Hello Jorgen and Welcome to WonderCafe.ca,

Respectfully Jorgen if you want more people in your church you need to be doing something about that.  The Church of Christ, in every age, grows by members inviting others in and not by some leader, loosely connected to a congregation by denomination saying something witty.

Your own description of what you do at the Church, "work in the church to keep it going" suggests that you care more about keeping the church going than you do the people who come through the doors.  If others are hearing the same message there is little wonder that they are coming in the doors.  Who wants to be used?

Thank you for stating that it is your opinion.  It might surprise you to know that there are a large number of people who belong to faith communities simply because those faith communities are deliberately not apolitical.  Politics also has the power to unite people.

Partisan politics obviously divides because the issue in partisan politics is never "Is this a good idea?"  It is "I won't agree that this is a good idea until I know who came up with this idea."  Truth is trumped by party loyalty in a partisan political environment.

Politics does not have to be partisan.  It is a choice people make.

Disagreement does not automatically equal divided.  How one chooses to disagree probably does that better.

Case in point.  I do not agree with the General Council decision to boycott products made in occupied territories.  Primarily because General Council has not sought to identify what those products are and while I can find many lists on the internet of Isreali products I am encouraged not to spend money on our Church has produced nothing by way of a guide.

I find that half-assed and embarrassing.  DKS, a colleague and regular poster here has done some digging of his own and has shared that some high-end cosmetics and a Jewish wine sold at select LCBO outlets in Toronto are the only Isreali occupation products I am likely to find in Ontario.  If DKS's list is correct then a boycott of products I do not already purchase is ineffective.  Why?  Because if you subtract all the money that I spend on these products ($0) from their total income they are hurt by ($0).  In fact, if I wanted to engage in some typical United Church back-patting I could point out that I was boycotting these products before any such call came to General Council.

Now just because I disagree with some of my fellow Church members on this point it does not follow that I will be in disagreement with them on every other issue that the United Church wrestles with.  If it did then we are probably engaged in some partisan politics and that will rightly divide.

When the majority of members will not invite those that they have good relationships to worship in an attempt to share something which is meaningful and life-giving to them then the denomination is sunk.

Even among the 12 that Jesus hand-picked there was evidence of friends inviting friends.  According to the Gospel of John, Andrew invites his brother Peter and Phillip invites his friend Nathanael (John 1:  35-50).

Grace and peace to you.

John

The quickets ways to lost people are to say nothing at all - or to chant old bromides.

Jesus was very political. otherwise, they would scarcely have bothered to kill Him.

Of course, it's foolish to adopt a policy that is pro any party. That's foolish in any case. But it you don't encourage people to examine their political and social ideas in a Christian conext, then what's the point of having a church?

I'd be interested in hearing Jorge's definition of "political."

Then, since our belief in God's incarnation in Jesus tells us that God is concerned with this world and human existence in its totality, I'd like to identify what "political" issues are beyond the interest of the church which represents Christ. I agree that the church should not be partisan (although one even has to condition that - I think the church should have been partisan, for example, in Germany of the 1930's and should have actively told its peole that voting for Hitler and the National Socialists was simply not something that a Christian in good conscience should do.) 

So, Jorgen, back to you - what are the limits of "political" to you? What should the church not be involved in? And what if the church collectively becomes convinced that the Holy Spirit wants us to be involved in something that is on your list of what we shouldn't be involved in?

I'm not being dismissive of your point. I just would like to understand it a little better.

You are right about  just working to keep the doors open, I have long felt the folly of that. In that respect I have changed from being a steward in the church to stewardship about a year ago, I have put my worries about the church in god's hands and am finding different paths opening to me. When we host music nites or ham dinners we are opening the doors to the community, I feel that the camaraderie we have shines thru, people are invited and made  to feel  welcomed.  Our challenge is approximately 350 families in this rural village and three churches, the ones that attend our functions are the Catholics and Anglicans(church goers) and we three are all struggling.

That being said I no longer have a knot in my stomach about the doors being open and am enjoying myself more and looking forward to Sundays in church.

So when the newspaper reports  that council is debating a boycott or statements regarding the pipeline and a friend asks me what the United church is up to now, I get uncomfortable. especially when they bring up the gay issue again.

Jorgen

Do you think Jesus would agree with you?

Hi Jorgen,

What is the source of your discomfort Jorgen?  Does it bother you that somebody appears to be making you the spokesperson for an entire denomination?  Does it bother you that you don't have the answers to the questions or that maybe you don't find your answers to the questions to be very satisfactory?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Jorgen. Welcome to WonderCafe. I am not prepared to comment on the issue you have raised, but I am finding the discussion very interesting. I hope that you stick around WonderCafe, because we need people like you to keep things interesting.

So what you really want is a neutral church that doesn't stand for anything.

I'm sure you can find one somewhere.

Like John, I'm curious about why that makes you uncomfortable. I disagree on the "boycott" but I've simply told people that the General Council struggled faithfully with the issue and came to a conclusion that was different than mine but that I honour them for their struggle. I long ago stopped caring whether people approved of what the United Church does or doesn't do. I'll explain it as best I can, state whether I agree or disagree, and then it's up to the other person to decide how to respond. No discomfort for me.

Why especially? What's so significant about homosexuality? Except for the fact that there are a lot of Christians who have an unhealthy fixation with homosexuality.

And then - when who brings it up? The people who ask you what the United Church is "up to" or the General Council. If the latter, I wasn't aware that the "gay issue" had been brought up at General Council.

What is it we need to be UNITED for?

Is just being UNITED all by itself something we should strive for? Why?

Why can't we be UNITED on some issues and not on others?

Has there ever been any organization in human history that was fully UNITED on everything?

I don't attend a United Church Jorgen - but I did for several years.

If your concern is 'getting more people into your dwindling congregation' I doubt you will achieve that goal by obsessing about General Council and the decisions made there.

I started attending a church for companionship as I made my way through this life with its joys and sorrows, for learning new things and for opportunities to serve the wider world in different ways from a service club or charity. 

I found that no one there was interested in developing a friendship with me, I didn't learn anything, and I was slotted into a 'role' (choir) and not encouraged to get involved in anything beyond that. 

It got stale and boring so I quit.

Maybe to grow a congregation you will need to be truly welcoming and provide what people want and need from membership in your group? ,

The source of my discomfort is that I don't have the answers. Do I think we should have a neutral church, not at all but wouldn't it be better if we all had a vote then we can say that what percentages are  for or against. If we are going to call ourselves the United church then we should unite. Pretty sure it says somewhere in the bible that homosexuality is a sin.

I don't feel that I'm obsessing about council, but sometimes I don't feel they're helping a lot either.

As I said earlier, I'm not a church member.  

I'm pretty sure though that it says lots of things in the Bible - the vast majority deal with the 'sins' of heterosexual folk. 

It also says  'judge not',

But the church doesn't and shouldn't operate on the basis of votes or percentages in favour or opposed or majority rule. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the church seeks to discern the will of God. Maybe the church gets it right; maybe it doesn't. But how many are in favour or opposed doesn't really matter, since the will of God isn't dependent on a vote.

As to homosexuality, it's a complicated issue, frankly, on which there is much division within the Christian community. I believe Jesus said that we should interpret the Law on the basis of agape love. That means I love the other person no matter what and without any expectation of anything in return from them. God's grace was sent into the world for us all. 

Hi Jorgen,

And why does that make you uncomfortable?  Are you required to have answers to every possible question?

Better in what way Jorgen?  Do we make right and wrong a matter of public opinion?  Do we only take a specific action when there is a certain percentage in agreement?

And does unity look like sameness to you?

It is as much sin as eating pork and working on the Sabbath.  How would you feel about answering questions about dietary and cultural regulations that your church adheres to or, as the case may be, doesn't.

Join the club.

One of the problems we have in the United Church is that we are hell-bent on thinking of the higher courts of the Church as other.  Every higher court is the nefarious "them" that either gets in our way or doesn't do what we need.  Often it does both at the same time.

For some reason most people in the pews are quite happy to rattle off how Presbytery (for example) exists only to suck the money out of congregations and tell them what to do.  And those people really don't care that there is at least one Presbyter who sits in their own pews or leads worship from their pulpit.

At Presbytery we tend to make Conference the bad guys bossing us around and at Conference it is General Council's turn to catch flack.  And yet, the higher up we climb the more we find that those courts are made up of people in the pews much like us.  And for all the similarities we still ensure that those in the higher courts stay "them" and we stay "us."

As one who sits in the pews there are very few decisions made at General Council that anybody can force you to comply with.  Don't want to boycott products from anybody?  You don't have to.  Your choice.  Don't agree with the boycott or any political decision made by GC.  That is your choice.  Believe it or not dissent is allowed in the United Church even if it makes "them" upset.

The only question I would hope you can answer without being uncomfortable is why you are a member of your congregation.  And frankly, if you can't give a good answer to that question it won't be politics that drives people away.

Grace and peace to you.

John

One thing to examine is why are people staying away from church.  

Is it just those who used to go, but no longer feel it is a social obligation?

Are those upset with the politics those who belong to other churches. If so you can explain that disagreeiing is  UCC theology, and Reformation  theology to  disagree with the clergy and the courts of the church. While it is not Catholic Theology to disagree with the clergy and the courts, it is traditional for Catholics to do so.  

I would say profond disagreements are normal for all groups, while staying together is abnormal.

Have you evr notice that families that stay together, have disagreements. What makes them different from families that split, is the ability to accept those they disagree with instead of not dealing with them, or pretending they do not exist?

In that same vein, Alex (and Jorgen), people need to remember that the root word of "Protestant" is "protest." 

I'm fairly sure that as Protestants we were never in lock-step agreement on very much of anything. We should feel free to disagree (and even protest) but we should always do so within the context of agape love.

[quote=Alex]

One thing to examine is why are people staying away from church.  

Is it just those who used to go, but no longer feel it is a social obligation?

These are the questions I have wondered about. The only way we are going to find these answers is to visit with the ones that used to come to church and talk to them. We have sent out newsletters stating our position to all who are members asking how can we better serve them, what they would like to see different. We don't get much response I think it's because they don't know or understand themselves. Untill we can get a handle on these things we are going to continue to struggle. I believe my original point about religion and politics was more about not giving people a reason not to attend church.

Jorgen

Hi Jorgen,

Wait for it . . . .

I bet it is because the Church has shown through the survey that their answers matter more than they do.  As you point out above, what was needed was individuals to go and visit.  A survey sheet is not the same as a visit.

Time is money and the Church has demonstrated how much time they are willing to spend with those who left and as a result they have shown them just how valued they were.  I suspect the answer most arrived at is that the Church never valued them much at all.

Too true.  In order to get a handle on anything you need to get close enough to touch it with your hands.  If a newsletter/survey is the best any congregation can do in this regard.  It should make plans now how it wants to disperse the congregational assets.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Some congregations don't want to spend any time with you when you are actually attending. 

revjon, thank you for so clearly and briefly stating an important issue.  It is all about relationships and how we show we value them.

The Christian faith (like just about any faith) is incompatible with a world in which the dominant influence is consumerism. My newspaper, like most, has six or so pages once a week on cars. It has six or eight pages a day on sport (mostly as a consumer item.) It has one half a page per week for religion - and it's usually a pretty flimsy half page.

My own feeling is that the church should make itself a point of confrontation with this. it should offer itself and its values as a clear alternative.

As to homosexuality, well, The Bible also says thou shalt no kill. Christians,over the last  sixty years have killed at least 8 million people, probably far more, and the majority of them innocent civilians. Have those who condemn homosexuality been outspoken about mass murder?

Condemning homosexuality isn't taking a position. It's avoiding taking a position on the really serious issues.

Kaythecurler, why don't you try another church, United or otherwise?  I've been to a few churches and they're just like people, all different.  Some people are harder to get to know but worth it in the end.  Some people draw you in too quickly.  And then there's everything in between.   Sometimes it's just a matter of finding a match.  My experience with belonging to a church has had its ups and downs but in the end, completely worth it. 

I've been reading and rereading this whole section on religion and politics that I started here, we never have these kind of discussions after church. It has put my own beliefs to the test and I am finding them full of holes. This is what was needed,again I believe these paths are opening to me for a reason.

 I am going to try and get this type of discussion going with my church family, this may be what is lacking. If nothing else it will be interesting. I got a charge meeting tonite and am going to push for less papers and more hands on to find our way.

thanks all

Jorgen

Hi Jorgen,

I wish you all the best in that endeavour.  I suspect you will find it equivalent to pushing a large boulder uphill so try not to be too discouraged if you are not met with a lot of interest or support.

Grace and peace to you.

John

jorgen, I admire the grace you have just shown in your post.  May that grace help you successfully share your insights at the meeting.

marvelous. it can be frustrating. But it's the only way to go.

Neither does Christianity - it usually just pretends to have answers. I think it's healthy that you admit that you don't. Most of us make our way as best we can, with the limited information we have available. It's my position that making stuff up doesn't help.

To be fair, the bible says a lot of stupid things.

The great thing about Christianity is that it is more obsessed with sex than your average teenaged boy. And like the average teenaged boy, you shouldn't consider consulting the bible for advice on sexual matters.

I think the UCCan is fighting a completely unwinnable battle, but it's trying to stay relevant.

The people I talk to simply don't care about church any more, and can't bring themselves to believe in the god they are being asked to sing mediocre songs about. It's not even that they're atheists - they just don't care about religion or church any more, and they have better things to do with their time.

I like that last comment about the church trying to stay relevant. To try and start new initiatives in an effort to be current is the challenge. I was led to this forum and find it a wonderful way to express  and challenge my thoughts.

By saying that it has given me the courage to try a new avenue maybe not new but to me anyway. I'm trying to start a hot topic discussion group at church( there seems to be a few) I'd like some input from you all about this business in our public schools of not failing a child but pushing them thru grade school weather or not they have the grades. Case in point is my granddaughter now in grade 8 and has been struggling since grade 4, math and english are her weakness. I don't believe it did me any grievous harm to repeat grade 7 as I just didn't have the grades needed to progress.

Jorgen 

Hi Jorgen,

WonderCafe.ca will be very useful for that.

Quitting used to be the only failure I recognized as such.  Now I think that giving up too easily is a new kind of failure.  To that end advancing a student who is unprepared for what they must face next is giving up and it represents a global educational failure.  Students have failed to learn what is deemed necessary not because they quit trying to learn but rather because the system quit trying to teach.

My wife, a professor of Education with an emphasis on Special Education who has actual classroom teaching experience in two provinces sees this quitting happening in different ways on various levels.  As an advocate for Parents through Autism Ontario I have seen teachers and school administrators give up before even trying to address the special needs of students all the while knowing that they would advance that student to higher grades and an even greater demand for modifications and accommodations than were being given to that student when the demand is lower.

I never repeated a year.  I have repeated courses.  In seminary I awarded myself a failing  grade in one course simply because I didn't believe I had grasped the material well enough to be of any use to anyone.  Oddly, I was commended for failing myself.

There has been a cultural shift (or several) since now and when I first started school and for one reason or another society has had a difficult time finding easy balances in certain areas.  Education being one such area.

The current assumption appears to be that you cannot nurture persons and train the academically at the same time.  And so, the argument goes, pulling me out of my peer group simply because I don't match peer performance is damaging to my emotional development.  And, to a degree it is.  Being called a dummy by my peers (if they're cruel) or have them wonder about my inability to grasp something (if they're kind) can lead me to doubt myself and lead me to quit to easily.  It might not either.  

Human response varies from human to human and is affected by other things going on.  I failed a mid-term once that I probably should have asked to be excused from.  My uncle had been killed in a plane crash a few days previous and I was emotionally distracted.  It wasn't that I didn't know the subject matter that caused my poor performance it was that I couldn't concentrate on any of it at the time that did.

It was my resiliency as a person that allowed me to ignore that previous failure and come back to write one hell of a final that led to a passing grade.  That and an extensive talk with my professor who was alarmed at my erratic failure enough to call me into his office for a talk.  Which taught me a life lesson I never would have gotten from the course otherwise.  When you are in over your head it is not a failure to ask for help.

While it is tempting to lay the lion's share of the blame on the teachers parents are not completely innocent.  There has been a huge shift in the way parents respond to their children's failures.  Once upon a time I was afraid to bring home a poor report card because there were consequences to poor grades and negative comments.  If I ever dared to say, the teacher sucks or the teacher hates me then it was a given that parents and teachers were on the same side against me.  Now it seems more common that parents and children are on the same side against the teacher.

To be sure there are teachers out there who suck and I'm sure there are some immature enough to let their personal feelings be reflected in their marking.  There are also ignorant parents who enable their kids to slack off by their confrontational attitude towards teachers and school administrators.

At this point, with respect to your grand-daughter.  We don't know which educational approach would have worked best for her, all we know is what, so far, has not served her well at all.

Grace and peace to you.

John

repeating is a waste of time. i repeated grade ten. Without doing anything different (which means doing nothing) I got very high grades the second time. then I failed eleven - and got kicked out.

Three years later, without finishing high school, I lucked into getting admitted to a university. And, though I had not finished high school, I found that no handicap whatever. Mind you, I did poorly in the BA, so poorly I was denied a major in history, and came close to flunking out of university.

Three years later, I was getting straight As in an MA programme.

Repeating will sometimes work, sometimes not. It depends on what is causing the failure. It's not simply a matter of reassembling all the parts. Finding out what causes these failrures, then developing appropriate responses costs money. And we simply are not willing to spend enough money on education. (that's why we have school fees, and teachers wasting their talents and time in organizing funding campaigns to buy basic office material.

Many kids will fail, as I did, simply because they come from a neighborhood environment that has low expectations. I've seen that from both sides, and it can be very hard to reach children from such a background. It won't happen by just recycling them.

More to think about. Thanks for the input. Some good things came from the struggles with Julia, the high school that my daughter attended has a wonderful principal who recognizes that some kids are coming out of grade school lacking in different subjects that are necessary for high school, he will help develope a program to suit Julia. One comment that he made was so what if it takes her 5 years to graduate.

My daughter has been sending Julia to oxford tutoring twice a week at a cost of      $45 /hr and she  is doing better so far,unfortunately there is only a tax break on a % of $500 spent as I understand it, currently talking to our MPP to see if there is anyway to help that, doubt it though.

Jorgen 

As someone who did not repeat but a grade, but had a learning disability and was held back from starting Primary school, becasue I could not speak. I do not believe that being held back in the early years help most kids. In fact becasue I was a year older than many of my class mates, my learning disability went undiagnosed and was not addressed.  

After high school I started working as a bricklayers helpers. When I was in my early forties I had to stop work due to a problem with my hands  and had to wait for a year for surgery and than to recover and see if the surgery worked.  So I decided to take a couple of courses in philosophy at a small Catholic University. I did well. I ended up being tested for learning disabilities. After testing in the top 1% in various areas of intelligence,  I was referred for further tests at a hospital.  . It turned out I had PDD NOS a type of autism, a common disability that affects people of various levels of intelligent. It meant my brain thinks and learns  differently (using concepts and pictures) It also meant that while my hearing was fine, my brain has great difficulty filtering noise. SO a typical classroom setup meant I was unable to hear the teacher, or focus. 

I was a success in philosophy, because big picture topics suit me, and becasue often there were only 6 or 10, or 15 students in each class. Thus I could hear and concentrate. I also recieved accomadtions, like being able to write tests in a room by myself. 

Althrough my disability was not well know by educators until after I left school, the fact that I was older than the other students help cover the challenges I was facing, while not finding a solution. ie.e I would just read my text books at night alone to cover. It would have been much better for me, if my various challenges were discover when I was younger. 

 I would also suggest that your grandaughter reciev help in subjects that she  does well in. I was always bored in math, because I caught on to concepts so quikly, while struggling with language arts. If people only focus on what kids are weak in and they do not overcome it easily it is discouraging and makes school a chore and can affect self esteem.

So if you also have extra work on subjects that  she  finds easy, and their are no funds, a non professional educator who knows that  subject (like a grandparent, or other family) would have been a great resource for me.  

 It would have helped with my self image, if others had notcied I was able to pick up a math text book and complete a years work in a month or two. And than given me other math textbooks and work from high school and university.

i did badly in algebra. geometry and trigonometry - none of which I can even remember now because I've never had the slightest use for it in my life.

I have university courses i took, right up to graduate level with As, of which i remember close to nothing. Too much of learning is information which we have no practical use for, and soon forget.

Nice to see you admitting your academic incompetence, Graeme. It's been crystal clear to me all along.
.
You forgot to add that you can't write either and that your posts are full of spellings mistakes (or typos you're too lazy to fix). Did you know that the first person singular pronoun is spelled "I" not "i"?
.
I did much better academically than you, yet you have told me I am stupid on numerous occasions. For such a nitwit you're remarkably arrogant. Just the other day you told jlin,
.
jlin - your post is unintelligibale - and, in the bits I can follow, you suggests you know very little  about Canada. As well, you do not appear to know the meanings of many of the words you use.

Ah, fair one, shrink not from me.....

I like that suggestion it makes sense, Julia's problem is immaturity she isn't progressing at the same rate as her peers according to the "professionals" that she has been sent to. I see her as a normal little girl that still likes to play she's only 13 this november what is the rush? does she need to dress like they do in the movies? I believe it's a good thing that she hasn't started to blossom yet. I don't think it's good for a young girl to look and dress as someone who is much older and more mature.

I am glad she still enjoys play -- it also shows she has enough confidence in herself to accept being different, and this confidence is more important than academic success.  As a teacher who failed to adequately stand up for one of our children, I ask you to feel free to stand up for your daughter and insist on what you believe she needs.  In Alberta, parents almost always have the last word on issues like promotion or not.  In addition, I hope you are able to ask, strongly, that her teachers, if she repeats, substitute extra resources for those areas where she has the most difficulty for regular assignments where she is doing well.  Ask for an IPP and persist in having a role in designing the IPP as well as signing it.  Also be sure your daughter has a role in the design of that IPP  (Individual Progress Plan).

I heartily second all that Jim Kenney writes above.