governed, its activities and program decided, by the people themselves. Where there are differences of opinion to be resolved, this is accomplished not by order from above but by conference, study, discussion; in some cases by vote.

Who owns the church? This second answer is: "It belongs to those who are members of it." This answer is so plausible as to be almost obvious to many of us. And I confess that I am prejudiced in favor of this answer because I like the type of government with which we are familiar in the Congregational fellowship. But is this a thoroughly satisfactory reply to the question? I think that if we are thoughtful of the matter we may conclude that it may be an answer as badly misdirected as making the church the exclusive property of the clergy.

The officers of a church that had recently completed the building of a fine new parish house at considerable expense, were faced with a problem. They knew that the people had contributed generously, and were conscious of what the building had cost and how attractive and adequate it seemed to be. Some had become disturbed over the wear and tear on the building occasioned by regular meetings of a large group of young people. They said, "Many of these young folk are not members of our church. Few of them come from old-time families in our church that have been supportive through the years. This is costing us money in lights, heat, and wear and tear on our building. They use our church but do not pay their own way."

That board of officers took the matter under advisement until a later meeting. At the second meeting of the Board, one of the officers brought out a copy of the dedication service that the church had used when the parish house was completed. He read portions of it to the other Board members. Then he said, "It is true that we and the people of this congregation paid for the building and that we own it in the sight of the law. But we must not forget that, after we paid for it, we did something else. We dedicated it. And if I know what that means, I believe we really gave it away. When we said: ‘We dedicate this building to the glory of God, to the Christian teaching and nurture of children and youths, to the service of mankind,’ we were really saying, ‘This building is no longer ours; we have surrendered it -- contributed it to a purpose and use.’ The real question," said that officer to his fellow Board members, "is not whether someone from outside our group is ‘using’ our property, but whether we are trying to restrict the use of property that is no longer ours. Having dedicated this building --given it away -- are we now trying to take it back and keep it to ourselves?"

That man was trying to put matters in a right relationship. "Whose is the church?" It belongs neither to the clergy, nor to the membership, nor to both together. III. It belongs to God. That is why it is so often, rightly, referred to as the church of God or the church of Jesus Christ. And the clergy members, and lay-members together, are in fact caretakers, stewards, trustees, whose function is to see that the church functions as God’s church, that its property is maintained in service as God’s church, in furtherance of His purposes and fulfillment of His intent. This is true, isn’t it, not only of the local plant and program of the church, but also of the use made of the funds given through the church for God’s work.

Here I want to refer to something you probably noticed in the December issue of Church Life magazine in which it was requested, by Conference committees, that February 2nd be set aside as United Conference Appeal Sunday. What is the "United Conference Appeal?" Let us use the next few minutes to introduce ourselves to this splendid opportunity for service. In the structure of our Wisconsin Conference of the United Church of Christ, the support of what we have often called "apportionment benevolences" is divided into two parts. "Our Christian World Mission" is the first part. You recall that we budgeted $7,500 for this item which undergirds our State Conference work, and our national and foreign missions.

The second part is called the "United Conference Appeal." This refers to support of our Wisconsin churches for 18 benevolent and educational institutions. These institutions have formerly been in some instances the concern of the Congregational churches; in some instances the concern of the Evangelical and Reformed churches. Now they are our joint concern as we unify our forces. Our own church, here, does not yet put in its budget an item for "United Conference Appeal," because we are heavily committed to a few of these particular institutions for a little longer. In another two or three years, we may grow into the requested denominational pattern.

Now, what are these institutions? There are 3 theological schools. They are the Chicago Theological Seminary, a Congregationally-connected school for which we have budgeted $1,000; Eden Theological Seminary in Saint Louis (formerly Evangelical); and United Theological Seminary at Minneapolis -- a new school combining the former Yankton School of Theology (Congregational Christian) and Mission House (Evangelical and Reformed). As you can see, our support, for the present, goes to the Chicago Theological Seminary. The last 8 or 9 of the ministers serving this church have been trained at CTS and two of our church members formerly served on its board.

There are 3 Liberal Arts Colleges. They are Northland College at Ashland, WI, a college related to the Congregational fellowship, where our Women’s Fellowship sent $300 at the end of last year; Lakeland College near Sheboygan; and Elmhurst College in Illinois. Lakeland College was founded by the Reformed Church, and Elmhurst College by the Evangelical Church.

There are 4 Homes to meet special needs. All four have been special concerns of the Evangelical and Reformed branch of our Union. The Winnebago Children’s Home at Neillsville was originally an Indian Mission boarding school. Now it provides appropriate care and treatment for children who are neglected, emotionally disturbed, or pre-delinquent. Our Church School sent a gift of $150 there last year. The other homes are: Bensonville Home in Illinois, which was originally an orphanage but now cares for some senior citizens and some children who need foster homes; the Emmaus Home in Missouri serving mental retardates and others with related conditions; and the Fort Wayne Children’s Home in Indiana, ministering to children with special needs. The newly established Woodhaven Maternity Home there offers care for unmarried mothers-to-be and an adoption service.

There are 3 Youth and Family Camping Retreat Facilities. We have been budgeting $200 for Pilgrim Camp at Green Lake. Most of our youth campers go to Green Lake for their church camp experience and we know Pilgrim camp well. Moon Beach Camp, near St. Germain, also provides camping facilities for youth and family camps. Near West Bend is the Cedar Lake Retreat Area, with 3 retreat buildings and 2 areas for Junior camping programs and weekend retreats.

There are 3 Homes for Senior Citizens. The one best known to this congregation is Fairhaven at Whitewater. It is a project of the Congregational churches. Our church gave $15,000 to this project. $5,000 was taken from our current funds last year. The other $10,000 we expect to spread over three years; three and one-third thousand is in this year’s budget and a like amount will be proposed for the next two years’ budgets of this church.

Cedar Lake Home is at West Bend, near the Cedar Lake Retreat area. That home is pioneering an excellent program of rehabilitation for certain senior citizens. Another retirement home is planned at New Glarus when sufficient funds have been accumulated. The land is already provided. Cedar Lake and New Glarus came into our United Church conference as Evangelical and Reformed church projects.

One hospital, the Deaconess Hospital at Milwaukee is a conference concern, founded by the Evangelical churches more than a half century ago. The hospital provides patient care, such outstanding specialties as open heart surgery, and nurse’s training. One of our church members, Catherine Gee Wittenberg, had her nurse’s training there.

The Mission and Church Extension Fund helps newly established churches that need aid, and, in some cases, purchases sites for future churches.

These, then, are the 18 agencies that are aided by the United Conference Appeal of the United Church of Christ in Wisconsin -- 3 seminaries, 3 colleges, 4 homes to meet special needs, 3 camping facilities, 3 homes for senior citizens, one hospital and one church extension fund. So far, we have had a direct hand in helping 5 of these institutions. This work, and our Christian World Mission, is one expression of our recognition that the church is God’s church and we are members of His family in carrying out His will.

Two conclusions follow our recognition that the church belongs to God.

1) First, the church is to be recognized by its missionary character. The true church is known not by its antiquity (though it has lived a long time); not by the impressive splendor of its buildings (though it should be well housed); not by the size of its membership (though more and more people should be welcomed into its family); nor by any claims to authority. It is most surely recognized by the completeness of its missionary dedication, its acknowledgment that it belongs to God.

2) Second, it is supremely important that there shall be a community of this nature in the world. For we need to know that, ultimately, all institutions, all societies -- yes, all our individual lives --- are to be appraised by this test. We belong not to ourselves but to a mission.

We had no power to give ourselves life in the first place. No more have we power to confer final meaning on our existence. We have to give ourselves to a meaning -- to a purpose.

The church is to show that, for human life in all its relationships, the final truth is that, in Jesus’ words, "Whoever would save his life (that is keep it -- hoard it for self only) will lose it; and whoever loses his life (that is, gives it -- spends it) for my sake, he will save it." [Luke 9: 24].

-----------------------------

Delivered in Wisconsin Rapids, February 2, 1964.