Ontario UCCan ministers speak out

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
A reasonable approach by the clergy. I wish Ontario well, I was born and spent several years in Toronto and Peterborough. A lot of challenges ahead for my Province of birth.
 
Capital Idea:
Something that is best if the poor are enslaved to the powers --- reviewed by oligarchy!

Thus humbled out of sight as sublime ... and how we loose a lot of what is less in mind than messing the other up!

Chaos, all is chaos ... except for that thin man in between the polity folk (one way or the other)!

None the less it will not be grasp ... until the arth cools ... and digs Satyr ... the enemy of simple thought!

God help us grope ... for we just don't get it ... what was supposed to be a relaxation syndrome with synaptic breaks ... allowing some regeneration ... of de Jinns ... as they disperse (in the dark)!
 
Inannawhimsey said:
Thatz a LOT of clerics

and i really like the line art (y)
Click to expand...

I love the line-art graphics too! I like the way the letter is laid out - should be simple enough! LOL Also, on the website there are summary graphics for each of the points that can be shared on fb.
 
chansen said:
After years of begging for something like this, and being told it was impossible, it's about damn time.
Click to expand...

Don't, for a minute think that this represents any official voice or any particular council of The United Church of Canada.

It is, at most, Clergy operating independent of any formal Church mechanism and I suspect that it does so jumping the gun on changes to polity that will come into play after GC-43 enacts the remits placed before the Church by GC-42.

Not sure how things like this would fly under the new system where the Office of Vocation will have more direct oversight than any council will.

That said, good on them.
 
It has to be at least half the UCCan ministers in Ontario. Whether it's the UCCan itself, or a majority of ministers, it's a timely statement in support of things that many would assume a Christian church would not support, because the loud ones are leading the charge against refugees, evidence-based addiction treatment options, the new sex ed curriculum and climate change science.

It's not much, but it's something. Which is more than the UCCan generally says about these issues when other churches are against them.
 
revjohn said:
Don't, for a minute think that this represents any official voice or any particular council of The United Church of Canada.

It is, at most, Clergy operating independent of any formal Church mechanism and I suspect that it does so jumping the gun on changes to polity that will come into play after GC-43 enacts the remits placed before the Church by GC-42.

Not sure how things like this would fly under the new system where the Office of Vocation will have more direct oversight than any council will.

That said, good on them.
Click to expand...
And perhaps this is what is needed: clergy bypassing the formal mechanisms of the church and speaking for themselves as Christian clergy who minister in the United Church and not officially on behalf of the United Church of Canada.

I'm not sure why the "Office of Vocations" (I've heard that it might be renamed, since it has something of an authoritarian sound to it) would object to a group of clergy clearly stating that they are speaking for themselves and who are making no claim to speak for the United Church of Canada as an institution.

And if they did object, perhaps that's where the rubber would hit the road so to speak and clergy would have to decide between standing for what they believe is right and necessary and buckling to the institution of the United Church (which, in biblical terms, is one of the principalities and/or powers that often pull us away from serving God and toward serving it.)
 
Great stuff.

I was pleased to see Rev. George Clifford is still active. We go so far back that it was even before 'The Twist'
Let's twist again, like we did last summer....... And I have a confession to make.

Long ago, when the world was young, George and I were counsellors at the YMCA camp near Montreal. One day, he asked me to be his boatman while he swam across the lake. He gave me his glasses since he couldn't swim with them on.

He was near-sighted.

I was evil.

As he swam, I gradually turned up the lake encouraging him with "keep it up, George. you're doing good."

Then, as I saw he was tiring, I turned back toward the shore which was only yards away. He grabbed the boat to be pulled in.

"Oh, too bad, George. You almost made it."

He's in Ottawa now. I was going to move there to be closer to my grandchildren. But maybe that wouldn't be a good idea.
 
revsdd said:
And perhaps this is what is needed: clergy bypassing the formal mechanisms of the church and speaking for themselves as Christian clergy who minister in the United Church and not officially on behalf of the United Church of Canada.
Click to expand...

Could be it is. Could be that the formal mechanisms need to be more responsive and the Church as a whole needs to be more on the same page about larger issues.

revsdd said:
I'm not sure why the "Office of Vocations" (I've heard that it might be renamed, since it has something of an authoritarian sound to it) would object to a group of clergy clearly stating that they are speaking for themselves and who are making no claim to speak for the United Church of Canada as an institution.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that there are a lot of opinions about what the Office of Vocation will be concerned with even though we know nobody who has been tapped for the work. Lot's of corners of freaky suspicion about the denomination.

revsdd said:
And if they did object, perhaps that's where the rubber would hit the road so to speak and clergy would have to decide between standing for what they believe is right and necessary and buckling to the institution of the United Church (which, in biblical terms, is one of the principalities and/or powers that often pull us away from serving God and toward serving it.)
Click to expand...


Indeed.

Of course there is a danger the other way where instead of clergy buckling to the institution the clergy force the institution to buckle to them.

Remains to be seen.
 
revjohn said:
Of course there is a danger the other way where instead of clergy buckling to the institution the clergy force the institution to buckle to them.

Remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Possibly, although it seems to me that to force the institution to buckle would require a more formal organization (ie, a principality to take on the power, or something like that.) I'm not sure that various United Church clergy coming together in different configurations on different issues would be able to "force the institution" - although I'd agree that this letter, for example, is probably going to be popularly perceived as the response of the United Church, rather than just simply a cross section of like-minded United Church clergy.

But, as you say - remains to be seen.

I am, however, of the opinion that @chansen is largely correct. The formal mechanisms of the United Church are failing to get a message out to society and the result is that the United Church is becoming either increasingly irrelevant to the important debates and discussions, or we're simply being lumped in with what people see to be "the church" (ie, fundamentalist Christianity) because they see no difference. We can blame the media for not reporting on us more closely, or we can say that we need to find new ways to get a message out. At least this was a recognition that there are important issues and we can't just sit back and wait for interminable meetings of this committee and that committee, etc, etc., to decide how to contribute to debate on issues at some undefined point down the road. The various committees can still do that and make their formal pronouncements, of course, but maybe informal statements of like minded clergy such as this one are going to be a way to get a distinct message out more promptly.
 
I posted the letter to my church's fb page - which is followed by many people not formally affiliated with our church (which is interesting in itself). Many of them have shared it forward, which I see as a positive thing in terms of public profile for the United Church.
 
I too thought the letter was great. And I too agree with revsdd and the thought provoking comments by chansen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top