What can the national church do to provide concrete spaces in communities across the countyr?  NOTHING.

Could the national Church, or more appropriately AFFIRMUNITED, provide resources to help local groups create these safe spaces?  Sure.  Would local groups use them?  maybe

For something to happen at the local level the impetus has to start at the local level.  ANd we all wish that the wider church would find more ways to support that work (in a wide variety of areas).

Why churches?  Teaching 60-somethings to be less tolerant of gay-bashing ain't going to cut it.

My take is, if you hear someone use a gay slur on a bus, call them on it.  If you hear kids teasing another kid and calling him names, call them on it.  We need to make gay-bashing as socially unacceptable as drinking and driving, and that's not going to happen by appealing to church congregations.  Besides, a lot of anti-gay sentiment has it's roots in churches.  These are the same people who think Jesus is coming back.  Changing their minds about something based on reason ain't their thing.

This is an attitude that still has acceptance in too many quarters.  I think the answer is for people not to be quiet about it.  Be the unpopular person who confiscated the car keys from his drunk friend in the 80's.  Be the unpopular person who replied with, "You sure do think about men having sex with men a lot," or simply, "What a dumbass thing to say."

Chansen, the young children I talked to about this on Sunday aren't in their 60s.  Neither are their parents, listening in the pews.  Neither are the 11-14 year olds I will see on Thursday night.

The church could choose to do something.  It so far has not.  Right at this moment in time, the Moderator's office could choose to send a letter to Congregations challenging them to talk about the rampant stupidity that is traditional belief about homosexuality.  She is free to issue a public statement calling that kind of hatred exactly what it is - stupid, bigotted, backwards and theologically ignorant.

The last General Council passed on it's chance to mandate action.  The next almost certainly will, too.

Gord is right on one level, of course - you cannot force people to change their minds.  The church is able to decide how big a tent it wishes to be, however.  And thus far, we have said that we consider local autonomy to be more important.  I understand and know the reasons and the history for that.  I consider them insufficient, but I am in the minority.  If we respected local autonomy on the role of women, there would still be many United Churches where women were not allowed to lead worship.  At some point, generations of local ignorance is just plain wrong.

And that, Jobam, is why United Churches across this country are not only NOT going to stand together and try and shape society into a more loving place, but, in fact, many United Churches are going to continue to be bastions of hatred and bigotry.

And there are a lot of people who say it is theologically sanctioned, and to prevent them from saying so or even criticizing them for saying it is infringing on their rights.  I'm not on their side, but that's the response you can expect.

If this is made into a wedge issue, I'm sure the General Council knows that they'll just further fracture the church, which will hurt in other ways.

From what many Christians say, anti-homosexuality has a scriptural defense.  You say it is "theologically ignorant".  You're both probably right, which makes this situation even more insane, and makes the application of Christianity toward this problem completely useless.

I am angry too. My son is sometimes bullied and I HATE IT.

I know that some members expect the 'national denomination' to 'do something'.  I'm curious as to what?  There is 'official' acceptance of all; there are 'Affirming' congregations (they would be more likely to 'do something', I would think); there are resources to support Ethical practices in ministry and so on.

However, the United Church is not an autocracy.  Decisions are made by the members, through elected or appointed representatives that sit on the General Council, or the Executive.

The leadership in the United Church is you.  And so Chansen is correct: you need to be the change you want to see. Everyday and obviously: not just when you see a bad thing happen, but the good stuff too. Like, smiling at the same gendered couple with their baby JUST like you would a different gendered couple.  Or regarding a same gendered couple holding hands like any couple holding hands: as a nice thing to see in a world full of nasty.

If I may ..... and please understand that I am rather new to the UCC...

I feel that this particular denomination is moving in the a good direction in regards to this topic.

I feel that there are several initiatives that demonstrate this:

• the response to gay marriage
• the acceptance and inclusion of gay and transgendered persons in the life of the church
• the ordination of gay and transgender clergy
• the affirming congregation process
• the GLBTT Consultations presently underway
• the development of resources and a web presence concerning GLBTT issues.

Can and should more be done?     Certainly! .... and I plan to be part of that.

Will there be resistance and ugly stuff from some?  Oh yes .... I am well aware of that.   I am also aware that love and hard work works.

In my church these issues are routinely spoken about from the pulpit.   Along with many other negative attitudes and practices.    All this in a way to make us examine ourselves and strive for better.

Chansen .... I do see your point about how many churches are a bastion of anti-gay prejudice.    But there are also many like mine that are not.    My church is not even one of the officially affirming or officially welcoming congregations.    They just are.  Old, young, in between.....   I take my turn holding babies there.  Moms, dads, grandparents introduce their children and grand children to me.   The upcoming generation is being taught by action moreso than by a program.

How wonderful is that!    That is the way it is supposed to be and it is happening!   I am certain that my church cannot be the only one quietly just getting on with being loving.

For me the most significant way the church should work is in affecting the attitudes and actions of the people.    What we do in church is one thing and what we do when out there in the everyday world is another.    I have been inspired by what happens in church to be more aware, more active, and more careful in how I conduct myself in the everyday world.   

It boils down to this .... its up to me to change the world.    Of course I cannot change it all but I can be part of the change..... I can contribute....

Do I want more from my church?   Yes I do .... and therefore I am committed to putting more in.

Ok ... does this mean all this has to be done from a church?   No! ... not at all!

We all have a role ..... from a church perspective ..... and more importantly ..... from a human perspective.

Hugs

Rita

i ALWAYS call people on it when they use slurs against gay people.  it shocks them, and every time i get a response to the effect of 'oops, that just slipped out.... sorry...'  thankfully, even the kids that i call on it don't try and justify their hatred.

the ottawa church i attended was not at all tolerant of gay bashing of any sort... we had a number of gay people in the congregation, and it only took a few months of them joining the congregation for all the members to stop tossing nasty comments around... it mostly consisted of 'THEY should blah blah blah... THEY shouldn't expect blah blah blah...'  like i said, it only took a few months before the congregation stopped saying 'they' and consistently said 'we'.

now, as to the bullying... as a parent of a daughter who was bullied because some kids at school just decided they didn't like her, i can tell you that being angry isn't going to do anything...  i could not BELIEVE the garbage that we went through trying to get SOMETHING, ANYTHING done about it.

you would walk into the schools and see signs loudly proclaiming 'WE DON'T ALLOW BULLYING HERE!!', or 'ZERO TOLERANCE TO BULLIES'.

BULLSHIT.  pure, unadulterated bullshit.

my daughter was physically assaulted, threatened verbally and in cyberspace, and even wound up on 'youtube' defending a friend of hers who was physically attacked by these girls... it was so sad to watch.  kids were standing around, throwing pudding cups and drinking boxes as my daughter  and her friend tried to defend themselves from these two girls. 

when i called the principle, he didn't even know about it... i had to go in to the school, get on the internet, find the video and show him myself.  he got it removed (as far as i know), but the next day the instigators were back at the school, taunting my daughter.  eventually most of her friends transferred to different schools because their parents were as disgusted by the schools inaction as i was.

'zero tolerance for bullying'.... my ass.

Damn, now you've got me started...

Bullying is something I'm extremely active against when I see it.  In early high school, I was bullied quite a lot.  Some bullying victims learn to defend themselves with their fists.  I learned to defend myself with words.  More than anything, bullies hate to be laughed at.  They hate that more than any physical pain I could ever inflict, so I got quite good at comebacks.  By the end of high school, I was in no danger, but I was defending grade nines who were being picked on.  A well-timed comment, in a classroom, hallway or cafeteria, can have a large audience laughing at a bully.  They hate that.

What I can say in defense of teachers and school administrations, is they can't be everywhere, and bullying usually happens behind the backs of teachers.  Of course, in my case, I learned pretty early that teachers and school administration were less than useless at addressing bullying, even when they did witness it.

And the reason I was picked on?  The crimes of unfortunate hair, awkward stride, and...I couldn't even tell you what else.  I can't imagine what it would be like to be a gay boy in school.  But I know I got very good at the rejoinder, and it helped a lot.

That's why I say it's up to people to stand up and be unpopular if necessary.  If you can use humour, great.  Otherwise, just voice your concerns.  Don't let homophobic attitudes go without a comment.

Perhaps, just perhaps, “we” the UCC, could start taking school boards to “task”.  For example, as of two years ago, there was only one School Board in Ontario (Toronto) that had a policy on how to help students that come out.  Where I live – the Algoma District School Board does not have any policy in place and leaves it up to each principle of the school.  So if you happen to have a non-supportive (and/or Christian fundamentalist) you are screwed. 

What would happen if the national church launched a campaign to write each and every school board in Canada – and asking each local congregation to be a part of the letter writing campaign. Asking the boards to put a anti-bulling, gay friendly policy in place.  What do you think?

I agree with the OP that this is a significant issue for Canada, but there are a variety of ways to address it. Bullying is far more broad than sexual orientation. And I believe we can be part of the creative and positive response.

I have approached the issue through suicide and mental health. The whole mental health system in Ontario, at least, is grossly under-funded and simply does not have the resources to respond to gay and lesbian teens. This puts schools front and centre of significant mental health issues they are not equipped to deal with.

I have had conversations with school officials who have told me quite clearly that there are two things which make bullying much worse; social networking sites such as Facebook and texting. Banning both of those things would help their dealing with bullying significantly.

The genie is out of the bottle on both of those, but I dare say that allowing cell phone jammers in schools is really tempting. Either that or wrapping schools in aluminum foil and creating a huge Faraday cage to block radio signals.

This is very much a congregational issue and not one for the presbytery and conference. Every church can respond contextually. But will we?

What would happen if your congregation entered a dialogue with your school district and worked for change? I am sure that education officials would be supportive. Education is a provincial responsibility, so the closer to the local level we work, the better the potential result.

All of that is great, but as a church we have a responsibility to address our institutional homophobia.  As long as we continue to accept that a Congregation has a right to preach hatred, we are a part of the problem.

Slavery is encouraged by the BIble.  Selling one's children is allowed.  Massacring of women and children is celebrated.  Sexism is firmly entrenched.  And yet we have said that we will no longer tolerate any of those in our churches, the Bible be damned.  So why are we unwilling to extend the same approach to sexual orientation? 

Sure, the more effective actions will be local actions.  It is also true, however, that there needs to be engagement on this at all levels.  We have a Federal Government that hates homosexuals, ffs.  With the corrupt verison of democracy we have, they have pretty much absolute power for the next while.  But that doesn't mean that we should let them off easily.

The National church should be making national statements and calling out the National government.  The Conference and Presbyteries should be working on Provinces and Municipalities.  And yes, Congregations should be working on Schools and Boards.

Most school campaigns against bully seem to aim at high school, or at least middle school, children.   My grandson was bullied in Grade One, not by the other kids, but by the teacher.  What is more, the school officials knew about it and did nothing except to wait for the teacher (who had a long reputation of incompetency in teaching, of picking favourites, and of bullying certain children - mainly boys) to retire at the end of the year.  

Until the schools are willing, and able, to protect the youngest children from this type of bullying, I don't see much hope of stamping out bullying in the higher grades.  

What the churches can do - I don't know.   I think it is a slow process.  One thing I choose to do, at the local level is put my support into a congregation that is open and welcoming.   I've gotten to know people from the GLBT community in our church.  I've let my friends know that I count these people among my friends.  I've tried to show by my example and my words to my children and my grandchildren.  I've talked about it in small groups, including children and teens, at my church and among my neighbours.  

I hear fewer and fewer gay jokes and less gay bashing as time goes on, but that might be because of the circles that I travel in.   Perhaps if I visited some of the other UCC congregations in the area, or other denominations, or got out into the schools or the business world, I would hear more.   But I do think change is coming.  One little church in the area, that was very outspoken, and almost closed after the debates in the 1980s, are now very happy with their lesbian minister and her wife living in the manse, and the congregation is growing again.  

This is such a sad story.   Remember that one a few months back in the US, where some twit made a video (secretly) of his gay room-mate, then posted it on the Internet along with nasty comments?  The poor guy went and jumped off a bridge.

How could ANYONE be that cruel?  Some people are unreachable.  There are and always will be some real nasties.  What a shame there was no adult gay he could have talked to who might have been able to give him advice.   Sort of like a suicide hot line.  

This is exactly the sort of thing I keep hoping a minister will say.  Kudos.

Are you completely sure you're a minister?

I see your point more clearly now.  My point earlier is that the UCCan holds no moral sway over the population at large.  But to hold individual congregations to higher standards, while potentially damaging, would certainly be the right thing to do.  Winston Churchill once said, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."  I think "right thing to do" could be substituted in place of "truth" in many cases.

Let's face it ... the UCofCan is a source of homophobic, bi-phobic and trans-phobic bullying.  I agree with the poster who said (in my own vernacular) 'keep our own doorstep clean'  For the UCofCan to get on a bandwagon against HBTphobic bullying would appear to be just that-jumping on the bandwagon.

The UCofCan's public efforts to appear inclusive and welcoming are seen for what they are..appearances.  Sure and 23 years ago they agreed LGBT persons were entitled to full membership and in 2005 they praised the government for passing same-gender marriage laws.  But what they accomplished was even more hurt and disappointment as people believed they were welcome, believed the tide had turned and went to UCC churches only to be told "ah, no, not this church. try another one'.

Ministers are bullied from their ministries, churches won't do same-gender marriages, LGBT folks rarely 'see' themselves in churches purporting to be 'inclusive & welcoming' and a UCC crest over the door or "United Church" in the name is not synonmous with welcome, acceptance and inclusion of LGBT folks.

My lovely Rev Wife has taken the openings provided by Pink Shirt Day, Wear Purple Day and tried to impart lessons from the tradegies of LGBT youth suicides.  The result: mutterings of her being a 'one-trick pony' and having a 'homosexual agenda"  Funny that when a minister has an interest in poverty issues, inter-faith issues, women's issues etc and preaches on that as opportunities arise, similar accusations are not levied.

just debra - your experiences in the UCC are so very different than mine, it's like we were talking about two different denominations.   You seem to imply that all UCC are like the one you describe.  Come to my church.  Attend for a few weeks.  Get to know the people - including the gay and lesbian people taking active roles - teaching Sunday School, leading youth, serving on the Official Board, serving communion, etc.   See them mingling with others during coffee hour.  Come to a wedding.  They seem very open about inviting members of the congregation to share their special day. 

Then come to a Presbytery meeting and meet some of the gay or lesbian ministers serving in churches in the area.  

Even congregations who a few years ago did not even pretend to be open and welcoming now have openly gay people working with their children.  

It's a slow process, but it will happen.  

And yes, one of the biggest congregations in this city is still a hold out - to their detriment.

I don't know if this Presbytery is representative of others in the country, or even others in the province, but it is the one I'm familiar with.

There is a problem with the fact that there are completely different practices in different congregations. There are churches like Seelers that choose to deal with life and are open to God amd living in truth.

The problem in churches that are not like Seelers is not just homophobia, but ministers, boards and congregations that refuse to deal with life, and are closed to God. This affects a lot more than the homophobia we see.    These churches are dead churches, in the sense that they serve death promoting beliefs and as well they have stopped changing. Jesus supported life affirming beliefs, and understood that change is part of living.  These congregations " seem"  to be the majority. They refuse to see the truth and Jesus, and when others try to explain it, they first justify it, and than defend it because our system in the UCC allows it.

The irony is that it is the members in these "dead" church who complain the most about the decreasing size and the decreasing influence of the church

We need language that address both the fact that some are just ignorant, and can change, while others just do not care, and really reject any life affirming activities, unless it serves their individual needs. 

I agree with Matt.  The National Church does need to take a more definite stance.  As several posters have pointed out the LGBTs in their community are not feeling what others feel in different communities.  This discrepancy makes a mockery out of the word "United" in the United Church of Canada.

It also makes it dangerous for those members who unwittingly enter the doors of a church thinking they will be accepted for who they are.

Bullying does not come children.  It is nurtured by the adults around those children.  Those adults are parents, teachers, media and yes, ministers.  Until adults stop denigrating others children will follow suit.

Nor is bullying the only problem.  That young man from Ottawa had a support network, people who loved him.  On the surface it is reported that he appeared outgoing.  Yet he published repeatedly his heart breaking feelings and no one heard him.

As adults we owe a responsibility to all children to hear their cries, to stop dismissing them with platitudes of 'this too shall pass' or 'buck up, kiddo'.  We need to create a community, a country and a world that is not so fearful and bleak that an apparently bright, outgoing young person sees no future for themselves.

LB

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

The future is not a result of choices among alternative paths offered by the present, but a place that is created--created first in the mind and will, created next in activity. The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating.

     No Attribution

Muskoka - you have put your finger on what may be  seen as the great strength/great weakness of the UCC.  

In another thread we talked about owners, corporations and consumers - the corporation only has the power that the others give it.    In the business world the model seems to be (greatly simplified):   owners want to make money - the corporation makes money by manufacturing and/or selling goods - the consumers buy these goods.  

In the UCC the consumers are the owners - the consumers (the people in the pews) elect people to represent them in the corporation (national church), and they also consume the product by attending church and contributing to its programs.  

In the other thread you seemed to think this was a good model.  

I think so too.   But it really limits the power of the national church to what the people want.  The National Church has to listen to the voices from the various representatives - both the very conservative to the most far out progressives.  And it has to respect the consumers who decide whether they will buy the product or not.  As soon as the national church starts telling the congregations what they have to do they lose their credibility as a grass roots organization.   They can suggest, they can pass resolutions, they can advise, but they can't insist.  Get too heavy handed in the UCC and your consumers will walk away.

That said, I think that the UCC could be doing a lot more to educate, encourage,  and influence the local congregations in this matter.   But I think that trying to force something on them from the top down would backfire in a big way.  People in the UCC don't like to be told what to do.  

Seeler, we can carry on the corporate analogy:  What does the corporate entity advertise?  Is there truth in that advertising?  Does the advertisement lead to false expectations in the consumer?

And yes I still believe that the consumer holds the power.  If there are congregations in the United Church who choose not to be inclusive, who choose to be intolerant of difference, then so be it. 

However, the larger organization can not make a claim of unity on these fronts.  I would go one step further and say, that to do so is false advertising.

As an organization the United Church has to recognize the disconnect between what is said and what is practiced.  It is wonderful that specific churches are practicing what is preached but it must be realized that it is not the norm and to imply that it is marginalizes those that are not sharing the experience.

Like that young man in Ottawa this situation creates a personalization of the negative; 'everyone but me is receiving the good, I must be bad'.  It is a recipe for disillusionment, withdrawal and despondency.

Even recognizing the voices of those who say they do not share the experience can go a long way to reducing the negative outcome.  Advertising that each congregation differs at least permits the consumer to make an informed choice and act accordingly. 

Just to remind folks that 30 years ago the very fact of local congregations and groups doing things differently from National was what led to discussions that led to the decisions in 1988.

NOw the shoe is on the other foot and it is less comfortable.

AS to bullying.  THe National Church can make all the statements it wants.  But unless we drastically change our polity (which whether you or I see as a good proposal won't happen any time soon, the trend in the UCCan seems to be towards a more Congregationalist practice in many areas) it is still incumbent on the local congregation or groups within same to make the changes.

And in the end that is the only way to stop bullying in any structure.  You don't end bullying in schools by passing legislation in Provincial legislatures.  You do it at the level of the school (and many schools are remarkably naive about how effective their policies actually are as it is).  You don't, in the end, stop sexual harassment or racism in the workplace through legislation---you stop it when employers determine it is in their best interest, or just the right thing to do.

All legislation or policy from the outside can do is provide incentives for the local folks to act.  And maybe a tool to use when they refuse to act (or act inadequately).  But to make real change it has to happen locally.

Seeler;

I shouldn't have to come to 'your' church.

 If there is a UCofCan crest over the door, I should see it there because that's what the UCoCan media-machine tells me and everyone else who picks up a newspaper.

Rita;

Finding a church which will do a same-gender marriage is hunt; it's not automatic

few LGBT members see themselves in the life of the church tolerated does not = acceptance

LBGT folks wanting to be clergy pay their money and take their chances; churches can discriminate in hiring LGBT clegy, the can fire them if they find out later, they can bully them and find their bullying supported by Presbytery and Conference M&P members, they can refuse an LGBT settled candidate.

Last time I checked, less than 3% of UCC congregations were 'affirming'

THE LGBT consultation process presently underway is just getting in under the wire of their mandate to do it before the next general conference.  It's been +23years since the UCofC 'allowed' LGBT folks full membership.  Now? they want to "see how's it going, eh?"   As far as I can tell, it 5 hours including lunch of straight people wanting to see how we feel, answer their questions and play a 'margainalized or mattering' game.  Yep, we so happy about this consultation process.

A listing of 6 publications btwn 16 and 8 years old and 'additional resources' cobbled from some weblists has nowhere near the impact of someone being turned away and is just more of putting rainbow stickers on the inside cover of the hymn book.

While individual churches are just quietly getting on with being loving, kids are dying for lack of spiritual leadership which walks the talk.  Let's pray that the next suicidal LGBT youth looking for affirmation and acceptance and confirmation that 'God loves them so much they have no idea how much', they call ahead to find out "what sort of UCofC is this one?"

I'm sorry just-debra.  I didn't word that right.  And I am aware that many of the local churches do not live up to the ideal set by the national church. 

The national church cannot tell the local church what to do, they can only suggest policy.  Each congregation decides what to do.  

From within an open and welcoming congregation I find it difficult to see what people from the outside see.   If I visit a different city, I am likely to go to the nearest, most convenient, or most visible UCC.   Sometimes I am disappointed, and I think that if I lived in that community I would probably look for another congregation - if none were available (as sometimes happens in smaller and more isolated places) I would probably continue to attend and as I became a regular I would try to change the policies.  

Change happens slowly.  I see churches in my city and vacinity gradually becoming more open and accepting.  I dream of a time when it would be as unusual to refuse to call a qualified openly gay minister as it now is to refuse to call a woman minister; or as unlikely that the church will refuse to marry a same sex couple as it is to refuse to remarry a divorced person.  

I don't know the message that the UCC media-machine gives.  Perhaps it should make it more clear that there is a difference in UCC policy and the decisions of the individual churches.   From within I think many of us understand diversity; but it seems that many outside or on the fringes expect all UCC congregations to be the same.

Perhaps our name is misleading - I've heard that we should call ourselves the Uniting Church, indicating that we at in the process of uniting congregations with very different personalities, rather than United indicating that the job has been completed.

double post

The shoe is not on the other foot.  Congreagations are not allowed to discriminate against ministers, or even ask candidates any questions that could indicate there sexual orientation. However they are still allowed to discriminate against lay people. 

In 1988 2o churches in Ottawa voted in membership policies that specifically excludes allowing LGBT people. People told me in my church to my face that we were all evil and only interested in infecting there children with HIV.  All of the churches in downtown Ottawa still believe this.  Even as they close down, they refuse the option to allow LGBT.

It is they who are evil who bully and support bullying a 14 year old gay child until he kills himself. How long are people in the UCC going to support this.

One congregation in the heart of Ottawa's gay village even voted specifically to close down and rather than allow LGBT members. Two churches in the gay village, actually closed down that year, while the UCC allowed them to create a new church that they called Centretown United, even through  all of the members came from outside the Centretown neighbourhood. We now have 8 or so churches in the downtown core, made up of people with no connections to their surronding neighbourhood.  This is likely because they not only discriminate against LGBT, but anyone in their neighbourhood is unwelcomed, because even if they are straight they would support allowing there LGBT members to join. 

Where does it say in our system, that people from outside the community are allowed to occupy community churches for the sole purpose of practicing hate, and existing for the siole reason of asuring that LGBT and Liberal straights will not have access to a church in their community.  How can the UCC even claim they support the environment, when members who live in downtown IOttawa are forced to drive to another community to find a church, while others drive in from the suburbs to downtown Ottawa to ensure people in our neighbourhood can not have a church to go to. Why are these hate groups alopwed to call themselves UCC let alone Christian churches. They say they are protecting tradations, but they go against 2000 years of tradtions and theology by not being based in their community. 

Then there are another 15 or so churches just outside downtown who also discriiminate, who claim they do not. However like the UCC a few block from my place, when you ask if you are welcome, they say yes, as long as you do not tell the other membrs who you are.

Anyways for me it all comes down to the issue of socipaths controlling the churches.  For various reasons they are attracted to the church, even whikle they have no interests in anything other than themselves, and they resent other who have a life, so they are happy when kids die. It is no different if they bully, and support bullying children, or if they abused children sexually or otherwise. 

However sociopaths do not know what they do, they are not responisble nor capable of understanding, meanwhile non sociopaths are able to understand and are the majority, so when are we going to stop giving these child abusers the keys to the church. 

double post

"shoe on the other foot" may not have been the wrong image.  I meant that we can not celebrate that the local option leads us to where we feel God is leading in one era and then complain that local option allows others to stay where they feel God has lead them a generation later.

We can wish that they would understand GOd's leading in our way.  We can wish that we could force them to behave in a certaqin way.  But if the only way to do that limits local option then what issues will not get dealt with next time?

The UCC GCO just released a statement on the death of Jamie. http://www.united-church.ca/communications/news/general/111021?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UnitedChurchNewsInfo+%28News+and+Information+|+The+United+Church+of+Canada%29

While it denounces hate speech in the coomunity, it does not address hate speech or hate inside the UCC.

It just seems that they are afraid to standup up to the bullies inside the UCC.

The UCC GCO tries to force congregations not to  discriminate against ministers. So why can we not make statements that tell our congregations, that they are wrong, and are killing children when they bully and support the bullying of LGBT adults, and LGBT children?

Are ordained people more special than lay adults, or children?

Also calling it the local option is not  discriptive of a system that allows non locals to control membership policy and exclude local residents from using their church, as is happening in Ottawa.

It is local option in that it is a choice (by active choice or by default) of the local congregation.  It is not referring to how close those members may live to the church building.

GCO has, over the years, encouraged congregations to look at how welcoming they are.  The Scripture passage this Sunday does the same.  Making statements such as you describe, unless e,braced and enacted on the ground, mean nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Would I prefer them to mean more and to be made more forcegfully?  PErhaps.  But still it is the choice of the local congregation what they will or will not allow that really matters.  Officially a congregation can not bar membership in the church based on any standard other than is laid out in Scripture (of course that has a pluralitiy of meanings) but that days nothing about how welcome those eligible for membership actually feel.

And never forget that the church, like any other organization, tends to have a skewed view of the reality on the ground.  SImply put, sometimes we believe we are other than others see us.  I hunch this has a lot to do with why the church speaks less about interior bullying than exterior.  well that and fear of ticking someone off.

GCO and PResbytery, because they have the responsibility for paid accountable ministry personnel, have much more tools to work with around employment issues.  They simply cannot force welcoming behaviour (or enforce it if you prefer).  And many LGBT clergy will tell you that enforcing of employment and call issues is not what is dreamed by the churhc in its self-description.

One may redfine words anyway one wants too. However it becomes a lie when it is done without any logic or acceptance of common use. Daytime may be defined as nighttime, but it is still daytime, no matter how you redefine it.   Likewise Centretown United in Ottawa may be in Centretown, but it has nothing to do Centretown. No matter how you define it.  A local church is not local  where members drive 10  miles, past 40 other congregations that are closer to where they live, no matter how you and others define local, it is not their local church.

What GCO has to do is be truthful. Asking congregations to look at being welcoming is completely futile, if one does not understand how hate filled people are.   It takes alot of hate to occupy a congregation in another community just to hurt those you hate.  It takes alot of hate denouce evrything jesus stood for, for over 30 years. It takes a lot of hate defend bully's and to bully kids and promote them committing suicide, all the while accusing those of us who support those that support their vicitims, of being the killers.

I would be happy if the churches were not welcoming, but would just stop hating and bullying children until they commit suicide.

I would like to see progressives and liberals in the UCC to accept the church has responsibility for it's homophobia, and being bullies, and to stop blaming others outside the church for homophobia. Face it, the most hatefilled people are in church, and the dominate the agenda's of many congregations. 

As a person born in the UCC and from a family that were founding members, I am embarassed that to people in downtown Ottawa, the UCC is the largest hate group in Ottawa. Anglicans, Catholics, and Evengelicals at least have the common decency to allow GLBT attend Centretown churches. 

As a Christian I am also  offended that these churches make a mockery of Jesus, and claim that he was all about hate and exclusion. Not only was Jesus clearly against what they do, but I bet you can not name a single living theologians widely read in the UCC that supports hate, bullying, and occupying churches in communities that people have nothing to do with in order  to exclude whole communities.

The UCC has to stop pretending the question is one of being welcoming as it is one of hate and child abuse. If you think telling a 12 year old that they are evil and unacceoptable in the eyes of God, is not child abuse. I think you should reread Jamies blog and the listen to the families of the kids who kill themselves.

Chansen

I have used the verbal approach with bullies, but the new direction in bullying is to then cry victim when someone points the finger back at them.  They then get their jollies out of you being bullied not by them but by the hierarchy, and no one will now listen to you as you have been villified.

Known as Persecutor-Victim, it is large in church circles.

It's not that simple.  I'm not talking about yelling at them or accusing them or getting them in trouble.  I'm talking about making them look ridiculous and showing them for the cowards they are.  Granted, it's not easy to do, but it works.

I have very little sympathy for those who want to ruin the lives of others.  There are probably gentler approaches.  I'm not so good with those.

Good point, jlin. Extends way beyond church circles, sadly.

Well, I said roughly the above in my sermons this morning.  Slightly more politely.  It seemed to go over well.

Good for you and your congregation.  WHatever is happening in your town,it is a lot more life affirming than what is acceptable to centretown churches.

I wonder it any other sermon in the UCC in the Ottawa area touch on this issue, or just those on the outskirts. Sure would be interesting to hear what was said in the Kanata area United Church, whenre classmates of Jamie attend.

mackay united in new edinburgh is very welcoming of gays and lesbians, alex.

Alex, surely you realize that wherever the church and the school are located, only a small percentage of the student body would regularly attend the UCC.  The church would have very little influence over the student body. 

That isn't to say that the church couldn't or shouldn't do more to influence the school administration or student body.  

I was talking yesterday with a member of Affirm United at the national level.  He confirmed that Ottawa is one of the most difficult areas in Canada for the GLBT community to find acceptance in the UCC.   Yet he says that you cannot force this from the top down.  The national church can try to influence, but the local level is where attitudes form.   In other words, you can't legislate attitudes.  

(Hope I did that 'quote' right..)

Churches are, in fact, allowed to discriminate against ministers; it's in the Ontario Human Rights Code.  My wife was bullied from her pulpit and left her job and home when the Conference M&P minister said to her "yes, it's a hurtful, hateful, unhealthy situation but you do have two options - go back to work or quit" Preliminary legal advice suggested she may have a case but it would cost a fortune to 'take on the church' and she felt that 'ministers don't do that'. Another minister we know who applied to and ultimately was called by a new church literally had the pen taken from her hand while reviewing and preparing to sign an employment contract when the members of the Search Committe realized she was gay.

Alex - Jamie was local for us.  He worked at Saunder's Farm, which is in my community, and where several of my youth work. 

Alex - Jamie was local for us.  He worked at Saunder's Farm, which is in my community, and where several of my youth work. 

That will change with the implimentation of Bill 168 in Ontario. Our CPM's are already doing congregational worshops on this. Bullying is simply no longer allowed.

And there is the potential for the Presbytery to discipline the congregation that is dim enough to name sexual orientation as the reason they do not accept any particular candidate for a ministry position just as they could be disciplined for openly saying they will not call a woman, or a divorced person, or a person of colour etc.

How often would it happen?  WEll that is another question.

Many churches still have on their books motions and policies passed 20 years ago saying they will not accept gay clergy.  (Many of them may even have forgotten they exist and the congregation would no longer support such a position).  Presbytery in these cases would be justified (imo) in refusing to accept a JNAC and/or declare a vacancy until said motion is rescinded -- simply because it violates UCCan policy.

HOwever a Search Committee is under no obligastion to say why they do not feel a candidate is a good match for the congregation.  And so various biases never get named or challenged.

In other words, wait for the current group of leaders to kick the bucket.  Social change is coming, but it's not coming by way of changed minds - it's coming by the grim reality that older people are more likely to be bigoted, and in leadership positions.  The expectation is that there will be a changing-of-the-guard.

I think the potential problem with this expectation is, if the current attitudes of the current Ottawa-area congregations are pushing away younger and more open-minded people, then there will be no changing-of-the-guard - just a passing away of the old guard, with an insufficient supply of younger guards to take their place.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see that as a potential problem for the UCCan in Ottawa, as it has been described in this thread.  I just can't see younger people putting up with these attitudes.

Unfortunately, it is 'younger people' who bully in high schools. The problem is decreasing, but it's not going away entirely. "That's gay" still means "that's lame" among the students I overhear.

But the bullies are likely still the minority.  The majority don't step up and step in, or worse, they sit back and enjoy the show.  They think they are innocent bystanders, but they are part of the problem, because they give the bullies an audience.

That's why my preference was to get the audience laughing at the bully.  I could have worked out at home or taken up a martial art, but my way of dealing with bullying didn't get me suspended - it got the audience on my side.

I'm not saying that all young people are more accepting, but more of them are more accepting of people who are not like them, whether in race, creed, or sexual orientation.  You can see this online.  You can see it when you talk to young people.  Yeah, they still use stupid phrases like, "That's gay," but mostly because it's a popular phrase.  "That's gay" and "that's retarded" still make my skin crawl, and I've been know to drop a comment after those ones, but I save the best lines for when the phrases are used with more malice behind them.

Many younger people have preconceived ideas about old people.  

At one time I believed that it was the old folks who were set in their ways and who would not accept Gays.  Then a minister told me that in his experience that was a mistaken idea that many people shared.  He found older people generally quite open and accepting once the idea had been introduced.  People who have lived to watch several generations grow up often realize that they cannot view the world through rose-coloured glasses.  They've watched someone in their family, or the neighbour next door, or someone they care about very much suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.   They've seen lives destroyed.  They've seen suicides.  They realize that something was wrong.  They might not jump on bandwagons, but they welcome the opportunity to fix it. 

Over the years since that time, my observations tell me that he was right. 

Now I'm one of those old fogies.  And I like to think that I am open to learning something new every once in awhile.   I am still changing and growing.

But I see a lot of young people filled with fear, uncertainity about anything different, anger, hatred.   Two of the most bigoted people I've encountered when it came to gays were two young men I rented rooms out to - they were university students, one was a self-identified atheist -the other indifferent to religion.  But both thought that gay men should be castrated and isolated on an island somewhere.