Also if this type of governance is so key to the United Church, why do we not hear more about it in Sermons. (At least I never have) and in Sunday School and in Youth groups?

It reminds me of 1988 when I thought if sexual ethics of GLBT people was so important to the church why is it not talked more about in Sermons and Sunday School.

We have a congregational government. 95% of things are decided on the local church level. So far, we've pretty much just put in whatever assistance our own congregation needs. There is one lady who regularly attends our Bible studies who is blind, so we allow her to bring her guide dog. There are people who use walkers, scooters, and wheelchairs, so we installed a lift.

The congregational government works well because it is immediate. It is spontaneous. We don't need to wait until some head office decides something. We can act to serve our congregation. We can react swiftly to the needs of the worshipping community.

It gets talked about plenty enough in Baptist sermons and Sunday School.

I'm not sure I understand your question, Alex.

The concilliar system goes something like this:

- members of the congregation name people they believed called to the ministry of eldership in the congregation (each year) and elect them as the Session / Board / Council; the Session / Board / Council has the decision-making responsibility for all of those things that our polity names as congregatinoal decisions;

- members of the congregation name people they believe to be called to the ministry of Presbyter (each year) - depending on the size of the congregation, this can be 1, 2, 3, or even more. Along with all of the ministry personnel in the Presbytery, these people have the responsibility of decision-making for all those things that our polity names as Presbytery decisions (including the oversight of ministry personnel and congregations in their bounds);

- members of all of the Presbyteries in a defined geographic area are the members of the Conference for their region; they gather, having decision-making responsibility for all those things that the polity names as Conference decisions (including the oversight of the Presbytery's work); every three years the Conference members name an equal number of lay-folk and ministry personnel to be Commissioners to General Council.

- members of General Council meet every three years, responsible for those areas that our polity names as theirs.

Each 'court' can have an executive and/or commissions, who act with a certain amount of that court's authority. The members of each court are NOT 'representatives' of the group by whom they were named. They are not bound by any decision of the group that has elected them. They vote as they are believe they are called to by the Spirit.

I don't tend to talk about polity in the worship service. That's for other learning times. We walk through this each year, as part of our annual meeting deliberations around the congregational Eldership. I also work through what this means in the Profession of Faith and in our Discipleship groups - as part of figuring out if this church is the best way for each individual to live out Christ's call.

It is difficult for many congregations and members to understand that our structure is *not* a representative democracy.

Christ's peace - r

Why do we not have a "parish "type of system.

That is one in which you vote and have a voice in the UCC church that is in your neighbourhood. It would not prevent you from attending services elsewhere, or volunteering elsewhere, it would just mean the the UCC members in each neighbourhood  would get a vote or voice in the affairs of their local church. Would that not make the church much more responsive to the neighbourhood it is in?

Wouldn't it also make splits and fights much less likely as you would be living in the same community as the other members in your church.

Would it not make witnessing and mission work easier as members could see the needs of their own neighbours?

Originally we sort of did ALex.  If you look back into the history of city (historic downtown and newer suburban) churches you will find that most of them were created to serve the area in which they were located.  (And of course most of our rural and small town churches still are.)  But as cities grew and as transportation became easier more and more people chose to remain with the church they knew rather than the church that was close.

However, the model of how people are affiliated with a local congregation has little to do with the larger question of a conciliar model.

That is what I habve a problem with. It's one thing to discriminate, it's another thing when it's done in such large numbers to an entire community. It's takes it beyond the issue of discrimination and equal access to one in which I and others find ourselves excluded from not just a few churches but by dozens of them. When the church I belong too became Affirming and gave equal access to GLBT people, it was in within walking distance of another 10 UCC churches, however when it decided to move to a new building for many reasons, including wheelchair access, none of the other churches wanted to share its building unless we stopped providing equal access to GLBT people. So it had to move out of the neighbourhood into a building being used by Anglicans.

What frustates me (and I know I have talked about this before) is that some of those remaining churches decided to close instead of opening up to the community in centretown. The decision to close them was taken by people who lived outside of centretown without consulting people in the centretown.  While the rest continue to not offer equal access, or even provide any alternatives that would be welcoming to the poor, the GLBT, the young, people who dislike the organ the left (The area is very NDP provincially and federally). 

I would not mind individual churches deciding not to provide equal access, I tend to agree that it is there business, but for all of them have to do so is a problem for me. Especially when I have family in places like small town New Brunswick, and PEI with UCCs that have opened themselves to equal access.

Can there not be some kind of mechanism to provide for people living in the community where these churches are. Can not presberty or some body in the church start a local congregation to serve Centretown. Its even more frustrating because I know that there are strong minorities supportive of opening up to the community in each of those churches that together could run a healthy UCC even if they added no more members.

The day will come when a UCC does open up I thought,  but the decision last year of 6 churches to close instead was frustrating. Something needs to be done when there is so obvious a place for a downtown church.

I have been involved this summer in a new mid week service at my church it has been very good for me. I can see it appealing to people downtown, but it is a long way to go by bus from Centretown.  One of my ideas in the back of my mind is too see if maybe some changes have occured in the past few years and see if one of those downtown churches would co-sponsor the mid week service, and maybe try co-hosting it. However I have no clue how that would work with our church board or with presbertry.