I think this opinion would carry more weight if it were written and published by someone outside the UCCan. Writing in your own publication that your organization matters...is not exactly unexpected. It's about as Earth-shattering as a pro athlete telling a reporter that he is good at his sport.

Further, the justification used to show that the UCCan still matters, included two admittedly symbolic statements - "please consider boycotting West Bank products you can't find" and "nobody here cares our new moderator is gay".

Well, gay politicians have been elected in certain ridings for decades. Svend Robinson comes to mind. He's from BC, which is the least religious province in Canada. What is unique, is that the UCCan are a bunch of Christians who no longer care about sexual orientation. Congratulations, I suppose, on being among the first Christians in Canada not to have an overriding desire to judge who can sleep with who.

As for West Bank products, I know it made it in a couple of papers, but if a suggested boycott of things that nobody buys makes you congratulate yourself on staying relevant, then you've set your sights a little low.

For one idea, I'd like to see the UCCan come out and challenge other denominations more on their challenges against anti-bullying legislation. Show us that Christians care more about people than dogma, and are willing to stand up to dogmatic thinking. I'm told here all the time that my views on what Christians believe are as literal as any literalist Christian, so go to bat as an organization against literalist Christians who want to affect our school systems because Jesus wants their kids to be allowed to bully other kids for being gay. That would be amazing. Voting for a gay moderator who doesn't publicize that he's gay? That's a golf clap, at best.

Hi chansen,

Amen.  If nobody else feels we need a pat on the back we shouldn't be dislocating our own shoulders to provide that service.

And about as sincere as Fox claiming to be fair and balanced.

You are too generous. 

It gets a lot of attention for something that isn't supposed to matter.  I'm guessing that all the folks who bring it up just to say how important it isn't are being disingenuous.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Actually, while it may seem from the 'outside' that the Observer and the UCCan are 'the same'; it's not the case. Quite.

Certainly, David has an 'insider's' access to the organization, but as anyone at the Observer will tell you:  they are independent of the General Council Office. Fiercly so!

Wow. "Fiercely" independent of the UCCan. Do Observer staff attack if provoked? How far away should I keep my children?

It is still a UCCan member, writing for a UCCan-sponsored publication, that the UCCan matters. You just can't proclaim yourself to be relevant, and *poof*, you're relevant. I understand that Christianity tries to proclaim lots of things, and by a UCCan member proclaiming that the UCCan matters, he's just following a long tradition of believing things on faith instead of evidence. Maybe that works for you guys.

Hi martha,

All of which is true.  None of which counters the argument that chansen has put forward and I agree with for the most part.

Leaf fans are independant of Maple Leaf Sports and entertainment.  That doesn't make them unbiased observers or commentators with respect to the fortunes of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

The Observer, as independant as it is, demonstrates a favourable bias towards The United Church of Canada.  When the Observer  proclaims that The United Church of Canada is relevant it should be taken with as many grains of salt as anyone in Leaf nation proclaiming this year is the year that Lord Stanley's cup comes to town (and not just because the Hocky Hall of Fame is in Toronto).

That doesn't rule out the possibility that there is truth in the statement.  It does mean that one should consider the source and evaluate it for what it is.

If the same observation is made by The Presbyterian Record or The Christian Reformed Church weekly magazine, "The Banner" then we are getting props from parties who are not necessarily favourably prejudiced toward us.  Hopefully we would accept such comment humbly.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Leaf fans are special. And not analogous.

Very analagous (although the Observer may not be nearly as delusional as Leaf fans).  THe Observer is not a General Council voice.  But it IS a UCCan voice.

Leaf fans are special. Very special. However, the analogy does work, insofar as we have to concede that the United Church Observer is the UNITED CHURCH Observer. It is independent, but it is not unbiased.

Leaf fans are clinically ill. I am sure there is something in DSMV about them under "masochism".

Hi martha,

Text based medium provides me with no clues as to how you are employing "special" in relationship to Leaf fans.

How does the analogy fail for you?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Like John I have to agree with you, despite the fact the observer sees itself as independent.  I may criticize the UCC but like the observer it is from an insider perspective.  Yet I understand what David is getting at - it is for inside reinforcement... not to give up.  

Let me do a little of historical addition.  While it is true there are gay polticians, Svend was the first.  He came out the day before the report came out recommending ordination of gays and lesbians.  He knew what the UCC was doing because of inside information - his assistent was ( and is) a UCC active member, theologically trained.  He had received much support from the UCC to do what he did - and he was supported by UCC types before he came out, but was known.

It is like our stance on gambling...  do not do it but most members buy 649. 

It is not that Gary does not publicize he is gay, for it is common knowledge that his partner is gay ( and a politiician in Vanvcover and a former MLA in BC) it is that it did not matter.

Some of the leaders on the anti bullying are UCC, one in ont MLA is a United Church minister.

But still how do challenge literalism?  When we do it is not seen as newsworthy.

I might point out that remaining faithful to the United Church, given the current struggles of the United Church with regards to membership, attendance, finances, etc., etc., there are a lot of analogies that could be drawn with regards to Leaf fans who remain faithful!

Yup. Been that way for a couple of millennia.

Yup. Been that way for a couple of millennia.

In that case, why not proclaim that membership is increasing and new churches are being opened in every province? You could have the largest, most vibrant congregations in every town in Canada. You just have to write that in the Observer. I can suggest an author.

Panentheism,

The revision of Svend being the first gay politician bothers me.

One, it discounts that there were gay politicians before him and before 1988. They often simply did not acknowledge they were gay. The same as there were oodles of gay clergy before the UCC ordained their first openly gay candidate.

Two, it is factually incorrect. Look into Robert Douglas Cook and George Hislop. Look into Maurice Richard, Raymond Blain, Gordon Price... to my knowledge they all were out and they all held office before Svend came out.

It does however do more of that UCC self-back patting to mention Svend and UCC ties.

Indeed there were.

Why? It would not be factually true. It would not even be a faith-based matter, such as my belief in God is.

Hi Panentheism,

Which moves the discussion into the realm of cheerleading.  

Waving the pom-poms and applauding can be incredibly encouraging to a team in disarray.  It can also up the fun for a team performing exceptionally well.  It should never be confused for anything less than a pat on the back nor should it be confused for anything more than a pat on the back.

And then there are the times where waving the pom-poms can be a distraction.

Respectfully distraction and encouragment are not universal responses to pom-pom waving and what I find distracting can be the very thing that emboldens others.

I have no doubt that Wilson's observations are cheerleading comments designed to encourage The United Church of Canada.  Having lost twice as many families due to the attention given to the Isreal/Palestine issue than to a congregational vote on permitting same-sex marriage it is tempting to find some pom-poms of my own.  That our boycott is considered symbolic and not concrete suggests that it is not inappropriate for anyone to be throwing chairs around in the dressing room.

It should not have mattered.

For some it may not have mattered.

The fact that we can't stop pointing it out is rather tell-tale that it matters, for some, a great deal.  The fact that the party line allows it to become the latest in a famously long line of firsts we happily trumpet about ourselves is more denominational ego-stroking.

We make soccer players who score the World Cup winning goal look modest in comparison.  In several other sports that kind of prolonged celebration results in a penalty.

The game clock is still running.

Grace and peace to you.

John

More accurate to say that Svend Robinson was the first openly gay Member of Parliament in Canada, which I suspect is what was meant. That's not mere UCC self-back patting. That's just a fact.

I do have to agree that for something that was so much of a non-issue, it's certainly getting talked about a lot!

It would indeed be a faith-based matter. If you want to believe hard enough, you could believe that the UCCan is experiencing unprecidented growth. Facts are of little consequence when we are talking about faith.

Church growth, however, is not a matter of foundational faith. My belief in the resurrection is.

The comment was about gay politicians, not MP's.

One can say it was a mistake or it may be selective memory or whatever.

There may be a bias.

Mine, I will name - I have encountered far too much GLBTQ history revision in order to back pat for my comfort.

Truth in that.

DKS,

Truth in what?

That there is revision of history at work. I can only speak for some United Church events where I was present, but the accounts don't always cover what actually happened. The near-riot at the 1990 GC in London is a case in point.

The point is not to deny there were gay politicians - you know of course that is so.  The point was to refer to the context where sven is mentioned.  He came out the day before the report was released.... to make only that connection.  It seems you are bit touchy here sg.  There was a connection and it was big press.  Actually, one could say that Sven was an opportunist.  He wanted the press.  Knowing him very well this is not far from the truth.

It is interesting that David, you and Steve agree that ( and I love the words) porn pam cheer leading and the other comments.  Yes, we reinforce Chansen's point we like to slap ourselves on the back.

Yes, Steve, first MP and above I am responding to chansen;s point, not making a universal.  Further, while much leadership and hard work was and is done by the glbt community, as a sociological reality, the fact the church speaks in favor of that community has had some impact on social change, just check pew research.

Panentheism,

Chansen said
"Well, gay politicians have been elected in certain ridings for decades. Svend Robinson comes to mind. He's from BC, which is the least religious province in Canada. What is unique, is that the UCCan are a bunch of Christians who no longer care about sexual orientation. Congratulations, I suppose, on being among the first Christians in Canada not to have an overriding desire to judge who can sleep with who."

I read, Well, gay politicians have been elected in certain ridings for decades. Svend Robinson comes to mind.

It interprets as - gay politicians and among them Svend.

Your reply was
"Let me do a little of historical addition.  While it is true there are gay polticians, Svend was the first.  He came out the day before the report came out recommending ordination of gays and lesbians.  He knew what the UCC was doing because of inside information - his assistent was ( and is) a UCC active member, theologically trained.  He had received much support from the UCC to do what he did - and he was supported by UCC types before he came out, but was known."

I read, "While it is true there are gay polticians, Svend was the first."

I interpret - Svend was the first gay politician.

I cannot apologize for that.

When I comment on that, I am told the parameters, though unstated, were MP.

We can say "it meant MP" but that was not stated and was not clear.

We can also state that the sentence "While it is true there are gay polticians, Svend was the first." reads different than it does.

IMO it is far more honest, honourable... to say "I mispoke" or "what I meant to say was..."

Now, Panentheism, you can read that I said nothing to contradict what you said regarding the details related to Svend. What I commented on was that he was not the first gay politician.

Am I "touchy"? I resent the asking of it because of the implication.

Yet, you know what? I am.

The same way an aboriginal person might if someone mentioned that __ was the first aboriginal when they were not.

The same way a black person might if someone mentioned that __ was the first black when they were not.

The same way that a female might if someone mentioned __ was the first woman and they were not.

The same way that you if someone mentioned __ was the first in the UCC to do ___ and you knew they were not.

We can call it touchy and all that implies. Or, we can say they have the right to point out the discrepancy.

People tend to get "touchy" when other people are mistaken about their history, rewrite their history out of ignorance or to suit themselves.

"Further, while much leadership and hard work was and is done by the glbt community, as a sociological reality, the fact the church speaks in favor of that community has had some impact on social change, just check pew research."

Pardon?

I am not going there as far as your "sociological reality".

Likely more of me being "touchy".

I will say I think you credit the church (if it means the UCC)  far too much for what came on the backs of many people, lgbtq and allies. If you mean the church (as The Church) then one might cite as much harm as help being done.

Canada is also not the world.

There were dramatic advances made in numerous countries before the UCC was even formed. The October Revolution predates the UCC. USSR decriminalized homosexuality in 1922. Panama, Peru and Paraguay in 1924. Emma Goldman was an anarchist.

Your telling me to check pew research is more of the stuff the accusation levels.

Navel gazing and back patting. IMO

Sg as friends it is good to get into a great debate.  I am refering to pew research on both the negative aspect of anti glbqt and the slow shift toward affirmation.  What has happened is a more postive response ( thank god but it takes too long) toward the glbgt community.  All I am saying is that in middle america it has some positive impact.  Young evangelicals are more " gay positive" then their parents and it is because of the church.  I am sorry you think it is navel gazing.  All I am trying to suggest is that it has causal efficaciousy  - one among many influences.  Of course, the negative is also true.  As Whitehead suggests it takes a long time for a cultural shift.  True for those  impacted it takes too long.  But there are real cultural shifts and we must affirm that as we acknowledge the cost. 

I was only pointing out the small impact the UCC had in Canada.  As one who was there before the shift there are those who understand the small influence some of us had.  This is not back patting. Ok there are times those of us who pushed the curve need some affirmation. 

Now, this is a philosophical issue.  Personal experience is important but not the determinative way to look at historical shifts.  It is part of it but in critical analysis one should not use it as the deteminative perspective.  This applies to me as well.

I attended an information meeting last night on GC41, and there were many members upset by the Gateway and Israel-Palestine issues.  The most severe criticisms were about the UCC gettng into divisive and political issues, and about the lack of involvement of members in the debate.  To me, these criticisms arise out of a blend of  comfortable worship and failure to engage most members in faith-clarifying and faith-building activities outside of worship.  I have to agree with the complaint above about backppatting and pop pom cheerleading, but it was just an opening editorial comment in a magazine that engages the real issues for our church and for the world.

I have not had any members of the congregation I just started serving ask me about GC41 or comment on our decisions, and I am only aware of the new members we are attracting.  I don't know who has left.

The sad thing for me is that David Wilson found it necessary to comment on Gary's status being a non-issue, and that he missed using a more relevant point to back his thesis.  Our worship services during GC were among the most inclusive worship services I experienced anywhere, and GC41 was extraordinarily inclusive including commissioners and guests, and this speaks more to the UCC being back as a church committed to radical inclusivity and to making a difference in the world by being that difference.

Hi Jim Kenney,

If it was limited only to an opening editorial in the Observer it would be nothing to complain about.

The back-patting and pom-pom waving is ubiquitous and often seriously revisionary deliberately omitting denominational history which shows us in an unfavourable and unflattering light.

I really have no difficulty with anyone pointing to the good we have accomplished as a denomination.  When we refuse to acknowledge the harm we have done we are being intentionally dishonest.

Grace and peace to you.

John

The FEBCC still matters! I know it does because I am a member and I say so! We matter!

Are you folks all old curmudgeons or what?  RevJohn, I thik the United Church has bent over backwards to acknowledge the harm we have done and the challenging position we are in today, especially in the last 10  years. It's ok to be proud of the good things your church does sometimes too.

I tend to agree with Mahakala and was reading some of this thread in wide-eyed bewilderment. There's a joke that used to make the rounds that when the United Church runs out of people to apologize to for the wrongs that we've done, and sometimes for the wrongs other people did but we'll apologize for them anyway, we'll have lost any sense of our mission.

I concede that the Leaf Fan/Observer analogy is probably workable. The Leafs are hopeless, though; I feel very hopeful about the #UCCan.

The most easily avoidable 'settlement' products are the diapers and the pads (Pampers and Always). I used cloth diapers on (with?for?) both kids, and (sorry for the overshare) use reusable 'feminine products'. Cheaper. Green. Palestinian supporting.

Hi Mahakala,

I do not consider myself to be a curmudgeon.  Other than that your qualification is ageist.  In three years I expect a proposal from you to GC-41 making a formal apology.  Apparently Rev. Steven Davis is jonesing to help put one together. 

Interestingly the phrase "bending over backwards" suggest we have done more than what can reasonably be expected of us.  If it is true that we have bent over backwards then reasonable expectations have been set drastically low.

Yes, it is.  Sometimes.  The United Church of Canada is addicted to those sometimes and very few times exist apart from those sometimes.  If pride is acceptable then certainly humility is just as acceptable and to be humble we need to embrace our warts and do more than mouth apologies.

The United Church of Canada did not bend over backwards when it claimed it did not have a policy of apology in 1997.  It refused a proposal to apologize directly because it was involved in a court trial.  Never mind apologies made before and since.  That is something that ought not to be forgotten.  Lest we start to believe our own hype.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

Hopefully it is just a joke.  Optics are not convincing that it is more of a joke.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi martha,

I suspect you are as hopeful as any leaf fan is in the pre-season.

Both of these products are only made in settlements?

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn,

You said, "If it was limited only to an opening editorial in the Observer it would be nothing to complain about.

The Leafs still fill all their available seats.

I do wonder about the list in the Observer - re pampers.  Does this come out of actual products sold in canada or from the list of those who want a full boycott?

Panentheism,

(First, let me note for clarity that I am not a fan of the boycott)

I am not sure the criteria for knowing which products are withint which other products or how many degrees of separation we go, but what I do know is-
Pampers’ parent company Proctor & Gamble is the biggest client of Avgol Nonwoven Industries. Avgol is on the list and supplies diaper fabrics.  Avgol’s lead manufacturing plant is located in the Barkan Industrial Zone.

When someone boycotts Sabra hummus, do they also boycott Pepsi-Co?
Sambra is co-owned by Pepsi-Co and the Strauss Group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_(company)

Osem (croutons) is tied to Nestle. Do you boycott just what says Osem or Nestle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osem_(company)

BTW there is an Avgol plant in North Carolina. Are we as Canadians to believe the product we buy in Canada contains material made in the settlements and not North Carolina material? If we look at this page, we will see the majority of their productions lines are outside the settlements.

http://www.avgol.com/global-presence.aspx

Good points ( and I am not a fan of the boycott)  Yes, global companies have many connections.... do we really know where a product comes from - ie yes a company like avgol makes fabrics, but do those fabrics end in canadian pampers?  The reason I raise this is there groups who want a full boycott of Isreal that lists some of the products, and is there a bleed?

When one reads the articles in the Observer, the complexity is raised but the problem of an economic action is not as clear.  The process of fixing the orginial motion with all its problems says something about a process that in some ways works, but as the article points out the economic action is not clear, and that is why the side bar was not helpful.

I do remember that (maybe 5 years ago?) Natalie Portman pulled out of an endorsement deal with (the listed) cosmetics company because it was produced in the settlements. Ms. Portman is Israeli.

And now, I'm going to go up to the 4th floor of GCO and purchase some olive oil sent from Beit Zatoun.

Hi chansen,

ZING!!!!

To be fair though, they sell all of their available seats.  Putting butts in them is a different story.

Grace and peace to you.

John

It is also incomplete as it does not include wine from the settlement area, which is sold in Ontario. It took me about 3 minutes to look it up with the LCBO wine app and cross-referencing.