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.”
© Copyright 2024