Hi GO_3838

Both are equally useful to the Comprehensive Review because both are responsing to it.

How they decide who should be in on answering the questions doesn't change the fact that the questions are being answered.

When they compile the responses they will not be disqualifying one response and accepting the other.

Whatever the findings are they will be implemented at a congregational level and it is there that the diversity/inclusion divisions will be more keenly felt.

Quite frankly, unless congregations are telling the folk collating the data how they gathered it the folk doing the collating will not be able to tell.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Okay, that makes sense.

But Rev. John says "When they complie the responses they will not be disqualifying one response and accepting another.'

But in a sense they may have already because they may excluded someone who wanted to participate. That person's responses won't be recorded. If the official board "cherry picks" who's involved, and  someone says "I'd like to participate" and they respond "No you can't, because we're selecting participants based on diversity and you don't meet the criteria."

Wouldn't that be disqualifying a response?

Does the comprehensive review group not ask for a "small" group - so, in a sense, are they not asking for something other than an open, anybody can come invitation?

From the Moderator's invitation:

Before the end of June, your pastoral charge, community ministry, congregation, or other faith community will have an opportunity to have a small group of representatives speak with a trained facilitator about the struggles and opportunities you are experiencing, where you see vital ministries emerging, and what structures and processes are needed in the church to support these vital ministries.

What is the Comprehensive Review?

Dcn Jae: You can find out information about Comprehensive Review on the United Church of Canada main website. (and there's a link to that on this website.)

Rev. Steven Davis: Indeed it does say 'small group." And indeed it is easier to facilitate a smaller group than a larger one.

But I'm thinking there must be a more inclusive way to put together a small group.

A church that says "anyone who wants to be involved please come to a meeting at such-and-such a time" is being inclusive, and is not excluding anyone who wants to participate in the Comprehensive Review. And is there honestly going to be an unmanageably large crowd that turns out? Highly unlikely.

To me, the idea of "cherry picking" who you want to be in the Comprehensive Review may produce a smaller, more diverse group, but that goes against the idea of inclusivity. And, to me, inclusivity is a hallmark of the United Church of Canada.

It's an ongoing discussion, GO_3838 - and a little off topic - but the United Church is not inclusive. That's a myth that's perpetrated by ourselves for the purpose of making us feel good about ourselves and subtly suggesting that we're "better" than all the other churches out there because they're not as "inclusive" as we are. (You see, it isn't only fundamentalists who have this spirit of superiority.)

The reality is that the United Church is inclusive of different people than many other churches, but I suspect that if you asked your local fundamentalist whether they felt "included" or "welcomed" in the United Church they'd say "no." Or some of the ministers in a Conference that I won't name that a few years ago were told by their own Executive Secretary that they really didn't "belong" in the United Church.

Hi GO_38338,

The review is not interested in one person's response.  The review is interested in the Church's response.  And whether the groups responding at the congregational level is a diverse reflection of the congregation or not it will not be identical to the response of the congregation down the street.  So inclusion happens when all of those responses are finally tabulated.

There will always be someone who feels excluded because they didn't get a chance to provide their input.  I'm not exactly sure why that is.  Feelings of exclusion may exist even when exclusion itself does not exist.

The request for the process is that congregations respond and they aske that a small group gather to address the questions.  A small group automatically excludes somebody since it is not, by definition, as big a group as the whole.

How a congregation discusses the questions is unimportant.  That discussion happens is important so, the Review wants a response from congregations A & B it doesn't care if the group at A is divers and the group at B isn't.

Since the primary working unit of our denomination is the congregation one hopes that they are responding to local needs with the diverse gifts given to their congregation.  If they aren't it really won't matter how they answered the questions in the review, they're already living on borrowed time.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Rev John writes: "There will always be someone who feels excluded because they didn't get a chance to provide their input.  I'm not exactly sure why that is.  Feelings of exclusion may exist even when exclusion itself does not exist."

I'm trying not to make this thread my own personal rant.

But the reality is I was excluded. i really wanted to participate in the Comprehensive Review, but I was told I couldn't, because I am too old and I am female. If I was in my 20's, or if I was a male of any age, then I could have participated. But the official board felt that there were enough older women involved, and to include me would have skewed the diversity demographic.

I wonder if some church members would walk out and never come back if they felt the anger, frustration, and exclusion that I'm feeling. After all, I've contributed financially for over 20 years, and I've voluntarily taught full-time Sunday School for the last 8 years.

But I don't want to make this thread about me.

So let's get back to hypothetical scenarios: suppose there are more volunteers for the Comprehensive Review than there are spots available.

Can we not simply draw names from a hat?

 

The conversation process is aimed, as Rev John explains above, at congregations.  Individuals are able to submit their own contributions to the process directly to the Task Group.

Hi Jim,

Do you have a link for where individuals can submit their own contributions.  I haven't found anything yet asking for individual responses.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I am a volunteer facilitator and have been involved in three discussions, with three congregations in three different areas of the country. They were a reasonably diverse group with many commonalities. Each congregation compiled their group in their own way. One had upwards of 20 people gathered around the computer in the meeting room. One of their group joined us from another site in another city. They were different ages and stages, and roles within the church. Another group was almost as large, and a little less diverse. They met in the sanctuary. The third group had a fairly systematic way of collecting the information for the discussion, and had a small group. Each of these congregations had very valuable information to share. I was struck by the common themes. The discussions were great, and frankly, the time was too limited. I'm sure we could have talked for far longer. I suspect the conversation continues in each congregation.

It will be interesting to see the results of this process. Some days I think we ought to just rip everything down and start fresh. Other days I think we need to build on what we do, and change from there. It will be interesting to see what the "people" say. I hope they do hear from most of the congregations. I hope this is not just an exercise in naval gazing, and that it brings something good.

Both have value.  I suggest that any in congregation 1 that feel like they'd like to participate ANYWAY (despite not being 'selected') attend congregation 2's review session.

Really, the idea is to get the feedback from as many as possible: there is no one way to do anything in the United Church of Canada.

Hi revjohn,

I work in the General Secretary's office and am part of the staff team that supports the Comprehensive Review Task Group. The task group welcomes comments and suggestions from individuals -- feel free to e-mail compreview@united-church.ca.

Ann Perry

What does it mean to be a "justice seeking follower of Jesus?" 

I ask because in the May report of the Comprehensive Review group, this sentence was there: At our meeting, we also affirmed that any new structure must energize the justice-seeking followers of Christ who make up this United Church of ours.

One might read the whole report and see if I've missed something important.

http://www.united-church.ca/communications/news/general/130513

This may be nothing more than an affirmation of seeking wide input and meant to be a supportive statement.  However, it also may indicate that the group has already determined focus and future.   And what if one person, or group, does not fit in with the pre-determined definition of what it means to be 'justice seeking.'  Does that now become the benchmark, the foundation, the bottom line of what the Comprehensive review group will indicate as the future of the UCC?

Hi Matt81

Typically it means that somebody writing Church material is trying to make whatever it is they are writing sound Churchy.

Grace and peace to you.

John

More specifically, John, they're trying to sound "United Churchy." Which does mean that Matt81 has a point. Apparently in the Comprehensive Review, everything is on the table except for some things that aren't on the table.

We tried inclusion; announcing it on the Sunday prior to the conversation; discussing it with various people.  The ones who attended are all board members with relatively strong understanding of the "system"; which is the broader target of the discussion.  With 2000 plus potential responses and conversations to sift through I'm sure the task force will have it's hands full sifting through them all for anything useful.