Graeme, I dont care,

What is the point of this thread?

I suspect there have been more than a few funerals conducted by United Church ministers who are lesbians. I really don't get your point?

So, a Jewish woman rabbi (who happens to be a lesbian) conducted a funeral.  What has that got to do with the UCC?  Did we ever claim to have a monopoly on funerals?

if anything, in the united church this is a non-newsworthy item..

Graeme, your seeing this as something remarkable suggests that it's you who finds something disconcerting in the story. If the family wanted a Jewish funeral, they probably would not have approached the UCC. They certainly could have had they wanted a lesbian officiant. There aren't a lot of Tito's partisans still with us, though quite a few were, in their day, what we'd call "child soldiers".  

Graeme,

If you would like to discuss your perception that UCCers, or Wondercafinators, think they are radically different than all others or think they are alone or at the forefront, why not start that possibly meaningful conversation?

Why start it with a title, "This is Serious"?
 

Why start with "Take that!", other than it is your style?

Am I supposed to be surprised a rabbi can be a woman?

This comes as no news flash to me. There have been female rabbis since the 1970's.

Can we forget or not be aware of how long other denominations have been ordaining women? Yes. The Salvation Army has recognized female clergy since its inception. Jehovah Witnesses had ordained a woman and went before the Supreme Court in Vermont to uphold that ordination in 1941. (5 years after the UCC ordained theirs, how long did the court process take?) John Wesley allowed for female preachers. I mean, Quakers have ordained women since the 1600's (we could go back to early Christianity or Judaism) and yet we act like we started it and it is in some of our lifetimes....

Can we think Christinaity is alone? Yes. Yet, women can be imams (Islam), rabbis (Judaism) bhikkhunis (Buddhist) , purohits/pujaris (Hindu), granthi/ragi (Sihk)....

Is there a discussion there? Yes. IMO You did not start it.

Am I supposed to be surprised she was a lesbian?

Again no news flash. The Reconstructionist Jews have ordained gays since 1984. Reform since 1990.

The United Church of Christ has been ordaining LGBT people since 1972 (16 years before the UCC in 1988).

I know of a gay, out, married gay man ordained in Kentucky as a Baptist.

Can we tend to think we are superior or cutting edge? Yes.

Again, "take that" is not a conversation.

You always speak of Montreal as a progress place graeme - so this is good news.   Was your friend surprised?   It seems s/he thought it newsworthy. 

Great info, stevieg...

I read graeme's post late last night and it didn't sink in. I now "get it." He's criticizing the United Church for having an attitude that can sometimes seem like we think we're better than everyone else and so much farther ahead, and he's pointing out that others are just as "progressive" or "liberal" as us.

The critique has some validity. Sometimes the United Church does come across as a bit snooty. Those who we disagree with (sometimes in our own denomination; sometimes in others) we often disagree with because we say (either explicity or implicitly) they don't have enough "education." "Education" (which in the UCC often doesn't mean critical exposure to a wide variety of views but rather indoctrination into the UCC's desired perspective by the use of very selective resources; with the desired outcome of such educational resources often being pretty obvious) becomes the "solution" to getting others to agree with us.

(scratches head) Bible Christians (an early Methodist branch) were ordaining women and men in the 1850's to do frontier evangelism north of Peterborough. I served a United Church founded by one of the women.

See, this is IMO a great conversation to have.

We do not know the history of other faiths or soemtimes even our own.

I have been amazed how some UCCers act as though we have no family tree, no history prior to 1925. We were a union, merger, we did not drop out of the sky. There is a family tree and a long history in various braches of the family.

I wish my Canadian history was what my American history is. If I think on UCC roots, I know that Antoinette Brown was a Congregationalist given license to preach (I looked it up and it was in 1851 in NY state) There was a woman circuit rider in the Methodist Protestant tradition (there was a Methodist Episcopal and Methodist Protestant split that happened), It was in Illinois or Indiana and also in that time frame, I believe. I do remember that she does not get credit and another woman does amongst most Methodists.

There were women ordained in the Presbyterians, some Reform churches around the world....

We did not start in 1925 and women as clergy in our faith traditions did not start in the 1930's

Okay. I give up. You're all off the mark about why I thought that funny. I should have expected you would all be sitting on ramrods.

I lived in a large Jewish community most of my life. I lived so much in the Jewish world that many Jews thought I was Jewish. To this day, my closest friends are Jewish. I was a regular guest at synagogues all over Montreal.

My source for that anecdote is Jewish. He thought it hilarious. I have told it to other Jewish friends who thought it funny. I should have realized UCers would be too politically correct (and too ignorant of the jewish community) to see the humour in it.

The final line was not a jibe at the UC. It was simply a very light comment.

I won't waste my time explaining it to you - because if so somebody is so uptight as not to get something as simple as that, explanation won't work.

Please go back to your usual fare of discussing whether Jesus cut his own toenails, and whether he would have eaten kosher-style bacon.

Graeme,

You are right, my vast and overwheming ignorance of Judaism and all things Jewish, combined with the stick in my tuches, made me completely unable to get the obviously hilarious joke put before me.

It reminds me of the one I heard---

This is serious, I heard from a friend in Detroit. He went to a funeral for a lady who was in Vietnam. She was black.
The minister was a black lesbain who wore pants.

Take that!

You people did not get it?  The person who told me that is black. I spent time in an all-black school, bused in from the suburbs. I am from Detroit, so is my friend. Detroiters found it hilarious. So, did my black friends I told it to. People I know found this one pee in your pants hilarious.

I don't GET you people and I am not explaining it to you!

<insert hissy fit>

Cute. but pointless.

What prevented readers from gettiing this was not so much their lack of knowledge of Judaism, but their self-rightousness combined with their political correctness.

They see the world lesbian, and presume it's a joke about lesbians. It isn't.

They see female rabbi, and presume it's about female rabbis. It isn't.

(Actually, there are lots of quite funny jokes about lesbians and female rabbis and male rabbis and blacks and whites. But one is only allowed to tell jokes about things that are not currently "in". I think it's allowed to tell jokes about white heterosexuals.)

In a very broad hint - it's about judaism, itself. But, no, it isn't making fun of judaism, either. Nor do  you need to know a great deal about judaism to understand it.

But nothing will make you see it. So, just pull up your blue stockings, and go back to discussing Jesus' toenails.

Graeme, am I to understand that your Jewish friends get a kick out of misunderstanding the UCC, because that is what your post implies.  

Maybe because it wasn't funny in the first place?

This is your self-declared hilarious joke in light of your stance on the UCC and Israel/Palestine.

There is no joke there.

Just you being an ass.

Graeme has always been an ass. He is practicing his social skills on LPT but the lessons are slow coming.

Graeme,

there was nothing in the OP that said it was a joke. and no indication it was meant to be humourous

Well, graeme, there was absolutely nothing in the original post that I saw as funny, but now that you've explained that it's humour - well, it's still not funny. But I think your parting advice is good.

To begin with the first issue.

I think Jesus would have cut his own toenails. The alternative would be to have someone else cut them. That doesn't strike me as very Jesus-like, Jesus being the one who came to serve and not to be served. Nothing in that self-definition would preclude him serving himself; thus, it makes sense to me that he would cut his own toenails rather than have someone else serve him by doing that. Cutting his own toenails also seems more in keeping with agape love, although I suppose there's really little agape in cutting your own toenails. I mean, where's the outward expression of love in that? Where's the self-sacrifice? Except, of course, that some may have been grossed out by uncut toenails, thus, I suppose that when he cut his own toenails he might have been thinking of the well-being of others, and, I mean, sanitary conditions in Judea of that day being what they were I suppose there was even an aspect of risk involved with the cutting of toenails. Infection and everything, you know. That would be self-sacrifice. So, yeah, it could have been agape love and so it makes even more sense that Jesus would have cut his own toenails.

I'll get back to you on kosher bacon. That's more complicated. I'll need to pray and meditate.

Good topics though! Thanks for raising them. 

Rev.Davis, I would love to attend one of your services. That post is a collectors item. Did they have scissors back then?

To others, mypost had nothing do with attacking the UC, and nothing to do with Israel.

There is nothing that scares the self-righteous and politically correct more than a joke they do not understand -so they look for buzz words like rabbi and lesbian to convince themselves it must be incorrect, and possibly communist.

I'm sorry. the thing is you have no sense of Jewish society at all. I didn't realize that.  And explaining this one would just kill it. it was a very, very light piece of humour - nothing profound, nothing cutting, and with a touch of fondness about it. The title, This is serious, was there simply to say it is a true story.

And no matter what i say, some of you will still peer at every word, looking for the one to point a finger of horror at. if you don't understand it, it must be the work of the devil.

From the first response, most of you were not just puzzled. You were resentful and angry. - about something you admit you didn't understand at all. think about that.

I was neither resentful nor angry. I truly was puzzled. That's why my opening response stated that I didn't get your point. Nor do I claim any real acquaintance with Jewish culture or society beyond, of course, the Old Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures (which are not the same thing, by the way, since Christianity changed the order of the books to put emphasis on future messianic expectation, but that's another story.) I did have a lot of Jewish friends back in the early 80's when I studied at York University - which had a significant Jewish student population. At the time, though, I was a rabid atheist with little interest in Judaism aside from Sarah - a delightful young woman who wouldn't date me because I wasn't Jewish - which at the time made me all the more resentful of Judaism, and religion in general!

In any event, I'd love to have you attend one of my services. And I'm still working on kosher bacon!

Oh, I realized you were neither resentful not angry. Anyone who could come up with a response like that......

Had the same, sad experience with Jewish girls. dated several, but it was clear Ii was not on the agenda - except for one. But I foolishly went away to school, and she got ultra religious and moved to Israel. Damn.

graeme,

You can explain "the joke" or not, your choice.

You can choose to say "explaining it detracts from it"
"It was not that funny anyways"
"Nothing, nevermind"
"I refuse to explain it to dumb people"
.... or whatever you might choose

You can choose to say, "the joke was..."
"It really wasn't that funny, but what it was was...."
 

It is your choice.

What choices you make influences the conversation.

I know from my own experience that when I say something and my wife or anyone misinterprets it, doesn't get it, doesn't hear it... "nevermind" is met with "no, tell me/explain"... A repeated "nevermind" might irritate her. "It wasn't that funny anyways" would likely have her say, "tell it again" or "explain it".

I can guaran-damn-tee that among the stupidest things I could say was "I give up... you have a stick up your ass... it was hilarious and I won't waste my time explaining it to you, because if you are so uptight to not get something as simple as that, explaining won't work... go back to..."

I would expect people hearing it would think me rude, arrogant, abusive, a bully, an ass.... and I would not expect them to want to try to talk to me.

The better choice, for me, would be explaining it, but that is just me.

You do what you do.

The more I read this thread, the funnier it gets. Didn't Seinfeld have a long running show about "nothing"?

Nothing?

Bobbemyseh!!!

I am still doing research, exegesis, and reflecting trying to discern the serious matter of whether Jesus would have went to Schwartz's for kosher sytle rather than kosher.

Sarah and I took several classes together over my years at York, and she was actually quite a flirtatious type. I well remember the day when she and I were the last two out of the classroom after a political science tutorial and for some reason she grabbed a piece of chalk, put it down her top and dared me to take it out. The story ends there ... But ask her "do you want to go to a movie?" "No. Sorry." "How come?" "I only date Jewish men." (Sigh.)

Did the chalk fall on the floor?

I have no clear memory of the ultimate fate of the chalk!

Chalk that up to experience!

<imagining Rev. Steven Davis now quietly heading to the box tucked away on the bookshelf, tiping its lid and gently moving aside the business cards, picking up the piece of chalk that he has often held to his cheek and pursed lips in memory as he lovingly whispers "shadayim">

I have been a member of the United Church of Canada since '96 and sir....I don't own a pair of fancy pants!  I thought disco was dead!  Now I have to go out and buy myself a pair in case someone wants to gamble with me.  I stop at that though...wouldn't be caught dead in blue stockings, I prefer charcoal, nude or fishnet thank you very much.

what a dlightfully silly thread.  especially for one with "serious" right in the title.

I had to ask my mom if I ever was forced to wear "fancy pants". Nope...

So, the question is- since I converted, do I have to now covert to fancy pants or because the UCC is so liberal can I keep my own tradition of drawers or lacktherof....

manual nerd, we need a ruling......

I can only say that I am shocked that a member of the clergy would behave as     Reverend Davis admits to behaving. I am not, I think, being puritanical in this. There are standards, after all.

For a gentleman, it would have been the work of a moment to relieve the lady's distress, retrieve the chalk, and place it neatly at the chalkboard. Your response, sir, was not only unseemly but, in this case, also anti-semitic.

Lord, I once blew a chance almost exactly like that. She grabbed my hat, stuffed it in her blouse. I said, "give me back my hat."

She ran into the bushes and said, "come and get it."

I said, "give me back my hat."

Eventually, she threw it at me.

I didn't really notice anything else since I was stuck at "take that you fancy pants UCers who think your church is so good". 

I thought you were a UCer so wonder why you used the 2nd person...

The Royal U - Mo5

I'm totally perplexed by this entire thread.

But then, I'm not Canadian.............

I am puzzled, too, trying to make sense out of Graemes story.

It only makes it remarkable, if the buried woman would have been a Nazi herself- but according to the story she was in resistance.

If this is jewish humor it is a mystery to me as much as most of the british humor.

But maybe I am just dumb.

I find no mention of "fancy pants" in The Manual. In light of the non-mention (that which is not explictly ruled out is thus permitted) I suggest that not only can you choose to wear fancy pants, you may also choose not to wear them, either... This is the foundation iof what we call in the United Church "Essential Agreement".

I never said I didn't retrieve the chalk. I don't actually remember much about the chalk. I was focussed elsewhere at the time I suppose. I just chose not to finish the story and leave the end to fertile imaginations to compose. And of course I was neither a member of the clergy nor even a Christian at the time, so ... 

Aaaaahhhhh. Bliss.

I confess it did not occur to me that so many people would know so little about Jewish life in Canada. Much of Jewish humour rests on subtleties, facial expression, gesture. You can still see sample of it on Youtube if you look for Jack Benny. Much of his stuff would not be funny to some audiences today, and certainly  not funny in repetition.

A Jewish comic once told me that much Jewish humour is based on common mannerisms and speech patterns among rabbis. I was once introduced to an audience by a rabbi I had never met before. When he entered the room, I was astonished at his physical resemblace to Jack Benny. Then he spoke. It was all Benny - the gestures, the pauses, the facial expressions, the inflections.

It can also be expressed in a sing-song voice - a take-off, I think, from a 1920s Jewish immigrant habit of speech, and with emphases that, I think, come from the Yiddish. Often, it's just a single, Yiddish word and the sliding tone of it, dropped into a sentence.

You would also need to understand the status of a rabbi in a synagogue. It's a status a Protestant clergyman can only dream of.

With all that missing, if I were to explain the joke to  you, I would still just get blank stares.

So, I'm sorry. I'm so used to Jewish humour, and parts of it are so common in stand-up routines, I thought everybody would be familiar with it.

But what interests me now is the reaction. It wasn't bafflement. It was anger, and even some verbal abuse. Some people saw a slap at the UC (and, apparently, still do), some saw homophobia. Some saw anti-semitism. I'm surprised nobody saw it as a slur on dying or on holding funerals.

I really don't give a damn about the anger and verbal abuse. or even about the accusations of homophobia and anti-semitism. But shouldn't some of you be asking youselves about your own reactions? Are they the reactions of people of "Religion and Faith"?

Humour is difficult online. Even more difficult on religious or poltical sites. I should know, i have made many humourous posts which were missed by most people. Did you here about the Priest, the rabbi, and the UCC minister.

Poor graeme. Knows how to get in and can't find a way out.

Which is why much humour doesn't work online. Tough job being an online comedian.

I do sometimes get tired of people storming the pulpit after the sermon looking for autographs.

The truly interesting thing (as I peruse the thread) is that the only one who took even a mild slap at the UCC was me!

Why? It wasn't in ther first place. Mind you, your verbal gymnastics of justification are interesting...

IF YOU'RE GOING TO TELL JOKES ON THIS SITE SMILEYS ARE MANDATORY!  Failure to follow this rule means you may be liable to be immersed in a vat of high dudgeon for a period of not less than 2 days.

So take THAT Graeme!