Hi gomom:

Jesus was, among others, a champion for social justice. Had environmentalism been as burning an issue then as now, he would have been an environmentalist as well.

I think a church minister who isn't for social justice and environmental responsibility isn't a worthy minister. Partisan politics need not necessarily enter.

i think that you should go and tell you minister exactly what you have written here, and discuss it with him... again, as you said, with the focus being on him only discussing one side of a very controversial issue, and how it made you feel.

your ministers response to what you are saying will be interesting.

for me, ministers are human, and they make mistakes.  what separates the good ministers from the ones who just THINK they are good is when someone comes up to them and says what you have here, and they take it, think about it, and try and improve based on that feedback. 

There's not much to go on,  here. He spoke on nuclear power. Well, if one can find biblical support for his position - why not?

I don't understand why this is simply partisan - or why being partisan is bad. Partisan simply means to take one side. Well, there are lots of issues on which Christians can take one side on the basis of christian teaching. Indeed, it would be terribly wrong not to take a side, and to make Christianity something purely theoretical that happens only on Sunday morning.

I can see merit in both the replies above - but it's hard to say anything without a clearer picture of what is involved. and, most important, did the minister argue the case in a Christian context? If so, isn't that what he is supposed to do?

graeme

Remember when Stockwell Day was running for prime minister?

Our church made him out to be "our hope"  I thought it was silly actually.

He even came to our church for a sunday morning service.

Bolt

Hi Gomom!  Welcome to the cafe! 

a perfect opportunity for Wondercafe live!  Why not suggest a discussion format regularly for this sort of topic?  and maybe if you talk to the minister about it a bit, he'll modify his sermons somewhat to respect that it doesn't allow for debate.

for the discussions, all you need is a sign, an announcement, a few phone calls & coffee (maybe a movie for kids)

I do agree though, that social justice & Jesus go hand in hand.

Sometimes Ministers search for something current, something that would interest the congregation and spark their interest in a cause.  I guess this one isn't one that interests you and I agree, boring stuff when you come for a sermon of good will.

I myself come to church to feed my soul.  It makes the next week better for me should I be uplifted against the toils of life, and ready for the next challenge.  I don't like sermons that have any gloom and doom in them, I get enough of that in daily life. 

Hi gomom!!!

Perhaps your ministre will continue this topic in the coming Sundays. Perhaps there was not time to tell both sides of the issue. Was your minister using parables from the bible to illistrate the nuclear power's position of authority over people? Does this have a common thread from previous messages? Perhaps the minister was trying to cause some talk and debate from the congregation about the "empire" of nuclear power and the energy sector in general.

To feel as you do shows that you are aware of the goings on in society and perhaps that is one of your ministers goals. To stir thought in peoples heads.

And sometimes the minister has a captured audience - no time to question or debate the issue. I have seen this happen in other context.

Some ministers feel that their call into the United Church of Canada is strongly related to a call for social justice, which includes the environment. Many people in the world feel that there is reason to believe that this was Jesus' call and action in his time. I see nothing wrong with ministers analyzing different issues and presenting that analysis for consideration to the congregation.  

We are all subject to pressures from various sources, many of them paid to promote a certain message for the benefit of their corporation. It surely is reasonable to be offered another view on those issues, such as nuclear power, war, poverty, equality, etc, when viewed through the commandments to love God and love our neighbour. I personally think it's important to consider how the command/call to love translates into our real lives while here on the planet and am very glad to hear sermons of this nature.

Graeme: To put this in to context, the rest of the service had an Earth Sunday theme.  The songs and scriptures all related to nature and caring for the environment.  So yes, I suppose that it was in context.  The problem with this particular argument is that pro-nuclear supporters can also argue that their position is also good for the environment (with low carbon emissions).  I'm just confused as to why she would pick such a heated issue when there are so many positive environmental actions that could have been mentioned.  (ex. lowering our carbon footprint). 

I spoke with her at a music and worship comitee meeting imediately following the service.  This is not the first time this type of thing has been an issue.  I am also curious to see the result. 

I am interested in the topic.  I have also voiced my opinion that we need more positivity in our sermons.  I want to feel spiritually guided not lectured.

I wasn't going to mention this, but maybe it would shed some light on why the sermon caused such an emotional response from me.  As I have mentioned previously, we have had issues with this type of thing before.  We had asked that any politically based sermons be approved ahead of time by our music and worship committee.  It was not brought before the committee, but it was brought up with a few of our church leaders a few days prior. (including myself).  We (separately) expressed very clearly that the message should focus on people educating themselves on the topic, and that both sides should be represented equally.  We were assured that that was the case.

Needless to say, I was hurt and stunned on Sunday morning when this topic came to light.  I felt as if I had been lied to and my opinions and feelings were completely disregarded.  It left me questioning whether I was right to ask for the topic to be neutral.  This is my spiritual leader to whom I look for guidance, so I wondered if I was the one at fault.

I posted here to shed some light on the situation.  How should politics be handled in the church?  Can they be mixed?  Should our spiritual leaders influence our decisions from the pulpit? Should we be provided with the information so we can decide ourselves?

No, this is a one time only topic.  No parables.  The purpose of the sermon was to encourage people to attend panel discussions in our area on the topic of nuclear power.  I agree with the need for education on the issue.  I just don't like how it was presented (obviously).

motheroffive: Thanks you, I am glad that I can hear from both perspectives.  It really helps my thought process!

bingo (or at least you made the point I would have before I got to it  )

With respect to those who preach for a living, because its a slippery slope they tred, this is the one that often trips up. Sermons end up either too vague and airy to have any substance at all, or they're obviously the preacher's personal position.

Whenever I've given a presentastion, sermon or not, I try to indicate my own perspective and how, theologically, I came to it. YMMV as they say. I think that, particularly in the case of an ongoing leadership relationship such as a church's minister, its reasonable to think that you're going to find out something about how your spiritual guide got to where they are. That then allows you to decide whether you want to go to the same place or not, regardless of whether or not you personally research the topic (because as we know, most won't)

I don't know your minister, but I know several who struggle with this. It's not easy for some people to "put themselves out there" and, out of the best intentions in the world, they end up retreating behind the authority of the position...... and I've known a few who just thought the congregation should listen to them 'cause - lol.

According to the Webster On-line Dictionary:

As a member of a community of faith, I regard it as my duty to be aware of "social relations involving authority or power" -- the first definition quoted. Politics permeates our daily life, whether or not one acknowledges that reality. Whether it involves our personal finances, our interactions with others in our communities, our involvement in day to day life has political aspects. Jesus himself, as reported in the Gospels, was extremely poltical and challenged power and authority in all sorts of ways. As his followers, are we not called to do the same?

With all due respect, I think that a minister who is required to have his sermons cleared when they veer into "political" territory is required to have all his sermons vetted for, in my view, every aspect of our lives is political. And, on top of that, I wonder if he feels insulted by this process to which he's being subjected. In fact, this action is political itself given that it sounds like he's being censored.

This boggles my mind, frankly.

gomom- this may be prsumptious of me, but I feel there is more of a struggle in your church than the aforementioned topic.I have never heard of a worship committee vetting the minister's sermons like your church does.It is really mind boggling. Would the same thing be said about other topics ( sexuality, being one issue?)

I don't think you're being presumptuous crazyH. gomom has said that this is part of an ongoing issue. No doubt there's a number of issues at play here.  Of course, if we only ever talked about stuff we knew all the nuances of, we'd never say much in this place would we?

You are absolutely right. It would be a very dead place, wouldn't it? Bring on the nuances ( love that word, GR), gomom

TO be honest,.

If my congregation tried to require that my sermon topics go through some sort of vetting process it wouldn't happen.  TO begin with is it pretty much undoable (unless they want to meet with me on a Saturday) since even though I create early thoughts and often sermon titles a month or two ahead until that week I never know where it will actually go.  Secondly, they have called me to preach.  I agree with a concern about using the position as a bully-pulpit but there are other ways to deal with that--like the M&P committee.  But get pre=approval on sermons? Not gonna happen.

If such a request was made it would say to me that it was time to leave.  OR actually past time to leave.

gomom, like others, I now see a deeper problem  here. and I'm not sure it's entirely about the sermons.

If it is, then the minister has to learn to attack these subjects in a way that provokes thought - not in a way that automatically equates the ministerial position with a biblical one.

The problem may be (may) that having arrived at a position he does through a study of his faith, he then preaches his final position as the truth, and the only truth. Meanwhile, he is speaking to an audience which has not gone through that whole process - and the conclusion seems to them to be extreme.

graeme

gomom, like others, I now see a deeper problem  here. and I'm not sure it's entirely about the sermons.

If it is, then the minister has to learn to attack these subjects in a way that provokes thought - not in a way that automatically equates the ministerial position with a biblical one.

The problem may be (may) that having arrived at a position he does through a study of his faith, he then preaches his final position as the truth, and the only truth. Meanwhile, he is speaking to an audience which has not gone through that whole process - and the conclusion seems to them to be extreme.

graeme

Hello gomom and welcome to WonderCafe.ca.

It might be that you take issues with the simplicity provided by only considering one point of view.  Presenting only one side of the argument does not build a bridge it denies one.

Well, perhaps that is what you were being offered?

Expecting the church to be apolitical is kind of like expecting to be able to breathe water.  It has uncomfortable results.  That said, being political doesn't have to mean being narrow.

Ideally that would be nice.  Some people are not into the leg work required to do the discovery on their own.  I think that the Church can do that leg work and present their findings and inform individuals in that way.  Ideally, that discovery would be even-handed.  Ideals are not always easy to reach.

I know that during one sermon (While in St. Anthony) I referred to a prominant politician as a liar.  I believe I called him a "bald-faced" liar.  The biggest reaction I got to that was that they (my congregation) were not used to seeing me lose control in that regard.

My congregation was politically connected.  My Clerk of Session at the time was the executive assistant to the Premiere and he spent most of his time making sure that his boss and his clergy never met face to face.

Nobody took issue with my calling the gentleman in question a liar.  They seemed to be more upset that I let his being a liar bug me.  "Knowed that fer year b'y" appeared to be the common sentiment.

Rightly or wrongly clergy are human, just as the folk in the choir or the pews.  We feel passionately about somethings and indifferent about others.  We sometimes let that passion drive the bus when it should be tied in a seat and allowed to watch the scenery.

Talk to your clergy about your concern.

They might listen or they might not.  Remember we are as human as the next guy on a rant.

It should plant a seed that will shape the future delivery of political commentary.

For the record I have never apologized for my political comment and alongside the slam was a prophetic comment about the politician's future in politics which proved to be shockingly on.

Either I was dialed into some wisdom from on high or circumstance was engineered as a gift to me for some reason or another.

What was the congregational response to my predictive ability?  "Yer not as stun as most mainlanders."  

Praise should never get higher than that.

Politics is a fine line.  Clergy who attempt to walk it should get a measure of forgiveness for simply daring to try.  They should also be told to stick with what they are good at if, in so daring they prove they cannot walk that fine a line.

Grace and peace to you.

John

lol John - that was a good read! and wise too.

GR - good to see you!!!! 

and GordW - YES - if one is being asked to share sermons for censoring by the Worship committee, its time to leave the charge.   It may mean time for some mentoring & discernment with some wise colleagues (how about right here at WC??) but at the least, trust is broken and its time to move on.  (ok - maybe there is room for growth & reconciliation, but the Worship ctte had better give up their demand asap)

I wonder if an underlying issue here is how the laity views the role of the preacher/minister, and the purpose of a sermon. Is it to "tell the congregation what to think"?  Certainly many outside the church think so - that whatever a minister says is automatically and without reservation going to be accepted by everyone in the congregation.  And that the church is somehow in the business of  thought control.  Or, is it that we expect to be able to agree with everything said in a sermon? Well, that doesn't even happen in the Bible, where there are many disagreements and it is up to us to decide which side we're on. Jesus had many disagreements with the religious authorities of the day, yet much of what they had to say had a solid scriptural basis.

Myself, I would be content to say "I disagree" and move on. Perhaps everything in a sermon should be controversial in some way to someone.  Otherwise, are we really being challenged in the way we lead our lives?  Jesus certainly challenged - then and now.  Of course, a challenger isn't necessarily right just because he/she challenges. But it prevents you from holding a viewpoint without having thought about it. Too many of us hold opinions by default - and vote that way too.

Your question does raise the point about the limitations on public discourse in churches. Sermons are by their nature monologues - and therefore more likely to be one-sided.  Would dialogue sermons help give a more balanced viewpoint? Possibly, although just try to organize one - it's a lot of work. Perhaps a session after the sermon for responses from the congregation? Can this be done while maintaining the integrity of the worship experience? I'm not sure. Perhaps an after-church discussion where the points can be debated - bring your lunch (a local congregation occasionally has these - they're called Rev Raps).  Maybe people wouldn't be in such a hurry to get away after church if there was less of a sense of "the show's over; it's time to go".  Maybe a homegrown "wondercafe" that's not at the usual worship time with a sermon that you get to discuss with your tablemates afterwards.  It depends on how important it is to discuss what was said or if you would prefer to simply reflect on it on your own time.

It sounds like you feel quite a disconnect with this minister and that is unfortunate.

While I also like to be uplifted at church i actually like to be challenged and slightly pushed off base.  Perhaps that is what your minister is doing.

I think it is his job to challenge and inform the congregation of what he is receiving as a message from God to preach.  I mena, they do sit and contemplate and read and pray before pulling the words together.

I also can't understand a church that feels they have a right to vett a sermon.  You called the person to be your spiritual guide.  SO let the minister guide you.  And if he/she is drifting in a different way from the congregation then there may be changes underway.

Hi spiritbear,

Better than Rev Wraps.

Grilled ham and cheese in a whole wheat tortilla.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.   I'll have to look into that idea.

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJ - yes, I suppose it can be an opportunity to "grill" the rev.  As long as he/she doesn't end up as toast.

I am surprised to read the great opposition to the vetting.  I honestly didn't know until reading these posts that it was such an appalling behaviour.  It makes me appreciate the graceful manner in which this imposition was accepted.  This does stem from a fair amount of history and was put in place to reduce the amount of members leaving disgruntled after a particularly controversial sermon.  Does anyone have a suggestion other than the vetting that has worked for other congregations? Obviously what we did is considered quite invasive. M&P are working hard to keep communication open between the congregation and the minister.  We see many positive qualities in her and we really are trying to narrow the gap between expectations and what is being provided. Some of you suggested that maybe our differences are irreconcilable and we should cut the ties.  I really don't want to jump to that conclusion without some very sincere attempts (on both our parts) to bridge the chasm that exists right now. 

I just want to thank everyone for their sincere input.  I live in a small community and it is so nice to have an anonymous place to gather a wide range of ideas.   To do this in my own community would cause hurt feeling and gossip or worse.  I needed an outlet and I have found it. 

This brings forth another issue for me (not sure if I should start a whole new discussion here??).   Is a Rev. an employee (for lack of a better word) of the congregation?  How much input should a congregation have in what is presented by a minister?  How much control should a minister have over the various committees in the church? 

There is so old saying that in the business world you have a boss but in the church the revs have ( number in congregation) bosses.

I make it my point to never discuss religion or politics.    Now that you know I'm in a mischievous mood, a new minister was getting ready for his first Sunday to preach on the evils of drinking.  "Tread careful," his caretaker warned, "one half of your congregation work for a distillery." The next Sunday, he wanted to preach on the evils of smoking.  "Tread careful, the other half are tobacco famers."  The third Sunday, he delivered his most blistering sermon ever....on the evils of fishing outside one's territorial waters!  You can discuss political issues without necessarily taking sides.  The point should be to get people thinking.  (Stephen Harper rules.)

THere have been some good suggestions about ways to provide feedback and inititate discussion about the sermons being presented.  A healthy, secure person in ministry would likely welcome such feedback and discussion.

In the United Church (and in most mainline denominations) the "minister" is definitively not an employee of the church.  WHo we are an employee of is a vague question.  Really we are paid office holders.  What the person in ministry presents in worship and Christian Education should grow out of his/her understanding of the congregation -- who they are, where they are growing, where they may need to be challenged, where they may need consolation, what is happening in the wider community, to name a few considerations.  Different people have different ways of helping gain the answer to those questions.  The M&P committee, the WOrship Committee, Bible Study groups, one-on-one visiting all have a role to play.  BUt the reason we don't let the congregation (or any part thereof) approve or censor what is said is that soemtimes the minister has to be the one to share difficult or challenging things that nobody wants to hear--and then has to deal with the pastoral concerns of doing that.

As to the amount of control the minister "should" have over the ministry of the congregation and its committees?  THat is a question with a whole lot of different answers.  THe minister is not there to rule the roost.  But the minister is also not there to simply do as told or follow along.   A balance needs to be found, and the balance needs to be found constantly since it changes with time.

It seems to me that a good part of Jesus work was political.  He was opposed to the Roman Empire and acted thus in a non-violent way.

I once was a member of a church that had a wonderful and devout Christian for minister.  However, he challenged them and they didn't like it.  They made life so miserable for him that he finally left.  He was the best clergyperson that church ever had.

If the minister honestly feels that nuclear energy is not a good idea and is contrary to our stewardship of the earth then he is obligated to speak out.  If some don't like it well that is tough.  Perhaps he was only challenging folks to think about this issue?  I don't know but I agree with him.

The clergy are paid to feed the flock but the flock cannot always choose the menu.

Shalom

Mate

Mate,

the diference, in the end, is how the challenging is done though isn't it?  Ministry, like all of life,  is a matter of balance.  Ministry, like all politics, is the art of the possible.

Gord

Yes, I can agree with that.  Oh, the art of politics and persuasion.

Shalom

Mate

wow, i like others cannot imagine vetting a minister's sermon by any committee.

You have lots of solid feedback, and I am thankful you continue to ask questions.

These are good questions, and you aren't hte only one who might ask. 

Sounds like some great opportunities here.

#1.  The manual is available in PDF format.  If you don't have it, downlaod it, If you need a link, it is here.www.united-church.ca/manual  

In the manual you will find all sorts of great information, including organizational structures & responsibilities which may be of help, especially for the worship /music committee.  (note: for me it is always worship/music...worship comes first..music heightens the worship)

#2.  Challenge & positions.  If a minister did not speak regarding their passion, then, where would we be?  They are called to the position of ministry, have gone through lengthy discernment & training.  We call them to speak to us...and so...why would you want to shut them down?  Yes, they may get political and make a few folks uncomfortable...but then, so does talking about stewardship... 

3.  Ways to be political & be successful.  I am sure there are many gifted ministers who will share the ways they do it.  I can tell you that some ministers in our church history have ticked off people..but generally, they were also the ones who made our church the most passionate, vibrant, alive church it is.  Instead of talking about the coffee, we talked about issues at coffee & conversation.   In other words, celebrate that people are being challenged & growing, and forming opinions.  Encourage them to talk to each other & the minister

4.  I would also say that those who tried to be what they were not, who tried to make eveyrone happy, who left their call..and instead listened to the voices of discontent, were generally hurt or unappy..and congregation leaders didn't even know...everything was under the surface..

gomom,

I don't know the history of your church, nor am I familiar with the politics and procedures of the United Church, (WC is my 1st and only experience with UC) but from a personal (I guess also bias) view, I have attended many churches (and have even been a member of some....I have moved around alot) and have had in many cases (almost every case) witnessed the abuse of the polpit. 

I don't think it to be ludicrous that sermons (or certain ones-nonbiblical)  would get approved, escpecially if the church leader is more of a teacher rather than a preacher.  In the end, it will be the "leader" of the church who is at the polpit and what will be said will be said by him/her. 

The "spotlight" is a very powerful thing.  Several churches that I had attended regularily enough to recognize that the pastors were "adrenaline junkies" and would preach onesided on non-biblical topics.  It made it easier for me to leave all that behind when I was personaly told by some members of the congregation that I was going to hell for something that the pastor had preached against that was not even backed by scripture.  It was reasons like this that I left the church scene behind. 

I understand that you are an active member of your church and can't just up and leave.  I also would feel like I had been lied to, if your minister said that she would preach a certain way and then not.....multiple times....that's not cool.  If she strongly believes that she should not be cencored, she should speak up and let it be known, she should not say yes to you and your committee just to satisfy you and then do whatever she wants.  If this is a serious issue, maybe the congeration can take a vote on whether they want a minister who teaches like a teacher or preaches like a preacher, or do churches not do democratic voting on things like this? I haven't been in a church in years, so I'm out of touch with how things happen now. 

I hope everything works out for you, it's not fair if church becomes a sort of hellish experience for you. 

Thanks,

Bishop B. 

I find it interesting, after all the attacks on a couple of people on another thread who assumed the wrong gender because of a name, that you have done the same thing here.

You assumed because it was a Minister that it was a "him" when she is a "she".

That's so funny Sighs.

Be Blessed,

IB

Wow,

As I continued reading MoF, graeme, lastpoint and Mate all referred to this minister as a "him".

This is hillarious.

Now this doesn't bother me in the least but I just can't quit laughing at the hypocisy.

Be Blessed,

IB

Most of the time I refer to God as a He.  That is just a left over from tradition and one that is slow to disappear but it will.

Shalom

Mate

How will you refer to Him then, if & when it does dissapear?

Bolt

bolt

The Divine has no gender.  We have far too long anthropomorphized the Divine.  It is merely man's attempt to create God in his image.

Shalom

Mate

Okay, so this is the conclusion and resolution of my personal drama.  I spoke to the Rev. today and told her that I had done some searching and learned from many view points and these are the conclusions that I have drawn.

1.  I now understand how disrespectful it was to vett her sermons and how detrimental this might be to the future of our relationship.  I am going to work on a better solution.

2.  I should appreciate the fact that we have a Rev. that is willing to take risks.

3.  I am going to encourage our congregation to support and rebuild trust in our Rev., the one who we have chosen to be our spiritual leader.

4.  Our Rev. really needs to work on her ability to get her finger on the pulse of the congregation and can do this better by really listening and watching for cues in the congregation.  Almost every problem we face in our church stems from her inabilitiy to understand the congregation.

Although I still feel wounded at being lied to, I think that I can forgive and move on.  Going forward I hope that my minister feels that she can be straight forward with me.  She is human and makes mistakes, I get it.

As I draw this dilemma to a close, I pray for God to help me, my congregation, and my Rev. and I hope you all will pray for us as well.

Oh, and He/She....whatever it was the same info so I didn't want to be disparaging and correct anyone.

Thanks again to everyone who participated in this discussion. It was beyond helpful!

thanks for sharing so much here gomom - I'd love to know if this helps within the congregation long term. I'd certainly say that there was good dialogue on the cafe.

As Philipa said to Picard after Data was declared sentient - "sometimes it does work,"

Hi gomom,

Relationship.

It seems obvious and automatic.  It is taken for granted so frequently without impact.  It would appear that this is one of the times when there is impact.

Ideally a sermon is part of the dialogue within the pastoral charge and it reflects, in some manner, discussion between parishioners and discussion with the clergy.

From appearances there is a relationship gap at play.  That gap is likely magnifying relational tension within the pastoral relationship.  What is not apparent is whether that gap is the work of both partners of one of the partners.

Either way that gap needs to be overcome and that means work for both partners. M&P clearly needs to have an open and frank discussion with the clergy, after getting frank and open communication from the congregation.  Likewise the congregation needs to lay their expectations out on the table and M&P needs to tell the congregation which expectations are valid and which are not.

If this requires hard work there is a big problem somewhere.  That problem needs to be addressed for the health of the congregation and the clergy.

That is very reasonable of the congregation.

That is also very reasonable.

I think that it bears mentioning that this kind of turbulence is frequent in pastoral relationships due to the search process that is in play.  Often those named to the Search Committee are the most forward thinking members of the congregation and in their smaller group they allow that forward bent to colour their selection.

If the forward leaning clergy that is selected fits with the Search Committee they are tempted to think that the job is done.  Yet, there is a whole congregation of folk who aren't leaning forward and may not appreciate being dragged forward.

This misunderstanding (The clergy being exactly what the Search Committee wanted and not at all what the congregation wanted) creates significant tension and more than a little defensiveness and empire building.  

All cards need to be laid on the table and everyone's expectations need to be lifted up.  For all you know, the congregation was misrepresented by the members of the Search Committee and the Minister is feeling like they got the short end of the stick.

No.  We Rev.s are not employees of the Congregation.  We are employees of the Denomination if the relationship is strictly one of Employer to Employee.

The United Church of Canada does not accept such a narrow view of the pastoral relationship.  We are ministers and we are called to serve the congregations to which we are called, settled or appointed.  

Because we belong to the reformed tradition we emphasize the "priesthood of all believers" which means that even the lay people are engaged in ministry and are called to render service to the congregation.

We all serve equally, our gifts enable us to serve differently.

The most any minister on any pastoral charge should be is a co-worker with all members of the congregation.  Yes, the minister gets paid.  That is not a wage for service rendered it is a stipend which frees the minister to be able to serve.  

Again, the ideal is that the sermon reflects pastoral discussion that is happening within the congregation.  It is a public piece that helps us with our personal and private growth.  Sermons can step outside of that conversation when the situation warrants it.  That should not be normative.  If the sermons never speak to pastoral discussions taking place in the congregation then there is a serious disconnect at play.

None.  In the United Church of Canada the minister is automatically a member of most committees serving the congregation.  There are only a few exceptions.  M&P being the most notable.  On any committee the minister functions as a resource and has at most the same voting priviledges as the lay member sitting next to him or her.

I have some colleagues who think differently and they freely throw their weight around at committee meetings.  I hope that they are more abberation than norm.  Still, the need to be in charge is a dysfunction that meshes readily with a parallel dysfunction in congregations of not wanting to be responsible.

It sounds like your congregation is experiencing some choppy waters.  

That can be entertaining in the short-term provided nobdy is taking themselves too seriously.  It is absolutely devastating in the long-term.  I wish all of you well.

Grace and peace to you.

John

goMom

thanks for being a great wondercafe participant.

you brought a challenge to us to dialogue...you continued to participate, followed through locally, and brought us feedback, so we could learn to.

I hope you continue to participate, and share your wisdom on threads.

gomom, I am very impressed with the way you have undertaken the discussion here, having been open to hearing other points of view on this subject. It sounds like the conversation you had most recently with your minister could be the beginning of genuine dialogue with her (I noticed my error yesterday when reading the thread but wasn't in a position to fix it). Given where you've been personally on this and where it sounds as though your congregation has been, this is a good beginning. It sounds to me as though some trust needs to be rebuilt on both sides --that was a good start and you deserve credit for doing it.

I hope that the conversation continues and that your (personal and collective) relationship can grow and flourish as time goes on.

gomom,

A suggestion to povide better understanding- have a layteam do some services- this can provide your minister with an idea what your congregation wishes for and your layteam gets an idea how difficult it can be to do a service and be observed by the whole congregation.