My second idea came from a post I saw in one of the discussion on Israel.

If we advertise on the online edition of the National Post, what about advertising on web sites that are geared to those who the General Coucil wants us to have full access to church. Like gay, lesbian, transgendered, as well as web sites for those with disabilities.sites Canadian use. With specific ads inviting these groups to come and use Wondercafe. Also if the UCC contunes the ads we could make some ads explaining how the General Council supports full access and that we are inviting people without full access to come and discuss.it. As well the UCC could make ads that individual churches could use that they could place to invite those groups who have been denied access, or who face barriers.

Just an idea, not really a disscussion.

Do people have other ideas on how Wonderedcafe and the UCC can encourage the process towards equal access?

In the end it isn't helping GC make the UCC accessible.  It is about helping individual congregations see that this is a worthwhile endeavour that really counts.

GC can't mandate such a thing.  ANd even if they could mandate it their real ability to enforce that mandate is almost nil.  SO how do we help congregations to a)see the need, b) see that it is a worthwhile task  and c) pay for building retrofits?

correct, gordw...that was the basic intent.

I will get the motion to the site sometime this week.

correct, gordw...that was the basic intent.

I will get the motion to the site sometime this week.

I think this is a great idea to keep this open.  I have been lurking as much as time permits, and am glad to see it here.  The more 'regular' people (pew warmers as well as unaffiliated) get to see what happens at GC, the better.  We can be awfully isolationistic in our view of the larger church.  Even communicating to the congregation that Presbytery is not some terrible 'other' that dictates meaningless or painful or embarrasing orders to the congregation is tough.  Presbytery is not 'them' it is 'us'.  Same with GC.  I hope to get to it one of these years myself, if I am so honored.

It would be great to have a forum for getting the news out!

Yes, Mona, this is the first time that I can truly say that I had a feel for what was happening at GC. Wondercafe and Admin - Thank you.

One starting point I have come up with is a sermon germinationg for a couple weeks from now.  The Mark passage will be the story where Jesus is confronted on the issue of radical inclusiveness and is in fact converted by a woman he has just called a dog.  Preaching on that topic, I will bring up the resolution that Sask COnference sent to GC and the result.  (so if anyone can point me to the wording of the final resolution that would be REALLY helpful)

I almost have it GordW. 

I can give you a good starting point here...but.....there were revisions which included some wordsmithing, and the review as part of the  presbytery oversight visit.  

Whatever I note below is unofficial, and even if I correct & edit it...it is still unofficial..but, it will give you a good start

Thanks for the lead-in via the Mark passage by the way...(you know what week that is lectionary?)

That the 40th General Council 2009 declare that in matters respecting doctrine, worship, membership and governance, The United Church of  Canada is opposed to discrimination against any person on the basis of  age, ancestry, colour, disability, ethnic origin, gender identity,  language, marital status, place of origin,  race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status or any other basis by  which a person is devalued.

Commit The United Church of Canada to journey to where there will be  no discrimination in any aspect of church life and strongly urge each  court and congregation to embrace this commitment.

And direct the General Secretary, General Council to develop  educational resources that will assist courts and congregations to  identify how they discriminate and develop a plan to make room for all  those who would be part of the body of Christ within The United Church  of Canada.

And design a process for the reporting of data and sharing of stories of the journey in order for the 41st General Council 2012 to assess what else  is needed to become a church where everyone can have a place at the  table

and ____________________________ as part of the Presbytery oversight visit

Thanks Pinga, it is on September 6th (CLick on the date to go to the readings) Unfortunately that is the Labour Day long weekend and so attendance may still be down :(

So... move the reading. :)

Christ's peace - r

Ah but t hen I'd have to come up with something else to do that day!

I have only 3 sundays to play with in Sept anyway....

Just preach it Gord!! Or you can do what one minister does and switch readings...Or would that mean 8 hours of meetings for you?

The assumption is, of course, that churches want to be more accessible to people or groups.  There are some church congregations that balk at any new people entering the church regardless of their lifestyles.  In other words, what about the congregations that are a 'closed club'?  A friend of mine, a retired, former minister, had a 'closed' congregation; visitors were made to feel unwelcome (unless, of course, they had money).  It really blew their minds when the town drunk, whom the minister had befriended, showed up for church; clean, sober, in a suit, and shaven.  One comment the minister received included, "What's he doing here?  He's Presbyterian?"  Programs and gimmicks will fail until attitudes are changed.

And that of course the whole point of the discussion southpaw

I am interested to see how the resolution will be communicated to each charge (church). Will it get past the Minister and sectretary an dpasse don to the appropriate committees or sent directly to  the Board? Some churches have a problem with "mail filtering" by some in the church office. Perhaps the UCC can have these resolutions posted on the UCC website? As there are more resolutions, and they may not get to theBoard of a church (charge) for discussion, how will the people in the pews ( chairs) know about them?

Thanks for the link. GordW.  I have added the reading from to the section of my web site www.accessiblechurch.ca, titled  Biblical Passages about Access, Disability, Inclusion, Diversity.

Which by the way is the web page that gets the most visitors, due to the big three search engines. Most of which come from the US, India, and Australia, as well a some form Canada.

On this page I list several passages from the different books of the Bible, with a link to a site that includes many versions of the Bible, in different languages, as well as audio of the texts, and commentarty as well.

I also noticed that the reading for James is that week is applicable for this topic as well and added it to my web page as well. Thanks for the reference.

James 2 (NIV)

Favoritism Forbidden

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism.  ¹My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. ²Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. ³If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," ⁴have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? ⁵Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? ⁶But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? ⁷Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? ⁸If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"^[a] you are doing right. ⁹But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. ¹⁰For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

The church is not a General Council. The Church is not an institution.

The Church is not a procedural motion. The Church is not a congregation.

Sing it with me!

"I am the church. You are the church. We are the church together.

All who follow Jesus, all around the world,

yes, we're the church together!"

Let's be the kind of United Church we want the UCC to be.

Let's be the kind of change we want our local community of faith to be.

Behaviour shapes beliefs. Let's practice being a better church.

In the emerging church, you don't need permission to change.

You only need the passion to change.

Perhaps the Admins & ES staff would consider bringing over the content & intent of www.EmergingSpirit.ca and create a Emerging Spirit forum here on WC.

I'm think I must be missing something.  Doesn't that resolution just repeat what is already the law?  Discrimination is a legal no-no for everyone, not just churches.

Kay- the difference is that the current ruling on same sex marriages allows congregations the final say as to whether they will perform them or not. The intention of the motion is to take away that power from congregations, and force all of them to performing them. I heard recently that less than 10% of congregations (approx 400) have publicly agreed to perform same sex marriage, and there are only a dozen officialy Affirming congregations.  (Someone more knowledgeable may be able to give more accurae numbers.)

In addition, for example, some would say we discriminate against children if we don't allow them to have communion.  Others would point out the number of inaccessable  buildings.

Discrimination is actually even legal, where there would be undue hardship. Example, you can't get into the 2nd floor of my canadian workplace offices if in a wheelchair. 

Those numbers are not surprising. I was a member of a task group three years ago to bring a recommendation to the Conference Executive about Toronto Conference becoming affirming. The conclusion was "not yet".

There are 62 Affirming Ministries. The breakdown is:

• 50 congregations
• 4 Educational Centres
• 3 Education and Retreat Centres
• 5 Conferences & Presbyteries

- cb

Our Presbytery has started the process.

The question for me is "Why isn't every church at least going through the process - at least having the discussion?"

Hi, Crazyheart -

*heavy sigh*

Because folks are tired?

Because it takes a knowledgeable facilitator to have a good discussion?

Because it might mean a whole pile of work, and we're already feeling like we're doing an insane amount of it?

Because discussion, unless it is backed with the ability to make change, feels useless? (How many times have groups in the church come up with great ideas, which have then been shot down by those responsible for decision making?)

Because people feel that even having the discussion will lead to the dissolution of long-standing relationships?

Because its scary?

I think there are many, many reasons why this important discussion (along side of a bucketful of other important discussions) aren't happening in every church. In every situation, it takes some*one* to get the discussion happening... and they have to challenge the reasons for not discussing, before the discussion will go anywhere.

Christ's peace - r

Because some folks would say that they are welcoming / affirming without the capital A affirming process

Richard, I knew all that before I even posted the question but I thought maybe the full moon would have changed the answer. And Pinga, that same small affirming congregation  would not even know they were not Affirming.

huh? crazy, sorry..didn't follow.

pinga, there are many congregations who say say are affirming of everyone and don't need to go through the Affirming Congregation process - the study that is there for all churches to participate in and then make the decision an to whether they will be big "A" affirming or not. I am saying that these congregations that say they are already welcoming of everyone  sometimes are the congregations that have the most to learn about welcoming.

Yopu never know for sure, because it can surprise you how people can and can not be accepting. Some churches that you might not think are small <a> Affirming are, while some that you would think to be are not.

Theres a downtown church in Montreal that has a lot of GLBT members and the clergy is openly gay. members also march in Gay Pride. You would think they would become big A Afiirming, but because of certain older members and time they are not.

Theres probly at least another 6 churches that in Ottawa that allow the minister to perform same-sex weddings, but most of them do not allow them inside the church. They tend to be more liberal churches, but it's almost as bad if not worse that they let the minister perfrom them, but only outside the church.

I am hoping the the Equal Access resultion that was passed at GC, will stimulate disscussion and talk inside churches. In particularly since so many elderly have disabilities, it might be a way of discusiing the GLBT issue and hospitality toward excluded groups.

Its too bad that all of the coverage of the Equal Access resolution in The Observer, and elsewhere focused only on the marriage issue. I do not know what percentage of the debate at GC was on the marriage issue. I would be curious to hear from those who were there.

At least on Wondercafe the equal access issue was also talked about in terms of disabilities, as well as a little on barriers facing other groups, like the poor.

I am looking at doing something in Ottawa, (an accessibility audit) which would look at all barriers, I will be including barriers facing GLBT like the marriage one, but at the same time I am thinking hard of how to do it, because I do not want it to be seen as another type of Affirming process, but one that is more educational, and will allow me and others to educate people on all barriers.

Hopefully this will allolw members to see the Affirm process as one of braking down barriers to the GLBT community, instead of one where they have to approve or disapprove of same-sex relationships. If we can change the debate in peoples minds from one of approving of homosexual acts to one of braking down barriers in the community. I am sure more people will find the Affirming Process less daunting and less threating.

Of couse there are churches that will never want GLBT members, but then again as has been pointed out by others there are churches that do not want any new people unless they have money or prestige.

Also I just have a point for minister wanting to perform same-sex marriages, without board approval. If you are doing marriages already as a service to the community, (That is marrying non-church members, then it's like you are working as marriage commisioners, and you might be obliged either not to discrimate against same-sex couples, or to limit the people you marry to church members.

I mention it now because I only recently became aware that some churches marry people who are not members.

When Quebec (the first place in the world to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation) passed it law in 1977  the RC Church was the frist group to have a complaint. They often rented out their facilities to non -church groups, but wanted to refuse to rent them to gay groups. The courts order them to either rent out there facilities to all or to not rent out there facilities to non-church groups.

Like wise if a Church in a community rents out it hall to non church groups, like the boy scouts or others they are obliged in Ontario to follow human rights law, when doing so,  as well as laws like the ODA (Ontarians with Disability Act), and the AODA, (Accesibility for Ontarians with Disability Act.)

Alex -

A minister in the UCCan cannot legally marry anyone without the permisssion of the Board of the congregation they serve. That is UCCan polity.

Because of the way that the marriage acts were written, a relgious orgaization cannot be forced to marry anyone its theology & practice does not allow. (eg. The Roman Catholic Church cannot be forced to marry individuals who are divorced.)

Those who are licenced to marry because they are clergy are not civil marriage commissioners.

And, though I support same-sex marriage... and the marriage of divorced persons, too... if a congregation or clergy were forced by the government to perform such marriages against their theology, I'd be handing in my licence to marry pretty quickly.

Christ's peace - r

revised bellow.

CrazyHeart -- I seem to remember hearing that Affirm is looking at the process to make it more accessable to small or rural charges.  Some of the process presumes large - midsized congregations --- can't remember specifics.

Richard

I was not expressing myself clearly, and I will try to clarify my point.

I understand that. Roman Catholic Priests will not marry people as a community service, they do as a rite of the Catholic Church.

If Preists were to marry divorced Catholics, or non Christians then they would be forced to marry same-sex couples as well.

Let me explain further.

I am saying is that if United Church ministers are marrying people who are not associated with the United church, and there is no Christian aspect to the marriage,(a civil ceremony) then they might be obliged to do so without discrimination under secular law, because they are not acting in a religious nature.

RC Priest will not married divorced Catholics, and that is fine. But they never perform marriage as a civil act, only as a religious rite.

UC ministers who perform marriages which have nothing to do with our religion, might be obliged/ or free to  to marry same-sex couples as well. If however they only perform religious marriages then they would be obliged / or free to follow the churches rules.

As well if Churches rent out a hall, or the sanctuary to perform non-religious marriages, then they would be be obliged to rent out to all people within the laws of Canada.

You were asking earlier if it was OK to discriminate to refuse to perform weddings for the non-religious in another post. I believe that is allowed under the law, thus if you do so you are not oblged to follow secular law in deciding who you marry.

I am pointing out that it is possible that the law would work differently depending on what you do and how you do it.

If you wed people in a way that is against your theology, then you are obliged to wed all people. You can choose to follow your theology, or you can choose not to. IF UC Churches or ministers perform marriages against their theology,(civil ceremonies) then you might be olbliged to do so without discrimination.

Churches are protected to choose who they wed, but they can only do so if they are providing religious services. 

If you rent out a hall to an AA group, (which is spiritual but not religious) you can not refuse to rent out your hall to a GLBT AA group according to the courts in Quebec.   Becuase when renting halls the church is acting as a landlord, not as a providor of religious services.

I go to a RC University, they are not allowed to discriminate against me with regards to services they provide to all. Like a room in resident. However they can refuse to allow me to study for the priesthood if I am not celibate and have no intentions of becoming so.

----------

jae, i see you are still  "d -twit"

Thank you for the head's up. - have changed my username.

RC priests can marry divorced people and non-Roman Catholics if there is proper dispensation of form and in the case of divorce, an annullment.

In general, clergy are required to perform weddings consistent with the liturgy of their church. If the liturgy is approved by the local congregation, in the case of the United Church, then it is acceptable to the government.

No. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. S15 of the Charter proptects religious freedom.

No already determined by the SCC in a case in BC involving the Knights of Columbus.

I found a legal opinion from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The part of it that I am posting deals with the religious exemption and staes that religious official are only exempt when perform religious services/

It says what I was trying to say but in a more precise way.

It would seem you have to only perform marriages for what the churches say is their doctrine, (which is I understand is decided by the local church in the UCC).  So one can perfom marriages that take place within the doctrine of a faith community. and not be forced to do same sex marriages.

If  religious officials performs marriages that are not within the doctrine of a faith community, and are only legal marriages they are obliged to provide equal access under the law.

You can perform non –religious or civil marriages, like for the children of church members who are atheists or agnostics and other community members,  but you then can not refuse to perform civil marriages for same-sex couples.

 This legal opinion from the CHRC  is found on the web at http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/factumsamesex_en.pdf

On page 10 And the applicable parts are below.

PART I

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Overview

2. The Canadian Commission agrees that the proposed legislation deals only with marriage for civil purposes and has no effect on the freedom of religious officials to refuse to perform religious marriages that are not in accordance with their beliefs and traditions. A religious marriage ceremony is not reviewable under either the Charter or provincial or federal human rights instruments. In this context part 2 of the proposed legislation is declaratory, but not necessary, to give life to the concept of religious freedom.

3. However, in circumstances where religious officials offer civil marriage services to the public in a manner which brings them within the purview of statutory human rights instruments, the proposed legislation precludes those officials from refusing to marry same-sex couples. This interpretation of the legislation is consistent with a secular approach to civil marriage.

2The Canadian Commission uses the word religious marriage to describe marriages which take place within the doctrine of a faith community. In our view, these marriages are not civil marriages simply because they are licensed by or registered with the state. Civil marriages, by contrast, lack the doctrinal characteristics of religious marriage, and are engaged in by a couple for the purpose of entering a legal rather than a religious institution.

Alex -

All weddings that UCCan ministry personnel perform are religious services. Even if we take all mention of "God" out, they are considered to be worship services, under the polity of the UCCan.  They are performed under the auspices - and by the direction of the religious decision making body known as the Session (or its equivalent). It is impossible for a UCCan minister to perform a civil marriage service.

A United Church of Canada minister may *not* marry anyone that the Session (or the equivalent) with whom they are in pastoral relationship does not give them permission to marry. I may disagree with this, but the UCCan is clear about it.

As DKS point out above, the government and the Supreme Court are down with that.

If a minister did not worry about putting their pastoral relationship (and perhaps the possibility of being placed on the Discontinued Service List - Non-Voluntary), then they could marry someone that their Session was not prepared to approve. (Well - as long as they could find a church who would let them use their marriage registers... because, in such a situation, they couldn't use the marriage registers of the congregation with whom they are in relationship.)

The argument by the CHRC is predicated upon the idea that ministers are able to do civil weddings. Within the United Church of Canada, at least, that is not possible. All weddings by a minister are done - or not done - on a license to officiate granted because the minister is part of a reigious organization.

I know you're trying to give me an 'out', if I were serving in a congregation that wouldn't allow me to officiate at marriages of same-sex couples - but its one that doesn't work within the context of The United Church of Canada.

Christ's peace - r

And also according to the understanding of the licensing agency, the Office of the Registrar-General in each province (Quebec may differ). Marriage services which are conducted by Humanist officiants are considered to be religious services, even though they make no mention of God, faith or religion.  

Not quite. The license to officate at weddings is related to a call to a pastroal charge and the existence of a pastoral relationship, at least in Ontario. members ofd the Order of Ministry not serving pastoral charges are required to give up their license. It can be quickly reinstated on requerst of the Conference Executive Secretary, however.

Thats what I thought too, until the GC and I heard ministers say that they performed civic marriages and when GordW posted this

Also it leaves me with these questions.

If all marriages performed by UCC ministers are religious, and if  as you assume Church laws trump civil law and and are the only laws governing marriages performed.

Why was the government able to try to nullify the marriages that the Rev Cheri DeNova performed in her UCC?

Why was the decision whether or not they were valid determined by a civil court and not a church court. And why did she win the right to do so in civil courts and not church courts, based on a human rights, and not religious freedom rights?

Also how was my brother able to get married in a civil ceremony twenty years five ago by a minister.  Was he being lied to by the church, as well as other people who get civil marriages performed by the church?

Who gets to determine whether a service is religious or not? Is it not the courts of the country? 

Thanks for the correction DKS - that's what I meant to say. *grin*

Christ's peace - r

Hi, Alex -

I have had people come to ask me for a civic service. GordW is right. I explain that, because my license to officiate at marriages comes through my pastoral relationship - because I am a minister - all marriages that I officiate at are worship services. How much mention of God comes through may differ in each service, but they can never be civic services.

I have not assumed the church laws trump civil law. I have shown that civil law tells us that - in relationship to marriage, at least, as long as religious organizations are following their doctrines and practices - the courts of the land have stated that religious freedom allows for limitations on who we will marry.

No idea. I have never read the appeal. A couple of things to think of, though. A) At the time that Cheri officiated at the marriage in question, the UCCan had not made a statement on same-sex marriage. B) At the time, the UCCan had in place covenant services for couples, partially because it realized that the legal question of the marriage of same-sex couples was still in limbo.

There was no appeal of this situation to the General Council. (At least, I can't find any appeal.) If there had been an appeal, it would have been interesting to see what the judicial committee would have decided. *grin* If they used the same grounds that I lost my appeal on, it might have been decided in Cheri's favour - if the Session (or its equivalent) had agreed.

Lied to? I don't know. I do know that, up until the whole discussion of same-sex marriage in The UCCan, most of us UCCan ministry personnel had no idea where the lines were. The Supreme Court decisions around same-sex marriage forced the UCCan to take a much clearer look at our own polity around marriage and to clear up questions like yours. At this point in time it is quite clear - all marriages officiated at by UCCan ministry personnel are worship services, and can only be done with the permission of Sessions (or the equivalent) - either on a one-on-one basis, or by policy.

The courts of the country have already done so, by upholding the religious freedoms section of the Charter.

Christ's peace - r

This might be your interpretaion of Church law, ( and I would not disagree with you), but in practice UCC ministers are not prevented by the UCC in performing civil marriages.

At the very least ministers should be honest like you are, and say that the wedding is religious and not civil.

I do not know how this would affect those small Churches that depend on the revenue stream from marriages to maintain their church.  Or Church members who wish to have their non-religious chuldren get married by a minister.  However they might want to consider performing same-sex marriages, if they realise by not doing so they would lose the ability to lie to people and claim that they are performing civil marriages when they are performing religious marriages.. 

Hi, Alex -

It's not my interpretation of UCCan polity. (Oh, how I wish it were just mine... then I could change it. *grin*) It's the interpretation of the judical body of the highest court of The United Church of Canada.

In practice, UCCan ministers never perform civil marriages. We can't. By the polity of the UCCan, it is impossible. Even if it is not expressed explicitly, the marriage service is a worship service of the congregation.

The only way we could do it would be to get licenced as civil marriage commissioners, alongside of being licenced to officiate at marriages by virtue of our pastoral relationship. (Hmmm... now there's an interesting idea!) We could use our civil number when officiating at civic services, and our number granted through pastoral relationship when officiating at religious services.

An even better way would be for us to get out of the marriage business completely - like in a number of European nations. Go to town hall, sign the papers that declare you married, then have whatever celebration (religious or other) that is important to you.

Christ's peace - r

Alex, RichardBott knows of which he speaks.  Having had dialogues around this one at great length, I can say that you if you don't believe him, then write to the United Church of Canada and ask if a minister of the United Church of Canada can perform a marriage without the approval of his board/session

RichardBott, I think if you had two licenses, one being call, and the other being state, that the one of call should be nature of call override the one of state, rather than the other way around.

Hey, Pinga :) -

I think you're right... but it'd be fun to argue. *LOL*

Christ's peace - r