As our family prepares for our eldest daughter’s graduation from high school and our other girls graduating from elementary school, I am acutely aware of how much our girls have grown over the years. Yet, as I watch old videos, I am equally reminded of how much their personalities have remained the same. It has been a joy to watch these changes happen over the years, but it is only in looking back, that we can see the magnitude of the transformations.

Architect drawings of our church building circa 1964.

As a pastor, I do not have the privilege of watching a congregation grow and change over decades as I have had with my children. Instead, I must rely on the written history of the church to be able to see the strengths, the weaknesses, and the transformations of any given congregation.

In other churches that I have served, there has been a written history that helps a reader understand where the congregation came from, its values, and the obstacles they overcame throughout its lifetime. However, Puyallup UMC only has a brief history (or I have not found the longer one yet). But this week, with the help of Keith, I’ve been reading some of the documents we do have.

One item that I continue to ponder is the minutes from a 1970 charge conference. The beginning of this meeting was very similar to church conferences we have now with our district superintendent. There was a report from the trustees, a conversation about apportionments, and a nominations report.

However, the second half of the minutes say that there was a panel called “The Future We Seek” which shared thoughts and suggestions about the church and its future. I am not sure if this was a conversation the superintendent was asking each church about that year or if this was a committee our congregation created. Either way, here are some excerpts of the suggestions that were shared:

Larry Nelson “We get so caught up in the debts of our own church and tend to forget just why this church is here. We should put our shoulders to the wheel and help less privileged people as well as our own.”
Jim Taylor: “Our church should be more representative of the total overall picture of Christianity. We appeal to only a small portion of our community…I have dreams about the good the total church could do for the lower class of people.”
Graham Watkins: “One thing wrong with our own church is that the meetings are too long. Why is it that our people are willing to serve on some committees and it seems impossible to fill others – one of these being Jim Taylor’s Social Concerns.”
Dean Easterbrooks: “We should be concerned as Christians about our community…We lack this real Christian concern…We have a way of not accepting and helping the people who come to us for help. We need to have more sincere Christian love and send that love in numerous directions…”
Stan Brauen: “I keep looking at our membership and wondering what we can do. How do we get around to ‘being a real church’. We, as people, must become committed to being a worthwhile church rather than just being a gathering in a building….We very much need to be active in social concerns. We must live what we believe!”

These are amazing questions and were very progressive for the 1970s. These questions are also ones that we should be asking ourselves even 50 years later. Questions like: Is our church reflective of our community (i.e. social status, ethnicity)? Are we too focused on ourselves? How can we be a place that provides love and care for those who need it? Perhaps, our leadership should consider asking these questions on a yearly basis as we reflect on who we are and the places we need to grow in the next year.

Some of the other questions make me wonder why little has changed. Yes, we have had a social concerns committee in the past, but we don’t have one now. Why? Are there no more social concerns to worry about or have we completed the work? Why is it still easier to find members to sit on the Staff Parish Relations Committee (which is no easy task) but not a social concerns committee? What does this say about our faith community?

Stan Brauen also reminds us that we must live what we believe. It’s not enough to say we are an inclusive reconciling congregation. We must act like it. Our congregation must reflect the values we hold regardless of whether those values require us to change our language, music, traditions, or even our building.

The minutes of the 1970s charge conference close with a word from Fern Kear the recording secretary. She writes “Let us not forget that the church may be only one generation from extinction. It’s up to us!” The future of this church is up to us. What obstacles do we see in front of us? How will we answer these questions our leaders asked 50 years ago? How will we live into our values? How will we keep ourselves from focusing too much our own gatherings and instead learn how to be “a real church”? How will we continue to share God’s message of love to our community?

I invite you to join me in pondering these questions and intentionally looking for how God is moving us to answer them. If you have suggestions, ideas, hopes or dreams that emerge from your pondering, please pass them along to Pastor Melinda and me.

Guest User