UCC-GCO's picture

UCC-GCO

image

Moderator Gary Paterson's new blog

You're invited to check out Moderator Gary Paterson's blog, where he will be "offering thoughts and reflections over the next few years, trusting that you will sift the wheat from the chaff. Take what might be helpful, and let the rest drift into the Internet stratosphere where old blogs go to die."


To have the wheat (or chaff) automatically delivered to your email inbox, just go to www.garypaterson.ca click "Follow" in the bottom right corner, and enter your e-mail address to sign up.
Share this

Comments

DKS's picture

DKS

image

Why am I redirected to Facebook when I click on the link? I don't want Facebook. I don't want to be tracked by Facebook. I would not use Facebook if it was the last way of keeping in touch if my life depended on it. Please tell me that we have not descended to the level of the Moderator posting on Facebook...

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

I think the OP just accessed or shared it through facebook, and didn't update the link.

Give this a try:

http://www.garypaterson.ca/

AaronMcGallegos's picture

AaronMcGallegos

image

Sorry about that. I think I've fixed it now. Give it a try. Thanks, Aaron

chansen's picture

chansen

image

DKS, stop beating around the (burning) bush. How do you really feel about Facebook?

DKS's picture

DKS

image

AaronMcGallegos wrote:

Sorry about that. I think I've fixed it now. Give it a try. Thanks, Aaron

 

Better, but I am getting a Fatal Error message that a "Theme CSS would not load after 20 seconds".

DKS's picture

DKS

image

chansen wrote:
DKS, stop beating around the (burning) bush. How do you really feel about Facebook?

 

About the same way you do about religion. But my feeling is based in fact.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

DKS wrote:

chansen wrote:
DKS, stop beating around the (burning) bush. How do you really feel about Facebook?

 

About the same way you do about religion. But my feeling is based in fact.

 

It's true that both have the capacity to be intellectually stultifying pursuits, but only Facebook can prove that it knows what you've been up to.

somegalfromcan's picture

somegalfromcan

image

The link is working for me - thanks Aaron!

graeme's picture

graeme

image

superb blog today by the moderator. Even an athest might find it so.

DKS's picture

DKS

image

graeme wrote:

superb blog today by the moderator. Even an athest might find it so.

 

Given that I find the "white poppy" image offensive, I disagree. I find it tries to walk betwen two polarities and suceeeding in neither.

somegalfromcan's picture

somegalfromcan

image

Thanks for the heads up Graeme.  I am someone who has worn red and white poppies together on Remembrance Day. For me, it's about standing up for peace while remembering and honouring those who died.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

Yes. I don't see polarities - unless one preceives our veterans as hired killers. I think that in war that our dead and our living veterans have been victims, too.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

Surely to wear a red poppy is to embrace a polarity.. To wear read and white is not to welk between two polarities, but to walk in remembrance of all victims. they are not at opposite poles.

Would Jesus had advised that we mourn only the military dead? and only those who died for our side?

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

DKS wrote:

graeme wrote:

superb blog today by the moderator. Even an athest might find it so.

 

Given that I find the "white poppy" image offensive, I disagree. I find it tries to walk betwen two polarities and suceeeding in neither.

 

Why do you find the white poppy image offensive?

DKS's picture

DKS

image

Kimmio wrote:

DKS wrote:

graeme wrote:

superb blog today by the moderator. Even an athest might find it so.

 

Given that I find the "white poppy" image offensive, I disagree. I find it tries to walk betwen two polarities and suceeeding in neither.

 

Why do you find the white poppy image offensive?

 

It distracts and co-opts one symbol with another. Make it a white tulip, for alI care. It has also been co-opted for a symbol of nuclear disarmament. It diminises the grief for those whom we are remembering on the specific Remembrance Day.

 

Perhaps you have not lost a family member or a friend. Perhaps you have. Perrhaps you have served in the Canadian Forces. And I have no difficulty giving those who died in service of this country their due on this one day of the year. That leaves 364 days for grief honouring civilians (whom the white poppy is suposed to remember). Just don't co-mingle the symbols.

 

 

RitaTG's picture

RitaTG

image

Red poppy or white .... hmmmmmm

The red poppy for those that fought and died.....

The white poppy for the civilians that died in those very same wars.....

Did they not die in the same conflict at the same time?  

I feel the red and white poppies belong together..... 

Together they remind us of the aweful cost of war......

I like the black centre for the poppy ......

That reminds me of the blackness of the human heart that allows war in the first place.

The white poppy is a call of hope for me and a call for us to do our duty as citizens and make our voices heard politically....

Just so you know ....... I had 5 uncles that served in the 2nd world war.   One died .... another returned severely wounded ..... all carried emotional scars the rest of their lives.   My spouse had several uncles on her side that served as well.

I have a nephew that served in Afghanistan.    He returned a very damaged person ... not the young man that left at all.....

Red poppy or white poppy ......   For this woman .... a red poppy AND a white poppy....

I will go dry my eyes now......

Hugs

Rita

AaronMcGallegos's picture

AaronMcGallegos

image

The Moderator's new blog post today:

 

Moderator Gary Paterson: Oil Hungry.ow.ly/fdxB5

kaythecurler's picture

kaythecurler

image

A red poppy doesn't begin to address the fallout of th WW1 in my family.

 

My mother was severely damaged by her fathers death during that war.  Her scars showed  through the rest of her life, incuding in her child raising skills. 

 

My dads father was injured in that same war and kept the entire family off balance with his endless complaining about his amputated limb.  I wonder whether things would have played out differently if prosthetic devices had been at the level they are today.

 

WW2 brought agonies to my grandmother who had sons fighting far from home.  She didn't want them to serve - she had lost her husband last time and feared for her sanity if she should lose a child too.

Several of the children I went to school with had lost fathers, big brothers, uncles, cousins. 

I respect the individual choices of everyone whether they choose to wear one or two poppies. 

 

 

graeme's picture

graeme

image

The poppy was long ago co-opted by those who find war beneficial for them, and as a nice cover to sending more Canadian to get killed in wars that have nothing to do with us.

We certainly have a debt to those who served. We certainly should remember those who died.

But there is one hell of a difference between those who died fighting Hitler, and those who died fighting Afghani peasants to please American billionaires. We abuse our own people when we send them off to wars like that.

And let's not go overboard on the defending our freedom stuff. It's much sadder than that. In world war two, the average education of a soldier was grade 6. they were very young. They barely knew what freedom meant. The great surge of recruits came from the hopelessly unemployed - including fathers who could not feed their families. I knew many of them. I knew the teenagers who joined because they loved the thrill of clicking heels on the sidewalk. I knew one of them very well who left grade four at the age of fifeen, joined the army at sixteen, just loved clicking his heels and marching and, as he turned seventeen, jumped up in terror, screaming for his mother, when a machine-gun cut him in half.

Poor Bertie. He couldn't even spell freedom.

But if you seriously believe they all died to protect our freedom, then we should be more cautious about invading the freedom of other countries, particularly those who never attacked us.

We are in for decades of war. The level of manipulation of voters is extremely high. Harper already has us committed to war on the side of Israel without even specifying the cause or the target.

The last thing we need is a soppy sentimentalization of war on Nov. 11. But that is invariably what I see. What we owe most of all to those who died is assurance that their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren will not be thrown away in wars to make very rich people even richer. But those wars are exactly where we're heading. In fact, we have already fought at least two - Afghanistan and Libya.

If you don't think people who want peace have any place in the remembrance of those who died in war, then you are using the day to glorify something that is not glorious at all.

 

It's possible to be a patriot and a Christian. But sometimes you have choose just one.

DKS's picture

DKS

image

kaythecurler wrote:

A red poppy doesn't begin to address the fallout of th WW1 in my family.

 

Same with mine. I won't bore folks with the details, but the effects can still be felt a century later.

Quote:
I respect the individual choices of everyone whether they choose to wear one or two poppies. 

 

I agree. Wear what you wish. But be aware of the meaning of the symbols you wear...

DKS's picture

DKS

image

graeme wrote:

And let's not go overboard on the defending our freedom stuff. It's much sadder than that. In world war two, the average education of a soldier was grade 6. they were very young. They barely knew what freedom meant.

 

Given that the majority left school at Grade 8, that's not surprising.

 

Quote:
The last thing we need is a soppy sentimentalization of war on Nov. 11. But that is invariably what I see.

I do not. I see grief, horror and painful memories.

Quote:
If you don't think people who want peace have any place in the remembrance of those who died in war, then you are using the day to glorify something that is not glorious at all.

 

And that is nonsense. No one at any Remembrance Day service I have presided at (and I have presided at dozens, over the years) is glorifying anything. It is a moment of deep, sad, painful memory. Let's honour that without overlaying our own arrogant wishful thinking.

Quote:

It's possible to be a patriot and a Christian. But sometimes you have choose just one.

 

And sometimes you can be both.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

I was uneasy at today's blog. at some point, decisions have to be made. we can't forever say "one th is hand" but "on the other hand"'

If environmentalists are right, the continuing use of oil and other fossil fuels will kill us. If we wait for everybody to come to agreement, nothing will ever get done.  According to very respected scientists, we don't have much time.

We have to decide. I'm sorry if people really like the convenience of living with oil energy. I'm sure there are quite decent people who think that way. But the choice has to be made. We have pick sides no matter how much we respect those on the other  side.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

sometimes you can be both patriotic and Christian - but rather less often than you might think.

Do you seriously think Canada went to war for the Boer War to protect our freedom? We killed Dutch farmers (and whole families of them in concentration camps). How did they threaten our freedom?

We went to war in 1914 and lost 60,000 killed. If it was a war to protect freedom, explain to me why the US didn't go to war for another three years. Were Americans all cowards? Didn't they see the threat to their freedom? Give me the list of countries that got freedom after World War One. I can give a whole bunch of dictatorships that came out of that, including Saudi Arabia, one of the world's tightest dictatorships.

Ditto in 1939 - in which, by the way, we fought on the side of Britain and the US, both of whom maintained numerous dictatorships, and both of whom restored dictatorships after the war was over. Britain, France and the US also, shortly after the war, overthrew democracy in both Iran and Guatemala and, with them, we installed new dictators in places like Vietnam and the old Dutch West Indies. -not to mention Saddam in Iraq and many others.

Did Libya threaten our freedom? It wasn't free when we bombed it. And it still isn't free after we won.

Was the Afghan army about to row across the Pacific and hit Vancouver? We've been sending people there for years to die in defence of freedom. Not only has this not won any freedom, but ours was never threatened in the first place.

The fault is not that of our military. It's the fault of us. we have allowed our governments to send people off to die for reasons that have nothing to do with most Canadians.

What we should be remembering, besides those who served, is us who sent them, and our responsibility to make sure they have to be placed in such danger. (And our responsibility to carry out our obligation to them for the rest of their lives, something we've been cutting back on - and the government gets away with because nobody cares.)

I have been to many a remembrance service. I have never heard one in which I heard about  the importance (and sometimes the guilt) of us who made the decisions that killed people. Nor have i heard a word about our failure to carry out our obligations to our veterans.

What I have heard, instead, is a lot of pious blather about those who "died for freedom". And that pious blather is what glorifies war.

Sometimes, being Christian means more than saluting and intoning, "Fear God and honour the Queen.) Sometimes patriotism should mean more than that, too.

somegalfromcan's picture

somegalfromcan

image

I went to an exhibit today at the Royal BC Museum - a combination of Naval art from the Canadian War Museum and photographs and memoribilia from a local Battalion.  I stood there looking at the paintings and photographs of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and couldn't help but wonder about them. So many of them were so young, so innocent looking - when they joined the forces, did they have any clue about what they were enlisting for? One painting in particular, by Sir Eric Kennington, drew my attention. It was a World War 1 scene in which grim-faced Canadian soldiers, both dead and alive, were marching through a battlefield. Initially the painting had been entitled, "The Victims," but the artist was pressured into changing the name to "The Conquerors." One look at the painting, however, will tell you that, "The Victims" is a far more appropriate title. Looking at it got me to wonder about the survivors of those sorts of battles - and what sort of an effect that would have on the rest of their lives. I think what drew me to that painting in particular was that all of the other paintings in the exhibit either glorified war - or at least were seemingly neutral (for example a painting of recruits learning to tie knots). This one, however, seemed to have a level of honesty that the others lacked - it wasn't gory, but it dared to show the horror of war.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

The outstanding photgraph that I always remember is one taken in Vancouver.

Two regiments were marching down to the docks to be taken to Hong Kong. Canada sent them because the Canadian government thought Hong Kong was a safe place so there would be no casualties -and thus no need for Mackenzie-King to introduce conscription and thus losing the next election. (I don't exaggerate. That is the truth.)

That was just months before the attack on Pearl Harbour, and then on Hong Kong. The troops, only half-trained and poorly equipped, fought bravely but hopelessly. Those who survived went into vile prison camps where more died and almost all had ruined health for life.

There are people on the street, watching them march by. One of them is a boy of five or so, running from his mother out to one of the soldiers, and reaching his arms out. The soldier is paused, and bending down to reach out to his son.

EasternOrthodox's picture

EasternOrthodox

image

Book you might enjoy, Graeme, "Midnight in Peking" by Paul French. A China scholar is living in Peking the 1930's when his daughter is murdered. He privately tracks down the killer (the colonial officials wish to hush it up). He ends up interned in a Japanese camp during WW II, along with the killer. He survives and dies an elderly man in the early 1950's. The killer never pays. Fascinating look at Peking in this era.
.
Get a Kindle or iPad, you can read it as an ebook (also available as a regular book).
.
Note, this is a true story, not fiction. The author reconstructs the story from the large number of letters the man sent to the authorities, detailing all the evidence he had found. They ended up in an archive in London.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

Sounds great. I have a kindle. I'll give this one a shot. Thanks.

AaronMcGallegos's picture

AaronMcGallegos

image

If you're interested, there's a good discussion happening on the Moderator's new blog post for today, 

 

 
 
Comprehensive Review Task Group: First Meeting

 

"It needs another name, this committee the General Council has mandated to review the state of the church and bring back recommendations for change. Maybe we should take the General Secretary’s comment, “Everything is on the table!” and turn that into the title. Or, someone else suggested a long-ago line from Bob McClure, when he tried to define his faith: “Adventure with a Purpose.”

 

 
Whatever its name, the group has begun its work! Six people were prayerfully chosen by the Nominations Committee from the 65 folk who had offered themselves for the task. (The very number says something about the excitement across the country and the hope that this task group will actually accomplish what it is setting out to do.) ....
 
Read more here: 
 
DKS's picture

DKS

image

AaronMcGallegos wrote:

If you're interested, there's a good discussion happening on the Moderator's new blog post for today, 

 

 
 
Comprehensive Review Task Group: First Meeting

 

"It needs another name, this committee the General Council has mandated to review the state of the church and bring back recommendations for change. Maybe we should take the General Secretary’s comment, “Everything is on the table!” and turn that into the title. Or, someone else suggested a long-ago line from Bob McClure, when he tried to define his faith: “Adventure with a Purpose.”

Good grief. It doesn't need another name. I am more concerened about process and results than a name. And I refuse to micromanage THEIR process.

AaronMcGallegos's picture

AaronMcGallegos

image

I'm sure they are more concerned about the process as well, but it's nice of the Moderator to put the question about the name out there. It actually could help people conceptualize what "comphrehensive review" means for the United Church.

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi Aaron,

 

I don't find anything problematic with the name "comprehensive review."  I know there is a strong anti-literalist bent in the UCCAN.  I don't know that we have to name something other than what it is.  Sometimes an orange can be an orange and not some roundish reddish yellowish tastily acidic thing.

 

If everything is actually on the table (including the name of the committee formed to provide a, um, review that is comprehensive) they'll never come close to being able to provide anything for GC-42 other than a list of name suggestions for the committee.

 

And will they be inviting input from congregations and congregants into the name of this committee should they decide to change it or will they be subverting their own process along the way because hey, everything going on the table means process is up for challenge too right?

 

If this is an actual first step they are considering I don't hold out much hope for the end product being anything at all useful.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

DKS's picture

DKS

image

AaronMcGallegos wrote:

I'm sure they are more concerned about the process as well, but it's nice of the Moderator to put the question about the name out there. It actually could help people conceptualize what "comphrehensive review" means for the United Church.

I disagree, Aaron. This is a distraction; any committee that has to spend time trying to figure out their name instead of defining their task and process from the terms of reference they have been given is simply distracted and eventually doomed. It is the kind of spin-mastery stuff the church has always fought when being critical of Empire. If this is indicative of the thinking of the Moderator and the group itself, then I do not have much hope for the outcome. It is not important for the larger church to "conceptualize" anything yet. The terms of reference are easy to read. Let the group get to know each other, get a grip on the scope of the matters at hand and then give us some thoughts to chew on. But please don't distract us with fluff. We are owed better.

AaronMcGallegos's picture

AaronMcGallegos

image

You guys read the blog post right? Coming up with a name certainly isn't the only thing the group is working on. It's a paragraph in the post. We're probably paying more attention to it then they are, which may say more about us than them. 

DKS's picture

DKS

image

AaronMcGallegos wrote:

You guys read the blog post right? Coming up with a name certainly isn't the only thing the group is working on. It's a paragraph in the post. We're probably paying more attention to it then they are, which may say more about us than them. 

 

The point is that it probably shouldn't be there at all. All I need to know right now is "We are meeting and getting to know each other". Talk to me in 6 months or when you have something sunstantive.

 

BTW, what is the budget for this process? Have they engaged an outside consultant? If they have, who is that consultant? If they haven't or aren't considering it, I would bee deeply concerned.

AaronMcGallegos's picture

AaronMcGallegos

image

Thanks DKS. Then I think the post you are looking for is right here: 

 

http://www.united-church.ca/communications/news/general/121119

 

The Moderator's blog offers more of his personal perspective. 

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think the budget or consideration of an outside consultant has been announced.

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi AaronMcGallagos,

 

AaronMcGallegos wrote:

You guys read the blog post right?

 

Has it been my custom here over the last six years to comment on things I have absolutely no familiarity with?  Yes, I did read the blog.

 

What the blog shows me is that there is a disconnect between what they did and what Gary is thinking.  The Blog entry begins with needing a new name and ends with wanting a new name.  That is the bread part of this particular blog sandwich.  The meat coming in the middle has this great quote included by the facilitator helping the review committee along:

 

Chris Govern wrote:

If you don't quickly get clear about your task, you'll spend the first six months punching at marshmallows.

 

I respectfully submit that musing about the name is punching at marshmallows.

 

AaronMcGallegos wrote:

Coming up with a name certainly isn't the only thing the group is working on.

 

Certainly it isn't.  It is the biggest preoccupation in Gary's blog entry.  It is also a distraction.   You can't have a sandwich without bread, that is true (unless you count KFC's double down a sandwich then you just need breading) if you walk away from a sandwich talking mostly about the bread then the meat in the middle was most likely a waste of bread.

 

AaronMcGallegos wrote:

It's a paragraph in the post. We're probably paying more attention to it then they are, which may say more about us than them. 

 

Well, until DKS and I commented on it that was not at all true.  It was one blog to none.

 

The conversation opens with a blog and the primary idea in the blog is that the name for the committee sucks.  What I have commented on was that if the name of the committee is that big a deal (it is for Gary I don't know about the rest of the committee) the focus isn't on what needs to be done it is on something which is of minimal consequence.

 

My concern stems from experience in the Church and admittedly those experiences might not be particularly helpful in my arriving at accurate conclusions.  Roughly three years ago a member of our Presbytery stood up and made a wonderful speech about having an Coutreach Committee providing a convincing rationale for why such a committee was necessary.  So we formed one.  It has not met once since.  It is not unusual for a lot of energy within the United Church to go into posturing and/or name picking (bonus points if it can be an acronym) instead of doing the work that needs to be done.

 

Grace and peace to you.

Joh

 

 

AaronMcGallegos's picture

AaronMcGallegos

image

Well, my personal view is that "Comphrehensive Review" isn't a very interesting name. Kind of sounds like something that happens at the doctor's smiley

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi AaronMcGallagos,

 

AaronMcGallegos wrote:

Well, my personal view is that "Comphrehensive Review" isn't a very interesting name. Kind of sounds like something that happens at the doctor's smiley

 

Given the current state of the Church we should have been having this check-up quite some time ago.

 

Of course, if the doctor asks you to drop your drawers and bend over the examining table while he puts gloves on it doesn't matter what he calls the process and wondering what better and more inspiring names might be given the whole digital rectal exam process doesn't get the actual probing done.

 

Had your annual yet?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

DKS's picture

DKS

image

John, I could not have said it better. Superb. And my annual checkup is next month.

Jim Kenney's picture

Jim Kenney

image

I Had mine a couple of months ago. I would rather have a name, such as comprehensive review, which clearly states the purpose, than a catchy name that points to the purpose.

 

At GC41, the mandate given to the committee was clearly to invite input from every level of the United Church, and I thought there was an expectation there would be consultant support to keep the process on track and to assist as necessary with processing the input. I know one of the members, who was on my first internship support committee, to be an exceptionally gifted person for the task at hand.  I cannot imagine her allowing much time for punching at marshmallows or navel-gazing.

paradox3's picture

paradox3

image

Kinda liking the ring of "comprehensive review".

 

It seems honest to me.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Okay, I read the blog. The name thing comes up in a parenthetical last line. Not exactly the focus of the blog as I read it. I agree that it's not a sexy name but I also thing it's a solid, honest one. A "sexier", more friendly name will inevitably be open to more interpretation and could cause people to misunderstand the purpose. A simple, clear name like "Comprehensive Review" coupled with a clear statement of purpose and plan should avoid any such misunderstandings.

 

Mendalla

 

Back to Church Life topics