A few weeks ago I would have leaped at the chance. Not today. I am not interested in any more United Church forums.

I agree. Especially if this is the only feedback forum. It completely disenfranchises a lot of people. We know the change which is required. We are not doing it.

Apparently it is futile to look for future in the local UC building.  There isn't anything much going on there that isrelevant to my life or the lives of my adult kids and my grandkids. There also dooesn't seem to be a future for the WC - without doubt the best denominational discussion forum on the web.  It has functioned well for several years fulfilling many functions better than my local church building.

It's a new forum? That's rich.

 

Is it a closed site for UCCan and ex-UCCan and the "spiritual but not religious" only? Don't worry, I'm really not interested in a new forum, more in the continuation of this one.

 

I understand different forums have different purposes. I am not upset that there is another forum. I am not upset money may be seen as well spent in one place and not another. I, too recently, have simply seen what communication and input was/is considered to be worth.

And if you sign up, it involves giving up your Facebook and Twitter account information in regards to friends and contacts etc.  then they post on your page. Be very careful when data minining like that happens.  Now I have to go back in and stop all that. Duh, I never learn.

Matt81, you can opt in or opt out of sharing a message about United Future on Facebook or Twitter. But even if you do opt in, nobody will be posting your pages.

United Future is only one of ways to offer feedback, DKS. As you know, there have been congregational consultations happening for the Comprehensive Review process that have been in person, via telephone, or via web. I believe there will be other ways to share feedback in the future too.

...and the irony meter explodes...

I am for it… what's wrong with the UCC wanting as much UCC feedback, thinking and suggestings from as many corners of its own constituency as it can gather???

 

This whole exercise is not about pleasing the UCC slaggers and fundamentalists… it's about meeting the needs and means of its own folk in a changed and changing society. Suck it up… 

 

If you're stricken with cynicism or hostility, you don't have to play. 

This is just another round of feedback. You guys have spent months getting feedback, when everyone knows that in broad terms, you have multiple "camps" within the UCCan that don't get along. All the stuff I wrote in the previous threads on the Comprehensive Review Conversations stands.

 

You have problems of young vs. old, traditional vs. modern, Jesus is God vs. Jesus was just this guy, etc. The old guard aren't letting go, and the new guard are walking away.

 

Someone has to start making difficult decisions, but there is obviously no willingness to do so. You guys would rather talk about it, maybe hoping the rifts will be patched over in the process. You should pray for that. Prayer won't help, of course, but it's one more stall tactic you can use.

 

I asked a couple of UC members about the Comprehensive Review.

They both replied  "What is that?" 

 

It's an extemely comprehensive review, except not comprehensive enough, because now you have "United Future" as well.

 

The UCCan is like a case study in organizational ineptitude. Are you ever going to actually do something?!?

Let me just quote myself here, from an old thread. I think it's worth repeating:

 

... I will be participating....

Regards

Rita

I signed up and will participate.

 

Although I'm almost as convinced as chansen (!!!) that this is going to be an exercise in "let's talk, talk, talk and talk some more in order to make sure that we don't actually do anything unless we absolutely have to," I can see some potential value to this. We did finally get to participate in the Comprehensive Review, although only 6 people from our congregation met with the facilitator (4 lay people, myself and our DLM.) Others might have (maybe - I don't know) but perhaps they weren't available when the session was held. Maybe some didn't feel comfortable face to face but would contribute more online. I'll try to keep an open mind. Don't think I'll sign up myself, but I could see others making use of this. The issue for me is what use the United Church of Canada will make of any of this in the end

 That is truly rich. The congregational consultations were limited is scope and by invitation only (I know. We did it). The set of filters which are set around this whole process are quite significant. The web page dows not make it clear that it is a part of the consultative process, but implies that THIS will be the process going forward. And by saying that, it implies exclusion. What the Unied Church has lost (or perhaps never had) is a core definition of mission. Thre is no agreed upon mission statement from which all governance processes devolve and can be tested against. And we contiinue to ask what we are all about. Guess what? The misson statement was written 2000 years ago. How quickly we forget.

 

Believe in me, or else?

 

 

 

I will join.  And I will share the information with my congregation through our newsletter and website.

The congregations I serve signed up for Comp. Review before I arrived. I followed up. The last we heard they could not decide who did it (native ministry or non-native) as it both aspects in one charge, if they would be done together by one person or if two separate ones would be done. While meetings and discussions happen about who does it, when, out of what budget... nothing got done. They tried talking and being heard. They are no longer interested. They have decided what will be will be regardless. They are not cynical, just "schooled" and tired.

 Lots of us feel that way.

As a person on the other end of the listening.... part of my job is to help gather people's comments and questions from places on social media, including WonderCafe, Facebook, and Twitter, and forward them to colleagues in the General Council Office, I can tell you, your thoughts are being brought into the mix. I believe the same will happen with the United Future project. So I do hope folks participate in this new initiative because your comments and thoughts will be going directly to the Comprehensive Review Task Group, which is tasked with coming up with new proposals regarding the future of the United Church, especially its structure and the way it works. Of course, not everybody will see their wishes enacted, because there are lots and lots of voices to consider. But if you opt out, then it is pretty much certain your voice won't be heard, at least not through this United Future initiative. They created it because they really do want to hear from you.

DKS, I agree, a comprehensive mission statement would make things much simpler for many of us - my work included. And maybe I'm wrong, but I find it hard to imagine how this could come to be in a diverse church like the United Church. That diversity is part of our strength, uniqueness, and calling, in my opinion, so I personally would not want to see this lost in the effort to come up with single mission statement. But, the Comprehensive Review isn't so much about coming up with a new mission statement (as I personally understand it), as it is coming up with proposals to bring to the church about new structures and ways of working that will help the United Church be more effective and faithful to its calling in the context of 21st century Canada. Even without a comprehensive mission statement for the whole church (and I agree, it has already been written, about 2000 years ago), the way we structure ourselves and work does matter and it's important to adjust it to meet the new realities we all live in each day. Weighing in on this does matter in my opinion.

I have joined.

UCCan, be prepared to discuss trains.

If you get invited to a dinner party for some time in the future, accept the invitation, wait to be told a date and they never do and then they invite you ro come over and talk about the dinner party you were never there for would you? If you wait in the driveway and the folks who invited you never show would you accept the next invitation? It may mean their voice is absent, but I cannot say I blame them. I cannot speak for the congregations, IMO we do that too much... I also cannot really share with them what they have said they are no longer interested in because they got stood up. Especially when what they would have said was there is a disconnect and that they feel they don't matter. Ironic.

I signed up because they were inviting people who had left the church too join the conversation.

If you so much as mention Mardi, VIA, or trains, the UCCan has my permission to tie you to NASA's next booster rocket.

 

The dialogue will be led and by others than myself. My primary interest will be in answering any questions posed to those who have left the UCCanada. I suspect there will be some. Will they involve the infamous train trip? Possibly, though I doubt it.

One person being an idiot about it does not make it infamous.

 

chansen, that's uncalled for. While she did enjoy a luxury first-class train trip across Canada at tax-payers' expense, I would hardly call Mardi an idiot.

Well played. You've still been an idiot about it.

 

Hi Dcn. Jae,

 

 

Did you ever hear back from VIA about that?

 

Or is this bit of false-witness too juicy to let drop?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Please, enough about this. Let's get this thread back on track shall we.

You bring it up out of the blue often enough. I was just heading you off at the train crossing.

 

And yes, anything ever come of that complaint to VIA?

 

Hi Dcn, Jae,

 

 

So you are okay continuing to make allegations of impropriety but you are not okay with us asking about your follow-up with VIA into those allegations?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Care to take this discussion to an appropriate thread? If so, I would dialogue there as time permits.

Hi Dcn. Jae,

 

 

That is actually a good idea.  I have resurrected the original thread in which you started this particular complaint and originally made the promise to remain silent on the matter until you had contacted VIA Rail.

 

I have asked the question there as well.

 

I thought placing my inquiry into the context of the original thread with your complaint was the most sensible route.  I look forward to your continuing the conversation there.

 

 

I hope that is true.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

To be fair, this conversation was derailed by Chansen, not Jae.

 

 

LOL - thanks, seeler. I agree, let's completely forget that Jae goes back to this every few months, and my comment was a joke about that.

I'm not sure what to make of this new site. I didn't sign up, so I'm thinking I can't explore it to make an informed decision. I'm wondering whether the costs for the new site compare  to what it would cost to revise WC, and if that is one reason WC is shutting down. Yes, that is the cynical side of me. I have been a facilitator for the Comp Review discussions and have enjoyed meeting the groups I've met. I'd like to think good things will happen from this entire process. I do have a cynical side though. I heard a conversation on CBC about empty pews, and how we will save the church. That was from 1963.......it was exactly the kind of conversation we have today. It does seem we are good at talking. To be fair, I will likely check this out later.

Hi Northwind, There are several more pages with lots more information getting ready to go live on the United Future site very soon - likely this week. Please check back at www.unitedfuture.ca when you have a chance. 

DKS - so, what is the change that is required?

Curiously, much is found in Pope Francis' most recent apostolic exhoration.

"A church that is not out in the streets will soon have to close its doors," Pope Francis said.

"The reservation of the priesthood to males....is not a question open to discussion..." Pope Francis said.

 

"And don't even start with abortion," he basically said.

 

Nothing on the Vatican Bank money laundering scandal or priests who are rapists, though.

 

 

Looks like the site is evolving.  A discussion has been booked for "live discussion". You can rsvp.  I guess that keeps trolls out theoretically.

 

It appears you can submit topics.

 

 

Well, chansen, Pope Francis can't rock the boat too much, or the boat will sink and the crew drown before they get a chance to go out into the steets and prove their worth.

 

Maybe he's giving them one last chance to change before the big collapse, which he himself must realize is inevitable—unless the RC changes radically and speedily.

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Sorry, Pinga, for derailing the thread. Fortunately, on this miraculous site, de-railed trains can be put back on track without suffering any damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The site is looking good too.

 

I have RSVPed for the discussion.