Proposals for Action by 91st Meeting of Hamilton Conference: Notes
Proposal # 1
A Proposal to General Council that was received by Hamilton Presbytery via our Proposals Committee
Chair, The Rev. Thom Davies, from the Board of Westdale United Church, Hamilton. When it was
presented at the May 6th meeting of Hamilton Presbytery, a motion was passed to send it on to Hamilton
Conference for further action.
Proposal #’s 2, 3, and 4 (Waterloo Presbytery)
The first Proposal from Waterloo Presbytery is "Congregational Meetings to Consider Pastoral
Relationships." This proposal was passed with concurrence. The comments that we would want to send
on with this Proposal are:
• We want flexibility so that the meeting can be held in as timely a way as possible, and yet still
honour the requirement that concerned parties be available for the meeting.
• The one concern raised is that the final sentence only looks at ministry and not the congregation.
The second Proposal is "Quorum for Governing Body." This proposal was passed with concurrence.
The third Proposal is "Congregational Governance Structure." This proposal was passed with
concurrence.
Proposal #’s 5 and 6 (Erie Presbytery)
Intermediate Court Action:
At plenary meeting of Erie Presbytery, at South Cayuga Community Church, April 22, 2015
Motion: Randy Mackenzie/Nora Fueten that Erie Presbytery concur with Proposal One (Scotland UC).
CARRIED
Intermediate Court Action:
At plenary meeting of Erie Presbytery, at South Cayuga Community Church, April 22, 2015
Motion: Paul Currie/Aaron Miller that Erie Presbytery receives this proposal (Proposal Two Scotland UC)
for information to be transmitted to Conference Annual General Meeting.
CARRIED
Proposal # 7 (Halton Presbytery)
MOTION: Mervyn Russell/John Tapscott
In so far as the Conferences of the United Church of Canada are the most distant and least influential of
the courts of the church as regards the Pastoral Charges/Communities of Faith, and that the elimination
of them would provide significant savings of expenditure, therefore, be it resolved that the Conferences
be eliminated as a court of the church and no other regional court of the church be provided to replace
them.
DEFEATED (2 abstentions)
MOTION: Mervyn Russell/John Tapscott
In so far that Presbyteries provide an established and worthwhile source of collegiality and accountability
for the pastoral Charges/Communities of Faith, therefore, be it resolved that the presbyteries be retained
and strengthened and given the responsibility for ordination and commissioning.
DEFEATED (2 abstentions)
The proposals will be transmitted without concurrence to Hamilton Conference.
Proposal # 8 (Halton UCW Presbyterial)
MOTION: Amy Hill/Mary Patterson
That Halton Presbytery support the proposal from Halton Presbyterial U.C.W. that the 42nd General
Council ensure that in the three Council model proposed by United in God’s Work, provision is made for
the full voting participation of a representative of the United Church Women on the Regional and
Denominational Councils and their Executives.
CARRIED (3 abstentions)
This proposal will be transmitted to Hamilton Conference with concurrence.
Proposal # 9 (Waterloo UCW Presbyterial)
The Proposal is "UCW Proposal GC43." This proposal was passed with non-concurrence.
Proposal # 10
Greg Smith-Young (From the Floor of Conference)
Proposal #1
General Council 42 – Proposal Form
Title: Establishment of a Nuclear Abolition Portfolio
Originating Body: Louise Rogers, member of Westdale United Church Council; Ministry of
Outreach, Westdale United Church
Financial Implications if known:
Staffing Implications if known: full or part-time person informed on militarism and nuclear
abolition
Source of Funding if known:
The 2014 Annual General Meeting of Westdale United Church passed a resolution
proposing that:
the 42nd General Council (2015) direct the Executive of the General Council to mandate
the establishment of a portfolio (staff position) within the United Church of Canada that
would systematically advocate for the abolition of nuclear weapons and ending the
expansion of militarism.
Background:
The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the International Campaign to
Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) are now galvanizing the non-nuclear club, with help from the
Norwegian and Mexican governments (Oslo, March 2013, 127 States; Nayarit, February 2014, 146
States--with Austria hosting late 2014) to push for the delegitimization of nuclear weapons, with the end
goal of abolishing them.
Working with its Mission Partners, the Canadian Council of Churches and Ploughshares, as it does, the
UCCs input into this worldwide movement for the abolition of these obscene weapons is not evident at
either the political or congregational levels. It is extremely important, we believe, that our United Church
be seen and heard to be involved in this movement. There is much excellent work being done in Canada
into which the Church could tap, including our Parliament and Senate’s agreement for a new Canadian
diplomatic initiative in support of nuclear abolition, and over 700 Order of Canada recipients’ signatures
urging progress on nuclear abolition. In 2007 the UCC was unable to endorse the International Campaign
to Abolish Nuclear Weapons because no staff member was holding this portfolio; in 2011 the whole area
of militarism and nuclear abolition was omitted from the 12 topics listed in the UCC Federal Election Kit.
The trillions spent on nuclear weapons since their development, and which continue to be spent, ensures
millions will remain in a cycle of poverty, an issue, about which, the UCC is most concerned.
Action:
Both Westdale United Church Council and the attendees of the 2014 annual congregational meeting
supported the proposal to have a United Church staff person assigned responsibility for nuclear abolition
and demilitarism.
Proposal #2
Title: Setting the Date for a Congregation or pastoral charge meeting
to Consider a Change in a Pastoral Relationship
Originating Body: Waterloo Presbytery
Financial Implications (if known): none
Staffing Implications (if known): none
Source of Funding: n/a
Waterloo Presbytery proposes that the 42nd General Council (2015):
Approve a change in policy so that the convenor of the presbytery pastoral
relations committee shall determine a date for a meeting of a Congregation or
pastoral charge when the purpose of that meeting is to consider a change in
pastoral relations,
In setting the date, the convener shall ensure that:
a) Proper notice of meeting can be given, as stipulated in The Manual
B.5.4.2.a; and
b) At least one representative of those who have requested the meeting will
be able to attend the meeting to present reasons for a change in pastoral
relations; and
c) The ministry personnel settled in or appointed to the Local Ministry Unit
have an opportunity to speak at the meeting about the proposed change;
and to respond to any questions asked or comments made about the
ministry personnel or the pastoral relationship, as is required in The
Manual I.3.1.4.c; and
Effort shall me made to hold the meeting within 30 days after the date on which
the written request for the meeting was received. The meeting may not proceed
if there are circumstances which, in the opinion of the pastoral relations
convenor, make it difficult or impossible to honour the minister’s right to be
heard.
Background:
1. The United Church Manual (2013) states that a meeting of a congregation or pastoral charge
must be called when written request has been received from:
(i) the governing body; or
(ii) 10 full members of the congregation or pastoral charge.
Also, the Manual stipulates that
“The meeting must be held within 15 days of receiving the request.”
[The Manual B.5.3.3.a]
continued . . .
2. The Manual stipulates how notice must be given for a congregation or pastoral charge meeting.
If the purpose of the meeting is to consider a pastoral relations matter,
a) “Before giving notice to the congregation or pastoral charge, the person calling the
meeting must give notice to the secretary of the presbytery and to the ministry
personnel settled in or appointed to the pastoral charge.”
b) “Notice of the meeting must be read during public worship on two Sundays. After notice
has been read on the second Sunday, the meeting may take place on the next day
(Monday) or on any day after that.” [The Manual B.5.4.2.a]
3. The requirement for the meeting to be held within 15 days, and the requirement for proper
notice of at least 2 Sundays, together create a limited “time window” within which the meeting
must be held. Depending on when the written request is received, this “time window” can be
as wide as 6 days and as narrow as 1 day (see the charts at the end of hte proposal).
4. A meeting called to initiate a change in pastoral relations “must be chaired by the chair of the
presbytery Pastoral Relations Committee or someone appointed by that chair.” [The Manual
I.3.1.4.b] Depending on factors such as availability of potential chairpersons, the time of year,
and size of the “time window,” it can be challenging to find someone to chair the meeting. This
could make it difficult to have the meeting within the required time.
5. At a meeting called to initiate a change in pastoral relations, “the ministry personnel settled in
or appointed to the pastoral charge must be given an opportunity
(i) to speak about the proposed change; and
(ii) to respond to any questions asked or comments made about the ministry personnel or
the pastoral relationship.
The ministry personnel is entitled to this opportunity before the pastoral charge votes to request
a change in pastoral relations.” [The Manual I.3.1.4.c]
6. Potentially the required “time window” for a meeting coincide with when one or more ministry
personnel are on an approved vacation, study leave, or sabbatical leave. This could deprive the
ministry personnel of their opportunity to speak and respond, and the congregation or pastoral
charge of the opportunity to consider their response(s) in making its decision.
7. A request to consider a change in pastoral relations can arise at a time when the level of
conflict in a congregation or pastoral charge is significant. Also, such a request can be part of
a pattern of vexatious behaviour toward ministry personnel. In such an environment, the limited
“time window” can become an occasion for further harm.
8. Allowing the convenor of the presbytery’s pastoral relations committee to determine the date
of the meeting makes the decision the responsibility of a neutral person who can consider the
specific context and factors involved.
continued . . .
Under current provisions:
Widest Window Possible = 7 days; when the request for the meeting is received on a Saturday
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Request
received
Day 1
Notice in
worship #1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4`
Day 5`
Day 6`
Day 7
Day 8
Notice in
worship #2
Day 9
Meeting
possible
Day 10
Meeting
possible
Day 11
Meeting
possible
Day 12
Meeting
possible
Day 13
Meeting
possible
Day 14
Meeting
possible
Day 15
Meeting
possible
Narrowest Window Possible = 1 day; it is when the request for the meeting is received on a Sunday
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Request
received
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7 –
Notice in
worship #1
Day 8
Day 9
Day 10
Day 11
Day 12
Day 13
Day 14 –
Notice in
worship #2
Day 15
Meeting
possible
Proposal #3
Title: Quorum for a meeting of the Governing Body of a Congregation or Pastoral
Charge.
Originating Body: Waterloo Presbytery
Financial Implications (if known): none
Staffing Implications (if known): none
Source of Funding: n/a
Waterloo Presbytery proposes that the 42nd General Council (2015):
Approve a change in policy to allow a congregation or pastoral charge to
determine the quorum required for meetings of its governing body, provide that
the requirement meets or exceeds that in the current policy [The Manual (2013)
B.7.7.4]
Background:
1. The United Church Manual (2013) states that a meeting of a congregation or pastoral charge’s
Local Ministry Unit’s “governing body may take place only if a minimum number of members
is present, as follows:
(i) For a governing body that has fewer than 60 members, at least 1/3 of them must be
present.
(ii) For a governing body that has 60 or more members, at least 20 members must be
present. [The Manual B.7.7.4]
2. A quorum serves as “protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body
by an unduly small number of persons." [Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition
(2011), p. 21; while the United Church follows Bourinot’s Rules of Order, this definition
effectively expresses the purpose of establishing a quorum.]
3. The size of governing bodies in the United Church can vary widely. Some can be quite large
(60+ members). Others can be small (5-10 members).
4. The current threshold for a governing body’s quorum can create a situation where a very small
number can act as the governing body. This is illustrated in the following examples.
i) If the governing body is 10 members, then 4 are needed for quorum. A motion can pass
with 2 supporting it (with the chair not voting). This is just 20% of the governing body.
ii) If the governing body is 15 members, then 5 are needed for quorum. A motion can pass
with 3 supporting it (with the chair not voting). Again, this is just 20% of the governing body.
iii) If the governing body is 40 members, then 14 are needed for quorum. A motion can pass
with 7 supporting it (with the chair not voting). This is only 18% of the governing body.
iv) If the governing body is 80 members, then 20 are needed for quorum. A motion can pass
with as few as 10 supporting it (13% of the governing body).
5. Because of this, situations can arise where a governing body can take formally valid actions
which, in practice, lack legitimacy.
6. Granting a congregation or pastoral charge the power to raise the quorum requirement for it’s
governing body can address this problem.
Proposal #4
Title: Changing structure of a Governing Body
Originating Body: Waterloo Presbytery
Financial Implications (if known): none
Staffing Implications (if known): none
Source of Funding: n/a
Waterloo Presbytery proposes that the 42nd General Council (2015):
Approve a change in policy to allow a congregation or pastoral charge to change
the structure of its governing body, as long as the new structure meets the
requirements for a governing body in The Manual. The congregation will inform
the presbytery of any changes in a timely manner, and the presbytery may
choose to direct or recommend changes as part of its role of overseeing pastoral
charges.
Background:
1. The explanatory notes in The Manual provide guidance about how a congregation or pastoral
charge can structure its governing body [The Manual (2013) B.7.2]. The notes state:
•
•
•
“The governing body may take any shape the congregation or pastoral charge chooses,
with the approval of the presbytery. For example, a very small congregation may choose
to have the entire membership of the congregation serve as the governing body.”
“The congregation or pastoral charge works with the presbytery to set up the structure of
its governing body. The following three structures are common:
(a) the Session/Stewards/Official Board model;
(b) a unified board model, called the Church Board; and
(c) a council structure, called the Church Council.
A congregation or pastoral charge that has one of these structures may continue with it.
The presbytery’s approval is not required.”
“It [the congregation or pastoral charge] may also make changes to its structure or decide
on a new structure as long as the new structure meets the requirements of section B.7.2
above, including presbytery approval.”
2. The previous version of The Manual stipulated that presbytery approval is required only when
a congregation wishes to establish a form of organization different from the
Session/Stewards/Official Board model, or the Church Board model, or the Church Council
model. [The Manual (2010) s.279]
3. The rewriting of The Manual, effective in 2013, therefore broadened the scope of requirement
for presbytery’s approval. This makes it more difficult for a congregation to transition from one
time-honoured model to another as its needs and circumstances change. It also increases the
workload of presbyteries and their committees responsible for considering such changes.
4. The broad authority given to presbyteries to oversee pastoral charges gives the presbytery
adequate authority to ensure that the structure for a congregation or pastoral charge’s
governing body complies with the requirements in The Manual. [The Manual (2013) B.7.2]
Proposal #5
General Council 42 – Proposal Form
Title: Proposal One, re: Recommendation One Comprehensive Review Proposal: ‘Chasing the
Spirit’
Originating Body: Scotland Pastoral Charge:
Financial Implications:
Staffing Implications:
Source of Funding:
The Scotland Pastoral Charge proposes that the 42nd General Council (2015) through Erie
Presbytery and Hamilton Conference change:
Recommendation Number One from ‘Chasing the Spirit’ to ‘Understanding the Spirit’ as the wisdom
of God revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 1:20 to 2:14.
Background:
Wisdom is the ‘gift’ of God to people – not a knowledge we contribute to. This wisdom is continually
enjoyed as a gift. It requires a change of heart on the part of people. It is not in any way subject to
people’s control. The spirit helps people abandon their own preconceived ideas about God (their rigid
judgemental attitude) and it likewise changes their preconceived ideas toward their neighbours. We
grasp how to love the neighbour.
’Chasing the Spirit’ implies an involvement in transformation, a constant problem for the church. The
history of the church is very confused over this issue and must be corrected if we have any possibility
of moving the Comprehensive Review forward. Discussion about ‘Chasing the Spirit ‘at the
Presbytery meeting in March criticized this phrase but no one mentioned how it might be fixed.
Intermediate Court Action:
At plenary meeting of Erie Presbytery, at South Cayuga Community Church, April 22, 2015
Motion: Randy Mackenzie/Nora Fueten that Erie Presbytery concur with Proposal One (Scotland
UC).
CARRIED
Proposal #6
General Council 42 – Proposal Form
Title: Proposal Two, re: Recommendation Three Comprehensive Review Proposal Three: A
Three Council Model
Originating Body: Scotland United Pastoral Charge
Financial Implications: $100,000 per regional council
Staffing Implications: Employment would involve one person per region who would visit all
the faith communities.
Source of Funding: National church
The Scotland Pastoral Charge recommends the following changes regarding Number Three (the three council model):
Communities of faith (Pastoral Charges) remain as they are but with added responsibilities as outlined in the Review but
don’t change the structure.
(a)
Regional councils would combine the present presbyteries and conferences but that the regional councils be
much smaller. One regional council would combine two or three presbyteries into one unit. This involves:
1.
Making good use of the present structure
2.
It would be more workable that the proposed larger region
3.
Much less travelling required
4.
Much less staffing required.
Staffing: There would be one staff person per region, who would visit the communities of Faith on a regular basis. Staff
would provide inspiration, motivation, and encouragement to the leadership of the Communities of Faith. Duties would
include:
a.
Listening to the faith community leadership
b.
Determining if the ministry is making progress
c.
Asking how is the ministry focused to reach new people
d.
Membership
e.
Youth ministry
f.
Stewardship and mission support
g.
Aboriginal ministries within the regional councils where they apply
h.
New ministries within the ‘faith communities’ or a number of faith communities
c)
The Regional Councils would meet three times a year, once in the fall and twice in the spring mainly to support
the Communities of Faith. They would be inspirational in nature and also share what the Communities of Faith are doing
at the local level. Any business would be kept to an absolute minimum.
Background:
In summary this is about
a)
Making good use of the present structure
b)
Eliminate most business activity which presently exists
c)
This two tier model would call for more leadership at the local level
d)
Both communities of Faith and regional Councils would be more inspirational than exists at present
e)
It would streamline the Church, be more directional and save the church a lot of money.
Intermediate Court Action:
At plenary meeting of Erie Presbytery, at South Cayuga Community Church, April 22, 2015
Motion: Paul Currie/Aaron Miller that Erie Presbytery receives this proposal (Proposal Two Scotland UC) for information
to be transmitted to Conference Annual General Meeting.
CARRIED
Proposal #7
Resolutions in Response to the Recommendations of the United Church
Comprehensive Review Report
Source: At the April 8th 2015 meeting of the Halton Presbytery Pastoral Oversight Committee it was
agreed unanimously to send on the following resolutions for debate and decision at the meeting on the
Halton Presbytery to be held on April 28th with the intention that, if they are passed, for them to be sent
on for debate and decision at the Hamilton Conference meeting from May 29th -31st. 2015.
Introduction: Expressing appreciation for the conscientious and comprehensive work of the
Commission that has conducted the United Church of Canada Comprehensive Review, and accepting
the necessity of the United Church of Canada to establish denominational financial and organizational
stability, the Halton Presbytery of the United Church of Canada makes the following resolutions:
[1] In so far as the Conferences of the United Church of Canada are the most distant and least
influential of the courts of the church as regards the Pastoral Charges/Communities of Faith, and that
the elimination of them would provide significant savings of expenditure, therefore, be it resolved that:
The Conferences be eliminated as a court of the church and no other regional court of the church be
provided to replace them.
[2] In so far that Presbyteries provide an established and worthwhile source of collegiality and
accountability for the pastoral Charges/Communities of Faith, therefore, be it resolved that:
The presbyteries be retained and strengthened and given the responsibility for ordination and
commissioning.
Moved: the Rev. Dr. Mervyn Russell
Seconded by the Rev. John Tapscott
Proposal #8
TITLE:
Comprehensive Review: United in God’s Work
Representation of United Church Women on Councils
ORIGINATING BODY:
Halton U.C.W. Presbyterial
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Cost of Meeting Participation
STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: None
Halton U.C.W. Presbyterial proposes that:
The 42nd General Council:
Ensure that in the three Council model proposed by United in God’s Work, provision is
made for the full voting participation of a representative of the United Church Women
on the Regional and Denominational Councils and their Executives.
Background:
The involvement of a representative of the United Church Women in The United Church of
Canada’s current structure is not consistent. Some Presbyteries and Conferences and their
Executives do include a representative as a full voting member while others, including the
General Council Executive, only permit these representatives to serve as corresponding
(non-voting) members.
The proposals from United in God’s Work offer an opportunity to address this inconsistency
across the church and to recognize the vital role that United Church Women play in the
denomination by ensuring that a representative of the UCW is able to participate fully in the
Regional and Denominational Councils and their Executives.
United Church Women have traditionally supported their local congregations fulfilling their
purpose by expressing their loyalty and devotion to Jesus Christ in Christian witness, study,
fellowship and service. It is recognized by many, that with-out the devotion and commitment
of the UCW many congregations would have ceased to exist long ago. It could also be noted
that the commitment to the wider work of our church through support of the Mission and
Service fund is evident as in 2014 alone; $1,462,840 was given to M&S by the UCW across
Canada.
Including a representative of the United Church Women as a full voting member on these
Councils will allow for the wisdom and the work of the U.C.W. to inform and guide the Councils.
It will also provide a link between a key population and network, and the governance structure.
Intermediate Court Action: (from the April 28/15 Halton Presbytery Full Court meeting)
MOTION: Amy Hill/Mary Patterson
That Halton Presbytery support the proposal from Halton Presbyterial U.C.W. that the 42nd
General Council ensure that in the three Council model proposed by United in God’s Work,
provision is made for the full voting participation of a representative of the United Church
Women on the Regional and Denominational Councils and their Executives.
CARRIED (3 abstentions)
This proposal will be transmitted to Hamilton Conference with concurrence.
Proposal #9
TITLE:
Comprehensive Review: United in God’s Work
Representation of United Church Women on Councils
ORIGINATING BODY:
________ U.C.W. Presbyterial
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Cost of Meeting Participation
STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: None
___________ U.C.W. Presbyterial proposes that:
The 42nd General Council:
Ensure that in the three Council model proposed by United in God’s Work, provision is
made for the full voting participation of a representative of the United Church Women
on the Regional and Denominational Councils and their Executives.
Background:
The involvement of a representative of the United Church Women in The United Church of
Canada’s current structure is not consistent. Some Presbyteries and Conferences and their
Executives do include a representative as a full voting member while others, including the
General Council Executive, only permit these representatives to serve as corresponding
(non-voting) members.
The proposals from United in God’s Work offer an opportunity to address this inconsistency
across the church and to recognize the vital role that United Church Women play in the
denomination by ensuring that a representative of the UCW is able to participate fully in the
Regional and Denominational Councils and their Executives.
United Church Women have traditionally supported their local congregations fulfilling their
purpose by expressing their loyalty and devotion to Jesus Christ in Christian witness, study,
fellowship and service. It is recognized by many, that with-out the devotion and commitment
of the UCW many congregations would have ceased to exist long ago. It could also be noted
that the commitment to the wider work of our church through support of the Mission and
Service fund is evident as in 2014 alone, $1,462,840 was given to M&S by the UCW across
Canada.
Including a representative of the United Church Women as a full voting member on these
Councils will allow for the wisdom and the work of the U.C.W. to inform and guide the
Councils. It will also provide a link between a key population and network, and the governance
structure.
Intermediate Court Action:
(PLEASE HAVE YOUR PRESBYTERY SECRETARY REPORT IN THIS SECTION, THE ACTION/DECISION
OF YOUR PRESBYTERY BEFORE FORWARDING THIS DOCUMENT TO YOUR CONFERENCE FOR
CONSIDERATION AT THEIR ANNUAL MEETING)
Proposal #10
Title: The Impact of the Economic Action Campaign against Israeli Settlements.
Originating Body: Hamilton Conference (Motion by Rev. Greg Smith-Young)
Financial Implications (if known): none
Staffing Implications (if known): none
Source of Funding: n/a
Hamilton Conference proposes that the 42nd General Council (2015):
1) Investigate the impact economic action campaigns are having on Israeli
perceptions toward the occupation and peace process. This analysis will
involve engagement with experts in Israeli politics and society, and include
those who are critical of such campaigns.
2) Suspend the economic action component of the Unsettling Goods campaign
until the analysis is complete and has been reported to the General Council
Executive. The Executive may decide whether to restart the campaign.
2) Continue education and awareness-raising to help United Church members
better understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This will include hearing
narratives and perceptions from perspectives on both sides of the conflict.
3) Begin an effort to engage in relationship-repairing with the Canadian Jewish
community, particularly those who favour a just peace which recognizes
Palestinian rights yet have been troubled by the United Church’s economic
action campaign.
Background:
1. In 2012, the 41 st General Council passed resolution on the ongoing conflict between
Israeli and Palestinian people. Its action arose from the report of the Working Group
on Israel/Palestine Policy. The General Council:
• recognized “the occupation as a major contributor to the injustice that underlies the
violence of the region” and “identifying the end of all settlement construction by
Israel as a necessary step in entering into good faith negotiations toward ending the
occupation.” [GC41 Resolution: 4a,b]
• authorized “establishing a church-wide campaign of education and economic action
directed against one or more settlement products that can be identified as produced
in or related to the settlements or the occupied territories.” [GC41 Resolution: 9a]
3. The campaign’s goals focused on the thinking and actions of United Church members.
• The General Council identified its goal as “building awareness of United Church
members of the illegal settlements’ unjust continuation of the occupation and its
impact on the lives of Palestinians and Israelis.” [GC41 Resolution: 9b]
• The Working Group stated, “The goal of such action needs to be clearly defined:
that it is immoral and unethical to support the existence of the settlements, so any
and all products produced in the settlements and through the occupation should be
avoided.” [Working Group: 100]
• The Working Group also indicated that purchasing settlement products is akin to
buying stolen property. [Working Group on Israel/Palestine Policy: Q&A #19]
4. Both the General Council’s resolution and the Working Group’s report were silent about
how the economic action will bring about the withdrawal of the Israel settlements, the
end of the occupation, or meaningful negotiations toward a just and lasting resolution
of the conflict. A causal link between economic action and a peaceful resolution to the
conflict has not been demonstrated.
5. There is reason for concern that our economic action, in concert with the broader
Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions movement, is counterproductive. The recent Israeli
election suggests that a narrative of isolation and threats (internal and external) can
sway significant voters toward positions that resist compromise and recognition of
Palestinian rights. Efforts such as our economic action policy can bolster perceptions
that “the whole world is against us” reinforcing a view that “Israel should erect high
fences, indulge in heightened patriotism, emphasize the uniqueness of the Jewish
condition, reject criticism, and follow a defiant path, even at the price of the world’s
delegitimization.” [Quotes are from Emanuel Adler, Israel in the World (London:
Routledge, 2013)]
6. An effective approach to positively influencing Israeli public opinion would consider how
efforts such as our economic action are perceived within Israel. Such vital analysis was
absent from the Working Group’s report.
7. Our policy has had a harmful impact on relationships between the United Church and
many of our friends and partners within the Canadian Jewish community. A sampling
of reactions from progressive-minded Jews in Canada, who share similar social-justice
values and commitments as the United Church, illustrates this.
• Dr. Victor C. Goldbloom, CC, OQ, who was invited to address the General Council:
“In my address to the delegates . . . I tried to convey that their choice was between
a symbolic and ineffective gesture, and the maintenance of ongoing relationships
between Canadians, those of the Jewish faith whom I represented and those of
their Church. Clearly, I was listened to but not heard. I do not understand what the
United Church of Canada thinks it has accomplished—in my view, absolutely
nothing—and why it has been so ready to sacrifice its long-standing dialogue
relationship with fellow-Canadians of the Jewish faith.”
• Fredelle Brief, LP Council Member, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs: “When
UCC General Council passed their BDS motion in 2012, instructing their staff to
promote actions against Israel, I felt so sad and disappointed. I have been in
long-standing dialogue with UCC staff and m embers and we worked together on
social justice. Was one of us deaf to the deeply held convictions of the other?”
• Rabbi Michael Satz, Holy Blossom Temple, Toronto: “Trying to punish Israel
because of the settlements only encourages polarization instead of bringing the
sides together. The purpose of boycotts [is] to alienate. Peace cannot be reached
through alienation, but through international and regional cooperation. . . . The
United Church’s targeted boycotts not only alienate Israelis, they have closed down
relationships with the Canadian Jewish community who shares m any of your
values.”