3250 Bloor Street West, Suite 300 416-231-5931 1-800-268-3781 , F: 416-231-3103 M8X 2Y4 www.united-church.ca

March 2015

Dear Friends,

Grace and peace to you in the name of Jesus Christ. As you prepare for your last meeting of the triennium, we would like to express our gratitude and thanksgiving for your work over the past three years. The is truly blessed to have such faithful and committed governors in this time of change as we open ourselves in hope and prayer to ’s new creation.

By the time you meet in mid-March, the Comprehensive Review Task Group will have shared its final report and recommendations with the church. We strongly encourage you to read these materials closely before your meeting so you can engage in lively and deep conversations in your table groups. We hope these discussions will help equip you to take leadership roles this spring and summer in your Conferences as they consider these materials and bring forward proposals to the 42nd General Council in August.

Also at this meeting, you will work with other important reports and proposals that you will find in this workbook.

We thank members whose terms on the Executive will come to an end at this meeting. Thank you for your wisdom and commitment, and for sharing your gifts with the church in this ministry of governance. God’s mission needs strong leaders, and we pray that you will feel called to use your many gifts in new ways in your communities of faith and beyond.

We also are grateful for members who will continue to serve on the Executive during the next triennium. Whatever the General Council decides in August, you will be called on to oversee significant and sometimes difficult changes that will require us to let go of things we cherish, but also enable us to participate more faithfully in God’s new creation. May God give us wisdom, strength, and hope as we look to the future together.

In faith,

The Right Rev. Nora Sanders Moderator General Secretary, General Council

The Mission and Service of The United Church of Canada: God’s mission, our gift. La mission et le service de l’Église Unie du Canada : la mission de Dieu, pour nous, par nous. Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

March 21-23, 2015 Draft Agenda ...... 4 Table Group Assignments ...... 5 List of Proposals ...... 6 Intercultural Lens Tool ...... 7 Correspondence to the Executive of the General Council to February 20, 2015 ...... 8

General Secretary General Secretary’s Accountability Report ...... 9-18 Regional Models Report ...... 19-28

GCE Reports Moderator’s Accountability Report ...... 29-34 42nd General Council Planning Committee Report ...... 35-36 Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools Accountability Report ...... 37-40 World Council of Churches Report ...... 41-43 Joint Grants Accountability Report ...... 44-49

Permanent Committee Reports Aboriginal Ministries Council Accountability Report ...... 50-55 Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee Accountability Report ...... 56-62 Permanent Committee on Finance Accountability Report ...... 63-70 Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda Accountability Report ...... 71-73 Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services Accountability Report ...... 74-78 Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry Accountability Report ...... 79-84

Proposals – Consent MEPS 18 Conference Interviews for Interim Ministers (TOR 1) ...... 85-86 MEPS 19 Sabbaticals for Persons Involved in Interim Ministry (HAM 10) ...... 87-89 MEPS 20 Changes to the Admission Policies and Procedures ...... 90-91 MEPS 21 Pastoral Relations Sabbatical Leave Policy ...... 92-93 MEPS 22 Full-Time Paid Accountable Ministries (HAM 3) ...... 94-96 MEPS 24 Addressing Systemic Inequality in Compensation (LON 3) ...... 97-98 MEPS 25 Transitioning Health Spending Account ...... 99-100 MEPS 26 Pension Contributions by Pastoral Charges with Retired Supply (HAM 9) ...... 101 G&A 11 GCE Meeting Dates 2015-2018 ...... 102-103 FIN 7 2015 Budget Approval – Revised ...... 104-105

Proposals – Plenary GS 51 Opening Motions ...... 106-107 GS 52 Procedural Motions ...... 108 GS 54 Site Proposal, GC43 ...... 109-110 PAGE 2 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

GS 55 Mutual Recognition – PROK ...... 111-118 GS 56 Full Communion with , USA ...... 119-125 MEPS 23 Effective Leadership ...... 126-135

Red Sessional TICIF 2 One Order of Ministry ...... 136-145 TICIF 3 Towards a New Model of Membership ...... 146-155

Blue Sessional PMM 16 Youth And Young Adult (YAYA) Strategy ...... 156-164 GS 53 LGBTTQ Living Apology ...... 165-168 TICIF 5 Online Communion ...... 169-173

Yellow Sessional PMM 17 Extension of Unsettling Goods Campaign ...... 174-175 Interim Campaign Report ...... 176-183 PMM 18 Mission and Ministry with Migrant Churches ...... 184-192 TICIF 4 Physician Assisted Death ...... 193-201

Added March 13 GS 57 St. Columba House Property ‒ Encroachment Servitude ...... 202 GS 58 Alternate Proposal for Action on Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships Report ...... 203 Report on Travel Rate for 2016 ...... 204 MEPS Economic Adjustment for 2016...... 205 The Report of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry ...... 206-215

Meeting Minutes of The Executive and Sub-Executive October 15, 2014 Sub-Executive November 15-17, 2014 Executive (draft) November 27, 2014 Sub-Executive December 18, 2014 Sub-Executive January 7, 2015 Sub-Executive

Tracking Sheets for the Triennium

PAGE 3 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

DRAFT 3 AGENDA – EXECUTIVE OF GENERAL COUNCIL, SPRING 2015

Saturday, March 21 Sunday, March 22 Monday, March 23

8:20-8:30 Gathering Music Gathering Music Gathering Music

8:30 – 10:30 Welcome 5 Worship 10 10:00 a.m. start with pick Worship – In Memoriams 30 Today We Will + Motion to up break Governance – Agenda 10 Move Out of In-Camera 10 Table Group Check-in 15 Blue Sessional Report 60 Consent Agenda + Procedural Motions 10 Worship led by Affirm 40 Moderator’s Acc. 25 Today We Will 5 AMC Accountability 25 PC PMM Acc. Report 25 Intro: Ya Ya Strategy 10 10:30 – 11:00 BREAK BREAK Migrant Church 10

11:00 – 12:30 General Secretary’s Acc. 30 Intro: Unsettling Goods10 Red Sessional Report 60 Intro GLBTT Proposal 10 Global Partner 15 Nominations 10 Proposal GC43 Venue 10 Music Pick up Coffee Cups 5 Proposal Mutual Agree.5 Other Reports 20 Celebrations, Friend Proposal – Full Com. 5 Friend Announcements & Announcement & PC FIN Report 25 Chaplain Grace 10 Chaplain Grace 20

Friend / Chaplain / Grace / Music 5 12:30 – 1:30 LUNCH LUNCH LUNCH

1:30 – 3:30 TICIF Acct. Report 25 Sessional Committees 120 Other and New Business 30 Intro: Online Communion 10 Red – Plenary Governance – Reporting rd Physician Asst. Death 10 Blue – 3 Floor Back Home, Evaluation 10 One Order of Ministry 10 Yellow – Chapel Intercultural Lens 10 Membership 10 Theological Reflection 10 Music 10 Courtesies & Closing PC MEPS Acct. Report 25 Motions 10 Effective Leadership 20 Table Group Closure 20

3:30 – 4:00 BREAK BREAK 3:00 p.m. Closing Worship with Communion. 60

4:00 – 6:00 Gov. Ed Affirming 30 Yellow Sessional Report 60 Depart at 4 p.m. CRTG Table Groups 45 New Business + Move In- PC G&A Acct Report 25 Camera after dinner 35 Intercultural Lens 5 Intercultural Lens 10 Theological Reflection 10 Theological Reflection 10 Announcements & Music 5 Announcements & Grace/

Music 5

6:00 – 7:00 Depart for Free Evening DINNER

Move to In-Camera Time General Secretary Supervision 7:00 – 8:30 Voting Members Time with Moderator to finish by or before 8:30 p.m.

PAGE 4 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

TABLE GROUPS FOR THE MARCH 21-23, 2015 GCE MEETING

Head Table: Gary Paterson, Nora Sanders Table 1 Table 2 Charlotte Griffith R M&O L * Jean Macdonald B BC L Peter Hartmans B HAM CES Adam Hanley R HAM O barb janes B MNWO O Rosemary Lambie B M&O CES Donna Kennedy Y ANC L Shannon McCarthy R MNWO CES John Lee R TOR O Tracy Murton Y SK L *John Young Y BQ O Table 3 Table 4 * Phyllis Buchner R HAM UCW * Susan Gabriel B M&O L Andrea Harrison Y M&O O Doug Goodwin Y BC CES Martha Pedoniquotte R HAM L Alan Hall B GCO O Bill Smith B BQ CES Florence Sanna R NL O Roy West B NL L Anna Stewart Y MNWO L Michael Blair R GCO O Paula Gale Y NL O Table 5 Table 6 David Hewitt R MAR CES Cheryl Jourdain Y ANC Speaker * Michael Schewburg B TOR O * Bob Mutlow Y ANW O Miriam Spies Y WCC L Colin Phillips R TOR L Bill Steadman R HAM O Graham Brownmiller B BC O Nichole Vonk (maternity leave) GCO-Archives Pauline Walker B MAR L Table 7 Table 8 David Allen Y TOR CES Nelson Hart R ANC O Laura Fouhse B SK O Lynn Maki B ANW CES Mel King Y TOR L Marie-Claude Manga B M&O O Charles McMillan R LON L Kellie McComb Y HAM O Mary Royal Duczek B BQ O Erik Mathiesen Y GCO L * Sybil Wilson R HAM L * Norma Thompson R BQ L Table 9 Table 10 Nicole Beaudry R M&O L Janice Brownlee Y MTU L Thom Davies B HAM O * Erin Todd R MTU O * Vilvan Gunasingham B TOR L Bill Doyle Y SK CES Ray Jones B BC L Lynella Reid-James R TOR L Faith March-MacCuish Y NL CES John Thompson B ANC O Doug Wright Y LON O Ramzi Zananiri Global Partner Table 11 Table 12 Brian Cornelius R M&O O Adam Brown Y BQ L Martha Martin B Observer O Shirley Cleave R MAR L Cheryl-Ann Stadelbauer-Sampa B LON CES * Ivan Gregan B MAR O * Y HAM L Bev Kostichuk Y SK L Jim White Y BC L Will Kunder R MTU CES Sue Brodrick R ANW L Karen Smart GCO O

The asterisk (*) beside one name in each table group designates the table group facilitator. The facilitator ensures that everyone in the group has the opportunity to speak, and that no one dominates the conversation. Also, that table group time focuses on the assigned topic, and that notes are taken when requested. The responsibility for facilitating will be rotated from meeting to meeting, so all will share in the task over the triennium. If you are designated for this meeting and don’t wish to take on the responsibility, please notify Karen Smart ([email protected]) as soon as possible.

PAGE 5 revised 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

PROPOSAL LISTING

GCE Page Proposal Title Proposals number Consent MEPS 18 Conference Interviews for Interim Ministers (TOR 1) 85-86 Sabbaticals for Persons Involved in Interim Ministry Consent MEPS 19 87-89 (HAM 10) Consent MEPS 20 Changes to the Admission Policies and Procedures 90-91 Consent MEPS 21 Pastoral Relations Sabbatical Leave Policy 92-93 Consent MEPS 22 Full-Time Paid Accountable Ministries (HAM 3) 94-96 Addressing Systemic Inequality in Clergy Compensation Consent MEPS 24 97-98 (LON 3) Consent MEPS 25 Gender Transitioning Health Spending Account 99-100 Pension Contributions by Pastoral Charges with Retired Consent MEPS 26 101 Supply (HAM 9) Consent G&A 11 GCE Meeting Dates 2015-2018 102-103 Consent FIN 7 2015 Budget Approval – Revised 104-105 Plenary GS 51 Opening Motions 106-107 Plenary GS 52 Procedural Motions 108 Plenary GS 54 Site Proposal, GC43 109-110 Plenary GS 55 Mutual Recognition – PROK 111-118 Plenary GS 56 Full Communion with United Church of Christ, USA 119-125 Plenary MEPS 23 Effective Leadership 126-135 Red TICIF 2 One Order of Ministry 136-145 Red TICIF 3 Towards a New Model of Membership 146-155 Blue PMM 16 Youth And Young Adult (YAYA) Strategy 156-164 Blue GS 53 LGBTTQ Living Apology 165-168 Blue TICIF 5 Online Communion 169-173 Yellow PMM 17 Extension of Unsettling Goods Campaign 174-175 Yellow PMM 18 Mission and Ministry with Migrant Churches 184-192 Yellow TICIF 4 Physician Assisted Death 193-201

PAGE 6 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

PLEASE USE THESE INTERCULTURAL LENS TOOL QUESTIONS AS YOU REVIEW THE WORKBOOK AND IN OUR TABLE GROUP TIMES

IT IS HOPED THAT THE INTERCULTURAL CONVERSATION IS WOVEN THROUGHOUT THE MEETING

INTERCULTURAL LENS

1. What is the context? • What are my own biases, and how will I address them? • What unspoken cultural norms, values or rules might be present? • What perspectives might be missing? • What issues of systemic injustice are named and unnamed? • What assumptions might be being made about who and what matters?

2. Who will be affected? • Are minority voices heard in the decision-making process? • Who are the stakeholders? • Whose voices are valued in the decision? • Whose perspectives might be missing from this conversation? • Who has been invited to participate?

3. How will this increase equity? • How does it lift up the intercultural vision? • How might power differentials be effectively addressed? • How could we facilitate equitable conversations? • How will assumptions be checked or verified? • How will this enable the church to live into its commitments around interculturalism, racial justice, gender justice, covenanting for life in the midst of empire, and other aspects of being a justice-seeking/justice-living church? (Or, to challenge systemic injustice?)

PAGE 7 Executive of the General Council March 21-23, 2015 For Information

CORRESPONDENCE TO THE EXECUTIVE OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL TO FEBRUARY 20, 2015

Date Date # Sent to From Conf To Topic Response Responded OMGS 38 Feb. 1, Feb. 12, United Church MAR Nora Sanders, Response to The General 2015 2015 Formation General Report of the Secretary Group, Atlantic Secretary Working advised that the School of Group on correspondence Theology Leadership had been Formation for shared with Ministry GCE and Steve Willey, CIM

PAGE 8 revised 6 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

GENERAL SECRETARY’S ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Origin: General Secretary, General Council

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. —Jeremiah 31:33

As we prepare for the final Executive meeting of this triennium, I reflect that we have journeyed together as God’s people for almost three years. We have carried together many written things, and you will receive another big batch along with this report. As weighty and important as some of these documents have been, Jeremiah reminds us that it is the things written on our hearts that bind us together as the people of God.

Ce fût un honneur de collaborer avec vous pour l’Église Unie du Canada dans ces temps difficiles, mais passionnants.

Comprehensive Review The early part of this winter was a very busy time for the Comprehensive Review Task Group and for those of us on staff who have been privileged to support its work, as the task group finalized its report and recommendations. These materials are now being edited and translated and are scheduled to be released in early March. The task group’s work has been a focus of your Executive meetings throughout this triennium, and you have been an invaluable sounding board and advisory panel each step of the way. All of us in the United Church owe a huge debt of gratitude to the dedicated volunteer members of the task group for their creative, faithful, comprehensive, and excellent work. Although you will not be making decisions about the task group’s report at your meeting, you will have some time in table groups to talk about it.

Once the task group shares the report and recommendations, I will shift my attention to encouraging the church to engage actively with these materials. I will also make sure the processes leading to and at General Council offer full opportunity to discuss these recommendations or any proposed improvements, to discern, and to make decisions.

Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act The coming into force of the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act has created an opportunity for the United Church to move into a structure where decisions about the church can all be made by the church. Because the United Church was created under an Act of Parliament, major changes to our structure currently require parliamentary approval. Based on advice we have received from our legal counsel, I will be taking a proposal to the 42nd General Council recommending that we move the structure of the United Church to come under the Canada Not- for-profit Corporations Act. If the General Council approves this proposal, it would go to the church for approval through the remit process.

PAGE 9 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Finances, Operations, and Compliance By the time you meet in March, the annual audit of our books will just be under way. As a result of this process, the numbers mentioned in this report may change slightly, but the over-all trajectory will remain the same.

Last fall, you approved a new budget reporting format that more closely aligns the budget reporting, financial statement reporting, and narrative budget pie charts we use to report to the church. One consequence of this decision is that reserve transfers no longer mask the extent to which we have depended on reserves and investment gains to fund current operations.

Our 2014 financial reports show an overall result that was somewhat better than expected, largely due to a second consecutive year of double-digit returns on the investment side. Of particular note: • The decline of $400,000 in annual giving to the Mission and Service Fund was not as severe as what we had budgeted for (a decline of $1.2 million). However, the core decline continues. • Bequests to the Mission and Service Fund were only 60 percent of what we might normally receive, but in turn 2013 was a very good year. Bequest revenue has always been quite volatile, and one larger bequest more or less in a year can swing the total markedly. Thus, overall Mission and Service Fund revenue will be less than we were counting on for the 2014 budget. • Expense-management contributed $1.8 million in savings. We continue to modernize our information technology infrastructure in anticipation of needing to work very differently in the future. • Despite volatility, our investment return was 10 percent, which was more than double what we used for budgeting.

Overall, this means we have a bit more capacity to work through a period of change.

The 2015 budget you approved last fall did not entail any significant cuts, and we are not proposing any changes to that approach. We are preparing, though, for major cost reductions beginning in 2016, either in conjunction with implementing the direction of the 42nd General Council around the Comprehensive Review or some form of “plan B.” We will be discussing the guiding principles for this work in March.

On the compliance side, external audit activity has been significant over the past two years. While there is much external conjecture around “being picked on,” we have consistently taken the view that, not having been audited before, we were simply “due.” The various audits are described in more detail in the report of the Permanent Committee on Finance, but we continue to await closure and may have more to report when we meet. We continue to support congregations and presbyteries in obtaining or maintaining charitable status, and the number of problem cases is now at a record low.

The United Church, as directed by the Executive, is now a signatory to the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment. The church has also signed the 2014 Global Investor PAGE 10 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Statement on Climate Change. We continue to work in the area of responsible investment, both in terms of policy refinement and our engagement as a shareholder.

Philanthropy We have made significant progress in refocusing our philanthropy efforts on stewardship, congregational stewardship, and Mission and Service giving in response to declining membership and givings across the church.

As part of this strategy, we have expanded the role of regional staff, who have traditionally focused almost entirely on planned giving (bequests), to also include a strong focus on stewardship, congregational stewardship, and Mission and Service giving. To support this shift, technology and infrastructure changes were needed to have a congregationally based integrated database, which we are putting in place this year.

Stewardship is rooted in the theology of the church. We are building capacity to communicate this in all materials and in many ways, including adding two ministers in 2014 to the philanthropy staff. Through the triennium, we have incorporated into our work the results of the major congregational research on stewardship and Mission and Service. We are supporting congregational stewardship by offering online tools and resources (www.stewardshiptoolkit.ca) and doing regional workshops and national webinars. This year, we will be distributing a detailed five-week stewardship program kit to all congregations to enhance their ability to provide a strong theological message while using best practices of inspiring, asking, and thanking.

We have strongly and consistently moved the “brand of M&S” from being “a fund” to being the Mission and Service of the whole church. We have increased the network of Mission and Service enthusiasts from 50 percent to 75 percent of pastoral charges. Giving program materials for two years have focused on participation levels, which is one area of great potential. In 2014, we tested a “best practices” Mission and Service Sunday service with accompanying planning materials and videos narrated by the Moderator to very positive response. Learnings from this process will form the backbone of the five-week stewardship giving kit, one week of which will focus on Mission and Service. In addition, “M&S brand building” materials and campaigns such as emergency response and the Gifts With Vision giving catalogues, which fund Mission and Service partners directly, are being received very well and we are evaluating them.

We continue to provide planned giving presentations across the church. In 2014, the Executive decided to begin to endow a percentage of major planned gifts in The United Church of Canada Foundation. The programs of planned giving have begun to receive attention nationally and this will continue into the next triennium as we apply the learnings from planned giving to a more proactive major gifts approach.

The United Church of Canada Foundation I am pleased to serve on the board of The United Church of Canada Foundation, and a space on that board for a representative of the Executive is currently vacant. This is interesting work and the relationship between the Foundation and the Executive is an important one. Including $29 million of endowments transferred from the General Council Office, the Foundation now has $55

PAGE 11 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

million under its management. It also has negotiated an affinity arrangement that allows church entities to invest directly with our investment manager on attractive terms. Currently more than 80 church organizations participate, investing over $27 million, an increase of $9 million in the triennium. The Foundation will continue its trademark strong donor service over the next triennium as it serves individuals, congregations, and any church-related organizations through its management of long-term funds, donor-advised funds, gifts of stocks, and proceeds from the sale of properties. The Foundation, in partnership with the General Council Office, continues to fund innovation and new models of church through the work of the Joint Grants Committee

Truth and Reconciliation I have continued to attend regular meetings of the leadership of the parties to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (www.trc.ca). As the commission prepares to release its report and recommendations in June and conclude its work at the end of that month, we have been focused on fulfilling obligations under the Settlement Agreement and planning next steps. Most of these meetings have been in Ottawa, but we hosted the most recent one at our office. It is anticipated that the document collection obligations of the United Church will be completed by April 2015, subject, of course, to the continuing obligation to provide any additional documents that come to light to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

The Moderator and I, along with others from our church and members of the public, plan to attend the final event of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Ottawa, which will be held from May 31 to June 3. This will mark the end of an important stage of this work, but there will remain much more to do. We are hoping all parties, and perhaps other partners too, will commit to continued efforts together, beginning with a substantive response to the recommendations the Truth and Reconciliation Commissioners will provide.

As we move ahead with this work we will also be working through staff transitions. Jamie Scott will retire at the end of August and David MacDonald will be finishing his term of employment with the General Council Office at the end of June. It is hard to estimate the full value of the contributions both of these fine servants have made to our church and Canadian society as a whole. We have been blessed by their leadership.

Aboriginal Ministries Youth are a priority in the work of the Aboriginal Ministries Circle, and the Aboriginal Ministries Youth Leadership program was launched in 2012. This year, a delegation will travel to the Philippines for the Cordillera Day celebration to develop leadership skills and have opportunities to understand issues facing Indigenous people in other parts of the world. This initiative is part of efforts to increase participation by youth and young adults in leadership roles and decision-making in Aboriginal ministries.

A review of the Healing Fund was initiated in 2014 with the goals of improving access to and navigation of the grant application process, and achieving cost efficiencies by Healing Fund Council meeting costs. A program to engage Aboriginal Ministries Council members in visits to Healing Fund projects within their regions will be developed and tested in 2015. This project will increase the Aboriginal Ministries Circle’s ability to follow up with Healing Fund projects and

PAGE 12 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

provide an opportunity to gain deeper insights on the impact of the Healing Fund. We anticipate that cost-savings will be realized because these visits were previously carried out by the Healing Program Coordinator. Educational materials will be developed to support this engagement.

The Aboriginal Ministries Council is making good progress in developing a real property plan for Aboriginal communities of faith. This plan will result in the Council making decisions that have previously been made by staff at the General Council Office. At its meeting in February 2015, the Council approved in principle the Real Property Strategic Plan and the terms of reference for the Real Property Task Group. Staff are developing a number of resources to guide and support the work of the Real Property Task Group and communities of faith. The Circle will consult with Conferences in March 2015.

Under the Real Property Strategic Plan, communities of faith will be asked to describe their current ministry and articulate the nature of ministry that is needed to support spiritual healing and renewal, and assessments of buildings will be reviewed and updated.

Ministry and Employment This triennium, three major long-term projects have been tested and are ready to move forward: • The Comprehensive Salary Model has been approved for implementation. • The Candidacy Pathway project is on its way to the 42nd General Council with your recommendation that it be expanded to the whole church. • The Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships project is being tested in nine Conferences. You have before you at this meeting a report to date on the outcomes of testing. The report includes a proposal that the Executive recommend key directions for continued development and testing. I will be proposing a modification to that proposal that more explicitly reflects the context of the Comprehensive Review recommendations.

Together, these projects represent ground-breaking changes to how we call up and support ministry personnel leadership in our church. They also represent a significant new approach to policy development by utilizing evidence-based information and evaluation to inform decisions. The Isolation in Ministry study, which was completed in 2005, provided the foundation of data for this decade of research and reform. The Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships survey, which was completed in 2011, tested progress on the 2005 markers and further informed policy formation. Each step has built on and informed the next. We owe a great deal of gratitude to the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Polices and Services and the staff of the Ministry and Employment Unit who have pursued this work so diligently over so long a period of time.

Comprehensive Compensation Implementation With the authorization by the Executive to proceed with the implementation of the comprehensive compensation for ministry personnel in pastoral relationships, staff have been working to finalize new call and appointment forms and ensure pastoral charge payroll forms and ADP processes are updated. Staff are also preparing the necessary communications to both pastoral charges and ministry personnel.

PAGE 13 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

A concern was raised both at the Executive in November and by some ministers and presbyteries about the impact of these changes on the calculation of pensionable earnings at retirement. The current practice (calculating the pensionable earnings as 140 percent of the base salary, with the 40 percent premium being a notional amount that represents the value of housing) is an unusual pension practice. The usual practice in Canada is to base pensionable earnings on the actual total earned income, not a portion of the income, and the new model will be consistent will that. Given that in lower-cost housing areas the 40 percent is more than the actual value of housing, the new pensionable earnings for ministers in those situations will be less. The impact on earned pension can be estimated only at a point in time and will vary with length of future service and income during that service. While the change in pensionable earnings may seem large, the actual impact on the pension payable at retirement is only 1.4 percent of that number. The communication to ministry personnel will detail how they can calculate the impact on their pensions based on their current earned income. It should be noted that this change does not impact already accrued benefits.

The changes become effective July 1, 2015 for new calls and appointments. Existing calls and renewed appointments will transition at their discretion between then and July 1, 2018.

Third-Party Pension and Benefits Administration The transition of our current Aon Hewitt service for administering pension and benefits to a new software platform has been discontinued with the conclusion by Aon Hewitt in the initial stages of development that the proposed new system would not adequately meet our needs. The Pension Plan Advisory Committee is encouraged by a new proposal by Aon Hewitt and has directed staff to proceed to develop detailed service standards and contract terms. At the same time, it has decided to issue a request for proposals from other service providers to determine whether Aon Hewitt’s offering is the most suitable and competitively priced.

Affirming Workplace The 41st General Council directed that both the Executive and the staff of the General Council Office engage in in an Affirming Ministry study program. On October 17, 2014, I had the opportunity to engage in a two-hour workshop about and sexuality with colleagues at the General Council Office. This workshop included information about the differences and connections between gender and sexuality and best practices for making an environment that affirms individuals of all gender identities and sexualities, with a particular focus on experiences and preferred personal pronouns. This workshop also focused on growing and learning together as a community and included exercises to help us explore how to give and receive apologies. It was a positive learning process for all concerned.

Theological Education In November, you approved the adoption of a competency-based approach to theological education and asked that the report of the working group be finalized for consistency with the Comprehensive Review Task Group’s report and submitted to the Executive at the March meeting. You will receive that report by e-mail prior to your meeting.

PAGE 14 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

The deans and principals of the theological schools have named three representatives to advance discussions about how this work is to proceed, and collaborative work has already begun.

Regional Team Models You will also find, following this report, a report on regional ministry team models that the Executive mandated in October 2012. There are no accompanying proposals because the group studying this concluded it is an excellent model, but that it is best done through local initiative with room for regional variation, and support from the General Council Office as needed.

Mutual Recognition of Ministry and Full Communion Processes The Executive has authorized me to carry forward conversations with a number of denominations on agreements towards mutual recognition of ministries.

Two relations are ready to recommend to the 42nd General Council for approval of mutual recognition of ministry agreements. In 2014, you approved an agreement with the United Church of Christ of the Philippines (UCCP), which the General Assembly of the UCCP subsequently approved. I am recommending that at this meeting you approve the proposal to enter into a similar agreement with the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea. We were pleased to host a delegation from South Korea in January, and the recommendations before you were developed at these meetings.

These two denominations represent historic global partnerships, as well as growing immigrant church populations in Canada. A separate report from the Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry titled “Mission and Ministry with Migrant Churches” provides an overview of the context of these agreements in relation to the changing .

The two formal agreements will come to the 42nd General Council to be approved and celebrated. They point to a renewed path of ecumenical engagement that deepens the nature of global partnership. These agreements represent a historic moment for our churches, as it is the first time either of us has formulated such agreements. The agreements will require the addition of a category of ministry called “ministry partner” to The Manual. This proposal will be brought to the 42nd General Council and, if approved, will require a remit to formally enact.

I am also pleased to report that the Anglican-United Church Dialogue is focusing on exploring the possibility of mutual recognition of our ministries.

The full communion conversation with the United Church of Christ in the United States grew out of the request to explore mutual recognition of ministry. Our representatives to the year-long discernment process reported to us at the last meeting on the richness of their conversations. The joint committee has now reached a decision to propose enacting a full communion agreement between our churches. You have before you a proposal to recommend this full communion agreement for adoption at General Council. The General Synod of the United Church of Christ will consider a similar proposal in June 2015, and I expect to be in attendance at that meeting. The proposals will authorize our churches to enact the agreement in liturgy and worship that would likely take place in Niagara Falls in October 2015.

PAGE 15 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Discipleship and Evangelism The Church in Mission Unit, in partnership with EDGE, continues to explore issues related to the revitalization of our faith communities, particularly around discipleship and evangelism. Last November, a national consultation involving 30 participants was held to explore the issue of evangelism in the context of the United Church and the changing Canadian landscape. This consultation, along with other events in the church such as the Ministry in Motion conference that the Moderator and I attended in October, will continue to shape ongoing work into the next triennium. A reference group is being developed that will help coordinate a number of regional and local gatherings and provide resource material for the larger church.

Unsettling Goods This work has continued with the development of the “Let’s Keep Talking” series of videos, educational materials, and worship resources, which are now posted online at www.united- church.ca/getinvolved/unsettling-goods/speak/talking.

Apology to Members of the LGBTTQ Communities At your last meeting, you approved in principle an intention to apologize to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, two-spirit, trans, and queer (LGBTTQ) communities for past experiences of institutional and individual homophobia, heterosexism, biphobia, , and other forms of oppression in the United Church. After consultations with members of these communities, we are recommending a longer process of a “living apology” that would invite the church into a three-year journey of dialogue and reconciliation with members of LGBTTQ communities and culminate at the 43rd General Council in 2018, the 30th anniversary of the 1988 decision for full inclusion. You will find in the workbook a proposal that outlines the rationale and process for this living apology.

End-of-Life Decision-Making End-of-life decision-making has increasingly been in the news and on the minds of many with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in February to strike down the Criminal Code ban on assisted suicide. I expect many of you have had questions or conversations about what our church will say about this issue. At your meeting, you will consider a proposal from the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee that would direct further thinking and work on this issue.

Online Communion You will find in the workbook a report and proposal from the Theology and Inter-Church Inter- Faith Committee on online communion. The question of whether celebrating communion online is theologically appropriate arose in relation to the reconvening in 2013 of the 41st General Council, which occurred both in-person and electronically. But this question is also of interest across the church as people increasingly gather in online communities. The advice we have received is that this practice is acceptable as long as some basic requirements are met, and decisions about using it rest with the Session or equivalent.

PAGE 16 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Les Ministères en Français Nous sommes heureux que le Manuel soit maintenant disponible en français (www.united- church.ca/fr/files/handbooks/manual_2013.pdf). Ce sera un outil important pour les délégués francophones et bilingues au Conseil général 42. La traduction a été possible grâce aux efforts de Judith Bricault (traductrice) et de Fred Braman (réviseur juridique). Pour votre information, un nombre limité de copies sera imprimé et disponible pour les francophones au sein de nos instances décisionnelles.

En février j’ai participé, avec des collègues du Bureau du Conseil général, des Synodes, et des paroisses à une semaine intensive d’étude de langue française. Je souhaiterais remercier tout, particulièrement Kristine Greenaway, Angelika Piché, et Christian Nguyen, pour nous avoir permis d’avoir ce temps de rencontre merveilleux, et de créer une nouvelle inspiration dans mes humbles efforts pour communiquer en français.

(We are pleased that the Manual is now available in French (www.united- church.ca/fr/files/handbooks/manual_2013.pdf). It will be an important tool for the francophone and bilingual commissioners of the 42nd General Council. Judith Bricault did the translation and Fred Braman reviewed the legal terminology. For your information, a limited number of print copies will be distributed to francophones involved in the work of the courts of the church.)

In February I took part, along with colleagues from the General Council Office and from Conferences and congregational ministry, in a week of intensive French language studies. I am very grateful to Kristine Greenaway, Angelika Piché, and Christian Nguyen for providing this wonderful opportunity for us, and am feeling inspired in my humble efforts to communicate en français.)

Location of 43rd General Council I am delighted to report that Bay of Quinte Conference has put forward a proposal to host the 43rd General Council in 2018 in Oshawa, Ontario. I welcome this proposal and am recommending that you accept this invitation.

General Council Office Staffing Kaitlin Bardswich, program assistant in the Church in Mission Unit, left us in January after three and a half years. Christine McLean, Benefits Coordinator in the Ministry and Employment Unit, left after eight years. Tom Broadhurst, Information & Statistics Coordinator, retired in February after 16 years. And Steve Willey, Program Coordinator, Education & Leadership Development, in the Church in Mission Unit, will be retiring at the end of March. We thank them for their service and wish them well in their future endeavours.

Recent new staff include Aimee Gavin, program assistant, and Louise Lamontagne, resource coordinator and translation, in the Church in Mission Unit; the Rev. Ruth Noble, Mission and Service engagement coordinator in the Philanthropy Unit; and Shenagh Rosa, pension program coordinator, and Derek Hurst, pension and general fund manager, both in the Ministry and Employment Unit.

PAGE 17 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

We are blessed to have many long-serving staff at the General Council Office. This year, Virginia Morato, Ricardo De Leon, and Gregory Zawisza in the Finance Unit, Benilda Raymundo and Carmen Flores in the Ministry and Employment Unit, and Maria Morales in the Church in Mission Unit mark 25 years with us. Shirley Welch in the Office of the Moderator and General Secretary and Suzette Mungal and Rebekah Chevalier in the Communications Unit have each served 30 years!

As we enter the final Executive meeting of the triennium, I want to say thank you to: • my staff colleagues in the General Council Office and Conferences for all their work and commitment in challenging times • the members of the Comprehensive Review Task Group for their insights, courage, and hard work • John Young as chair and all those on my supervision committee who have offered guidance and wisdom throughout • our Moderator, Gary, whose leadership has inspired me and so many others • all of you who have offered your gifts to the work of the Executive.

PAGE 18 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

REPORT TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY REGARDING RESPONSE TO GENERAL COUNCIL 41 (2012) PROPOSAL TICIF3 - REGIONAL TEAM MODELS

Background Proposal GC41 TICIF3 concerning regional team ministry models came forward to the 41st General Council from the Theology, Interchurch, Interfaith Committee. The 41st General Council designated it as “unfinished business referred to the Executive of General Council”. The Executive then approved TICIF3 at its October 2012 meeting, and referred it to the General Secretary for implementation. The proposal reads as follows:

The Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee proposes that the 41st General Council (2012) direct the Executive of General Council to encourage the emergence of regional team models of congregational ministries by: 1. Gathering and sharing the experience of regional team models across the church; 2. Calling on Presbyteries to encourage and facilitate the development of regional team models within their bounds; 3. Identifying and addressing structural issues that would facilitate the emergence of regional team models; and 4. Examining the implications of and mitigating the negative effects of the growing number of part time ministries in the church.

Steve Willey, Program Coordinator for Education & Leadership Development, was asked to be the lead staff person to convene a Reference Group whose members were already offering leadership in collaborative and lay-led ministries. The Group met on a regular basis via conference call, and provided experience-based wisdom, written material, and network contacts to the Program Coordinator. The members of this Reference Group were:

Gay Boese, Selkirk Presbytery Jenny Carter, Cariboo Presbytery Dan Hayward, Seaway Valley Presbytery Christine Jerrett, Lambton Presbytery Scott MacAuley, Presbytery Brian Nicholson, Northern Waters Presbytery Joe Ramsay, Ministry, Employment Services unit

Introduction Once the Reference Group began to gather and share examples of Pastoral Charges already working together for mutual benefit, three things quickly became clear.

First, a rich diversity of regional ministries is already in place in The United Church of Canada. They call themselves by a variety of names: regional ministries; cooperative ministries; collaborative ministries; ministry collectives; clustered ministries; shared ministries; multisite ministries; and partnering ministries.

PAGE 19 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Second, the general movement for the establishment of new forms of regional ministries is growing and its underlying energy is “local” i.e. innovative individuals, Pastoral Charges, and Presbyteries, with Conference often playing a supportive role. A number of Conferences have organized consultations on regional ministries, the most recent being “Our Future Working Together: A Rural Ministry Consultation” in October 2014 held by Newfoundland and Labrador Conference. Not surprisingly, as collaborative ministries come into being, leaders with passion are stepping forward to serve as resource persons in the church’s exploration of collaborative forms of regional ministries. The members of the Reference Group are representative of this cohort of committed and knowledgeable leaders.

Third, it has become evident that the decision by the Executive of the General Council in late 2012 calling upon presbyteries “to encourage and facilitate the development of regional team models within their bounds” is made within the context of Pastoral Charges having issued the same urgent call for the last number of years. Albeit it unevenly, presbyteries and Conferences are answering that call and, in the process, have not only anticipated many of the concerns identified in TCIF3 but addressed them in a variety of creative ways. As this report indicates below, the General Council does have a role to play in approving appropriate policies, coordinating and resourcing the movement towards new forms of cooperative ministries within the bounds of its purview. It will do this collaboratively, however, as one of a number of partners in helping give birth to new ways of being the church.

This last point highlights a conviction among the Reference Group that deserves attention: the movement toward collaborative models of ministry involving strong lay leadership is part of the present kairos moment in which The United Church of Canada is revitalizing its understanding of church and ministry. Echoing GC41 TICIF3, the Reference Group believes that what is presently happening in collaborative, lay-involved ministries is not a aberration from a clericalized “norm”. There are now more Licenced Lay Worship Leaders in The United Church than there are either Diaconal Ministers or Designated Lay Ministers. This evolution of lay-involved ministries is neither a quick fix in service of mere survival (although it is this in some situations), nor is it primarily a pastoral relations strategy to create more full time positions for Ministry Personnel (although it may well do so). Cooperative ministry models, that depend upon collaboration between lay leaders and paid Ministry Personnel, rather, represent something core to the historic vocation of the church, described in the New Testament as being a community of faith that held “all things in common”. At the same time collaborative ministries represent a new response to the situation of the Post-Christendom church and to the emerging and evident needs of the 21st century.

Collaborative models of ministry refer both to innovative ways faith communities organize themselves structurally for ministry and mission, and also to the kinds of Ministry Personnel/lay leadership teaming needed to lead those ministries. The movement toward collaborative ministries, therefore, could help The United Church of Canada further actualize the central commitment to empowered lay leadership it inherited from its Methodist heritage, and to the role of the as “teaching elder” that is part of our Presbyterian legacy. It may also strengthen the church’s biblical understanding of ministry by defining Ordered Ministries as particular expressions of the laos (the whole people of God, all of whom are ministers of the gospel endowed

PAGE 20 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015 with gifts differing and complementary) rather than defining “lay ministry” as a subordinate expression of leadership employing the norms, categories, entitlements, and functions of an “authorized” ministerial Order. Several members of the Reference Group noted that the persistence of “lay ministry” language in the church is a sign that our understanding of Christian ministry continues to be fundamentally “disordered”.

That being said, this report speaks of “lay ministry” and “lay ministers” because it is the accepted terminology in the church at large. These terms, furthermore, do not refer to those ministry activities of congregants overseen by their Official Board or Church Council but, rather, to non- DLM lay ministers who are taking on particular tasks that warrant some form of Presbytery accountability.

Representative Examples of Regional Ministry Models A brief description of a limited number of representative examples of existing collaborations will be sufficient to illustrate what is meant by “regional ministry team models”. A few of these approaches bear a close resemblance to the “larger parish” model first introduced as an innovation in the late 1960’s to provide ministerial leadership to the large number of small rural congregations, primarily in the prairie provinces.

Genesis Cooperative Community (Seaway Valley Presbytery, & Ottawa Conference) The Genesis Cooperative Community is a variant of the Larger Parish approach. It consists of five rural congregations served by one ordained person as team leader with 4 Licenced Lay Worship Leaders who rotate responsibilities for leading worship while using a common order of service. Each congregation has a small executive council handling worship and finances, a central council with representatives from each congregation, and a central office with part time staff. Personnel costs are shared equally among the 5 participating congregations.

Grace United Church Collective (Ottawa Presbytery, Montreal & Ottawa Conference) A similar approach to regional ministry is in place among 5 congregations in West that form a “collective” known as Grace United Church. (, Chelsea, Wakefield, Rupert, and Cantley). Integral to the success of this collective is the training, education and empowerment of lay leaders/teams to provide pastoral care and teaching ministries traditionally reserved for the paid ministry personnel. In the initial 3 year implementation phase, Grace United Church is served by a full-time ordained person and a ½ time DLM person dedicated to growing the francophone component of the collective.

Cariboo Presbytery Sharing Model of Ministry (B.C. Conference) Cariboo Presbytery is located in an outlying area and covers a very large geographic area. At the time of writing, Cariboo Presbytery had 12 Pastoral Charges, 7 of which are without Ministry Personnel. In response to these realities, the Presbytery adopted a strategy of identifying and educating lay leaders, and mentoring/coaching lay-led congregations.

In this larger strategy, a special collaboration emerged between St. Andrew’s United Church in Williams Lake, and 100 Mile House United Church located about an hour away. Unable to

PAGE 21 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015 find an ordered minister to fill its ½ time position, the 100 Mile House congregation made the conscious decision to be a lay-led church whose members would commit their spiritual and financial resources to make the model work. 100 Mile House then entered into an agreement whereby it would “buy” a portion of the time of St. Andrew’s minister. This person is not the minister of the 100 Mile House congregation, but their consultant, coach, and mentor. She has been asked to challenge them to grow in their leadership skills, biblical and theological knowledge, preaching, teaching and administration skills, and to train and supervise those conducting and funerals, and those who are serving as Sacrament Elders. The St. Andrew’s minister spends one day a week, and one Sunday a month, at 100 Mile House. In return, the negotiated payment for this portion of her ministry is sent directly to St. Andrew’s United Church. Interestingly, there has also been a resurgence of lay leadership at St. Andrew’s United in response to the need to pick up some of the responsibilities of their minister who spends time with the other congregation.

Northern Ontario Sharing Model (Cambrian Presbytery, & North Western Ontario Conference; Spirit Dancing Presbytery, Manitou Conference; Algoma Presbytery, London Conference) The evolution of this arrangement is directly tied to the large geographical distance between United Church congregations in this extremely rural region of Ontario. Unable to afford, or call, Ministry Personnel, Grace United Church in HornePayne, St. Andrew’s United Church in Schreiber, and St. Paul’s United Church in Manitouwadge are all lay-led Pastoral Charges. These 3 Pastoral Charges reside in different Conferences and Presbyteries. The ordered minister closest to these 3 Pastoral Charges is located in Marathon that is 1.25 to 2.25 hours away.

St. John’s United Church in Marathon is served by a full-time ordained minister and has 4 Licenced Lay Worship Leaders in its membership. In response to the call for education and training of lay leaders in Hornepayne, Manitouwadge, and Schreiber, St. John’s minister, holds “Regional Roundups”. As the group’s theologian, teacher, and coach David provides workshops in such areas as worship, community ministry, and pastoral care. He has also provided the training for there to be a Sacrament Elder in each of the congregations. The 4 Licenced Lay Worship Leaders in St. John’s United also take turns leading worship once a month in each of the 3 outlying churches, and they preside at funerals, as needed. Other than the pulpit supply fee, and travel costs, St. John’s receives no compensation for its support of St. Andrew’s, St. Paul’s, and Grace. They remain separate Pastoral Charges.

As an evolving model, it is uncertain how much longer this arrangement can continue. The town of Marathon continues to lose industry and residents, which is having a direct impact on St. John’s United Church. It is possible that the hosted multi-site approach evolving in the cluster might be useful farther north as well.

The Hosted Multi-site Model (Cambrian Presbytery, Manitoba & Northwestern Ontario Conference) United Church in Thunder Bay is a downtown congregation that averages 75 worshippers on a Sunday morning. It hosts a “multi-site” ministry with four small Pastoral Charges: Broadway United in Thunder Bay, Grace United in Nipigon, Current River and

PAGE 22 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Pinegrove. All four of these congregations are lay led. Broadway has Licenced Lay Worship Leaders but still frequently relies on outside pulpit supply. Grace relies entirely on pulpit supply and lay leadership, and Current River draws upon the talents of Licenced Lay Worship Leaders in its midst. All three of these congregations manage their pastoral care needs by helping one another. Pinegrove has had a ½ time diaconal student offering worship leadership and pastoral care as student supply.

These 5 pastoral charges are linked together on Sunday mornings by video conferencing technology. Using audio equipment, a projector and a screen they are able to participate in common worship, and share leadership. As an interesting corollary, Randy Boyd, the ordained minister at Trinity and the driving force behind the technology-based multi-site model, has also developed Preacher Portal, a web-based resource of prepared liturgies, recorded music and video-recorded sermons that lay-led churches can purchase: http://www.preacherportal.ca

Amalgamated Multi-Site Model: United Churches of Langley (Fraser Presbytery, B.C. Conference) Even though 4 of the 5 worshipping communities participating in the multi-site model in Thunder Bay are within 13 kilometers of one another, they have as yet not chosen to amalgamate into a larger Pastoral Charge. A different story is told by 4 Pastoral Charges within 15 kilometers of one another in Fraser Presbytery. As the result of years of careful work by Fraser Presbytery, and four of its Pastoral Charges, United Churches of Langley Pastoral Charge was created in 2012. It amalgamated Jubilee United Church, a youthful and energetic congregation in need of a building, and 3 more established older congregations: Sharon United, St. Andrew’s, and Langley United. The Sharon United facility was chosen as the main worship space, but there is also a weekly service at the St. Andrew’s site, and the Langley facility serves as an outreach hub. The United Churches of Langley Pastoral Charge is served by 2 full-time ordained ministers and a ½ time youth minister. What had been 4 struggling Pastoral Charges has now become one vibrant regional Pastoral Charge with a renewed sense of purpose and mission through this unique model of sharing.

Nunavut House Church (Ottawa Presbytery, Montreal & Ottawa Conference) A faithful community of 12-20 United Church people make up a house church in Iqaluit, Nunavut. They are an entirely lay-led community of faith who gather in a number of places: one another’s homes, the hall of the Roman Catholic church, and usually join the local Anglican Church for Sunday worship. While officially under the oversight of Montreal & Ottawa Conference, the Iqaluit house church entered into a unique covenantal relationship with Emmanuel United Church in Ottawa in 2003. While Emmanuel describes the Iqaluit fellowship as one of its “missions”, it plays a supportive rather than a coordinating role. A segregated fund, known as the Nunavut House Church Fund, was established at Emmanuel, the purpose of which was to nurture the growth of The United Church of Canada in Nunavut; to record any charitable donations and other revenues received and to issue receipts for income tax purposes; and to issue cheques drawn on the Fund for expenditures requested and approved by the Iqaluit fellowship. In other acts of support, Emmanuel has shared Sunday School curriculum, its ministers’ sermons, and adult study material. Until 2010 the minister of Emmanuel would travel to Iqaluit on a regular schedule to provide the sacraments and other supportive care, although now these visits are made on an “as needed” basis.

PAGE 23 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

A Significant Issue: Updating Polity As a valid expression of house church, the Iqaluit United Church fellowship helps illuminate a large blind spot in the polity of The United Church of Canada as expressed in The Manual. The Nunavut House Church is, strictly speaking, neither congregation nor a “mission” i.e. a small group aspiring to be a “congregation”. It is entirely lay-led. Because of it geographic and social- demographic location, it will continue to be a house church for the foreseeable future. In its context, it is faithful and effective and is seen as a valuable spiritual presence in its community. As a house church, it is part of a house church movement has been growing for decades in much of the rest of the world, especially in countries like where Christians are a marginalized minority.

Many of the “emerging expressions of church” to which our United Church has committed itself through EDGE, furthermore, will have much in common with house churches like the one in Nunavut: lay-led, not aiming to be a congregation in the conventional sense, existing on one or more social and cultural margins, spiritually valuable in their contexts, desiring to be part of The United Church of Canada, and needing various expressions of support from its larger church family.

An examination of current United Church of Canada polity, however, reveals that even familiar alternate expressions of faith community, like the house church, receive virtually no recognition. Without recognition, there is no validation; and this lack of validation, accompanied by relevant policies, practices and guidelines, accounts for much of the difficulty many regional ministry models have had in getting starting and being supported by their Presbyteries and Conferences. As a result of this blind spot in our polity, some regional ministries are making many arrangements “under the table” or proceeding knowing that their Presbytery, or Conference, is “turning a blind eye” to what is going on with their use of Licenced Lay Worship Leaders, Congregationally Designated Ministers, or with the “buying” of an ordered minister’s time. This fraught dynamic, of course, only further marginalizes these churches by increasing their feelings of being illegitimate, or outside a “norm” that continues to be defined by the ideal of the traditional congregation being served by one or more Ministry Personnel.

While acknowledging that motivations are often not pure in every situation where congregations go “off book” (the book being The Manual), the absence of recognition and validation in the current polity makes it more than likely that every and all motivation to meet pastoral needs in an alternate way will be interpreted as evasion, deception, and defiance. Congregations that Presbyteries have declared “vacant” for years on end should not be stigmatized for simply seeking whatever leadership is available to them. It should be recognized, rather, that the problem might lie with a set of policies that, as written, are unresponsive to the needs of certain kinds of faith communities.

Because the current polity of The United Church is largely blind to the possibility, existence, and emergence of alternate expressions like house churches, creative possibilities can be misnamed, or overlooked. In the dominant paradigm of the traditional congregation, for instance, a once numerically large community of faith that has been decreasing in numbers, vitality, and effectiveness is labeled as being a “demising” congregation. Congregations that are in the later

PAGE 24 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015 stages of their lifecycle do frequently resist offers of assistance from conscientious Presbyteries. This resistance is one aspect of the dynamic of decline in numbers and imagination. But while a community of faith might well be demising in its congregational expression, it might also be ready to evolve into a house church, or some other expression of church. But for this evolution to happen, a polity-framework of recognition, understanding, validation, encouragement and resourcing must exist. There should be no polity-based reason why a once large congregation should not be given every opportunity and resource to evolve into a faithful and effective house church; or why any fresh expression of church should not receive the encouragement and support it needs to thrive in its context with the leadership it needs.

Two Prevalent Fears As mentioned above, The United Church of Canada has a long history of clustering congregations together for mission and mutual benefit: multi-point Pastoral Charges, ecumenical shared ministries, and larger parishes. Developing a few additional policies to facilitate new forms of clustering and sharing, should be neither challenging nor a source of within the church. Anxiety and resistance do become factors however, when new forms of collaborative ministry include—by necessity or preference—a community of faith being led by a layperson(s) who is not ordained, commissioned, or recognized as a Designated Lay Minister. There appears to be two fears underlying the broad reluctance to embrace and celebrate lay-led ministries.

The first is a fear that if the church loosens the restrictions on lay people serving in leadership positions, the number of full-time positions for ordained, diaconal and DLM ministers will decrease. Indeed, GC41 TICIF3 named this concern directly and is one of the reasons it asked the General Council to put resources into encouraging presbyteries to adopt regional team ministry models.

There are, indeed, situations in which a collaborative arrangement, like the hosted multi-site experiment in Cambrian Presbytery, should be challenged to provide an additional paid ministry personnel position rather than rely on lay leadership in the small Pastoral Charges. However, in many such situations there are a myriad of reasons why this may not be possible: the outlying congregations may be so small that they cannot make an adequate financial contribution to an additional ministry position; a recent previous attempt at amalgamation, or becoming a multi-point charge, has failed leaving hard feelings in its wake; or a difference in theology, local ethos, or a history of conflict between the congregations may make it next to impossible to bring congregations into a closer union. The factors can be many and varied, and it is the Presbytery that has the local knowledge and relationships to know how to best proceed. Presbyteries need to have lay leadership-based options available to them, however, in order to help congregations for whom having paid ministry personnel is simply not an option—especially in rural, and geographically expansive, regions that are having increasing difficulty attracting ministry personnel.

If there were a surplus of ministry personnel seeking the kinds of positions being filled served by lay leadership, then the fear of encouraging and supporting lay leaders would be entirely justified. But this does not appear to be the situation at the present time. A recent

PAGE 25 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships survey indicates that 72% of ministry personnel are working fulltime. Of the 28% working part time, a significant, but undetermined number, would be working part time by choice rather than necessity.

By recommending that options for lay leadership be created in our polity, this report is not suggesting that lay leaders who have not gone through the formal processes of discernment and education required of ordained, diaconal, and DLM personnel should be eligible for every available position. This would contradict the church’s core commitments and principles regarding the nature and integrity of ministry. Were this to be the case, there would, indeed, be situations in which ministry personnel could be unjustly deprived of a position. One aspect of revised policies, however, would be to be clear about the limited situations in which lay leaders (Licensed Lay Worship Leaders, Sacrament Elders, Lay Preachers, and those doing “the ministry of the baptized”) could serve, and proscribe the nature and terms of that service.

The second fear regarding lay leaders (non-DLM who are taking on particular tasks that warrant Presbytery accountability) relates to their accountability, support, and competence. About these issues the Reference Group has clear views. In answer to the question, “How does the church release the energy and dedication of lay leaders while supporting them, resourcing them, and holding them accountable?” the Reference Group said that lay leaders must be authorized under the following terms: 1. They must be a part of a ministry team—that can take a variety of forms. 2. At least one member of that ministry must be either ordained, commissioned or a DLM who will act as team leader/mentor/coach/theologian/educator/supervisor. 3. They must be accountable to Presbytery, possibly by virtue of being under the supervision of the team leader who is a member of Presbytery. 4. They must commit themselves to increasing their competence through appropriate training and education.

A corollary of this approach is that, not only would it create full time positions for ministry personnel, it would create new forms of ministerial leadership for them. Being a “leader of leaders” through coaching, educating, equipping, and facilitating is its own unique form of service for which many people would feel equipped and called.

The Reference Group believes that overcoming such fears will release the gifts of committed lay people to the benefit of communities of faith that are in need of worship, sacrament, and other forms of leadership.

Identified Needs and Actions The final section of this report is organized according to the four adopted recommendations of the TICIF3 proposal. Needs identified by the Reference Group, and action recommendations to the General Secretary, are outlined accordingly.

1. Gathering and sharing the experience of regional team models across the church Identified needs:

PAGE 26 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

a. There is a need to gather more comprehensive data detailing the extent, and types, of regional ministry team approaches currently employed in the United Church of Canada. b. There is a need to overcome the disconnectedness of those across the church who are engaging in, or seeking, collaborative arrangements. c. There is a need to resource Pastoral Charges, Presbyteries and Conferences by making available the resources, stories, and expertise of those currently engaged in collaborative regional ministries.

Action: a. Ask the Ministry, Employment Services Unit to gather data detailing the extent, and types, of regional ministry team approaches currently employed in the United Church of Canada, perhaps in conjunction with the work of the inter-unit staff group identified in Action 3 below. b. Create a General Council/EDGE website with multiple networking and resourcing capabilities focusing on collaborative, partnering, sharing, and cooperative regional ministry team models. Once created, this website could be maintained by the network itself.

2. Calling on Presbyteries [or the “middle court” proposed by the Comprehensive Review Task Group] to encourage and facilitate the development of regional team models within their bounds; Identified needs: a. There is a need to open the imagination of the entire church to entertain new collaborative ways of being the church, and to think theologically of these forms as a “new thing” that God is inspiring. b. There is a need to raise the consciousness of the entire church regarding the exciting possibilities of collaborative models of ministry as responses to the adaptive challenges facing The United Church of Canada at the local level. c. There is a need to locate the rapid emergence of collaborative regional models, especially when they involve lay leadership (non-DLM), within the larger movement of emerging new expressions of being church. d. There is a need to inform the entire church regarding existing and emerging collaborative regional models.

Action: Develop and implement an integrated communications plan (inter-Unit staff & Edge) that will: a. Encourage the church to visit, revisit, and use the website. b. Embed collaborative regional options into every discussion of imaginative, contextual possibilities. c. Name the emergence of mission-driven collaborative regional models as one of God’s “new ‘things”, provide a theological understanding of this Divine action, and identify collaborative models as a faithful response to the adaptive and missional challenges facing the church and the gospel.

PAGE 27 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

3. Identifying and addressing structural issues that would facilitate the emergence of regional ministry team models; Identified Needs: a. There is a need to facilitate the creation of regional ministry teams when they cross presbytery and conference boundaries. b. There is a need to evaluate and revise existing pastoral relations, and pastoral oversight, policies and practices in order to take into account the needs and opportunities presented by collaborative regional ministry team models, lay ministerial (non-DLM) leadership, and leadership in emergent new expressions of church.

Action: Convene a group to evaluate and revise existing pastoral relations, and pastoral oversight policies and practices in order to take into account the needs and opportunities presented by collaborative regional ministry team models, lay ministerial (non-DLM) leadership, and leadership in emergent new expressions of church. Those revisions will address, but not be limited to, the issues identified by the Reference Group in this report. This group would include staff from the Church in Mission Unit, the Ministry, Employment Services Unit, and the EDGE. Active lay ministers (non-DLM), and/or ministry personnel involved in a regional ministry team should also either be members of this group, or consulted by it.

4. Examining the implications of and mitigating the negative effects of the growing number of part time ministries in the church. Identified Needs: a. There is a need to build evidence-based denominational, regional, and ethno- cultural profiles of part-time ministries and how, and by whom, the needs of these ministries are being met. b. There is a need to make any policy and procedural changes that will recognize and regularize emerging part-time ministry arrangements, and that will support ministry personnel serving in such part time positions. c. There is a need locate the issues and realities of “part time ministries” within the larger positive discussion of “the church we are becoming” in the 21st century.

Action: Ask the Ministry, Employment Services Unit to address these needs, in conjunction with the group identified in Action 3.

PAGE 28 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

MODERATOR’S ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – MARCH 2015

It seems strange to be writing my final accountability report for the General Council Executive; two and a half years goes by very quickly.

I appreciate the grounding in Scripture that the Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda has suggested, Jeremiah’s proclamation of a new covenant, which is perhaps a way of saying that God is rooted in change. That is to say, the covenant stands – God’s promise to be with the world for good – but its expression and embodiment will change.

Now, says Jeremiah, it will be written upon our hearts. So when everything seems to be falling apart, when the outer forms and ways of being faithful seem to be shifting, and we are headed we know not where, still we can trust that God will be with us. If we look to our past and our tradition, we can celebrate what God has done; if we look carefully and discerningly into what is happening around us, we will catch glimpses of hope and new life; if we look deep within, in prayer and in trust, then we will know that we are living in God’s world and the covenant with God continues on – we are not alone.

In so many ways this is at the root of what I have tried to be about as your Moderator, taking every opportunity I have had to encourage our church to recognize and accept that not only is change upon us, it is sweeping us into a unknown future. So much of what we have known and taken for granted is disappearing. It’s not that we have done something wrong; nor will it change if we can just find the quick fix, or eloquent leaders like those of former times. The world around us has changed; and we are in the midst of a revolution.

But within that there is hope… precisely because of God’s promise. And this, too, is what I have done my best to share with the church… “Behold, I am doing a new thing,” says God; “Do you not perceive it?” I have tried to quicken the heart of the church, inviting all of us to trust, to risk, to experiment, to discover what it might mean to live into crucifixion and resurrection.

Hence my commitment to participating with the members of the Comprehensive Review Task Group, as they worked on their mandate to bring forth proposals for a changing church. You will have their report at this Executive meeting, a step in the journey to the 42nd General Council where the church will make decisions about its future. In the next several months I will be urging the church… congregations, presbyteries and conferences; and, of course, commissioners – to engage in serious, deep, and, I hope, life-giving discussion about this Report. It isn’t a question of either a quick acceptance or rejection of the Report’s recommendations, but rather taking advantage of this key opportunity to rethink what it means to be the church in the 21st century, a faithful community of followers of Jesus Christ. We are called to work conscientiously, concretely and constructively, so that the Report arrives at General Council with our best feedback and our creative suggestions.

I have spent energy this past while working with a team to develop a Lenten study resource – a book of reflections that highlight our commitment to social justice; video reflections on the Gospel readings for the Sundays in ; on-line facilitated discussions of Scripture, of context and culture. I’m hoping this might help us talk about suffering, change, losing our life in order to find it, being the seed that falls into the soil in order to bring forth grain – an opportunity for us to think Biblically and theologically about what is happening in our lives and our church. PAGE 29 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

I’ve been traveling to as many places as I can… since I last reported to you, and stretching on to early July I have participated in or will participate in – Epiphany Explorations in Victoria; Easter celebrations in Winnipeg; on-line preaching for Thunder Bay; a clergy retreat in Sudbury; the annual general meeting of Manitou Conference; the United Church 90th anniversary in ; “Jesus, Jazz and Wisdom” events in Burlington, Guelph and Toronto; a Greenbelt-like event in Peterborough; the Annual Meeting of Maritime Conference as theme speaker; the Synod; the Bicentenary of in Newfoundland; the triennial Grand Council of the All Native Circle Conference (ANCC) at Walpole Island in July.

In fact, I have taken this Accountability Report as an opportunity to do a brief walk-through of where I have visited during my term as Moderator – which means expressing my gratitude for the opportunity of being able to spend time with so many faithful United Church congregations and members across the country. You might take a quick glance at the “Travelogue.”

I continue to meet with the 42nd General Council Planning Committee, as they seek to balance the need for worship, debate, prayer, discussion, music, discernment, play and work. I have chosen to be a member of the Worship and Music Co-ordinating Team; I was with the 65 participants of Youth Forum when they met for four days at Five Oaks; and I am using my Blog as a way of trying to weave connections between the 42nd General Council and the rest of the church. In fact, there will be an invitation to everyone in the church to participate in a prayer pilgrimage during the forty days leading up to GC. And every congregation will be invited, if they choose, to work with some of the deep concerns of this Council during their times of worship in July.

Meanwhile, I do my best to be a pastor at General Council Office; to participate in the business of the church through involvement in various committees; to walk with Aboriginal people (at meetings of the Aboriginal Ministry Council; of the Indigenous Justice and Right Relations Committee; at the closing ceremonies of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; at the triennial gathering of the ANCC at the Grand Council in July); to address issues about which the church has insight and ethical wisdom, such as doctor-assisted suicide; to keep communicating with the wider church through blog, letter, video, The Observer, media; to be in conversations with ecumenical partners through the Canadian Council of Churches, and, in particular, at the June Theological Conference for United and Uniting Churches (organized by the United Reform Church in England).

I would like to take this opportunity to express my enormous gratitude for your support, you the members of the General Council Executive. This has not been an easy triennium what with the work and the outcomes of the Comprehensive Review Task Group always being on our minds and hearts. I also wish to thank all the staff of the General Council Office – the collegiality, support and camaraderie are wonderful. I would like to offer a particular word of thanks to Nora Sanders, our General Secretary, and to Sue Fortner, my Administrative Assistant, without whose care and organizational skill I would not have survived. It is an honour and a privilege to serve as your Moderator.

The Rt. Rev. Gary Paterson Moderator

PAGE 30 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Travelogue:

Here is a brief description of my visitation across the country… a series of events, Conferences, workshops, presentations, worship services and preaching – my way of trying to “quicken the heart of the church” and to hear the concerns of people and congregations in all our conferences. My sincere apologies if I have missed any community in this list. It has been a privilege to have been welcomed so warmly and to have had this opportunity to experience the breadth of what it means to be The United Church of Canada.

Saskatchewan Conference British Columbia Conference Fort Qu'Appelle Bella Coola Calling Lakes Centre To Honour Resilient Survivors of LaRonge Residential Schools La Ronge United Church Burnaby Gordon Denny Community School Transforming Life Event (Hilton North Battleford Metrotown) Third Avenue United Church Castlegar Castlegar-Kinnaird Pastoral Charge Prince Albert Cranbrook Wesley United Church Cranbrook United Church Calvary United Church Creston Regina Creston United Church Lakeview United Church Nakusp Robertson Memorial United Church Meewasin Valley United Church (Worship Naramata Matters 2013) Evolve Youth Event Pride Parade 2013 Naramata Centre Summer Program Outreach Ministries Victoria Saskatoon Oak Bay United Church McClure United Church Revival 2013 Sturgis Epiphany Explorations 2014 File Hills Pastoral Charge Epiphany Explorations 2015 Vancouver & Northwest Conference Truth and Reconciliation National Event Banff Rhizome Café – Trinity United Church Banff Men’s Conference 2012 Energy Event: Transformation on the Edge Banff Men’s Conference 2013 2013 Calgary Shaughnessy-Heights United Church Hillhurst United Church Speakers Series St. Thomas United Church St. Andrew’s-Wesley United Church Parkdale United Church Highlands United Church Camrose Vancouver Island Camrose United Church 2013 National Camping Conference Robertson-Wesley United Church

PAGE 31 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Southminster-Steinhauer United Church Trinity United Church London Conference McDougall United Church Bothwell St. Albert United Church Fairfield Museum Bicentennial Event 2013 Kirk United Church Bruce Mines Truth and Reconciliation National Event Bruce Mines United Church Fort McMurray Fingal First United Church London Conference Youth Forum 2014 High River London High River United Church Metropolitan United Church Conference Annual Meeting 2014 Westminster United Church Conference Annual Meeting 2015 NT Oneida Yellowknife United Church 2014 National Aboriginal Spiritual Gathering Conference of Manitoba and Sarnia Northwestern Ontario Sarnia United Church Beausejour Sault Ste. Marie Conference Annual General Willowgrove United Church Meeting 2013 Central United Church Thunder Bay ON Emmanuel United Church Trinity United Church Winnipeg Hamilton Conference Rendezvous 2014 (National Youth Event) Brantford The United Church in Meadowood St. Andrew’s United Church Broadway Disciples United Church Burlington St. Mary’s Road United Church Wellington Square United Church Windsor Park United Church Port Nelson United Church Knox United Church Guelph Canadian Museum for Human Rights Guelph United Ministries Three Willows United Church Manitou Conference Hamilton Chapleau St. Giles United Church Trinity United Church McMaster University- Good Friday Service Mindemoya Wesley Urban Ministries Conference Annual Meeting 2013 Oakville North Bay Forestview Church Trinity United Church Paris St. Andrew’s United Church 42 General Council Youth Forum Gathering Conference Annual Meeting 2014 Port Elgin National Affirm Gathering 2013 Conference Annual Meeting 2014 Sudbury Rockton St. Andrew’s United Church Sheffield United Church Timmins Waterloo Covenant United Church First United Church

PAGE 32 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Ingleside Toronto Conference Ingleside-Newington Pastoral Charge Montreal Conference Annual Meeting 2014/2015 Southwest Mission Youth Group Caledon Eglise St. Jean (Consistoire Laurentien) Caledon Village Pastoral Charge Montreal City Mission Orangeville St. James United Church Wave Youth Event 2014 St. Columba House Toronto Beaconsfield United Church Runnymede United Church Oka Metropolitan Community Church Kanesatake United Church Metropolitan United Church Ottawa,ON Royal York Road United Church Dominion-Chalmers United Church St. Andrew’s United Church (Worshiplude 2013) Emmanuel College (Cracks Festival 2014) Fairlawn United Church Rideau Park United Church Knob Hill United Church Truth and Reconciliation Commission College United Church National Event 2015 Beach United Church Parliament Hill Meeting with MP’s and Eglinton-St. George United Church Senators 2013 Martingrove United Church (Cruxifusion) Pointe Claire World Pride 2014 Cedar Park United Church Jane Finch Community Ministry Quebec, QC York Pines Eglise Unie Saint Pierre York Pines United Church Chalmers-Wesley United Church Bay of Quinte Conference Plymouth-Trinity United Church Carlton Place Waterloo Zion Memorial United Church Creek-Waterloo Pastoral Charge Coburg St. Paul’s United Church Conference Annual Meeting 2014 Williamstown Peterborough St. Andrew’s United Church Westdale United Church Lakefield Maritime Conference Lakefield United Church Annapolis NS Kingston Annapolis/Granville Pastoral Charge Edith Rankin Memorial United Church Berwick Camp Napanee Bermuda Grace United Church Emmanuel Pastoral Charge Smith Falls Hamilton: Wesley Methodist Pastoral Trinity United Church Charge Hunter River PEI Montreal and Ottawa Conference Central Queen’s United Church Cornwall Halifax Canadian Forces Chaplains Retreat Behold Many Circles one Sacred Hoop

PAGE 33 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Fort Massey United Church Busan, South Korea New Minas NS World Council of Church 10th Assembly Orchard Valley United Church 2013 Sackville NS Conference Annual Meeting 2015 Cuba and Columbia International Visit Windsor NS 2014 Windsor United Church London, England Newfoundland and Labrador Conference Theological Conference for United and Bishop Falls Uniting Churches 2015 Lion Max Simms Memorial Camp (Clergy Meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury Retreat) Green Belt 2013 Catalina Catalina-Little Catalina Pastoral Charge United States of America Conception Bay Detroit MI Clarke’s Beach Pastoral Charge 221st General Assembly- Presbyterian Gander Church (USA) Fraser Road United Church (Rural Ministry Chicago Il Consultation) Metropolitan Community Churches 2013 Newton (Ecumenical Guest) Newton-Lumsden Pastoral Charge Washington DC Northern Arm Convening, Advocating, Networking, Northern Arm Pastoral Charge Acting (CANA) Initiative Fall 2013 Red Bay, Labrador Red Bay Pastoral Charge St. John’s Stella Burry Community Services Gower Street United Church Cochrane Street United Church

All Native Circle Conference Winnipeg MB Raymond Flett Memorial United Church (Keewatin Presbytery Meeting 2014) Walpole Island ON Grand Council 2015

PAGE 34 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

REPORT OF THE 42ND GENERAL COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

This is our last report to the Executive of General Council before the General Council meets in August. How quickly the last two and a half years of planning for the 42nd General Council in Corner Brook have passed. It certainly does not seem that length of time since the last General Council met in Ottawa. Both the 42nd General Council Planning Committee and its Local Arrangements Committee continue to meet the timelines of activities we set for ourselves. There has been a slight delay in sending out the registration package to those Commissioners who have already been elected. In fact the General Council Office will begin to send out the registration package in March. The staff in the General Council Office is working diligently to ensure tickets are available in order to get everybody to Corner Brook and safely home in a timely manner.

Once again we would like to thank the Local Arrangements Committee for all they are doing to ensure that everyone will enjoy a memorable time in Newfoundland and Labrador. All of those of us from the Province would invite as many as possible to stay for a few days, either before or afterwards to enjoy the beauty of our Province and its people.

The Planning Committee held a good meeting by webinar on January 20th. 2015. It was a time for us to touch base and share with each other how we were progressing with our respective responsibilities. The Business Committee (Chair – Rev. Fred Monteith) shared that they had met on January 9th and 10th, 2015. They had reviewed the draft of the detailed agenda and identified that there is pressure on agenda time. However the Planning Committee is determined to maintain a good balance between worship, business, fellowship and relaxation time. In addition to the usual three Commissions there will be a Sessional Committee to assist the General Council in its deliberations over the report of the Comprehensive review Task Group. The Conference Executive Secretaries are helping the Business Committee identify a person from amongst the Commissioners from each Conference to serve on the Sessional Committee. The Planning Committee has received support from the Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda to use an Electronic Voting System (clickers) for voting at GC42. The clickers will not replace the orange and blue cards for assessing the will of the court.

The Worship Committee (Chair – Rev. Maya Landell) is working on a wonderful and diverse worship and music program. The amount of time spent in worship is increased from the last General Council in Ottawa. It has been decided that the Youth Delegates will lead the Opening Processional

The Youth Forum Winter Gathering was held at Five Oaks on February 14 to 16, 2015. It was an awesome time of learning, building community and excitement over the Pilgrimage that will be held across the country ending at General Council. They are inviting the whole church to walk with them from Kelowna to Corner Brook by logging kilometers on the website. Once the planning is complete the pilgrimage stops will be shared with the wider church and people will be encouraged to become involved locally.

The Local Arrangements Committee (Co- chairs Ms. Linda Stonehouse and Rev. Kathy Brett) continue to impress with their energy and commitment. Exciting choices of local activities to PAGE 35 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

choose from on the Wednesday afternoon have been confirmed and will go out with the registration package. All the choices include dinner, mostly at a local church, once the activity is over.

The call for Stewards has gone out and is receiving an enthusiastic response. The Selection Committee will meet in early March to decide on who should be invited to assist at General Council. In addition, there will be plenty of room for people to attend as Observers.

As we get closer to August the Planning Committee recognizes that it has received help and advice from so many people. (Too many to name individually). We thank you. Your support is truly appreciated and together we will make General Council in Corner Brook a memorable experience’

Blessings from your GC42 Planning Committee,

Roy West, (Chair),

On behalf of the 42nd General Council Planning Committee: Andrew Aitchison Miriam Bowlby Kathy Brett Maya Landell Faith March-MacCuish Fred Monteith Gary Paterson Nora Sanders Karen Smart (Staff Resource) Bill Steadman Linda Stonehouse Shirley Welch (Staff Resource)

PAGE 36 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

INDIGENOUS JUSTICE AND RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS REPORT Origin: Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools

The Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools was re-mandated by the Executive of General Council in November 2010 to: a) co-ordinate all aspects of the issues related to Indian residential schools, including the legal, pastoral, communications, alternate resolution possibilities, healing and reconciliation initiatives, and financial planning; b) assist the church to live out its apologies through theological reflection and through education and advocacy for Indigenous justice issues including but not limited to land, rights, treaties, the impacts of colonialism, and racism; c) work in partnership with the Aboriginal Ministries Council and collaborate with Kairos, ecumenical partners and Indigenous organizations; d) make full reports, and recommendations as required, to the General Secretary and each meeting of the Executive of the General Council.

For more information on the work of the Committee, see our newsletter, Turning the Page Together, at www.united-church.ca/communications/newsletters/residentialschools

1. Recent meeting of the Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools Following a joint meeting with the Aboriginal Ministries Council on February 9th which focused on the evolving understanding of “partnership” and collaborative work, the Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools held its winter 2015 meeting on February 10-11th. The Committee appreciated having Moderator Gary Paterson attend as we discussed a wide range of issues such as the emerging plans for GC 42, a proposal for an Alvin Dixon memorial fund, and contributions to a 2015 Election Kit, in addition to those reported on below.

The Committee recognized and celebrated the significant contributions and gifts of the co- Chairs, barb janes (GCE) and Mel King (Ontario/Quebec), and member George Montour who are coming to the end of their terms. We also recognized and expressed gratitude to David MacDonald for his immense contribution guiding the United Church in its response to the legacy of residential schools as Special Advisor, over the past 17 years. His contract will end June 30th.

Also acknowledged was the impending retirement at the end of August of General Council Officer for Residential Schools, James Scott, who will complete 12 years in that ministry. The Committee offered gifts of gratitude and recognition for the key leadership he has provided.

2. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) a. Closing Event: The Committee heard from James Scott and David MacDonald, who sit on the Truth and Reconciliation Transition Team, about plans for the Closing Event of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Ottawa, May 31st - June 3rd. The Closing Event will include a Walk for Reconciliation (May 31st), a Learning Day (June 1st), the presentation of the Commission’s Final Report and Calls to Action (June 2nd), and closing ceremonies and a public feast (June 3rd). Watch for further details on the United Church website.

PAGE 37 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Three local ecumenical meetings have been held to inform, organize and mobilize the churches in the Ottawa area to fully participate in the Closing Event activities. Residential school survivors and others from across the region will travel to Ottawa to support and participate in this historic event. For example, Toronto Conference has changed the dates of its Annual Meeting and is organizing buses of supporters to travel to Ottawa. Members of Ottawa Presbytery are being asked to supply billets.

The Closing Event will bring the formal Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) process to an end. The TRC’s Final Report will place before the Canadian public what the Commissioners have seen, heard and learned over the past six years. The Closing Event is also intended to be the launch of a new phase of reconciliation work undertaken by all Canadians, and guided by the recommendations of the Commission. The United Church, on its own and in partnership with other churches and agencies, is committed to honouring the work of the Commission and to continuing its own work of apology, reparation, healing and right relations. The United Church is initiating a conversation among all the Parties to the Settlement Agreement about continuing to work together post-TRC.

b. Document Collection Obligations: The United Church will complete the final pieces of its document production obligations under the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the end of April. Work continues on submitting residential school relevant material from historical periodicals and from a newly discovered box of files related to the Cote residential school in Saskatchewan.

c. Financial Obligations: The United Church is close to completing its financial commitments under the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement. The project, “We Were Chosen”, producing a multi-platform media resource and website on the history of the Regina Industrial School and efforts to reclaim the related cemetery site, is finalizing its work. This is also the fifth and last year of the Mobile Counsellor project in British Columbia.

3. Ecumenical Working Group on Residential Schools The Ecumenical Working Group on Residential Schools initially formed in 1998 as a forum for conversation among the four historic churches involved in the Indian residential school system, continues to be a locus for collaborative efforts towards reconciliation. Following a “visioning” day last June, facilitated by Jennifer Henry of KAIROS, the Working Group identified a strategic plan for moving their reconciliation work forward. Among the initiatives are community “Roundtables for Reconciliation” to be organized this April to engage church and Aboriginal leaders, performance artists and members of the public in conversation about what is needed as next steps in the reconciliation process.

The Ecumenical Working Group has also prepared a draft theological discussion paper to stimulate reflection and conversation within our theological schools on what has been learned over the past twenty years about the history and legacy of residential schools, and how that learning may impact our understanding of Christian theology. The Working Group is also planning a forum for the fall of 2015 to strategize on a reconciliation plan based on the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report. PAGE 38 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

4. Acknowledging the Validity of Aboriginal Spirituality The Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Justice Murray Sinclair, urged the churches who are Parties to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement, to acknowledge and redress their history of devaluing and discrediting traditional Aboriginal spiritual practice by making statements of confession and affirmation. The United Church responded to this invitation by submitting a document, Affirming Other Spiritual Paths, which includes selected passages from interfaith statements made by the church over the years, the Apologies of 1986 and 1998, the Circle and Cross Planning Tool, the Living into Right Relations initiative, and the United Church statement to the TRC during the Alberta National Event in March 2014. In doing so, the Church recognizes with pain that this is a complex and sensitive issue for some within Aboriginal communities of faith who, as a result of Christianizing work and the legacy of colonialism, are on a journey to restore harmony and spiritual balance. The statement can be found at http://www.united-church.ca/aboriginal/schools/trc.

5. Living into Right Relations The final report of the 5-year project, Living into Right Relations (LIRR), was received and approved by the Aboriginal Ministries Council and the Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools during their recent meetings. The report describes the process by which participants, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, covenanted to walk together in a process of learning about each other and developing “relationship”. The final report will be posted on the UCC website at http://www.united-church.ca/aboriginal/relationships/.

While the formal program came to an end in the fall of 2014, the large network of Living into Right Relations participants across the country continues to be supported and resourced by national staff through the LIRR Digest, a weekly summary of key activities and links. You can join the mailing list for the Digest by emailing Cecile Fausak at [email protected].

The LIRR network is also being nurtured through a series of three webinars proposed for this spring. Under the umbrella of “reconciliation”, the webinars will focus on Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women, Free Prior and Informed Consent, and We Are All Treaty People. Contact Cecile Fausak for more information.

6. Doctrine of Discovery: Following up on the repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery by the General Council Executive in 2012, an inter-unit group of staff from the Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools, the Aboriginal Ministries Council and Communities in Mission have developed a proposal for a 4-day land-based learning experience during the week of August 24-31st. The purpose of the gathering is to develop resources and processes to assist the church in exploring how attitudes which are characteristic of the Doctrine continue to operate within our systems and structures.

Inter-unit work done to develop a resource for congregations on acknowledging traditional Aboriginal territory has been completed and published in the most recent issue of Gathering.

PAGE 39 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

7. Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women and Girls The issue of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls remains a high priority for both the Aboriginal Ministries Council and the Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools. Calls for a public inquiry over the years, such as the Sisters in Spirit campaign, have gone unheeded. However, at their meeting in July, the provincial and territorial Premiers agreed to hold a national Roundtable on the issue in Ottawa and invite the federal government to take part. The federal government agreed to attend. The National Roundtable of federal, provincial and territorial representatives takes place on February 27th in Ottawa to explore coordinated solutions to end violence against Indigenous women. On the same day a Peoples’ Gathering will also take place in Ottawa. It will provide a venue for public discussion and recommendations for action to prevent and end violence against Indigenous women and girls. Maggie McLeod will be attending the Peoples’ Gathering.

8. Northern Gateway Pipeline and the Pull Together Campaign The Pull Together campaign, supported by our own “Take Action”, was very successful in raising funds for six in BC who are launching a judicial review of the Joint Review Panel’s recommendation that the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline be allowed to proceed. The campaign raised over $300,000 by December 31st for research and document preparation, and has set a new goal of $600,000 to pay for court time. A donor will contribute up to $500,000 in matching funds. For more information visit: www.kairoscanada.org www.pull-together.ca and/or www.sierraclub.bc.ca.

Respectfully submitted by:

James V. Scott, General Council Officer: Residential Schools

Committee Members: Ray Jones and Barbara Wilson (BC Native Ministries Council) Sue Evans and Julian White (All Native Circle Conference) George Montour and Mel King (Ont/Que Native congregations) barb janes (GCE) Elder Murray Whetung

Staff Resource: Cecile Fausak, Liaison Minister David MacDonald, Special Advisor

Corresponding Staff: Moderator Gary Paterson, General Secretary Nora Sanders, Maggie McLeod (Executive Minister, Aboriginal Ministries Council), Lea De La Paz (Acting Archivist)

PAGE 40 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES’ CENTRAL COMMITTEE REPORT

Introduction God promises relationship: “I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer. 32:38). God promises the law to be written on hearts. For Jeremiah, the heart is a place of will: when the heart was good, one turned to God and did good. To know God is to live and act righteously. God called the people of Babylon back to the promise and responsibilities of liberation: back to worshipping God out of love and seeking justice for all. Jeremiah was promising hope and a renewed covenant to the discouraged community who suffered in exile. God is promising to live in covenant, placing it within them and writing it on their hearts. Living out of this promise, hearts and actions are transformed to seek justice with love.

Together with people around the world, the World Council of Churches (WCC) seeks to continue to be in relationship with God, loving through common worship and prayer, and living out of the covenant seeking justice and peace. The current Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace is an expression of this commitment to God and to one another.

WCC Executive Committee The 25-member executive committee of the WCC meets twice a year to monitor the ongoing work of the Council, supervise the budget, and deal with policy matters. They most recently met November 20-26, 2014 in Paralimni, Cyprus. The location choice was significant. WCC general secretary Rev. Dr. Olav Fykse Tveit commented, “the nation is suffering from the consequences of the financial crisis and growing tensions concerning natural resources in the Mediterranean Sea. Cyprus is clearly a station for our pilgrimage of justice and peace.”

The executive committee adopted a Statement on Forced Displacement, Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in the Middle East as well as a Minute reacting to the decision of the Grand Jury not to indict in the case of Michael Brown, Minute on racial tensions in the United States of America (click links to read full documents or search through http://www.oikoumene.org).

The committee worked on developing plans for the ecumenical Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace. WCC general secretary Tveit commented to the members: “we have to move as the world moves into new landscapes of time and events, we need to move in ways that exemplify mission from the margins. We need to move into new relations with other churches and partners, together with the new generation.” Member churches were encouraged to join the Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace and make plans for their various contexts. It is one way for the ecumenical movement to offer new dimensions, opportunities, and practices in seeking a visible unity in Christ. The WCC reference group for the Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace met for the first time at the end of February 2015. Adele Halliday is serving on the reference group.

Other peace and justice concerns highlighted at the executive committee meeting included peace initiatives in Syria and Iraq, Ukraine, North and South Korea, Israel and Palestine, Nigeria, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo; the Interfaith Summit on Climate Change held in New York in September 2014; contributing to the response on HIV and AIDS; and PAGE 41 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

helping to formulate a timely response on the Ebola crisis along with its member churches and partners.

Faith and Order Commission Sandra Beardsall, Professor of History and Ecumenics at St. Andrew’s College, has been appointed to the Commission on Faith and Order, which will meet will meet near Bucharest, Romania, June 17-24, 2015. Member churches are being invited to respond to the new document on ecclesiology: The Church: Towards a Common Vision, a convergence text of the WCC's Commission on Faith and Order. The Theology and Interchurch Interfaith Committee will lead preparation of a United Church response.

Ecumenical Indigenous Peoples Network The Council has worked with participants in the Busan Indigenous Peoples Pre-Assembly to develop a Terms of Reference for the Ecumenical Indigenous Peoples Network (EIPN), an open network of Indigenous Peoples of Christians, churches, and ecumenical organizations as well as an EIPN Reference Group. The reference group will be responsible for planning and reporting, monitoring and evaluation of the work. Lorna Pawis has participated in the Interim Reference Group developing these plans.

Gender Advisory Group Gail Allan serves on this advisory group for the general secretary of the WCC. They have begun working toward an effective gender justice policy for the WCC which will also inspire its member churches in their own work for gender justice. The first meeting of the group in November 2014 also featured reflections on varied issues of injustice and inequality related to gender relations in communities.

Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) Michael Blair was appointed to the CWME at the last meeting of the central committee, and will attend the commission meeting in March 2015. The work of CWME focuses around the relation between mission and unity, the theory of evangelism in a world of religious plurality, and the search for a spirituality of mission as healing and transformation.

Ecumenical Disability Advocacy Network (EDAN) in North America There is renewed energy to continue this work of advocacy, networking, and sharing experiences in the North America region. There is some involvement from United Church people as well other denominations in Canada and the United States. The current focus is around discerning the group’s focus moving forward, networking, and sharing resources and best practices for churches’ involvement with people with disabilities.

Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace in Canada Plans are being developed to join the ecumenical Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace, both within the United Church context and together with our ecumenical partners in Canada.

Within the denomination, plans are being shaped around the theme of “journeying towards justice and peace”. There is excitement around the integral connection between faith and/with

PAGE 42 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

justice. Developing plans include a different focus each year of the journey. The hope for the current year is for material to be linked with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the need for ongoing commitments seeking to live in right relations and Indigenous justice. In addition, the Youth Forum travelling to General Council this summer will be an expression of the Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace, as they will be engaging in justice-focussed engagement along the way. The February 2015 edition of Mandate magazine, the Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace theme was explored (see http://www.ucrdstore.ca/media/upload/file/mandate_2015february_pilgrimages.pdf). There will be more resources to come to help communities of faith engage in the journey in their particular contexts.

Within the Canadian ecumenical context, there is energy in working together to invite congregations to enter into a journey of justice and peace over the next 7 years. People will have different options of engaging the journey. Each year would be focussed on a different theme. The image of the labyrinth has become a way of anticipating the program as people will journey inward with prayer and reflection and journey outward in action and public worship and celebration. This journey is in plans to be launched later this year or early in 2016. The United Church and the Canadian ecumenical plans seek to be congruent with each other, offering different options of engaging the journey.

Focus Question for Table Groups How does the invitation to journey inward and outward focussed on different themes of justice and peace resonate with you and your ministry?

Submitted by, Miriam Spies

PAGE 43 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

JOINT GRANTS ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

The Joint Grants Committee, which is made up of representatives from the Executive of General Council and the Foundation, met twice in 2014 to consider applications for the various granting programs for funding from non-designated trusts and endowments of The United Church of Canada Foundation. The Foundation’s Board reviews and responds to the recommendations of the Joint Grants Committee.

This report is provided to the Executive of General Council for its information.

In 2014 the Foundation’s Board awarded 38 grants from the Seeds of Hope Granting Program totalling $318,656; twelve grants from the New Ministries Fund totalling $ 302,200; sixteen scholarships, bursaries, and academic awards totalling $84,185; seven grants from the Good Samaritan fund totalling $161,000.

In total, 73 grants were awarded totalling $866,041 from the trusts and endowments of The United Church of Canada Foundation.

The following grants were made based on applications received:

Living Spirit Fund $7,657 to First United Church (Kelowna, British Columbia) for their Electronic Hymnal project. This project focuses on creating an Electronic Hymnbooks with approximately 100 hymns, along with the ability for words to scroll across the screen available at a low cost. $4,650 to Faith and Arts Ottawa (Ottawa, Ontario) for the Crack Festival. The grant money will be used to help support this spiritual festival which runs workshops and discussions to help people deepen their faith. $15,000 to the United Church of Canada (Toronto, Ontario) to support Rendezvous2014. ($14,900 from Living Spirit and $100 from, the Davey Family Fund).

Davey Family Fund $4,000 to Living Waters Presbytery Spiritual Development commission (Oro-Medonte, Ontario) for Camp Awesome! Vacation Camp. The grant money was be used to hire a camp counsellor with special needs over an eight week program.

Faith and Mission Fund $500 to Trinity St. Andrews United Church (Renfrew. Ontario) for their Community Open House which is aimed at raising the profile of the United Church in Renfrew. $866 to Fonthill United Church (Fonthill, ON) to hold 6 weekly lectures with lectures, guest speakers, videos and discussion to assist those who have a memory deficit disorder (dementia and Alzheimer’s).

Alfred J. Mitchell and James Robertson Fund $7,500 to UCC Ecumenical Campus Ministry Network (Toronto, Ontario) for the Ministry Network’s Annual gathering. The grant supported the 2014 gathering of the campus PAGE 44 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

ministers. $4,500 to Peterborough United Ministries (Peterborough, Ontario) to support a one day festival on June 14, 2015.

Watkins/Ann Baker Fund for Innovative Ministries with Senior Adults $5,012 to West Broadway Community Services Inc. (Winnipeg, Manitoba) for the “Put Your Hand in the Hand project”. This project supplies hand reflexology services free of charge for seniors of low income, promoting healthy living physically and spiritually. $20,000 to Prairie View Lodge (Crystal Lake, MB) for the creation of an outdoor courtyard for patients with dementia as part of a transformation of existing space into dedicated space for residents with dementia. $15,000 to First United Church Community Ministry Society (Vancouver, BC) to design and deliver personalized coaching and goal setting approaches that help at-risk seniors realize their full potential. $6,000 to 1Hope Winnipeg (Winnipeg, MB) to document - in various formats - the stories of seniors accessing day programs at the five United Church of Canada Community Ministries in Winnipeg.

The Watkins Fund/Wesley C. Smith Fund for Addressing Poverty and Children at Risk $5,000 to London Community Chaplaincy (London, Ontario) for their Summer Leadership Program. The grant will be used for early leadership development for children in grades 7, 8, and 9. $2,500 to the Coverdale Courtwork Society (Halifax, Nova Scotia) for their Beyond Trauma program. The grant money will be used for a 6 session trauma intervention program designed for women that have been abused. $7,500 to Wesley Urban Ministries (Hamilton, Ontario) for Wesley’s Volunteer Training Video and Workshop Resource project. The grant will be used to create a training video and workshop to equip volunteers with techniques for interacting with people experiencing poverty, addiction, mental health issues etc. $2,000 St. Paul’s Family resource Institute (Halifax, Nova Scotia) for the Planting Seeds of Change project. This project is aimed at teaching low income/at risk children how to garden in the community garden. $6,254 to Southminster United Church (Lindsay, Ontario) to help create the Southminster Community Garden which with encourage physical activity, relationships with neighbours, and an opportunity to learn about health/economic meals. $800 to Trinity United Church (Nanaimo, BC) for a Mother Goose program that offers parenting classes and activities with a spiritual grandparent. $10,000 to Grace United Church (Brampton, ON) to renovate the kitchen in order to continue providing programming. This grant was conditional on Grace receiving the other funding outlined in their application. $50,000 to Knox United Church (Calgary, AB) to fund the renovations and upgrades to Knox United so they can house families in need in their "Satellite Shelter". ($22,000 from Watkins/Wesley C. Smith Fund, $13,000 from the Ina Grafton Gage Fund, and $15,000 from the Foundation’s General Fund).

PAGE 45 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

The United Church of Canada Foundation General Fund $15,000 to The United Church of Canada for GC42’s Youth Forum. $10,000 to Five Oaks (Paris ON) to help with their transition to a new model of operating.

Ina Grafton Gage Fund $50,000 to Wesley Mimico United Church/Wesley Mimico Place in support of the renewal Project from the Ina Grafton Gage Fund ($30,000) and Watkins/Ann Baker Fund for innovative ministries with Senior Adults ($20,000). $10,000 to Nipissing District Community Homeownership Action Group (North Bay, ON) to restore family homes to meet health and safety standards and provide support to enable the family to become independently housed.

James Robertson Trust $5,000 to 1Hope Winnipeg (Winnipeg, MB) to fund a speaking tour highlighting the work of the five United Church of Canada ministries in Winnipeg. $5,000 to Montreal City Mission (Montreal, QC) to create a lecture series that explores how best to connect believers and seekers and find new ways to proclaim the Good News.

Peace and Justice Fund $5,200 to Emmanuel United Church (Ottawa, ON) to fund a one-year project seeks to create a long-term ministry that implements the “Seven Pillars of Food Sovereignty”. ($1,100 from the Brian and Belva Piercy Fund, and $4,100 from the Peace and Justice Fund).

Leadership Endowment Fund $6,100 to Yoga Chapel (Vancouver, BC) to produce and make available online videos of Yoga Chapel classes and to design and program a new website that is able to host the online videos.($1,200 from The Davey Family Endowment Fund, $2,350 from the Kingscourt United Church Endowment Fund, and $2,550 from the Leadership Endowment Fund).

Kingscourt United Church Endowment Fund $250 to Stairs Memorial United Church (Dartmouth, NS) to fund a Christmas day gathering and community meal for the marginalized members of their community.

William Naylor Trust $5,000 to North Bramalea United Church (Brampton, ON) to help fund a week long program where 100 youth and young adults can experience missional activities to serve the community of Brampton.

The Brian and Belva Piercy Fund $6,844 to The Bridge: From Prison to Community (Hamilton, ON) to fund a new outreach program working with ex-convicts to diminish their personal barriers and maintain long- term successful community living.

PAGE 46 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Camping Trust Fund $2,738 to Rock Lake United Church Camp Inc. (Crystal City, MB) to build cement walkways to provide a safe, smooth, easy care walkway to the wheelchair accessible buildings and to accommodate campers of all ages and all abilities.

New Ministries Fund $14,500 to La Passerelle for phase two of their community building project. $25,000 to Stella`s Circle, Saint John`s, NL to hire a director of pastoral services to attend to the needs of their clientele and attempt to form a faith community. $25,000 to Bedford House Peterborough, ON to create small group learning circles and spiritual communities. $25,000 to first United Mission Vancouver, BC to continue their Aboriginal Spiritual and Cultural Ministry with the proviso that they accept fund development support. $25,000 to Knox United Winnipeg, MB for Jai Mashi conditional on working with Edge to create sustainability and financial accountability for the community. $15,000 to Edge for the Halo Study. $25,000 to Edge for ongoing support of new ministry development. $25,000 made available for new organic ministry opportunities at the discretion of Edge. $15,000 to the Portuguese Speaking United Church with the condition that College Street United Church and the Presbytery agree to ownership and support of the new congregation. $25,000 for the Home for Evolving Mystics. $22,700 to Siloam United Church for Wilderness Road Pilot Project. $60,000 to the Edge for their Identity, Mission and Needs Analysis Survey project.

Good Samaritan Fund $6,000 to Montreal West Extra Miles senior visiting programme. This is the second year of its three year grant. This visitation programme aids fragile seniors. $45,000 to Contactivity Center’s Isolated Senior’s Project. This is the second and final year of its two year grant. The grant will continue to cover the salary of a contract worker who has been hired to seek out isolated seniors and keep them mobile and connected. $40,000 to Montreal City Mission Senior’s Mobile Legal Clinic. This is the second year of its three year grant. The mobile clinic is the first of its kind in Quebec provides legal help for immigrant seniors. $10,000 to Auberge Madeleine to fund its post residency support services programme. It has been noticed that there is a marked increase in violence against women age 55 and over. $40,000 for 2014 and $35,000 for 2015 to West Island Seniors Rainbow Programme. This programme continues to operate an exclusive safe space for Seniors, who identify as LGBTQQ, to meet, talk, and develop into a community. $15,000 to Corporation Culturelle Latino-Américaine de l'amitié (COCLA). The grant will help cover the cost of planned activities that will respond to the needs of the seniors in St. Laurent who are experiencing loss of autonomy related to aging and who are isolated and marginalized. $5000 to Elderhelp of Lanaudière to fund the day programme activities of the community group known as Friday Friends.

PAGE 47 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

McGeachy Senior Scholarship The McGeachy Senior Scholarship is made possible through a bequest from the estate of William A. and Margaret H. McGeachy of southwestern Ontario. The McGeachys’ commitment to the Christian church and the role of the church in society is memorialized in the scholarship, which is awarded as funds permit. The McGeachy Senior Scholar is expected to express the prophetic vision of the church and to interpret Christ’s call to justice and peace in our pluralistic world. The scholar will combine reflection and research with practical action and communicate the results of this work in a form accessible to the wider church. The award is administered by the Church in Mission Unit of The United Church of Canada.

Bruce E. Gregersen • The focus of his study given the transitions of the Church in the next few years, Bruce’s concern is what might help the church sustain and deepen its energy, insight, and commitment to this path of theological transformation. The project will offer a story, or historical overview, of an important part of the life of The United Church of Canada: specifically, the relationship of the church to other world faiths, its interfaith journey.

Christine Jerrett • The area of concern Christine will address in her project is the issues around lay ministry that are emerging as congregations develop new ways of being “church” in response to the work of the Holy Spirit in a post-Christendom culture. The hypothesis that will be explored is: Appropriate training, nurture, and support of lay ministries will be increasingly critical as The United Church of Canada seeks “new ways of serving God and sharing the good news of Jesus Christ in our changing world,” especially as some congregations turn to regional team models to provide ministry leadership. This training, nurture, and support will require a new imagination and framework about church, ministry and leadership.

Davidson Trust Award The Davidson Trust Award is to acknowledge and promote excellence of both scholarship and teaching in theological education. Dr. Leif Vaage

Bill and Anna Jentzsch Bursary The Bill and Anna Jentzsch Endowment Bursary was set up as a memorial trust fund in 1994 with an initial gift of $100. The fund was subsequently added to with the maturing of a significant annuity and the ensuing interest. Its purpose is to support women in ministry. Eva Biederman Linnea Good Lynn McGrath Melanie Ihmels Sheila Macgregor

PAGE 48 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

The W. Norman McLeod Scholarship The W. Norman McLeod Scholarships are available to those in the Order of Ministry who are engaged in postgraduate education and intending to serve The United Church of Canada. Sheila Macgregor Paul Hutchison Shaun Donald Yaskiw Catherine Smith Younghwan Bright Yun Lorraine Hill Catherine Tovell

Victor Blatherwick Memorial Bursary Created through a bequest, the Victor Blatherwick Memorial Bursary Fund is a yearly scholarship that is available to a member of The United Church of Canada who is enrolled in full- or part-time studies leading to an academic doctorate suitable for teaching in a United Church theological college. Samuel Victor Mpereh

The Joint Grants Committee: Tim O’Neill Paul Johnson Mary Royal Duczek

PAGE 49 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

ABORIGINAL MINISTRIES COUNCIL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

Introduction In January 2009 a number of invited guests and staff gathered on the 4th floor of the General Council Office to celebrate the birth of the Aboriginal Ministries Council and Circle. Past Moderator, the Very Rev. David Giuliano and Elder, Alberta Billy presided at communion and a smudge ceremony was offered by the Rev. Grafton Antone. In June of the same year, the first “National Aboriginal Spiritual Gathering” occurred in Norway House, MB. Representatives from Aboriginal faith communities acknowledged the four directions and the presence of Christ through the candle placed in the centre of the circle. Later in September, the Aboriginal Ministries Council (the Council) while not yet fully represented by all constituencies, gathered for their first meeting. They celebrated communion with bannock and cedar tea, and reflected on God’s call to discern spiritual leadership within church.

The Council and Circle are living into their sixth year. At the February 2015 meeting the Council, through worship and circle sharing, reflected on how what we do in our church is secondary to how we be, with God and with each other. While this report does focus on what has been done it is offered in the knowledge that we, and our work, belong to God.

An Emerging Context Aboriginal communities of faith are exploring new ways of being God’s church in the world today. Declining numbers, limited resources, along with the resurgence of culture, traditional wisdom knowledge, practice, and language, calls Aboriginal ministries into a visioning renewal process.

At the annual meeting of Saskatchewan Conference (2013) Mr. Ovide Mercredi, former National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, during his theme speech, explained how reconciliation is more than economic and treaty renewal. Reconciliation includes spiritual healing and the revitalization of family and community. Mr. Mercredi also stated, “There is more than one way to build a spiritual road.” The Council recognizes that Aboriginal communities of faith are at varying points along this road and that both and traditional wisdom ways must be held side by side, with respect.

The 62 Aboriginal faith communities are diverse and so are the needs that must be articulated. There is an overall shortage of ministry personnel in communities across the country, and many struggle to meet the spiritual needs. While recruiting candidates for ministry leadership preparation has been held as a priority the current dependency upon Mission Support Grants is problematic in terms of long-term consistency and sustainability. Additional challenges arise in supporting leadership with safe housing, travel expenses, isolation pay, continuing education, and spiritual renewal.

Aboriginal faith communities want ministry that is highly visible and serves the wider community. There is growing recognition that “getting people into the pews” is not the direction in which to invest energy and resources. There is speculation that within ten years most communities will not have traditional Sunday morning worship. Therefore, a focus on bible PAGE 50 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

study, fellowship, spiritual and pastoral care of Elders, and youth and young adult leadership are vital steps toward revitalizing faith and hope within communities.

The Council identifies the importance of strengthening relationships and trust through communication strategies within Aboriginal ministries and partners. Any such strategy must reflect a circle model that nurtures transparency and openness to ongoing dialogue. A message of hope and encouragement in this time of transition must be shared with Aboriginal communities of faith.

Real Property Plan In March 2014 a discussion paper entitled “Toward a Framework for a Real Property Plan for Aboriginal Communities of Faith” was reviewed by the Council. The report referred to the Council’s mandate to establish a property and capital plan for United Church buildings in Aboriginal community. It contained background on the long-standing and complex issue of Real Property within Aboriginal community. From this framework the Real Property and Capital Plan emerged.

The purpose of the plan is to articulate, size, resource, and execute a project to improve Aboriginal Real Property buildings and residences in partnership with local, regional, and national partners. The project is a joint venture of the Aboriginal Ministries Council and Circle, as well as partners and stakeholders wherever Real Property buildings are located. The scope and duration of the project will be determined in the context of the overall Aboriginal ministry strategy and resources. Significant support and collaboration from partners and stakeholders is needed to ensure the objectives will be met.

In February 2015 the Council agreed to implement the initial phase of the Real Property Plan. This includes consultation with Conferences that have an interest in Aboriginal Real Property and with the All Native Circle Conference’s Council on Sharing. Information on the plan will be shared with Aboriginal communities in early 2015.

The Council appointed five members to serve on the Real Property Task Group. The Task Group will receive and review applications for real property renovation projects from the Aboriginal communities of faith, and will make decisions in a fair and equitable manner based on the proposal.

There is a strong emotional attachment to buildings. Communities of faith will be asked to hold in balance the value of shared history and the challenges facing the church. Communities of faith will be invited to consider how they honour sacred and historic space while, at the same time, build capacity for spiritual nurture and ministry for future generations. Youth and young adults are not attached to buildings. Their spiritual nurture comes through connectional space (using technology, events, and gatherings.)

Comprehensive Review Task Group (CRTG) Aboriginal ministries are positioning themselves for change. The CRTG recognizes that Aboriginal communities of faith and their partners need time for further dialogue. The Council

PAGE 51 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

appointed three members to determine a process to engage Aboriginal ministries in responding to the following key questions: 1. What is a cohesive vision for Aboriginal ministries? 2. What principles will guide relationships with the wider church and with the constituencies that make up the Council? 3. How will the vision be achieved? a. What is the precious work that must go forward? b. What is not essential and no longer effective? c. What structure and resources (i.e., staff, networks, technology, funding) are needed to support the work of Aboriginal ministries?

In 2014 Aboriginal communities of faith have come together for “Under One Tent” conversations which have provided a platform for this dialogue to begin. Communities share a common experience of growing and adapting to change. There is a growing sense that Aboriginal ministries that constitute the Aboriginal Ministries Council must establish themselves as one body, working together.

The Council has had a number of conversations with communities of faith, partners, and with the CRTG. It is understood that within the context of the comprehensive review the church must move to a “smaller house” in order to support its ongoing life. What will we take from the past that will sustain and revitalize the church going forward; and what we can leave behind are important questions. It is clear that connectional space for spiritual renewal is essential. This is of primary concern for Aboriginal youth and young adults.

The creation of Keewatin Presbytery, Sandy-Saulteaux Spiritual Centre, All Native Circle Conference, BC Native Ministries, and Ontario Quebec Native Ministries has enriched The United Church of Canada and contributed toward Aboriginal self-determination. This vision has not changed. It does continue to broaden in ways that support connection for Aboriginal faith communities. As the vision grows, Aboriginal ministries will be cautious of being drawn into empire. Space will be held to examine processes and structure that have potential to become debilitating and oppressive. A circle of relationships must be nurtured rather than vertical or hierarchical structures. The Council recognize a need for the whole church to shake the “ties that bind” and lean into the strength of Jesus’ prayer "That all may be one" (John 17:21) and Aboriginal truth and wisdom of All My Relations.

Programmatic Updates Leadership Development - A Terms of Reference for the Dorothy Jenkins Fund has been developed and the Council is now engaged in managing the promotion and disbursements of this fund.

Community and Capacity Development - A series of 2015 cluster group gatherings are in the final stages of development. These events will provide opportunities for communities of faith to gather for support and to gain knowledge in areas of Board development, grant writing, and nurturing safe communities.

PAGE 52 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Healing Fund – The Healing Fund will be drawn from Mission and Service in 2015. A review is currently underway to determine and implement efficiencies in the granting process, and increase accessibility to a wider range of Aboriginal communities.

Partnerships The Council and Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools (Committee) met on February 9th. A process titled “Envisioning the Future” provided opportunity to further define: a) a shared vision for the church; b) important work that must move forward; c) principles that will uphold the relationship; d) areas of collaboration. The dialogue contributed toward further clarity.

The Living into Right Relations Final Report was presented and accepted. The report will be posted on the United Church web-site in the near future. A proposal to create a series of Living into Right Relations webinars was reviewed. IJRS has collaborated with EDGE. Consultation with the Council/Circle will occur going forward. Representatives to the Indigenous Rights Circle in their report update identified how KAIROS is reviewing their strategic plan.

The Council and Committee reviewed the Statement of Spirituality requested by Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner, Justice Murray Sinclair. The statement acknowledges the historic harm done by the church’s denigration of the traditional wisdom ways of Aboriginal people. The statement is a collection of past statements and actions taken by the church.

The Council recognizes that Philanthropy is an important partner. The question of how Aboriginal ministries will take part in supporting Mission and Service must be explored.

Global partnerships - A dialogue with Church in Mission regarding global and Canadian partnerships provided an opportunity to exchange new learning’s and determine future direction for development opportunities. Aboriginal faith communities have been very responsive to hosting global visitors. The presence of the Partner Council delegation at the 2014 National Aboriginal Spiritual Gathering was valued, as was their expression of support in their message to The United Church of Canada. 1

The Council/Circle and Community in Mission will continue to collaborate on possibilities with global partners related to these three areas: 1. Leadership development for ministry 2. Solidarity and advocacy related to indigenous self-determination and control over resources 3. Food justice/food sovereignty

National Aboriginal Spiritual Gathering (NASG) Based on evaluations from the 2014 event the Council will need to review the NASG Terms of Reference in early 2015. The review will focus on these areas: vision and objectives; representation; location, youth leadership in planning and facilitation; and roles of host community and Council.

1 The United Church of Canada Partner Council Message - July 2014 PAGE 53 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Council will consider future sites that will provide opportunity for those gathered to receive the gift of engagement with Aboriginal communities of faith while attending to important logistical issues that impact participation, cost, and program.

42nd General Council The Council recommended that educational materials be developed to assist Aboriginal communities of faith to engage in the Comprehensive Review Task Group Report. Interpreting the work of the wider church to Aboriginal communities of faith creates capacity and opportunity for engagement and decision-making. This will be particularly important in the event of a remit process.

Council Membership There are a number of Council members that will complete their second term in 2015. This means a significant turnover of membership in the fall of 2015. Expressions of appreciation were offered to Council members who are in their final term.

The Council has committed to actively recruiting youth and young adults within the constituencies they represent and to build capacity for their meaningful engagement.

Ontario and Quebec Native Ministries: 1. George Montour (2nd term) 2. Wanda Montour (2nd term) 3. Tricia Monague 4. Gabrielle Lamouche

Sandy-Saulteaux Spiritual Centre: 5. Lee Claus (East) 6. Stan McKay (West)

Awaiting appointment from: 7. All Native Circle Conference 8. British Columbia Native Ministries 9. Vancouver School of Theology 10. Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools 11. Executive of General Council Representative

There will be follow-up with Communities in Mission to inquire on intercultural and Francophone appointments.

Once all appointments are received the Council will meet via conference call to appoint four Council members to the Executive of General Council.

Respectively submitted, Ray Jones, Chair, representing British Columbia Native Ministries Council Marie Dickens British Columbia Native Ministries Council

PAGE 54 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Jim White British Columbia Native Ministries Council Lori Lewis British Columbia Native Ministries Council Russel Burns All Native Circle Conference, All Tribes Presbytery Bernice Saulteaux All Native Circle Conference, Plains Presbytery John Thompson All Native Circle Conference, Keewatin Presbytery Lorna Pawis ANCC Great Lakes Waterways Presbytery Martha Pedoniquotte Ontario/Quebec Native Congregations Susan Gabriel Ontario/Quebec Native Congregations George Montour Ontario/Quebec Native Congregations Wanda Montour Ontario/Quebec Native Congregations Grafton Antone Sandy Saulteaux Spiritual Centre, East Vacant Sandy Saulteaux Spiritual Centre, West Vacant Native Ministries Consortium, Vancouver School of Theology Rosalyn Cole Inuit/Metis Community Melvin King Indigenous Justice and Residential School Committee Pierre Goldberger Ministries in French Kellie McComb Executive of the General Council Lark Kim Intercultural and Diverse Communities in Ministry Maggie McLeod Executive Minister

February 2015

PAGE 55 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

THEOLOGY AND INTER-CHURCH, INTER-FAITH COMMITTEE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

Background The Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee has had a number of pieces of work on its agenda throughout this triennium. We have reported on all of these on a regular basis, so this report will be a further update on all of these issues. In addition to this report, a number of reports are included in your workbook that have action/recommendations connected to them. They are:

a) A statement with regard to on-line communion (as requested of the committee); b) Proposal on dealing with the issue of Physician Assisted Death (as a follow up to the Moderator’s blog in October, and the recent Supreme Court ruling on this issue); c) One Order of Ministry (the result of work from a Joint Working Group of Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith and the Permanent Committee on Ministry Employment and Personnel Services) where the committees are seeking support for a recommendation to the General Council; d) Statement on Membership (that also is seeking direction and further study from the General Council, but is here in order to be transparent about the work heading to the General Council from our committee).

These issues, covered under separate documents, will not be addressed further in this particular report, though I will be prepared to answer basic questions for clarification as time permits in the plenary.

Theology of Diability(ies) This is work that recently has been placed before the committee. The working group dealing with this issue is meeting after this report was written, but before the General Council Executive meets, so a more up-to-date report is possible at the time of the meeting.

The working group requested personal statements around the ways that they have experienced the church dealing with people with disability – themselves or others. The end result was a huge document of over 100 pages that shared very personal and painful stories of people’s experiences within the church. The depth of the reflections in this document, and the overwhelming response when the call went out for members of the working group, both underline the timeliness of this work and the pain that is associated with people’s personal experiences within our church as they seek to live their faith in the midst of personal disabilities. Often our church is behind other key sectors within society in addressing individuals’ needs with regard to the whole range of disabilities, and meeting them.

We still are moving toward a statement for the General Council on this concern. The exact nature of that statement, for approval as a theological statement of the church, or as a study document for the church to reflect upon during the next triennium, is yet to be determined.

PAGE 56 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Theology of Land Following a symposium held in Saskatoon in May, 2014, the Theology and Inter-Church Inter- Faith Committee sought to provide a document that would assist the church in its theological understanding of land – both in the biblical context and within our understanding of land in our own nation, and the importance of land to First Nations people in Canada.

As the group sought to bring together the insights from the symposium, the committee realized that our ambitious goal may not be reachable at this time. We sought critiques of the draft document that was written as a result of that symposium, and the common feedback was that it is difficult for us to speak about justice and land in Israel-Palestine when we still face issues of justice around the land here in Canada. There also was concern that there was much to lament in the history both within Israel-Palestine and within Canada, but where could we find the gospel message emerge? What was the hope?

After significant deliberation, the committee felt that what was needed was a concerted study on the issue of land as it applies to our Canadian context, and out of such a study we would be ready (we hope) to look in further depth at the issue of land in Israel-Palestine and surrounding territories. Such a study will also have implications for work on other issues, such as food sovereignty and resource extraction.

Of paramount interest is to look at the issue of land in our context first. This may help expand the original concepts in the Circle and Cross document, and also may be helpful in our growing understanding of aboriginal spirituality. We have begun a process of being in dialogue and seeking understanding with other faiths. Is it time to do a similar process with the teachings of aboriginal spirituality?

The committee hopes to have a document ready for General Council that will lift up the need for a study of Theology of Land in the Canadian context for the next triennium.

Anglican-United Church Dialogue The focus for the Anglican-United Church dialogue this year has been our understanding of ministry. This focus in part has arisen from the fact we as a denomination have been looking at the issue of ministry, and also we have begun talks with several denominations around mutual recognition of ministry. It seemed to the dialogue a helpful process for them to enter. They found much that is helpful within an ecumenical context in the “One Ministry” document, and offered some thoughts through our committee on this document and the report of the Comprehensive Review Task Group as it pertains to acknowledging the oversight role within the church (documents attached to this report as Appendix A).

The Roman Catholic-United Church Dialogue This group has been focussed on issues of ecology, environment and theologies of creation in the last year, and will continue to explore mutual concerns arising from those discussions. One initiative the Dialogue is undertaking is production of liturgical resources that may be used by our two denominations in relation to ecological justice. The Dialogue is also making plans for celebrating the 40th anniversary of Roman Catholic-United Church Dialogue this year.

PAGE 57 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Mutual Recognition of Ministry The work being done on mutual recognition of ministry with the Presbyterian Church of the Republic of Korea, and with the United Church of the Philippines, was updated. Talks are going well and there is hope to have a final agreement soon.

Full Communion discussions with the United Church of Christ These discussions have progressed very rapidly, and a timeline for formalizing an agreement on full-communion between our denominations is in place should our respective governing bodies aprove of the plan. We were reminded that this process arose out of a request on our part to pursue mutual recognition of ministry with the United Church of Christ. Such a concept was foreign to theim, for they were open to full communion (involving membership, doctrine, and ministry) as part of a more inclusive partnership. In the process, there has been a recognition of how much we have in common, and also what we can learn from one another. We were informed that the United Church of Christ has nothing that is the equivalent to our Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee, and those involed in these discussions from the United Church of Christ see it as a possible gap in their own process of doing theology within their church. They see value in our process.

Migrant Church Working Group Dan Hayward is our committee representative on this group, and updated the committee on the work of this group as they seek ways to expand our linkages with those who come from denominations within other countries yet who share an affinity to the theology, values, and liturgical tradition of the United Church.

The Church Towards a Common Vision The committee is considering ways to respond to this document put out by the World Council of Churches. We understand that there are clusters of churches and at least one theological school holding discussions and studies around the document, and the committee will be seeking ways to respond to the document in the fall of 2015.

Together Towards Life A working group also is looking at ways to make this World Council of Churches document more accessible. We have also been granted permission to create a study guide more helpful within the Canadian context, with expanded worship and hymn selections.

China Christian Council The Committee was informed of an opportunity later in 2015 where a delegation is being sought to meet with the China Christian Council. Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith is among the groups within the church with whom this invitation has been shared, as it relates directly to our inter-church mandate.

Adoption This is another area that we have been asked to address as a committee in light of a recent report on the issue of adoption that came to the General Council Executive. We have set up a task

PAGE 58 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

group to develop the terms of reference for a future working group that ultimately will work on and develop a theology of adoption during the next triennium.

Summary As can be seen in this report (in which I have barely touched the surface on issues before the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee), we have been assigned a vast array of tasks from a variety of concerns within the church. The diversity of the work demands that the committee be populated by people with a wealth of experience, an agility in handling theological concepts, and a similar diversity of interests in order for the work of the next triennium to be accomplished. We see ourselves particularly in need of voices from the francophone community, the aboriginal community, young adults, and lay people, especially those with professional skills that complement some of the key issues to be faced this next triennium (land, doctor assisted death, adoption, theology of disablities, just to name a few.

I thank the Executive for your thoughtful response to our regular reports, and the personal support of the Executive as I have sought to fulfill the expectatons of the church as chair of this committee over the past triennium. I know you will welcome the new chair for the next triennium with equal enthusiasm and grace.

Sincerely, Bill Steadman, Chair, Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith

Committee Members this triennium: Bill Steadman (chair), Aruna Alexander, Darlene Brewer, Teresa Burnett-Cole, , Jill Curd, Daniel Hayward, Adam Kilner, Loraine MacKenzie Shepherd, Martha Martin, Mathias Ross, Earle Sharam

Staff Members: Bruce Gregersen and Gail Allan

PAGE 59 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

APPENDIX A

A Word to the Comprehensive Review Task Group from the Dialogue Between The United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada February 2015

Since 2003 The United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada have been engaged in a fruitful dialogue aimed at exploring how our two churches might draw still closer together to be more effective agents of God’s mission in and for the world.

These conversations have included the similar and different ways in which our churches order their ministries and structures. Particular attention has been paid to the diverse ways our denominations exercise the ministry of episkopé, which we together understand to include elements of oversight, authority, support, and accountability.

This reflects the growing ecumenical consensus about this vital aspect of the church’s ministry: “In every case episkopé is in the service of maintaining continuity in apostolic life and unity of life. In addition to preaching the word and celebrating the sacraments, a principal purpose of this ministry is faithfully to safeguard and hand on revealed truth, to hold the local congregations in communion, to give mutual support and to lead in witnessing to the gospel.”1

In its previous round of conversations this dialogue was able to conclude that “we find the ministry of episkopé present in its fullness in both the Anglican Church of Canada (especially in the ministry of bishops) and The United Church of Canada (especially in the ministry of presbyteries and conferences).”2

As the Comprehensive Review Task Group continues its work leading up to the General Council in August, it is our hope that this ministry of episkopé will be clearly retained and perhaps expressed even more plainly in whatever new courts/structures will emerge. The more clearly episkopé can be recognized in the structures of The United Church of Canada, the easier it becomes for ecumenical partners in Canada and beyond to work more closely together in mission.

The members of this dialogue therefore encourage the Comprehensive Review Task Group to keep a discerning eye on those places where episkopé will be located in whatever new structures it proposes, particularly in the light of the deepening agreement in the wider oikoumene about how this ministry of oversight and unity, authority and support, accountability and witness, is expressed in the structures of our churches.

1 The Church: Towards a Common Vision (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2013), §52. 2 Drawing from the Same Well: The St. Brigid Report, p. 23. Available at www.united-church.ca and www.anglican.ca.

PAGE 60 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Representing Representing The United Church of Canada the Anglican Church of Canada

The Rev. Dr. Andrew O’Neill (co-chair) The Rev. Dr. William Harrison (co-chair) The Rev. Dr. Sandra Beardsall The Rev. Dr. Gordon Jensen (ELCIC) The Rev. Elisabeth Jones The Ven. Dr. Lynne McNaughton The Rev. Donald Koots The Rt. Rev. Michael Oulton The Rev. Dr. Will Kunder The Rev. Dr. Paula Sampson Mrs. Brenda Simpson The Rev. Stephen Silverthorne Dr. Gail Allan (staff) The Ven. Bruce Myers (staff)

APPENDIX B

A Response to A Proposal for One Order of Ministry from the Dialogue Between The United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada Saskatoon Ÿ January 29, 015

In 2012 the official dialogue between The United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada began focusing its work on “an examination of the doctrinal identities of the two churches and the implications of this for the lives of the churches, including understandings of sacraments and orders of ministry.”1 This mandate has coincided with The United Church’s own internal discernment around the establishment of a single order of ministry known as the ordained ministry.

The members of the dialogue have followed with hopeful interest the evolution of A Proposal for One Order of Ministry, and discussed at length the draft of the document dated December 18, 2014. While recognizing that this is an internal conversation of The United Church of Canada, we are also conscious that our two churches are actively searching for new pathways toward a mutual recognition of our ministries, and this process offers a potential inroad in that direction. Therefore there is much in the aforementioned iteration of the proposal that the members of the dialogue find encouraging and wish to affirm.

We first of all acknowledge that the context from which the One Order proposal emerges is one shared by both of our churches, as well as others. Our denominations are struggling to provide adequately formed ministers of word, sacrament, pastoral care, and service at a time when a variety of models of training for ministry are necessary in order to meet changing mission needs.

It is encouraging to see a commitment to retain the language of to describe the ministerial office being proposed. As the One Order document notes, a broad consensus has emerged about the nature of ministry in the wider church, thanks in part to ecumenical convergence texts like , Eucharist, and Ministry. Therefore all efforts to understand ordered ministry within The United Church of Canada as part of the global Christian community, the one church of Christ, are to be encouraged. The use of such common language as “ordained PAGE 61 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

ministry” helps open the way for broader discussions about ministry with other churches, including the Anglican Church of Canada. We are also heartened to see the traditionally close association the proposal envisions between the one order of ministry and the administration of sacraments.

There is much in The United Church’s proposed one order of ministry that Anglicans can recognize. Like Anglican priests these United Church ministers would be ordained, be accountable, administer sacraments, and also exercise a variety of ministries. A move in such a direction would not only advance our two churches’ ongoing conversation about mutual recognition of ministry, it would also help normalize some of our existing relationships in contexts such as ecumenical shared ministries.

In bringing clarity to its own categories of ministry, The United Church of Canada will also be creating new possibilities for deepening conversations with ecumenical partners about the mutual recognition of ministries. We are also encouraged by the way in which this proposal would further help the church’s ministers become nimble as they respond to the rapidly changing mission context in which they are called to serve.

When the Anglican Church of Canada and The United Church of Canada were negotiating a formal merger in the 1970s, it was for the sake of mission: “We desire that union should make possible more effective participation in God’s mission both in Canada and throughout the world.”2 Though organic union is no longer our goal, we still strive for visible unity in common purpose, vision, and mission.

An eventual mutual recognition of ministry between our two churches will help reveal that unity of a church in and for the world. It is our view that A Proposal for One Order of Ministry represents a significant step along the way, and we would encourage The United Church of Canada to pursue this path.

Representing Representing The United Church of Canada the Anglican Church of Canada

The Rev. Dr. Andrew O’Neill (co-chair) The Rev. Dr. William Harrison (co-chair) The Rev. Dr. Sandra Beardsall The Rev. Dr. Gordon Jensen (ELCIC) The Rev. Elisabeth Jones The Ven. Dr. Lynne McNaughton The Rev. Donald Koots The Rt. Rev. Michael Oulton The Rev. Dr. Will Kunder The Rev. Dr. Paula Sampson Mrs. Brenda Simpson The Rev. Stephen Silverthorne Dr. Gail Allan (staff) The Ven. Bruce Myers (staff)

1 Resolution A139-R2, 2010 General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada 2 Plan of Union, ¶8.

PAGE 62 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

PERMANENT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Origin: Permanent Committee on Finance

Theological Foundation: When I was a youth, I took “to heart” the encouragement within Psalm 119 to learn Biblical passages “by heart”. I went through a memorization process with a misguided belief that memorization would be the pathway to “godliness” and “purity” and give strength to face all “temptations”. While a worthwhile endeavour that caused little harm, upon reflection, I have come to the realization that this practice was an effort to “protect myself” by reinforcing pre- conceived notions to bolster a rather narrow world and faith view. It was a protective armour.

Thankfully, the words of Scripture are “spirited”, have a “life-giving energy”, and are both subtly and overtly subversive. We actually do know best “by heart”. Over time it was these very words that provided a depth understanding, becoming the very source to “break open” the heart, to liberate the heart, and to open up new pathways. I never cease to be awed by the grace of the covenant that is “written on the heart” as witnessed to by the prophet Jeremiah.

In this report we continue to invite the words of this report to be written “on the heart”, not through memorization, but rather in an ongoing commitment for a depth understanding as we humbly and honestly discern pathways forward both practically and prophetically. Above all, I am grateful for the sacred covenant that dances in the heart, knowing that where our “treasure is so there is our heart”.

Executive Summary: The Committee held its annual one day in-person meeting September 19, 2014 and continues to meet by teleconference to do its work – most recently on February 20th.

Our February review included preliminary unaudited financial results for 2015, the implications of same for rolling budget forecasts, investment performance and a variety of operational risk management topics including investment activity, insurance programs and external audit.

All things considered, our overall – unaudited – financial result for 2014 was about as good as we could hope for. A second consecutive year of double digit investment returns coupled with expense savings has meant that our 2014 operating deficit of $548,000 is far better than we planned for, which improves our expected reserve depletion forecast scenarios. Revenue continues to decline, but in 2014 expense savings more than kept pace. 2014 Mission & Service giving declined $400,000 from 2013 levels which was actually much better than the $1.2 million decline we had in the budget. It was however a very weak year for legacy giving (after a very good year in 2013). Overall, revenues declined about 1.1% using the new reporting methodology where reserve transfers are no longer used to notionally balance a budget and a portion of bequests are not to be spent.

PAGE 63 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

As a result, we are proposing some updates to the 2015 Operating Budget which are detailed in FIN7. The 2015 Revised Budget deficit would be $5.96 million before investment income or $5.23 million after. The picture is still bleak but we have greater capacity to act.

The Comprehensive Review Task Group report will be published in early March. A key message in that report is that significant ongoing expense reduction will be needed whether the Task Group recommendations are approved or not. As a practical matter, we must plan for multiple scenarios in any case, because, in our polity, an approval by the General Council is not certain nor binding if obtained.

For 2016 budgeting, it would be the normal practice to seek GCE approval of budget principles in the spring so that management can develop an implementation plan for approval in the fall. This year we have a significant complicating factor in that we have General Council and Comprehensive Review Task Group proposals being dealt with in August. Budget principles therefore need to stand on their own and not anticipate a particular GC42 result. The staff leadership team will be meeting in early March to refine our recommendations, but they will likely include:

• Across the board reductions to all grant programs (all recipients have already received notice of this likelihood). • Strive to maintain aboriginal ministry spending at current levels (which in the various grant programs means a larger cut to non-aboriginal granting). • Initiate planning for staff reduction for both nationally and regionally deployed staff. • Immediate reduction of travel and governance related budgets.

Philanthropy Unit: God’s Mission, Our Gifts

Mission and Service Annual Giving 2014 – As we close off 2014 we are thankful for God’s work carried out across Canada and around the world with the gifts that were given in 2014. Preliminary results indicate that M&S annual giving experienced the smallest decline in the last four years. Following three years of declines of over $1 million, and with a cautious budgeted decline in 2014 of $1.2 million, Mission and Service annual giving declined less than $400,000. Further and analysis will be carried out. The second year of the strong “Each One Ask One’ materials and resources that focus on increasing participation along with the first year of strong M&S videos narrated by our Moderator have both been seen as strengths in this year’s giving program.

Mission and Service Bequest Giving 2014 – Annual bequest giving to Mission and Service varies greatly from year to year. In 2012 the church received $1.4 million; in 2013 the church received $3.2 million; and preliminary figures indicate that the church received $746,000 in 2014. Much less than the budget which was based upon a four year average. This results in total Mission and Service giving being below budget despite the positive results in annual gifts.

PAGE 64 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

The transition to a new donation software has proceeded well since the November GCE meeting and the I.T., Finance and Philanthropy teams will be working throughout the first six months of 2015 to implement the new software. This will make possible the integration of donor data, and congregational giving data to support more effective and efficient revenue generation work of the field staff. The “Gifts with Vision” giving catalogue has celebrated the distribution of over $1 million to Mission and Service partner organizations across Canada and around the world.

The role of the Foundation continues to grow. After the transfer of Trusts and Endowments to the Foundation effective January 1, 2013 (but effected in September 2013), a number of funding arrangements that used to be internal transfers are now entity to entity grants. This transfer has facilitated the Foundation becoming self-sufficient for 2015 onwards with annual cost recovery expected of $400,000. The Foundation also contributed a one-time payment of $352,000 in 2014, which was cumulative surplus. The Foundation granted in excess of $1 million to the Mission and Service and other program work of the church in 2014. The Mission and Service Endowment Fund in the Foundation closed 2014 with almost $3.5 million in assets.

Members of Executive are thanked for their active role as ambassadors for revenue generation activities across the church. The financial vitality of our communities of faith is so important to their capacity to carry out God's work.

Finance Unit: God’s Mission, Our Gifts Finance staff have been doing a lot of work to ensure that our various forms of financial reporting are more easily understood whether expressed in our annual audited financial statement, our narrative budget pie charts for donors, our operating budget for governors and finally our CRA annual filing. We are now at the stage where each of these formats can more easily be reconciled to the other.

The committee has made some changes in budget reporting format that we believe will give all our stakeholders a clearer picture of our overall financial picture and reserve depletion. It also highlights the greater role of the Foundation in funding the work of our church. Historically, our

PAGE 65 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

budget approach has differed from our audited financial statements in that we draw investment results and legacies directly into our reserves and using smoothing techniques. This methodology was more labour intensive and – for many – tended to mask our true financial position because it also included draws on reserves as revenue. We now aim to show a more complete, more aligned picture. Removal of smoothing techniques has however meant that our reports reflect more volatility.

2015 Budget: The 2015 Revised Budget is reflected in Appendix I of this report and repeated in proposal FIN7. With adjustments for revenue and setting aside a portion one time monies, the operating deficit is now $5.96 million (down from $ 6.4) and after investment income $5.23 million (down from $5.7).

The 2015 Budget Revision reflects: • Adjustment of the Mission & Service revenue to reflect the slower rate of decline in 2014 which impacted the base amount for 2015. We are still showing a decline of $1 million for 2015 compared to 2014 actual, and the same decline for 2016 and 2017. It is important to note that we are uncoupling “fundraising targets” from what we will actually use in the budget. We hope the decline in funds raised will be less - hopefully in the magnitude of $500,000 per year, but we need to hope for the best and plan for something less than that. We would also anticipate some disruption with the rollout of Comprehensive Review recommendations. • Addition of detailed reporting of the endowment of a portion of one-time legacy gifts as approved in May 2013. • Minor adjustments and corrections to non- 2015 figures to offer a better apples to apples comparison using our new reporting methodology.

Extending the Three Year Plan to 2017: The Permanent Committee on Finance has directed staff to continue to work to extend the current three year plan to 2017. The numbers shown to date are for illustration purposes only and reflect the need for continued, substantial cost reduction, or alternatively, revenue growth. Looking ahead, our financial picture continues to reflect significant and unsustainable deficits. Despite removing over $5 million in costs, and the better than expected results in 2013 and 2014, we have only deferred our financial reserve depletion from 2014 to 2017. The future projections do not reflect any cuts, but we know that we will need to implement further restructuring for 2016 onwards – either in conjunction with GC42 approved Comprehensive Review recommendations or – in some other form – Plan B. It will be imperative that any approved recommendations arising from the Comprehensive Review process be implemented in a very timely manner.

PAGE 66 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

The chart shows we will slightly breach our 30% of operating costs reserve policy by the end of 2016 and deplete these reserves entirely by the end of 2017. This is actually a considerable improvement from 2012 projections arising from favourable investment and bequest received in 2013, and expense savings and investment returns in 2014.

Treasury Fund Investments: Our core investment portfolio managed by Fiera Capital increased by 10% in 2014. The Investment Committee will be submitting a detailed annual report outlining its activity and achievements in more detail. We continue to emphasize Responsible Investing practices and now publish shareholder proxy voting information and other engagement activity quarterly on our website at www.united-church.ca/local/congfin/investment. The church was approved as a signatory to the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment (UN PRI) in August 2014. The church also signed the 2014 Global Investor Statement on Climate Change.

Audit and Compliance Update Our own external audits by PricewaterhouseCoopers have gotten somewhat smoother. Largely due to a concerted effort to improve internal accounting processes and improved advance preparation. Audit fees have finally stabilized accordingly. There is still much work to do to address audit concerns around adequate backup and improved controls, some of which is typical with a small staff complement. We have two external audits which remain open: CIDA and the Charities Directorate. In both cases, we have done all our work and await long overdue response. We await the CRA Charities Directorate’s position on the Kairos structure in particular, as Kairos uses our charitable number when issuing receipts.

Information Technology Information Technology initiatives continue to be a high priority as we seek to reduce cost and improve controls. A long overdue accounting system upgrade was a key achievement in 2014 and we expect to achieve the same in 2015 for our donor management systems. We are also looking at infrastructure solutions that are potentially extendable to other offices and future configurations of what our broader church might look like (telephony and networks).

PAGE 67 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

General Insurance Initiative: We continue to actively market the benefits of participating in the national insurance program. The loss experience for this program continues to be much worse than that experienced by other denominations due to 1-2 major losses every couple of years. Unfortunately, this required an overall rate increase of 10% effective December 2014. We will be continuing with year 2 of a higher self-insurance threshold of $50,000 which means that the national insurance fund is receiving more premium, but also taking more risk. To date, self- insuring smaller claims has been a positive influence and generated monies to help stabilize premiums.

Effective December 1, 2014, we announced the restoration of the nationally funded Director’s & Officers Umbrella Liability Insurance program for all congregations. Feedback has been very positive. The General Council already provides this coverage and pays this premium for staff and volunteers working in Presbytery, Conference and General Council, so in effect we will now be covering all courts of the church in a highly cost effective manner.

General Council Office Relocation: A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed with Bloor Street United Church consistent with the terms and conditions approved by the Executive in March 2012. At this time, the projected move date is November 2018. The lease at our current location has been extended to January 2019 and our space downsized by 1/3. This is subject to review throughout the Comprehensive Review discernment and decision-making process.

Loan Guarantees: • Facilitative Loan Guarantees (per policy) – There a total of 4 loans guaranteed under this program. All are on or ahead of schedule with repayment. • Symons Valley loan: Per 2008 Executive of General Council directive, $500,000 of national loan funds have been deployed to reduce the Royal Bank loan to $2.2 million and a local capital campaign is underway to match this contribution. The congregation is growing, but not at the hoped for rate. A further payment of $58,547 was advanced by General Council to support the loan renewal.

Explanations for the Overall Financial Position as outlined in Appendix I: The financial summary in Appendix I reflects the revenues and shared expenses associated with the Operating Budget. Revenue and expenses from major self-funding work, such as Pension and Group Insurance are included (shown as expense with offsetting recoveries). • Transfers from Reserves are no longer shown as revenue. Instead the impact of operating surplus or deficit will now draw down the reserves. • Endowment of M&S Bequests and One-time gifts – shows the impact of excluding a portion of these monies from the operating budget. 30% in 2014, 40% in 2015 and 50% in 2016 with a review at that time (no adjustment in 2017). • Foundation Grants include net new donations but also the funding from trusts and endowments transferred to the Foundation effective January 2013. • Retail Sales continue to trend downwards.

PAGE 68 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

• Other Revenues and Recoveries includes salaries and other charges rebilled to government funders and the Pension Fund, property tax rebates, GST rebates, commissions and shipping and handling charges and asset management fees.. • Grants include all payments to external entities, including the Conferences, Canadian and international partners and theological schools. • Externally Funded Costs are split out on the basis of any separate, external funding (i.e. pension plan or group insurance) which is generally more secure. • Staff costs are all positions funded by core revenues. • Resources include all development and production costs for our various print and electronic materials. • Travel unrelated to Committee Meetings is tracked separately. For budget purposes triennial General Council meeting costs are spread over three years. • Office Costs include building rent and related operating costs. For 2015 this includes the full impact of rental rate increases despite downsizing our office space by 1/3. • Professional Fees include legal, consulting and external audit fees. • Property and Insurance Expenses Recurring costs such as insurance are on target. Investments in aboriginal church and manse repairs are not budgeted per se as they are funded from the Real Property Fund. • Investment Expenses Bank fees reflect increased use of credit cards for payment. Note, we net investment manager fees against investment income. • Investment income includes realized and unrealized gains (losses) from the pooled investment portfolio excluding the gains allocated to group insurance, Kairos and other designated funds. • Available Unrestricted Reserves include the General Reserve, the Mission and Service Operating Reserve and the Morrison fund.

Finance and Philanthropy Staffing: The Permanent Committee expresses its appreciation to the efforts of all Finance, Information Technology and Philanthropy staff on our behalf.

Recommendations FIN 7 Proposal to update 2015 Budget to reflect more optimistic Mission and Service revenue forecast.

Submitted by: Brian Cornelius, Chairperson, On behalf of the committee

Members for 2013-2015: Brian Cornelius, Chairperson (GCE) Peter Hardy Claude Hender (GCE resigned) John Hurst Hugh Johnson Randy Manikel Elsie Manley-Casimir Ian McPherson David Rutherford Erik Mathiesen, Staff Resource David Armour, Staff Resource

PAGE 69 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

APPENDIX FIN 7 –2015 Revised Budget 2016 2015 2017 2013 2014 Key Assumptions: Ongoing decline in M&S Investment yield at 4.5% COLA 1.50% Investment yield at 4.5% Increased expenses (1.1%) Ongoing decline in M&S COLA 0.90% Review Comprehensive Investment yield 12.5% COLA 1.50% Begin endowing legacies Comprehensive Review Comprehensive Staff reductions COLA 2.90% Pension Contributions increased 2% costs Review Comprehensive Reduction in grants Investment yield at 4.5% Ongoing decline in M&S Investment yield at 10.0% Rent inducements COLA 1.5% Archive Move $600,000Archive One time Move costsSeverance incurred in 2013

( (5 (8 C9 C9 C5 (13 (14 (10 C10 C11 - - - 577 230 868 317 590 234 250 180 1,125 1,000 2,825 21,339 (1,125) (7,743) (7,563)

( ( (5 (8 C9 C9 C8 C5 (13 (14 C10 - - - 577 230 641 234 250 481 2016 2017 1,360 1,360 2,800 3,7461,641 3,746 1,641 3,713 3,713 3,136 3,136 1,283 1,243 2,567 2,606 1,091 1,073 1,291 1,236 2,668 2,716 1,954 1,939 1,306 1,294 3,850 3,849 2,0002,250 2,000 2,250 1,125 1,000 7,880 1,068 21.4% 0.9% 36,848 36,997 22,139 11,551 11,760 (1,125) (6,575) (6,094) Outlook Outlook

(7 (5 (6 (8 (11 (13 (10 (14 (10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 5.2% 9.7% 6.5% 2014 0.0% 1.5% 4.7% 15.4% 10.5% 17.4% 17.4% (3.5%) (1.1%) (2.4%) (1.4%) (43.8%) (22.6%) (19.1%) 2015 vs 2015 vs Budget % Reduced %

C C9 C9 C8 C5 C5 - - - 577 230 900 694 234 250 730 2015 (900) 1,360 2,652 3,746 1,641 3,713 3,136 1,992 1,283 2,465 1,110 1,268 1,350 1,391 1,954 2,517 3,748 2,250 2,000 37.5% Initial Initial 14,173 0.0% 14,173 14,173 37,278 31,315 15.3% 30,273 29,254 25,557 6.1% 24,332 23,332 22,939 11,441 (5,963) 13,974 Budget (5,233)

(2 (1 (5 (4 (9 (3 C8 (10 (10 91.9% 92.9% 68.3% 74.6% 96.4% 73.7% 74.5% 94.6% 79.1% 80.4% 30.8% 98.4% 102.8% 100.0% 101.5% 101.4% 123.8% 134.5% 101.8% 110.0% 101.9% 191.2% Budget % of Annual of % - - 466 198 578 857 863 193 931 366 478 746 2014 2014 (367) (548) 1,734 Actual (2,282) Prelim Prelim 19,207

C6 - - - - 682 160 775 259 103 250 (75) 103 2014 3,194 3,282 1,360 1,250 3,7461,641 3,746 1,666 3,713 3,450 3,031 3,072 1,625 1,567 4,085 4,608 1,378 1,853 2,707 2,755 1,330 1,463 2,596 1,171 1,488 1,408 1,927 1,525 2,114 1,700 4,533 2,671 1,224 2,421 50.8% 54.7% 14,173 13,650 96.3% 36,889 35,098 95.1% 36,992 32,816 88.7% 27,203 26,048 95.8% 23,277 23,728 11,174 10,997 18,724 Approved Budget as as Budget

New Budgeting Model - Revised 2015 Budget for GCE C3 C1 C2 C5 C4 C5 C5 (12 - - - 600 672 219 192 494 (per 2013 3,117 1,326 audit) 1,832 Actual (3,459) 19,755 (1,627)

C1 C2 C5 C5 C5 C4 (12 - - - 663 771 241 262 610 117 1,024 833 (per 807 2012 2,965 3,208 1,046 1,301 1,837 1,714 4,512 4,541 4,476 4,358 3,673 3,661 1,929 1,439 3,985 2,964 2,579 1,425 1,406 1,539 1,632 1,568 2,236 3,611 1,727 1,263 1,403 1,794 1,317 2,037 1,862 2,877 2,648 2,236 3,611 51.8% 50.4% audit) 16,207 16,175 41,250 39,176 34,868 35,717 28,429 29,140 24,561 23,961 12,167 11,444 (6,382) Actual 21,382 (5,575)

% of operating of % Endowment M&S of Bequest and Special M&S Bequests M&S Special Donations M&S One-Time Gifts (gross) Externally Funded Costs Grants Other Grants Theological Schools & Ed Centres Conference Operating Cdn MissionCdn Support Global Overseas Personnel Global Grants Total M&S Committee Meeting Expenses Travel ExpensesTravel Other Revenues &Other Recoveries Revenues Other Revenues Other Revenues Recovery of Costs of Recovery M&S Contributions UCW - Retail Sales Banking fees Property & Insurance Expenses Professional Fees M&S Contributions M&S One Time Gifts (net) Other Bequests Staff Costs Resources Office Costs Transfers Reserves from Foundation Grants Endowment other of bequests Expenses Operating (Deficit) or Surplus Total Expenses The United Church - of General Canada Council Office - Operating Budget (000's) as at December 31, 2014 Total Revenues Revenues: Income/GainsInvestment OperatingFinal Surplus (Deficit) Reserves Unrestricted Available

PAGE 70 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

PERMANENT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE & AGENDA ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

The Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda held two meetings since the last meeting of the General Council Executive. One was held by video conference in conjunction with a 42nd General Council Business Committee meeting, with the chairs for Governance and Agenda and the Business Committee and other G & A members joining from their home locations. The other meeting, on February 13, 2015, was held by conference call. The following summarizes the major work that has been done.

The focusing scripture for reports for this meeting of the Executive of the General Council is Jeremiah 31:33 “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

For me, Shirley, this speaks of entering into a new type of covenant with God, one based on a relationship with God rather than a set of rules. At this time in the United Church, surely we are seeking new ways to be church so that we can live out our covenant in our current context.

GCE Meeting Evaluation and Preparation As always, we reviewed the feedback from the November 2014 meeting to ascertain what was effective and what could be improved. We paid particular attention to the webinar on the Intercultural Lens that was held in advance of the meeting. We were pleased to note that there had been no technical difficulties and that those who participated in the live or recorded version generally found the content to be helpful. We did note that not all members participated and therefore discussed ways to reinforce the level of commitment that is expected of GCE members. It was also suggested that it might be helpful to bring in an educational design consultant to do some professional development with staff regarding the use of webinars if we are to continue to use them for educational purposes.

In planning for the March 2015 meeting, the Committee was cognizant that this will be the last meeting of the triennium. Work is continuing on a number of issues even while planning for the meeting is underway. Therefore, it is somewhat challenging to predict how much time will be required for particular pieces of work and adjustments may need to be made as the meeting unfolds. At this final meeting, there is also the need to consolidate the governance education work that has been done in the areas of the Intercultural Church and Affirming Ministries.

Governance Issues We discussed a number of governance issues that arose at the November GCE meeting. The first related to the question of having someone who is not at the meeting ask to have an item lifted from the consent agenda. Because we use a conciliar process in which we believe the Spirit is present amongst those gathered, it is not appropriate for members who are not present to be involved in the meeting. Members are certainly able to ask for, and indeed encouraged to seek, clarification prior to the meeting, but the agenda can only be changed at the request of an individual present in the court once the meeting has begun. PAGE 71 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

The second issue related to costing of proposals prior to them coming to GCE. All proposals coming to General Council are expected to include an indication of costs. It makes sense to extend this practice to proposals coming to General Council Executive. This will help the Executive consider the impact of proposals on current or other potential work prior to adopting or rejecting them.

The third issue arose from a proposal that was presented at the November meeting that required no action on the part of the GCE. Proposals are intended to be used to introduce work that requires an action. If there is no action required, information about the topic should be included in the relevant Accountability Report.

The fourth question concerned the distribution/selling of items by members and/or staff during GCE meetings. We recognized that meetings are one time when we can share in the work of the church across the country. However, to ensure that there is adequate space available and appropriate ways to highlight the work, anyone wanting to distribute or sell items during a GCE meeting is asked to contact Karen Smart or the Business and Agenda table.

The Committee also spent time considering the proposal for Consensus Decision Making that had been developed by the Discipleship and Witness Program Development Advisory Group (PDAG) and discussed with the Permanent Committee on Programs for Ministry and Mission at a joint meeting in September. We commend the Advisory Group for the work that they have done and appreciate that they shared their research and resources with us. There is still work to be done before a consensus decision making model could be considered for formal adoption and Governance and Agenda looks forward to working collaborative with Ministry and Mission to move this initiative forward.

The Committee considered dates for meetings of the Executive of General of General Council for the next triennium. A proposal with suggested dates is being presented at this meeting, recognizing there may have to be some changes based on decisions made at the 42nd General Council meeting.

The 42nd General Council The 42nd General Council Planning Committee asked Governance and Agenda to consider the use of ‘clickers’ or an electronic voting system at the meeting in August. After a good discussion, it was decided that this was an acceptable way to vote at the meeting, recognizing it can save time and it honours our conciliar process. Clickers will only be used for votes; they will not replace the use of orange and blue cards during the proposal process. During the voting process for the moderator, the actual numerical results will not be released as has been our practice.

Evaluation of Video-Conference Meeting Format At the end of the meeting in which we had used a video-conference, we reviewed the experience to determine what worked well and what improvements could be made. In general, it was a

PAGE 72 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015 positive experience. Since this format may be used more extensively in the future, a set of guidelines or helpful hints will be developed.

Question for Reflection: What are some ways that we do our work that we will need to change as we strive to live out our covenant in our current context? How might we change the way we do our work as we strive to live out our covenant in our current context?

Respectfully Submitted Shirley Cleave (chair)

Members of Governance and Agenda: Adam Brown Shirley Cleave Ivan Gregan Bev Kostichuk Roy West Gary Paterson Nora Sanders Will Kunder, Conference Executive Secretary (Manitou) Karen Smart (Staff Resource) Shirley Welch (Support Staff)

PAGE 73 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

MINISTRY AND EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND SERVICES ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services met in January, 2015 to complete the review of work assigned to it from the Executive of the General Council following the 41st General Council 2012. The culmination of projects undertaken by elected members and staff over the triennium was both rewarding and exciting as the concrete accountability for work was established. The elected and appointed members of the Permanent Committee diligently and faithfully reviewed, evaluated, discerned and celebrated the various recommendations and outcomes presented. There was also opportunity to review pieces of joint work with the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee (the proposal on One Order of Ministry) and the Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry (Competency- based approach to education and the report from the Migrant Church Working Group). In addition, the Permanent Committee explored the Intercultural lens being tested at the Executive of the General Council meetings. Finally, a celebration with Ministry and Employment and Hospitality and Office Services staff provided an opportunity to highlight the collaborative nature of the work and acknowledge the skill, expertise, and patience required to support the directions from the United Church.

The scripture text from Jeremiah is one that holds great significance for the work of the Permanent Committee as evidenced in this statement on covenant from its Theological Perspectives: “Respectful of the blessings of skill and talent that God has instilled in humanity and of God’s invitation that we be partners with God in both using and enhancing these skills and talents, the MEPS Permanent Committee is committed to supporting the General Council Executive in ensuring that there are transparency and honesty in our employment relationships with each other, that our various personnel systems have fair, equitable and consistent values, and that the benefit programmes are administered in prudent and responsible ways.” The belief that our covenant with the Holy One is written on our hearts speaks to the deep commitment to supporting our ministry personnel into wholeness, enabling them to fulfill their covenant with local ministries throughout The United Church of Canada.

Discerning and Calling Forth

Admissions The Permanent Committee reviewed two issues from the Admissions Handbook: eligibility and the process for circulating the names of candidates. The question of eligibility was clarifying the practice to ensure applicants conform to the educational standards set by the General Council for membership in the Order of Ministry of The United Church of Canada. The question of circulating the names was ensuring that the date Presbyteries receive the names to be admitted allows for consistency and ease of process. The proposal regarding these issues is found at MEPS 20 (Consent pages 90-91).

Conference Interview for Interim Ministers A proposal to the 41st General Council 2012 (TOR 1) requested changes to the frequency and purpose of interviewing Interim Ministers after each appointment. Using results from the Interim PAGE 74 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Ministry Steering Group report in 2005 and consultation with Conference Personnel Ministers, the Permanent Committee proposes a number of changes to the policy: an effectiveness interview after the initial appointment, re-designation after initial appointment valid for five years, exit interview after every subsequent appointment, and re-designation interview every five years. See MEPS 18 (Consent pages 85-86).

Recruitment The Recruitment Advisory Committee continues to work with the staff resource for recruitment to discern direction and assess upcoming projects. A number of upcoming events will involve participation by the staff resource (including Worshiplude, Faithful Living, London Youth Forum) and communications will continue to inspire a culture of call across the church (FaceBook page “God’s World Needs Leaders”, YouTube videos of call stories, and Entering Ministry videos on the United Church website). Finally, the focus will continue to shift to encourage congregations to take back their role of identifying and supporting potential ministers.

Educating and Equipping

Pastoral Relations Sabbatical Leave Policy A review of the purpose and procedure for sabbatical leaves for ministry personnel in local ministries led to a recommendation to enable greater flexibility in the timing of leaves (removing the word “consecutive”), and to request the funding for Sunday Supply during sabbatical leaves be reinstated. These recommendations come from responses to a survey undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness and experience of the policy introduced in 2006. This proposal was forwarded to the Permanent Committee on Finance for their input prior to the meeting of the Executive of the General Council, and may be found at MEPS 21 (Consent pages 92-93).

Sabbaticals for Interim Ministry A proposal to the 41st General Council 2012 (HAM 10) requested changes to the funding for interim ministry sabbaticals and a review of the eligibility criteria for interim ministers. The Permanent Committee authorized changes to the terms of the Interim Ministry Sabbatical Fund of the Financial Assistance Funds to ensure that it is accessible to interim ministers serving presbytery-accountable ministries as well as pastoral charges. It is also proposing that all presbytery-accountable ministries that appoint an interim minister to intentional interim ministry pay into the Interim Ministry Sabbatical Fund, consistent with the current practice in pastoral charges. This may be found at MEPS 19 (Consent pages 87-89).

Supporting and Supervising

Clergy Compensation A proposal to the 41st General Council 2012 (LON 3) requested research be undertaken to determine how to address systemic inequality in clergy compensation on a number of categories. The Permanent Committee reviewed the available data from ADP regarding gender that revealed very little difference in base pay between males and females, and only in category F (14 or more years of service). Data to track other categories (race, , disability and ethnicity) as requested in the original proposal is not available. The United Church does not collect this

PAGE 75 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

data and is restricted in doing so by privacy legislation. As a result, the Permanent Committee is recommending ongoing monitoring of the issue, further analysis after the new compensation model is implemented post-2018, and provision of support and guidance regarding negotiating salary and option benefits to ministry personnel. See MEPS 24 (Consent pages 97-98).

Comprehensive Salary Considerations While the comprehensive salary is scheduled for implementation on July 1, 2015, there are a couple of considerations outstanding that the Permanent Committee continues to monitor. Options are being explored regarding the telephone allowance that is currently granted to ministry personnel as part of the terms of call to determine its relevance and consistency across the country. In some pastoral charges, the cost of a basic telephone in the manse or home is included whereas in others, it is the cost of a cellphone. A report on these issues is expected to come to the Permanent Committee with a proposal to the Executive of the General Council at a later date.

Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships The final report from the project management team of the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships project was received by the Permanent Committee at a conference call meeting in January. This represents almost a decade of work on assessing the needs of ministry personnel and pastoral charges in order to support and maintain the mission and ministry of the whole church. A report on the data collected from each of the projects and from ministry personnel and pastoral charges in the summer of 2014 was presented to the Executive of the General Council in November. The report for this meeting includes an assessment of best practices across the nine projects, and final recommendations for the consideration of the 42nd General Council 2015. This report may be found at MEPS 23 (pages 126-135). This work underscores the vital importance of commitment to and resources for the support of both ministry personnel and local ministries in nurturing healthy, vital pastoral relationships.

Financial Assistance Committee The terms of reference for the Financial Assistance Committee are currently being updated and will be proposed to the Permanent Committee this spring. Any recommendations for changes will be brought to the Sub-Executive of the General Council.

Full-time Employment A proposal to the 41st General Council 2012 (HAM 3) raised a concern that there is limited availability of full-time ministry personnel positions and that a denominational policy should be established to encourage full-time employment. A review of the data indicated that approximately 75% of ministry personnel work full-time, as well as a number of people combining part-time ministries to create the equivalent of full-time ministry. Part-time ministries make a valuable contribution to the church, allowing for employment while studying, meeting the needs of ministers who for a variety of reasons are only available part-time, and meeting the more limited needs of some smaller pastoral charges. The Permanent Committee is recommending that no action be taken on this proposal and that policies and strategies related to the approval of ministry positions should remain the responsibility of the presbyteries and/or Conferences. This proposal is at MEPS 22 (Consent pages 94-96).

PAGE 76 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Gender Transitioning Health Spending Account On the advice of the Trans/Gender Diversity Task Group, the Permanent Committee reviewed our current health benefits plan in light of the unique needs of plan members who are transitioning. While there is limited experience in the insurance industry for these needs, staff, working with a benefits consulting firm, developed a proposal that the Permanent Committee is recommending. The proposal is for the establishment of a Healthcare Spending Account for any plan member who self-identifies as being in gender transition. This is a tangible opportunity to live into the call to support those requiring specialized medical procedures while preserving the taxable status of the plan. This proposal is at MEPS 25 (Consent pages 99-100).

Pension Form Retirement Clarification The Permanent Committee authorized changes to the pension form to clarify the “Retired Supply” category. Those ministry personnel receiving a pension from another employer’s pension plan are not considered “retired” for United Church purposes, and therefore must participate in the pension plan if beginning a call or appointment unless they have already reached the age of 71 years. This form will help clarify the process for both pastoral charges and presbyteries authorizing appointments.

Salary Differential Policy The Permanent Committee continues to review the policy regarding staff salaries in the General Council/ Conference Office system that “discounts” ministry personnel salaries in lieu of the clergy residence deduction. This work follows the recommendation to the Executive of the General Council in March 2012 that no action be taken on the request to provide additional compensation to ministry personnel couples in relation to the clergy residence deduction. An update on this work to the Permanent Committee is expected by June 2015.

Aon Hewitt, Benefits Plan Renewal and Restorative Care Plan Update The Pension Board has primary oversight of the pension and benefits administration but the Permanent Committee, responsible for the benefits administration, receives regular updates on the service levels and on-going negotiations with Aon Hewitt. The committee also received an update on the implementation of the changes to the restorative care/short term disability plans on January 1, 2015. Unaccustomed to plan improvements and premium reductions, staff report that there are a few puzzled callers asking whether their reduced premiums are correct!

Closing Remarks It has been an honour and a privilege to serve as the chair of the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services for the past six years. I have been richly blessed in my work with numerous elected members and volunteers from across this United Church of Canada and have learned from them deep wisdom, spiritual conviction, passionate commitment and faithful service. I have also been fortunate to work with many different members of the staff team at the General Council and Conference Offices and have learned from them patience, perseverance, dedication, and professionalism. I would especially like to recognize the support and competence of Stefanie Uyesugi, who has carefully attended to the logistics for the Permanent Committee for the last 15 months, and the integrity and compassion of Alan Hall,

PAGE 77 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

who has been a faithful friend and mentor for the last six years. Our collective contribution is greatly enhanced by the both of you. The text from Jeremiah is one of my favourites – in spite of everything, my covenant with God is within me, shaping, inspiring, sustaining and calling me to be all that I can be in this world.

May each of us live into the fullness of the covenants written on our hearts, with the ministry personnel and local ministries we encounter. And with the Holy One who yearns for our faithful commitment to justice, peace and integrity.

Focus Questions What does it mean for the church to have written on its heart a covenant with ministry personnel to support them in their exercise of leadership and pastoral care in the midst of our local ministries and in the governing bodies of our church?

Submitted by: Tracy Murton, Chairperson, Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services

Members for 2012-2015 Ann Austin-Cardwell Eric Hamlyn Elizabeth Brown Adam Hanley (GCE) Marion Carr Debra Kigar Brian Copeland Lorna King Bob Gibson Jack Spencer Lynda Gow Earl Reaburn (Staff Resource) Vilvan Gunasingham (GCE) Alan Hall (Staff Resource)

PAGE 78 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

PERMANENT COMMITTEE ON PROGRAM FOR MISSION & MINISTRY ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

Introduction The Permanent Committee has been living into a season of transition this entire triennium. Through it all, the committee has grounded its work in worship, study and community-building as it seeks to live into its identity and ministry as “the people of God.” This report lifts up some of the work of the Permanent Committee from its January 2015 meeting; it also offers some reflections on work done over the triennium and emerging work into the new future of The United Church of Canada.

Recognition of Service The Permanent Committee Programs for Mission and Ministry was pleased to acknowledge and celebrate the ministries of Rob and Keiko Witmer (45 years of service in Japan with the United Church of Christ in Japan-Kyodan), and Sarah Beer who has returned to Canada from her 5 year appointment with Centro Esperanza in Peru. On behalf of the church we offer gratitude for faithful service. The committee also celebrated its global partners: VernieYocogan-Diano (Cordillera Peoples Alliance, Philippines) and Nicq iAshwood (Caribbean North America Council for Missio –CANACOMM); and the 2014 Ecumenical Accompaniers (EAPPI): Dean Redit, Debbie Hubbard, Dawn Waring and Ron Pond (ANW), InekeMedcalf& Zoe Godfrey- Davis (HAM), Karen Rodman (TOR), Mel Earley (MAR), and Peter and Joyce Fergus-Moore (MNWO).

The Partner Council The Partner Council has been a significant part of the United Church’s affirmation and commitment to living out its understanding of partnership as reaffirmed in the 2008 document “Reviewing Partnership in the Context of Empire” (http://www.united- church.ca/files/partners/global/partnership_review.pdf) The members of the Partner Council have accompanied the work of the church for the last two trienniums. Currently, there are 9 members who make up the Partner Council. The Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry has reaffirmed the importance of the Council, and in light of anticipated structural changes in the church has recommended a reduction to the size of the Council from the current nine (9) members to six (6) members. Three of the current members will be asked to serve on the new council. In addition to those three, the new Partner Council will invite participation, so that the full Council will have one (1) representative from each of the following categories: • Global ecumenical partner organizations; • Regional representation from Asia, Africa, Middle East, Latin America; • Canada.

Funding relationship with the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC) The Middle East Council of Churches is a long-time partner of the United Church of Canada. The General Council Office, through the Church in Mission Unit, received an appeal from the Middle East Council of Churches for support and solidarity. Coupled with this request, The United Church, as a member of the World Council of Churches, received a request from the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches to consider providing funding to the Middle PAGE 79 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

East Council of Churches. The Permanent Committee, through the Church in Partnership Program Development Advisory Group, set up a reference group (including elected members John Durfey, Scott MacAuley and Dale Hilderbrand) to explore these possibilities.

After a significant period of consultation and discernment with elected members, staff and other global ecumenical partners, the Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry supported a decision to reinstate Middle East Council of Churches as a Mission and Service funded partner. This is done with the full realization that there will be funding challenges for the next triennium, and the fact that choices will be made in the current budget to trade off other grants. At the same time, the Permanent Committee felt it was an important act of solidarity, especially at this time with the increase vulnerability of the Christian community in the Middle East. A background document on the Middle East Council of Churches is provided in the online library.

Ongoing Work Items The program work of that the Permanent Committee engages on a regular basis with is broad, inter-connected and complex. Some work items continue to be implemented with staff, working with a variety of networks.

The following are ongoing pieces of work that the committee will continue to engage in the next triennium: a. Advocacy Networks b. New Financial Architecture c. Global Mission Personnel Review d. French-language Resources e. Refugees f. Program Evaluation g. EDGE New Ministry Pilot

Advocacy Networks: The Permanent Committee has been considering the relationship of advocacy networks to the work of the church, recognizing that the formation and support of advocacy networks is a new experience in the United Church. There are two ‘formal’ advocacy networks that have been established on a national level: the United Network for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel (UNJPPI), which was formed in 2012, and United for Mining Justice, which was formed in 2013. The Permanent Committee for Programs for Mission and Ministry (PC-PMM) set up a working group, which included elected members Sarah Harrington, Jesse Root, and Bill Thomas, as well as staff. The working group created a process of consultation with both networks and the Church in Mission Unit in order to: 1) learn from the new experience of advocacy networks as a new way of doing justice work and being church in the United Church; and 2) discern and develop ways forward that will address challenges that are emerging in order to strengthen the full body of the United Church as it engages in God’s mission of justice and love. The Permanent Committee will receive a report with recommendations in the new triennium.

PAGE 80 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Financial Architecture: Global debate about inequality and the crisis brought on by climate change call for solutions that will require behaviour change. At its January 2015 meeting, members of the PC-PMM heard about global ecumenical work toward An Economy of Life for All. The concept is meaningful as the church works on national issues such Indigenous justice and the ecological effects of our resource extraction-based economy. Through the World Council of Churches, KAIROS, the World Communion of Reformed Churches and other ecumenical groups, The Church in Mission Unit is looking at ways an economy of life might be sustained by changing tax laws to ease inequality and at global “financial architecture” (everything from trade agreements to the World Bank). Meanwhile, inequality, climate change and the rights of women are key points of action in the “We Can do Better” campaign by the Canadian Council for International Cooperation.

Global Mission Personnel Program Review: The Permanent Committee has established a Working Group (with members Ian Sloan, John Durfey and Faye Wakeling) working with staff to review and provide a framework for a viable sustainable “Co-workers and Companions in Mission” program. From its interim report, in September 2014, the Permanent Committee affirmed the importance of allowing for the sharing of people between global partners and The United Church of Canada.

The Working Group has begun developing a framework for such a program, but requires more time to test the various proposed models and offer a program that will be sustainable given the current context of the United Church. At the January 2015 meeting, the Program Committee agreed to extend the mandate of the Working Group. An update from this Working Group is available in the online library.

French-language Resources: At the time of writing this report, Ministries in French (MiF) is in the final phases of creating a new French-language website. Watch for an announcement of the launch date, then visit www.egliseunie.ca. The website is the result of close collaboration between MiF and the Communications Unit. It is designed primarily to provide an French-language introduction to The United Church of Canada for those who are seeking a faith community, are curious about the church, or are new to the church. For those already involved in a Francophone or bilingual United Church ministry or mission, it offers resources for worship and for engagement in the world.

Refugees: The Permanent Committee spent some time reviewing the latest resources available inviting our communities of faith to participate in Refugee Sponsorship. As a sponsorship agreement holder, the United Church is being asked to assist with the sponsorship of Refugees from Syria and Iraq https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJSYM6eKGls. The second resource focuses on an invitation to sponsor LGBTTQ refugees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRj3QUmZX_0 . The Permanent Committee would like to encourage the Executive of the General Council to play a role in encouraging the church to participate in these opportunities.

PAGE 81 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Program Evaluation: The Permanent Committee has established a working group develop and test a process for evaluating the program life of the Church in Mission Unit. The committee—made up of Bill Thomas, Deborah Laforet, Jesse Root, Andrew Richardson and Mary Royal-Duczek—has engaged the service of Rev. Don Pollock, a Presbyterian Minister and retired executive as its consultant. The working group has also benefited from the participation of Sue Kaiser, a member of Bloor Street United and former Program Manager with the City of Toronto.

Recognizing that what Church in Mission Unit identify as programs are not necessarily programs in the technical sense, the working group has worked with the definition of a program being “any set of activities done to deliver a service.” The working group has proposed to the Permanent Committee the use of methodology of the Program Logic Model as the tool for evaluation. Preliminary testing of the model has shown that it can be a very useful tool in evaluating the programs. The Executive Minister has been asked to identify a number of programs to test the model and report back to the Committee

Edge New Ministry Pilot: The Permanent Committee is committed to encouraging experimentation and prototyping in the program life of the church. Consequently, the committee is supportive of an initiative with Edge, in partnership with the Discipleship and Witness cluster of the Church in Mission Unit in piloting a ministry incubator model that may launch its first phase in June, 2015 that is seeking to address some of the challenges with the closing of congregations. The model plans to gather aspiring ministry planters/innovators with representatives from a variety of Funding partners, community partners, Hub Churches (strong ministries that can be a supportive connection to new ministry starts), and successful entrepreneurs within and beyond the church. Through a process of coaching and mentorship the ministry planters will receive support in developing their idea into a proposal. Projects that would be funded would continue to receive ongoing coaching and mentorship.

For Discernment and Decision: The following items are being brought before the Executive of General Council for decision- making at this meeting: a. Youth and Young Adult Strategy b. Migrant Church Working Group c. Unsettling Goods Campaign d. Apology to Members of LGBTTQ Communities

Youth and Young Adult Strategy (PMM 16, Blue pages 156-164): In 2012, the Permanent Committee developed a strategy for the 2012-2015 triennium. The Permanent Committee has now been working on a new Youth and Young Adult strategy for the 2015-2018 triennium. The strategy proved to be an effective way to engage with the work with youth and young adults in the church. PC PMM is bringing the proposed strategy for 2015-2018 to this March GCE meeting.

PAGE 82 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Migrant Church Working Group (PMM 18, Yellow pages 184-192): the Migrant Church Working Group is an elected member and staff working group representing the PCPMM, the Permanent Committee on Ministry, Employment Policy and Services (PC MEPS) and the Theology, Inter-Church and Inter-faith Committee. The Migrant Church Working Group report provides a context for the work of the committee; names the key initiatives (Associate Relationship, Mutual Recognition of Ministry and Full Communion Agreement); and indicates a way forward. The Permanent Committee is requesting that the report be forwarded to the 42nd General Council in 2015 as background to the General Secretary’s report on Mutual Recognition of Ministry and the full communion agreement. The working group recognizes that there is some need for clarification and changes require to our policies and will work with the General Secretary in bringing these forward to the General Council and to the work on membership.

Unsettling Goods Campaign (PMM17, Yellow pages 174-183): the Unsettling Goods campaign continues to develop in fulfillment of the commitments of the 41st General Council and the mandate of the Executive of General Council May 2013. The PCPMM believes that the campaign: Unsettling Goods: Choose Peace in Palestine and Israel, should be extended for the triennium 2015-2018 particularly because the late start in getting the campaign started, the importance of continuing to build the capacity of the church to engage and in light of the call from our ecumenical and global partners.

Apology to Members of LGBTTQ Communities (GS53, Blue pages 165-168): the Permanent Committee has offered advice to the General Secretary around the engagement on the Apology to Members of LGBTTQ communities and is in full support of the General Secretary’s recommendation which is being brought before you at this meeting.

At this the final meeting of the triennium, I would like to give thanks to all of the permanent committee members and Church in Mission Unit staff who have dedicated themselves to this work over the past triennium. It has been a season of change: we have seen staff changes, unit changes and committee structure changes. It has been my privilege to do the work of the church with these special people. The staff and elected members I work with are gifted and talented people, but more than that, they are people who seek to live out the love and justice that Jesus calls us to. Their faith-filled passion and commitment to justice for individuals, for our church and for our world is inspirational. I look forward to continuing this work with the staff and new committee in the next triennium. As the scripture passage from Jeremiah tells us, “I will be their God and they shall be my people.” What a joy and a challenge to do God’s work together.

Submitted by: Mary Royal-Duczek, Chairperson, Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry

Members Darlene Brewer (TICIF) Bryce Hodder Michael Caveney Moses Kanhai Sarah Rose Chapman Deborah Laforet Peter Denton Scott MacAuley

PAGE 83 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Emily Duggan Alana Martin Alf Dumont Deborah Poirier John Durfey Daniel Reed Manasse Habonimana Andrew Richardson Lyn Hamilton Jesse Root Sarah Harrington Hope Rowsell Andrea Harrison (GCE) Michael Shewburg (GCE) Yoon Ok Shin Kang Bill Thomas Nathan Wright Vernie Yocogan-Diana (Global Partner) Michael Blair (Staff Resource) Terry Beaumont (Staff Support)

PAGE 84 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

MEPS18: CONFERENCE INTERVIEWS FOR INTERIM MINISTERS (TOR 1) Origin: Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services

The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council recommend that the 42nd General Council, 2015 approve the following policy for interim ministers, including changes to the by-laws, where necessary: a. an initial designation of an interim minister is required prior to the first appointment; b. an effectiveness interview is required after the initial appointment to determine continued designation; c. re-designation after an initial appointment is valid for five years from the date of re-designation; d. an exit interview is required at the end of every subsequent appointment; e. a re-designation interview will be required every five years for all interim ministers.

Background The 41st General Council 2012 heard a proposal from Toronto Conference (TOR 1 Conference Interviews for Interim Ministers) that proposed the removal of two pieces of interim ministry procedural policy: 1. Following the first period of interim ministry, the Committee shall interview the Interim Minister, evaluate the effectiveness of the Interim Minister, and make a recommendation to the Conference Executive, for or against the continued designation of the person as an Interim Minister, with or without conditions. The Conference shall make a decision and shall notify the person in writing of the decision. (The Manual, 2010 465 b. iv) 2. Following each subsequent period of Interim Ministry, the Committee shall interview the Interim Minister and evaluate the effectiveness of the Interim Minister. (The Manual, 2010 465 b. v)

The 41st General Council took no action on the proposal, and referred those concerned to The Manual, 2013. (GC41 2012 – 086).

The Manual, 2013 removed a majority of the procedural policy to adjunct resources, including most of the interim ministry evaluation procedures referenced in TOR 10. The policy that remains in The Manual, 2013 reads:

I.7.6. Evaluation The Conference must evaluate the effectiveness of the interim minister after each period of interim ministry. The Interim Ministry Transition Committee participates in this evaluation.

PAGE 85 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The purpose of the simplification of The Manual was to clarify and simplify the language and structure of The Manual, not to change policy. Without a decision by the General Council to change the evaluation procedures for interim ministers the policy, as it exists, would be removed from The Manual and included in the Interim Ministry Resource with no change.

Post General Council, the General Secretary directed this proposal and the motion to the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services for further consideration. The Permanent Committee appointed a Working Group on Interim Ministry to make recommendations on the original proposal.

The working group consulted with the original Interim Ministry Steering Group Report, 2008; The Task Group on Interim Ministry Report on Consultation held November 2005; and the Conference Personnel Ministers at their in-person meeting in November of 2014.

Rationale In comparing the consultation notes from the Interim Ministry consultation and report, and the feedback from the Conference Personnel Ministers, the working group found that the majority opinion reached by the Conference Personnel Ministers was very similar to the process of designation originally outlined in the Interim Ministry Report on Consultation held November 2005. The working group decided that two consultations almost ten years apart resulting in a nearly identical process was an indication of functionality within our policy.

The working group felt that the retention of an effectiveness interview after an Interim Minister’s initial appointment was important to ensure that theory could be translated in practice: that ministry personnel who were called to intentional interim ministry could function effectively in high-stress environments, manage conflict, empathetically lead church members through transformational change, and know how to set boundaries so that they are not personally depleted. Intentional interim ministry is a vital yet challenging call within the United Church and the Church is responsible for care of the ministers. Part of that care is ensuring that the right ministers are called to this ministry.

The working group did not feel that it was necessary to have an effectiveness interview after every subsequent appointment, and in fact felt that this policy presented a double-standard for interim ministers when all ministry personnel are not required to participate in effectiveness interviews at the point of a change in pastoral relations.

All ministry personnel do have exit interviews at the point of a change in pastoral relations for the purpose of learning from the pastoral relationships, and the working group is therefore recommending that Interim Ministers have exit interviews at the end of appointments to reflect on the appointment, receive feedback from the pastoral charge, and assist the presbytery in knowing how to continue to support the pastoral charge into the future.

PAGE 86 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

MEPS19: SABBATICALS FOR PERSONS INVOLVED IN INTERIM MINISTRY (HAM 10) Origin: Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services

The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council recommend that the 42nd General Council, 2015: • take no action on the original proposal HAM 10; • require all presbytery accountable ministries that appoint an interim minister to intentional interim ministry to pay into the Interim Ministry Sabbatical Fund;

That the Executive of the General Council make the following programmatic changes: • change the terms of the Interim Ministry Sabbatical Fund of the Financial Assistance Funds so that the fund may be accessed by interim ministers serving presbytery-accountable ministries as well as pastoral charges.

Rationale GCE 11 Report of the Interim Ministry Steering Group, originally passed by the Executive of the General Council in November of 2008, and later by the 41st General Council in August of 2012, included the procedural policy for Interim Ministry sabbatical:

4. And that the Executive of the General Council affirm the Application of Sabbatical Beyond the Pastoral Charge as follows:

Presbytery Recognized Under this heading we have listed Camp/Retreat Manager (FT); outreach: street missions; hospital chaplain; senior care homes; and presbytery ministry. We are considering these positions under two categories: employed by presbytery and employed by a body other than presbytery.

Employed by Presbytery: Presbytery would be responsible for providing sabbatical leaves to employees who are ministry personnel under the same conditions as applicable to congregations – costs would be the responsibility of presbytery

Employed by a body other than Presbytery: In the case of a presbytery recognized ministry that is not operated by presbytery and the ministry personnel are not employed by presbytery, the church would recommend and urge the employing body to make a sabbatical program similar to that offered by the United Church to ministry personnel at the congregational level.

PAGE 87 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Retained on the Roll Included under this heading were Hospital and Prison Chaplains. We suggest the United Church has no obligation to provide a sabbatical program to ministry personnel in these positions. It would seem reasonable for the Church to recommend to the employing bodies that a sabbatical program, similar to that which is available to ministry personnel at the congregational level, be made available to such Chaplains.

Fully implementing the procedural policy of GCE 11 would meet the requests of HAM 10, with the exception that ministries not accountable to the presbytery can be encouraged, but not required to provide ministry personnel with a sabbatical.

The working group recommends changes to the terms of reference of the Interim Ministry Sabbatical Fund (a program of the General Council Office Financial Assistance program) allowing presbytery-accountable ministries participating in intentional interim ministries to contribute to the Interim Ministry Sabbatical Fund.

Background The 41st General Council, 2012 heard a proposal from Hamilton Conference (HAM 10 Sabbaticals for Persons Involved in Interim Ministry) that proposed one change to the program of interim sabbatical funding, and two changes to the current sabbatical policy of the United Church: 1. reconsider the decision to limit Sabbatical Funding for Interim Ministers to only those serving in an Interim Ministry position defined as "appointed by Presbytery to work toward specific goals identified by the Presbytery and the Pastoral Charge". 2. expand the definition to include Interim Ministers who are employed by a Presbytery or a body other than a Presbytery in designated Interim positions that includes specific goals identified by the Presbytery and the employing body. 3. that the General Council directs the Executive of the General Council to develop policy to describe and authorize such situations as Interim Ministries that would be eligible to be included in the "time served" calculations for Sabbatical Funding.

The commission considering the proposal received a briefing note on the proposal that read: “Currently the Manual provides for regular sabbaticals for ministry personnel in pastoral charges. The GCE authorized, and this GC is being asked to confirm (through the formal approval of 2008-11-15-329), the provision of sabbaticals leaves to Interim ministers in pastoral charges funded by a levy of the equivalent of two week’s salary to a fund administered by the General Council Office. The draft Manual proposal before this Council changes reference to “pastoral charge” to “local ministry”. This opens the definition to include a broader range of ministry sites, including those of concern in this proposal. No further action is required to accomplish the objective of this proposal.”

Based on the information that was provided to the commission in the briefing note, and in the following discussion, the commission moved:

PAGE 88 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

That the 41st General Council take no action and refer those concerned to The Manual “2013”. Carried. (Motion: GC41 2012 – 085)

In The Manual, 2013 previous references to “pastoral charge” were changed to “local ministry unit” in the governance section but not in the pastoral relations section, which is where the sabbatical policy is located. Therefore, the briefing notes to the Council were inaccurate, because the sabbatical policy continued to apply only to pastoral charges, and was not opened to a “broader range of ministry sites.” Since the mandate of the simplification of The Manual was to clarify and simplify the language and structure of The Manual, not to change policy, it would have been beyond the scope of the simplification project to broaden the sabbatical policy beyond pastoral charges. Without a decision by the General Council to change the sabbatical policy, the policy, as it exists, was removed from The Manual and placed in the Interim Ministry Resource with no change; that is, applying only to pastoral charges and not to other presbytery accountable ministries.

Post General Council, the General Secretary directed this proposal and the motion to the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services for further consideration. The Permanent Committee appointed a Working Group on Interim Ministry to make recommendations on the original proposal (HAM 10). The working group consulted GCE 11 Report of the Interim Ministry Steering Group (GC41 2012 – 084; Carried) which is the original procedural policy for interim ministry sabbatical passed by the 41st General Council, and The Manual, 2013, sections I.1.7 Interim Ministry, and I.2.3.5 Sabbatical Leave.

PAGE 89 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

MEPS 20: PROPOSAL FOR CHANGES TO THE ADMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Origin: Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services

The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services propose:

That the Executive of the General Council approve that:

1. The following statement be reinserted into the Admission Handbook in the section on eligibility: “the educational qualifications required of an applicant seeking admission to the Order of Ministry of the United Church shall conform to the educational standards set by the General Council and required for membership in the Order of Ministry of the United Church.”

2. The date for the circulation of names to presbyteries/districts be changed from September 30 to June 15 and that names be circulated only after orientation requirements are completed and the applicant is scheduled for the final interview with the Conference Interview/Assessment Board (CIB/CAB).

Background • August 15 – 19, 2009 – The General Council adopted the current admission policy. • November 2009 – The General Council Executive (GCE) approved new procedures to support the policy. • January 2010 –Ministry and Employment Unit began implementing procedures. • Ministry and Employment Unit staff has monitored the effectiveness of the admission process since its implementation in 2010. • General Council Office staff in both the Ministry and Employment Unit and Church in Mission Unit is in frequent conversation with admittands and the courts of the church regarding difficulties with the policy. • Ministry and Employment Unit staff has received feedback from admittands, Presbytery/Districts and conferences on ways of improving the process and making it more effective and welcoming. • Ministry and Employment Unit staff is preparing an evaluation of the admission process, which will include all stakeholders (e.g. Admittands, Conference Personnel Ministers, Conference Interview/Assessment Boards, and Conference Executive). The report will be presented to PC MEPS in Fall 2015.

Rationale 1) The statement from the GCE Nov 2009 proposal regarding educational requirements for admissions applicants was inadvertently omitted from the policy in the current Admissions Handbook and should be included.

2) Presbyteries/Districts and Conferences have raised concerns related to the timeline required for objections to be raised. Many feel that the current timeline does not allow sufficient time to establish

PAGE 90 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015 commissions, conduct interviews and report to the Conference Executive. Moving the circulation of names to an earlier date will allow sufficient time for objections to be handled.

Link to the Admission to the Order of Ministry handbook, policy and procedures.

PAGE 91 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

MEPS21: PROPOSAL REGARDING THE PASTORAL RELATIONS SABBATICAL LEAVE POLICY Origin: Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services

The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council recommend that:

1. the General Council amend the sabbatical leave policy by removing the word “consecutive” (The Manual, I.2.3.5);

That the Executive of the General Council approve that:

2. the Funding for Sunday Supply during a Sabbatical be reinstated; and

3. the “Pastoral Relations: Engaging and Supporting” Resource Document be amended to reflect these changes.

Rationale Following the 2011 review of the Pastoral Relations Sabbatical Policy, three focus groups were held to address the policy in four distinct areas: Purpose, Procedures, Flexibility, and Financing. In addition, a few individuals who did not participate in any of the focus groups provided input directly to the Ministry and Employment Unit. The purpose of the Sabbatical Leave was considered to be appropriately defined in the Pastoral Relations: Engaging and Supporting resource document. Generally, the procedures set out in that document relating to Sabbatical Leave were also considered appropriate.

Based on the input received from the participants, two areas of concern with the present policy were raised by a number of participants: flexibility and financing. There is support for the idea of permitting some flexibility in unique situations for ministry personnel to take sabbatical leave in blocks of time, rather than over a period of consecutive months. There is also support for the idea of providing some financial assistance from the General Council Office to pastoral charges for which financing supply ministerial services during the incumbent ministry personnel’s sabbatical leave presents a financial hardship.

It is proposed that the revised wording of the Policy and Procedures Point #1 (found on page 43 of the Resource Document) be:

It is the policy of The United Church of Canada that every pastoral charge provide a paid sabbatical of at least three months to those in paid accountable ministry who have completed at least five years of service in one call or appointment. Normally, the three months will be taken consecutively.

It is also proposed that a new Funding for Sunday Supply during a Sabbatical document be created and require that applications for funding be sent to the Ministry and Employment Unit. PAGE 92 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Given the feedback on the procedures concerning the Pastoral Relations Sabbatical Policy, it is proposed that a new communications strategy on the Sabbatical Policy be developed and communicated in the autumn of 2015 to ministry personnel in pastoral charges and to all pastoral charges.

Appendix A to this report contains examples of the feedback received through the focus groups. Appendix B to this report contains the 2011 Working Group Report on the Pastoral Relations Sabbatical Policy. Appendix C to this report contains the 2008 document “Funding for Sunday Supply during a Sabbatical”, for reference. These files are all available at the online library.

PAGE 93 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

MEPS22: PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO HAM 3, GC41 REGARDING FULL-TIME PAID ACCOUNTABLE MINISTRIES Origin: Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services

The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council approves that no action be taken on the proposal HAM 3.

Rationale The HAM 3 proposal, GC41 raises a concern about ministry personnel who wish to serve in full- time ministry positions and find that, while part-time ministry positions are open, a limited number of full-time positions are available. The proposed solution is a denominational policy that establishes full-time ministry as the norm.

There are many factors affecting the availability of full-time ministry positions. For example: • The willingness and ability of congregations to join together to create multi-point pastoral charges; • The distance between congregations which affects whether sharing ministry personnel is feasible; • The level of competition in the most populated areas for full-time ministry positions; • Diminishing resources of congregations to support paid ministry and the degree to which declining membership and resources has affected particular regions of the church; and • The number of large multi-staff churches where part-time program specific positions exist.

Furthermore, there is an on-going need for part-time ministry positions within The United Church of Canada for a variety of reasons: • They are needed for educational purposes – training for the Designated Lay Minister (DLM) program, for the distance M.Div. program offered through Atlantic School of Theology, and for the Supervised Ministry Education portion of the St. Andrew’s M.Div. program. Each requires part-time appointments in which students serve while engaged in their formation programs; • They serve as a source of income for some students in residential programs who require an ongoing source of income while continuing in their theological studies; • They address situations, particularly in team ministries, where the need for a specific type of ministry is not one of 40 hours/week, but rather a part-time need to supplement the work of a full-time ministry – such as a Minister of Pastoral Care, a Minister of Visitation, or a Minister of Christian Development; • They are a preferred choice of some older ordinands/commissionands who are entering ministry – some choose to be bi-vocational, continuing to work in their first career on a part-time basis while beginning to serve in a part-time ministry; some prefer to serve in a part-time ministry only while in retirement from a previous career;

PAGE 94 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

• They provide an opportunity for retired ministry personnel, who may no longer wish to serve on a full-time basis, to continue to address the ongoing ministry needs of the church; • They provide an opportunity for pastoral charges that can no longer afford to pay for full- time ministry to continue as a viable ministry through acquiring part-time ministerial services and relying to a larger extent on the leadership of their laity. It would be detrimental to the life of a number of pastoral charges if there were a requirement that all ministries be full-time; and • They provide an option for combining part-time ministries to create the equivalent of a full-time paid accountable ministry.

While the concern of HAM 3 is valid, the degree to which part-time ministry is experienced as a problem to be fixed varies throughout the church. A denominational policy that imposes the same objectives for every context is not warranted. Rather, policies and strategies related to the approval of ministry positions, whether full-time or part-time, should remain the responsibility of the presbyteries and/or Conferences.

Background Relevant Statistics: • Full-time ministry is defined as 40 hours per week. • The Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships Survey responses from ministry personnel revealed that: o 75.5% of respondents worked full-time (62.2% worked 40 hours/week; 14% worked over 40 hours/week); o 23% reported working part-time (9% work between 75% and 95% of full-time hours); and o 10% work less 20 hours/week or fewer. • Statistics available through ADP (the direct deposit payroll service provider) report that: o 72% of ministry personnel work full-time and; o 28% work part-time. • ADP report that of the 520 ministry personnel paid for part-time service, 27% are categorized as “Retired Supply”. • As of December 16, 2014, there were 47 ministry personnel working in more than one part-time paid accountable ministry. The statistics reflect these persons as serving in part- time ministries; however, more than half of these people work the equivalent of a full- time ministry. Of these 47, the combination of hours of the multiple appointments or calls amounted to a total of 40 hours per week for 51%: o 23% worked a combined equivalent of between 75 and 99%; o 13% worked a combined equivalent of between 50 and 74%; and o six individuals (13%) worked a combined total of hours in excess of 40 hours per week (three females and three males), with the highest number of hours per week being 52. • The Vacancy List reflects a variety of opportunities for service in both full-time and part- time ministries, including a number of combinations of part-time ministries in

PAGE 95 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

neighbouring ministries that equal one full-time ministry; opportunities to serve in full- time ministry are obviously enhanced if ministry personnel are willing to relocate.

HAM 3 was presented to the 41st General Council, with the following proposal:

Hamilton Conference proposes that: the 41st General Council 2012 recommend to Presbyteries through their ‘Oversight of Pastoral Charges’ (Section 330-337 in The Manual 2010) to encourage, to the best of its ability, full time employment for paid accountable ministers within its bounds.

PAGE 96 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

MEPS24: PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS SYSTEMIC INEQUALITY IN CLERGY COMPENSATION (LON3) Origin: Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services

The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council approve that:

1. The General Secretary continue to monitor salaries to determine whether inequities are emerging;

2. A further analysis be undertaken post-2018 after the full implementation of the new compensation salary model;

3. Support and guidance be provided through the implementation of the compensation model for both ministry personnel and local ministries in negotiating salary and optional benefits; and

4. No further action be taken at this time on LON3/2012.

Background A proposal went to GC41 to address a gender wage gap and how issues such as race, sexual orientation, disability and ethnicity may influence that gap. There is no data to analyze the related issues so this report focusses on the perception that there is “a significant gender gap in clergy income”.

Payroll data from March 2014 for 1,141 ministry personnel was analyzed to determine if salary inequities exist between the . This data represents approximately 60% of all ministry personnel. Data for the remaining 40% was inconsistent or not available through the payroll service. However, the data sample is sufficient to accurately represent the entire ministry personnel population1.

Rationale With the exception of Category F, females outnumber males and there is very little difference in base pay. The analysis by category showed females earn more than males in categories A through E although by small amounts. The analysis by region (not including category F) is more mixed but all differences are small. In the analysis by region (including category F), men make more at the average and median but not by significant amounts. The spread is mostly in the $2,000 to $3,000 per annum range. The greatest difference is in the spread at the maximum which is also true of the analysis by category.

1 The detailed analysis is available upon request to Stefanie Uyesugi [email protected] x3038 PAGE 97 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Category F represents those with 14 or more years of service. Males outnumber females but a real gender difference exists primarily for those paid more than $50,000. As demonstrated by the analysis of category F by years of service and salary ranges: • 35% of males are paid over $50,000 with an average salary of $55,584 • 16% of females are paid over $50,000 with an average salary of $53,895

Since a differential exists only in category F, it is likely the gap is a legacy issue and as those in Category F retire, the level of compensation between males and females will become more or less equal across all categories. Although, not an “apples to apples” comparison, pension plan data reveals that there are about 600 ministry personnel age 55 or older with more than 14 years of service in the plan and most will retire by age 65.

As part of the implementation of the new ministry compensation model, a resource will be prepared to assist both ministry personnel and pastoral charges when discussing compensation. Conceptually, it will include suggestions of things that might be taken into account when negotiating salary such as the cost of living in their area being at the upper end of the range, additional education or experience that would be to the benefit of the pastoral charge, scope of responsibilities, etc. Total compensation could include items in addition to salary such as additional vacation or the pastoral charge paying the premium for optional health and dental coverage. Also, webinars are planned to support the implementation of the new compensation model and could include a section on negotiating salary.

PAGE 98 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

MEPS25: GENDER TRANSITIONING HEALTH SPENDING ACCOUNT Origin: Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services

The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services recommends:

That the Executive of the General Council authorize the establishment of: • A Healthcare Spending Account for any plan member who self identifies as being in gender transition; • This account have a life time maximum of $20,000; and • An effective date of April 1st, 2015.

Background The Trans/Gender Diversity Task Group recommended that the group health plan be extended to include physical and mental health coverage for persons in gender transition who are employed by The United Church of Canada. It saw this as a tangible opportunity for the church to take a leadership position on an important issue regarding medically necessary procedures for people in transition. The Permanent Committee Ministry and Employment Policies and Services requested that research be undertaken to determine the cost of providing these benefits.

The church sponsors a health and dental plan and an Employee Assistance Plan that could provide some coverage specific to transitions. To focus the discussion and facilitate the formation of a recommendation, guidelines were established: 1. The United Church is called to support to those who self-identify as transgender and who require specialized medical procedures 2. Any medically necessary procedure will qualify for short/long term disability 3. Affordability within the plans is a consideration 4. Gender transition is more like a medical disability and should be treated in an even handed manner consistent with other medical disabilities 5. Any coverage for those in transition should be consistent with the philosophy of making proportionately reasonable and adequate provisions

The research shows that: • The percentage of the population likely to need this support is less than 1 percent • The requirements of each person will be different • Support for surgical procedures from provincial healthcare systems varies from none to partial to full • It may take several years to complete a transition • Not many policy statements from other organizations were found to use as a guide

Rationale There are three groups of services required for those in gender transition: psychological, medical (which is primarily drugs and ), and those that are generally considered cosmetic.

The Employee Assistance Plan (EAP) has some capacity to provide counselling to plan members and PAGE 99 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

their immediate family members who are in gender transition. These capabilities, however, would be strained if the person needed specialized, in-depth support in exploring issues of gender identity, the negative impact of , internalized transphobia, etc. Morneau Shepell could refer people to counsellors who specialize in transgender issues, but this specialized counselling would not be covered by the EAP.

The health and dental plan already covers some of the medical needs for those transgendering, primarily drugs if prescribed by a medical doctor, some part of the cost of seeing a psychologist or therapist, wigs and breast prosthesis. Coverage under the plan could be expanded if a Healthcare Spending Account (HSA) were established for a plan member who identified themselves as in gender transition. In this case, the HSA would cover many not covered by provincial healthcare plans. It could also pay for any cost of psychological therapy not covered by the regular health plan or the EAP as well as some other therapies such as voice and communication so long as the therapists are registered with the appropriate governing body.

HSAs are regulated by the Canada Revenue Agency in terms of what is a taxable benefit and what is not. As HSAs, by definition, provide benefits that are not taxable, some services required by those in gender transition cannot be covered because they are considered taxable. Broadly speaking, it is those services that would be considered cosmetic if they were to be provided to the general population. These include hair removal, facial feminization, breast or buttock augmentation and removal of the Adam’s apple. Although the CRA is starting to recognize that gender transition has legitimate and specialized needs, they appear to be reluctant to open the door on these procedures because it may be difficult to distinguish an actual need from a nice to have.

The only way to cover these types of services would be to set up a Personal Spending Account. Anything paid under this arrangement is a taxable benefit. Neither Green Shield nor the church has the infrastructure to manage this and it was not considered further.

Recommendation The Permanent Committee recommends that Green Shield be authorized to set up a Healthcare Spending Account for any plan member who self identifies as being in gender transition with a life time maximum of $20,000. This is consistent with current policies which place limits on other services such as paramedical, vision care or hearing aids, albeit a much higher but proportionate limit.

An effective date, April 1, 2015 would provide time to get the logistics for claims processing in place.

This does not solve the problem of provincial disparities. Not unlike in vitro fertilization, many provinces do not put a priority on funding procedures required by those in gender transition. Those living in provinces that do not cover any transgender surgery will have to pay more than those who live in provinces that do. While ideally the church’s plan would cover all provincial disparities in service it does not and it is felt that the plan cannot reasonably afford to do so with transgendering health costs. What it can do, as it does with other medical coverage, is provide some financial relief for the costs that are incurred. Additionally, even though an HSA will not cover all procedures recommended for complete gender transition, it does allow the preservation of the taxable status of the plan for all members.

PAGE 100 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

MEPS26: PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS BY PASTORAL CHARGES WITH RETIRED SUPPLY (HAM 9) Origin: Pension Board

The Pension Board proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council take no action with regard to the proposal from Hamilton Conference to establish a policy requiring Pastoral Charges served by retired supply ministers to contribute the employer portion to the United Church Pension Plan.

The 41st General Council 2012 referred HAM 9 regarding pension contributions to the Executive of the General Council. It, in turn, referred it to the Pension Board for consideration.

Background Prior to 2011, the pension plan required pastoral charges to contribute the employer portion if they did not have an employee contributing to the plan. However, this was identified as offside with the Income Tax Act and was removed.

Upon receipt of this proposal from the Executive, the Pension Board consulted with its legal advisor, Hicks Morley. Their opinion is found at the online library (MEPS 26 Appendix A). In summary, they advised that a contribution into the pension fund is not allowed unless it can be directly attributable to a member or members accruing pension benefits (a retired member in appointment is no longer accruing benefits but drawing benefits). While not impossible, it would be extremely expensive administratively and involve the actuarial advisor to do many individual calculations each year. It would also mean the Text of the plan would have to be amended and the actuary would have to change the expense assumption used to develop the discount rate for valuation purposes.

The only other way to have pastoral charges served by a retired supply minister to financially support the pension plan would be to impose an assessment or levy that would be used for a purpose outside of the pension fund. This money would have to be tracked separately so that it could be demonstrated to the Canada Revenue Agency, should there be an audit, that it was not used for pension benefit purposes. The assessment could be used to defray some of the administrative expenses of running the pension plan but there is the danger of blurring the line between what is a church expense and what is an expense payable out of the pension fund.

There is also the complexity of how to calculate the assessment. If it were a flat rate per charge, it would be more onerous for small ones. If it were a percentage, there is no obvious factor on which to base it. Finally, the administrative cost to assess, collect and account for the money coming in would be substantial.

Although Hicks Morley takes the view that the Pension Board has the authority under its Terms of Reference to require an employer assessment as a pension related matter, the Pension Board believes that since it cannot be for direct benefit to the Plan, it is more properly decided by the Executive and administered by the General Council Office apart from the Plan. The Executive operating as the Executive of the General Council and not the plan Administrator does not have the same fiduciary standard of care to which the Pension Board would be held. The Executive would have greater latitude to defend its actions.

PAGE 101 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

G&A 11 MEETING DATES FOR THE EXECUTIVE OF GENERAL COUNCIL 2015-2018 Origin: Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda

The Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda proposes that:

That the Executive of the General Council establish their tentative meeting schedule for the triennium 2015-2018 with meeting dates as follows:

• November 21-23, 2015

• April 30–May 2, 2016

• November 19-21, 2016

• May 6-8, 2017 (if the Executive only) or June 24-26, 2017 (if the Executive meets with General Council Commissioners joining by webinar for part of the time)

• November 18-20, 2017

• March 2-3, 2018 or April 7-9, 2018( if the Executive meets with General Council Commissioner joining by webinar for part of the time)

Background These dates may change as we work through the 2015-2018 triennium to best accommodate the implementation of the decisions from the 42nd General Council in response to the Comprehensive Review Task Group’s proposal.

It is important to save possible meeting dates in our calendars for these important meetings to ensure good attendance and good work plans. The aim is to be good stewards of our resources – time, money and carbon footprint. The length and/or the method of meeting may be changed based on the amount and nature of business to be completed (e.g., a webinar meeting may require less agenda time).

The November 21-23, 2015 and the November 18-20, 2017 meetings will be held at General Council Offices. Other meetings may take place by webinar.

Some dates may be changed to accommodate business. For example, if there are decisions to be made by the Commissioners to General Council (e.g., approval of remit results) those Commissioners who are not members of the Executive may join a scheduled meeting by webinar. The date of the meeting might be changed to accommodate the workflow of the General Council.

PAGE 102 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

NOTE for GCE members who are serving on a Permanent Committee: An Orientation Meeting followed by meetings of Permanent Committees will be held for all permanent committee members at General Council Office beginning on Friday, October 16, 2015 at approximately noon. The orientation will conclude at lunch time on Saturday, October 17, 2015. The Permanent Committees will set their own agenda times for the rest of the weekend. Further information will be provided as details are arranged.

PAGE 103 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

FIN 7 APPROVAL OF 2015 OPERATING BUDGET REVISION Origin: Permanent Committee on Finance

The Permanent Committee on Finance proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council approve the 2015 revised Operating Budget as summarized in the “2015 Budget Proposed” Column in the attached exhibit.

Background: Historically, the Executive of General Council has approved operating budgets in the fall of each year for the following year. This approach worked well when we had adequate reserves and a relatively stable revenue picture, but for 2013 and 2014, we asked the Executive to receive a budget outlook and approve any time-sensitive variables in November, and then formally approve the definitive operating budget in the spring once the prior year revenue picture was known. In November 2014, we reverted to past practice because we felt any revenue shortfall or overage would not materially change the basis for our budget. We are however including an update now – primarily to show the projected impact on reserve depletion on future years.

The previously approved budget for 2015 targeted an operating deficit of $6.4 million which would be reduced to $5.7 million with investment income. With 2014 results better than plan, we have re-set the budget with an operating deficit of $5.96 million which would be reduced to $5.23 million with investment income. More notably, the cumulative multi-year projections improve as a result, which gives us more capacity to make the changes we still need to make.

The future projections do not reflect any cuts, but we know that we will need to implement further restructuring for 2016 onwards – either in conjunction with GC42 approved Comprehensive Review recommendations or – in some form – Plan B. It will be imperative that any approved recommendations arising from the Comprehensive Review process be implemented in a very timely manner.

The 2015 revised budget recommendation reflects: • A more optimistic Mission and Service revenue assumption based on 2014 results. We are now using $1 million decline for 2015, 2016 and 2017 versus more pessimistic numbers in the fall. It is important to note that we are uncoupling “fundraising targets” from what we will actually use in the budget. We hope the decline might only be in the magnitude of $500,000 per year, but we need to hope for the best and plan for something less than that. We would also anticipate some disruption with the rollout of Comprehensive Review recommendations • Fuller detail on the impact of beginning to endow one-time legacy gifts as directed by the Executive in May 2014. (30% in 2014,40% in 2015, 50% in 2016 then subject to review) • Minor adjustments and corrections to NON 2015 figures to offer a better apples to apples comparison using our new reporting methodology.

PAGE 104 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

EXHIBIT FIN 7 - 2015 Revised Budget 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 Key Assumptions: COLA 1.50% COLA 1.50% Ongoing decline in M&S Investment yield at 4.5% Rent inducements COLA 1.5% COLA 2.90% Pension Contributions increased 2% costs Review Comprehensive Investment yield 12.5% Reduction in grants Staff reductions Review Comprehensive Begin endowing legacies COLA 0.90% Review Comprehensive Ongoing decline in M&S Increased expenses (1.1%) Investment yield at 4.5% Archive Move $600,000Archive One time Move costsSeverance incurred in 2013 Investment yield at 10.0% Ongoing decline in M&S Investment yield at 4.5%

( (8 (5 C9 C9 C5 (13 (14 (10 C11 C10 - - - 590 230 868 317 577 250 234 180 1,125 1,000 2,825 21,339 (1,125) (7,743) (7,563)

( ( (8 (5 C9 C9 C8 C5 (13 (14 C10 - - - 641 230 577 250 234 481 2016 2017 1,954 1,939 1,360 1,360 1,0912,5671,283 1,073 2,606 1,243 3,1363,713 3,1363,7461,641 3,713 3,746 1,641 2,250 2,250 2,000 2,000 3,850 3,849 1,3062,6681,291 1,294 2,716 1,236 2,800 1,125 1,000 7,880 1,068 21.4% 0.9% 11,551 11,760 36,848 36,997 22,139 (1,125) (6,575) (6,094) Outlook Outlook

(7 (6 (8 (5 (11 (13 (10 (14 (10 0.0% 5.2% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2014 6.5% 9.7% 1.5% 4.7% 10.5% 15.4% 17.4% 17.4% (1.4%) (2.4%) (1.1%) (3.5%) (22.6%) (43.8%) (19.1%) 2015 vs 2015 vs Budget % Reduced %

C C9 C9 C8 C5 C5 - - - 694 230 900 577 250 234 730 2015 (900) 1,992 1,954 1,360 1,268 1,110 2,465 1,283 1,350 3,136 3,713 3,746 1,641 2,250 2,000 3,748 2,517 1,391 2,652 37.5% Initial Initial 22,939 11,441 31,315 15.3% 30,273 29,254 14,173 0.0% 14,173 14,173 37,278 25,557 6.1% 24,332 23,332 (5,963) 13,974 Budget (5,233)

(1 (9 (3 (4 (5 (2 C8 (10 (10 74.6% 96.4% 79.1% 91.9% 30.8% 73.7% 68.3% 92.9% 98.4% 80.4% 94.6% 74.5% 101.9% 102.8% 123.8% 110.0% 101.8% 134.5% 101.4% 100.0% 101.5% 191.2% Budget % of Annual of % - - 578 198 931 366 746 863 857 466 478 193 2014 2014 (367) (548) 1,734 Actual (2,282) Prelim Prelim 19,207

C6 - - - - 775 160 103 682 250 259 (75) 103 2014 1,625 1,567 1,927 1,525 3,194 3,282 1,360 1,250 2,421 1,330 1,463 1,171 2,7071,3784,085 2,755 1,853 4,608 2,596 3,0313,7133,746 3,072 1,641 3,450 3,746 1,666 2,671 1,224 4,533 2,1141,488 1,700 1,408 50.8% 54.7% 23,277 23,728 11,174 10,997 36,992 32,816 88.7% 14,173 13,650 96.3% 36,889 35,098 95.1% 27,203 26,048 95.8% 18,724 Approved Budget as as Budget

New Budgeting Model - Revised 2015 Budget for GCE C3 C5 C4 C1 C2 C5 C5 (12 - - - 672 600 494 192 219 (per 2013 3,117 1,326 audit) 1,832 Actual (3,459) 19,755 (1,627)

C1 C2 C5 C4 C5 C5 (12 - - - 771 610 117 1,024 663 833 262 241 (per 807 2012 1,929 1,439 2,037 1,862 2,965 3,208 1,046 1,301 1,632 1,568 1,7271,4062,5793,985 1,263 1,539 1,425 2,964 2,236 3,611 1,403 3,6734,4764,512 3,661 1,837 4,358 4,541 1,714 2,236 3,611 2,8771,794 2,648 1,317 51.8% 50.4% audit) 24,561 23,961 12,167 11,444 34,868 35,717 16,207 16,175 41,250 39,176 28,429 29,140 Actual (6,382) 21,382 (5,575)

% of operating of % Endowment M&S of Bequest and Special M&S Bequests M&S Special Donations M&S One-Time Gifts (gross) Committee Meeting Expenses Travel ExpensesTravel Resources M&S Contributions M&S One Time Gifts (net) Other Bequests Staff Costs Grants Externally Funded Costs Other Grants Foundation Grants Endowment other of bequests M&S Contributions UCW - Total M&S Retail Sales Costs of Recovery Other Revenues &Other Recoveries Revenues Global Grants Global Overseas Personnel MissionCdn Support Conference Operating Theological Schools & Ed Centres Transfers Reserves from Office Costs Professional Fees Property & Insurance Expenses Banking fees as at December 31, 2014 Revenues: The United Church - of General Canada Council Office - Operating Budget (000's) Income/GainsInvestment OperatingFinal Surplus (Deficit) Reserves Unrestricted Available Total Revenues Total Expenses Operating (Deficit) or Surplus Expenses

PAGE 105 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

GS 51 OPENING MOTIONS Origin: General Secretary, General Council

The General Secretary, General Council proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council: 1. Approve the minutes of the Executive of the General Council meeting held November 15-17, 2014 2. Receive for information, the minutes of the meetings of the Sub-Executive of the General Council held October 15, November 27, December 18, 2014 and January 7, 2015.

3. Receive for information the following: • General Secretary’s Accountability Report • Moderator’s Accountability Report • 42nd General Council Planning Committee Accountability Report • Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools Accountability Report • World Council of Churches Report • Joint Grants Committee Report • Aboriginal Ministries Council Accountability Report • Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee Accountability Report • Permanent Committee on Finance Accountability Report • Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda Accountability Report • Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services Accountability Report • Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry Accountability Report • Correspondence to the Executive of the General Council to February 20, 2015

4. Adopt the following proposals: • G&A 11 Dates for the 2015-2108 Triennium • MEPS 18 Conference Interview for Interim Ministers • MEPS 19 Sabbaticals for Persons Involved in Interim Ministry (HAM 10) • MEPS 20 Changes to the Admission Policies and Procedures • MEPS 21 Pastoral Relations Sabbatical Leave Policy • MEPS 22 Response to HAM 3, Full-Time Paid Accountable Ministers • MEPS 24 Response to LON 3, Address Systemic Inequality in Clergy Compensation • MEPS 25 Gender Transitioning Health Spending Account • MEPS 26 Response to HAM 9, Pension Contributions by Pastoral Charges with Retired Supply • FIN 7 2015 Budget Approval - Revised

PAGE 106 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Background Evaluation and experience has shown that the agendas of meetings of the Executive are full and that time for fulsome discernment and discussion of important items is occasionally lacking.

A consent agenda is a tool to help focus the Executive meeting on what is most important. Proposals which are routine or non-controversial actions or routine changes in policy or procedure are also included in the consent agenda. At the meeting, any voting member of the Executive may request to move any item(s) from the consent agenda to be placed on the meeting’s agenda. By courtesy, advance notice would be given to the General Secretary.

In this consent agenda you will find the minutes of the previous meetings, all accountability and interim reports of committees, task groups and working groups. The list of the correspondence to the Executive (as per the Correspondence Policy adopted at the May 2008 meeting) is included with the reports to be received for information. There are 8 proposals in this consent agenda.

Process The process for acting on the consent agenda in the opening sessions will be as follows:

1. Presider/chair: “You have all received the workbook, with the consent agenda. Does any member wish to move an item from the consent agenda to be placed on the meeting’s agenda by the Agenda Table?”

2. If any voting member requests it, an item is moved. (By courtesy, advance notice would be given to the General Secretary.)

3. Presider/chair: “Without discussion, then, the consent agenda is ready for a vote. Those in favour? Opposed? All items on the consent agenda are adopted.”

PAGE 107 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

GS52 PROCEDURAL MOTIONS Origin: General Secretary, General Council

General Secretary, General Council proposes:

Procedural Motions Worship, Music, and Theological Reflection That the worship leadership for this meeting be provided by Maya Landell.

That the music leadership for this meeting be provided by Andrew Aitchison.

That the theological reflector for this meeting be barb janes.

Resource People That Resource people for this meeting be the Executive Ministers and Officers, Cathy Hamilton, Bruce Hutchinson, Diane Bosman, Cynthia Gunn, James Scott and Karen Smart.

Administrative Staff/Volunteers That the administrative staff for this meeting be Susan Fortner, Stephanie Uyesugi, Shirley Welch and Susan Whitehead. That the administrative volunteers be Gary McKay, Karen McLean and Jean Wilson. The minute secretary for this meeting be Susan Fortner.

Chaplain That the Chaplain for this meeting be Thom Davies.

Friend in Court That the Friend in Court for this meeting be Anna Stewart.

Reference and Counsel That the Reference and Counsel for this meeting be Kellie McComb and Florence Sanna.

Sessional Committee Co-Chairs That the co-chairs of Sessional Committees for this meeting be:

Blue Sessional: Graham Brownmiller and Laura Fouhse Red Sessional: Adam Hanley and Sue Brodrick Yellow Sessional: Bev Kostichuk, Paula Gale and Janice Brownlee

Agenda That the Executive of the General Council adopt the agenda for this meeting and that changes to the agenda, which may be necessary as the meeting evolves, be made on the recommendation of the Agenda Table.

PAGE 108 revised 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

GS 54 SITE OF THE 43RD GENERAL COUNCIL 2018 Origin: General Secretary, General Council

The General Secretary, General Council proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council accept the invitation of the Bay of Quinte Conference to host the 43rd General Council 2018 (July 21-28) at UOIT (University of Ontario Institute of Technology) and Durham College in Ontario.

Background: The site of the meeting of General Council has rotated from west, to central, to east to central regions of Canada. The 43rd General Council 2018 is scheduled to be hosted in the central region of Canada. The following Conferences are candidates to host: Montreal/Ottawa, Bay of Quinte, Toronto, Hamilton, London and Manitou. The Request for Proposals was circulated and also offered an additional option for considering a proposal for a permanent location for this meeting from all Conferences.

With great excitement The Bay of Quinte Conference has extended a warm welcome to the General Council to meet within its bounds in the summer of 2018. The last time General Council met in this Conference was in 1968 and previous to that 1942.

The Conference has researched a few sites within its bounds and has recommended UOIT/Durham College in Oshawa. UOIT has a beautiful campus which is fully accessible and technologically state of the art. It has sufficient rooms to meet all of our needs, including large meeting rooms, a good meal plan and a number of modern residences. There are also a number of local hotels, motels and restaurants.

Oshawa is located 45 minutes (61 km) east of Toronto along the 401 corridor and is easily assessable by train, GO Train, bus and car. In addition the Highway 407 expressway will be extended out to Oshawa by 2015 which will also make air travel an easy option.

The Bay of Quinte Conference is excited about hosting the 43rd General Council. At its executive meeting in September 2014, it passed a motion in favour of this proposal. It has also been met with enthusiasm from the folk of Lakeridge Presbytery, some of whom have already volunteered to serve on the local arrangements committee or wherever else is needed to make this possible. There have been early conversations with Cheryl Jourdain and the All Native Circle Conference about the possibility of co-hosting this General Council.

The proposed site was shared among the eligible Conference Executive Secretaries/Speaker and they have also offered their full support.

Bill Smith, Bay of Quinte Executive Secretary and Karen Smart, from GCO Staff have completed a site tour and confirmed that this venue offers all the needed accommodations and amenities to host this meeting.

PAGE 109 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

This venue would also work for a larger gathering should the 42nd General Council change the format of this meeting to increase the number of participants.

A challenge of this site is that this venue has already been booked for our normal meeting time. The meeting dates would have to move forward to July 21-28, 2018.

The travel and facility costs are $108,000 less than Ottawa and $325,000 less than Corner Brook. The meals and accommodation are slightly higher than Ottawa due to inflation ($3 per day per person) and lower than Corner Brook ($20 per day less per person).

It is anticipated that a meeting at this location based on the same number of participants would require a budget of $1,000,000 rather than the $1,300,000 plus budgeted for the 42nd General council. We believe this cost could be further reduced by using buses, carpools and trains for those travelling within 500 km. There would also be a reduction in staff costs as staff would be able to easily drive or take the GO Train. Parking is free on site.

A sincere thank you is extended to Bay of Quinte Conference for presenting a thorough and exciting proposal.

PAGE 110 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

GS 55 MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF MINISTRIES WITH THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE REPUBIC OF KOREA Origin: General Secretary, General Council

The General Secretary proposes that the Executive of the General Council:

i) approve in principle the following Memorandum of Understanding between The United Church of Canada and the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea, and

ii) direct the General Secretary to work with the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea to finalize the terms of the Memorandum and develop with the PROK the Implementation Guidelines, and, in whatever ways are appropriate implement the spirit of this agreement at the earliest opportunity; and

iii) forward the Memorandum to the 42nd General Council (2015) for formal approval, signing and celebration.

Background:

The Executive of General Council in May 2012 authorized the General Secretary to initiate bilateral conversations towards Mutual Recognition of Ministry agreements. They directed that these conversations include if possible a Canadian denomination, one U.S. based denomination, and a number of global or overseas denominations.

In May 2014, the Executive gave approval in principle to a Memorandum of Understanding for the mutual recognition of ministries with the United Church of Christ of the Philippines.

At this meeting, in addition to this proposal for mutual recognition of ministry with the PROK, the Executive will also receive a proposal for a Full Communion agreement with the United Church of Christ (USA). The UCC (USA) Full Communion conversation is more encompassing than Mutual Recognition of Ministry because of the geographical proximity of our churches. There are United Church of Christ congregations in Canada, a number of our Conferences have bilateral relationships with UCC (USA) Conferences and there are significant common areas of mission. Full Communion agreements also incorporate mutual recognition of membership, which again makes sense in churches that are geographically connected. The full communion agreement will also encompass the mutual recognition of ministries, but in the UCC (USA) polity this will require further action by a subsequent General Synod.

In May 2014, the Executive received background material on mutual recognition of ministry.

PAGE 111 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Memorandum of Understanding Mutual Recognition of Ministries

The United Church of Canada and The Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea.

Through this agreement The United Church of Canada and the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea enter into an ecumenical partnership that: recognizes the ordained or ordered ministries of both denominations (the ordained and commissioned (diaconal) ministries of the UCC, and the ordained ministry of the PROK); and establishes the framework where ordained and commissioned ministers of each denomination can have mutual authorization for exercising all the prerogatives of ministry in each other’s congregations.

In so doing the UCC and the PROK affirm each other’s ministries as true ministries of the one, holy Church of Jesus Christ, blessed by God and called to provide leadership in the church through word and sacrament, pastoral care and education.

In entering this agreement, the churches affirm their desire to give visible expression to the prayer of Jesus “that they all may be one.” (John 17:21) Because of this, we believe that we are “no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him”, we believe “the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.” (Ephesians 2:19-21)

Introduction The Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea and The United Church of Canada, from the foundation of the PROK in 1953, and in their respective bodies long before that time, have been partners in mission. The Presbyterian Church in Korea was established in 1907, but the division which created the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea (PROK) was forced when the majority Presbyterian Church could not accept the more liberal theology being taught by some Korean professors, as well as William Scott of Canada, and espoused by churches whose clergy had studied under them. They were ordered to recant on a charge of heresy, but refused and, leaving, formed the PROK. The United Church was the sole partner denomination choosing to continue to stay in relationship with the PROK in that division. Canadian missionaries shared the grief caused by this separation, reminiscent of the pain in Canadian communities at the Presbyterian conflict over in 1925. At the same time all endured the great grief of being a mission in exile after the division of the country and the Korean War forced the Canadian mission from its centre in Hamheung in present North Korea to Seoul, along with the loss of so many Christians and friends through the conflict of the Korean War.

United Church overseas personnel and its predecessors since the first days have served the PROK in education, medical, social service, administrative, and other fields. Canadians were a

PAGE 112 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015 significant presence in the liberation struggles of Korea, during the Japanese occupation of 1910- 1945, and the dictatorship days of the 1970s and 80s. United Church theological reflections on mission and ecumenism have been greatly enriched by Korea's minjung theology. The churches continue to work closely together in justice and peace issues, including most recently shared work on empire and economic justice

The partnership in God’s mission of PROK and UCC has emerged from the historic missionary movement to current expressions of the sharing of mission personnel and resources, mutual accountability and common witness. Both denominations are committed to deepening their commitments to new forms and expressions of partnership in the world so that God’s people and God’s world may be blessed.

Both recognize that the world has changed remarkably in the last two generations. The Korean population in Canada is now the fourth largest in the world outside Korea and continuing to grow significantly. The UCC is deeply concerned about connecting with this growing Korean population so that it might receive their gifts and be transformed into a church that would better serve God’s purposes in the new Canadian reality.

The PROK is concerned for its Korean members now resident in Canada and desires to find ways of continuing to support them pastorally. The PROK also recognizes the growing Canadian and English speaking population in Korea and desires that there be opportunities to share in ministry with the United Church of Canada to this community.

The UCC acknowledges the presence of many Korean ministers and congregations already within the ministry of the United Church. A Mutual Recognition Agreement would expand the possibilities for leadership in these and in new congregations as well as the possibilities for United Church ministers to gain valuable experience serving in the PROK for a time.

The PROK acknowledges that this agreement will provide opportunity for some of their ministers to gain experience and skills in leadership in ministry that might otherwise not be available in Korea. Ministers may gain expanded opportunities for congregational leadership and experience of inter-cultural and multi faith communities and families.

Both denominations believe that a mutual recognition of ministries is one step of greater cooperation towards the objective of sharing together in God’s mission.

Understandings of Ministry The UCC and the PROK acknowledge the differences that exist in their understandings and practices of ministry.

The United Church in particular notes its understanding of one order of ministry with two expressions, ordained and diaconal. The United Church believes that there is consistency in understanding and in educational preparation between ordained minsters in both churches. It commends to the PROK the distinctive role of diaconal ministers within the UCC and their historic connection to the world-wide movement of diakonia. It commends the diaconal ministry

PAGE 113 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

of the United Church to the PROK within this agreement as those ordered within the United Church to distinctive service of education, social justice and pastoral care and invites the PROK to receive their gifts.

Within The United Church of Canada ordered ministers are called to a distinct role of leadership within the church. Their leadership is authorized and exercised through their membership in a presbytery (or district). Through this membership, they are called to exercise governance and leadership, shared with elected leaders, in the ministry of the church. Ordered ministers are office holders within The United Church of Canada. While there may be elements similar to employment, the essential nature of the relationship is a covenant with the presbytery, and the pastoral charge or presbytery recognized ministry, and God.

Ordained and diaconal ministers are ordered by the church and serve the mission and ministry of the United Church as a whole. Preparation for ordered ministry involves university level theological study and an extensive discernment and assessment process. Ordered Ministers maintain the historic connection of the United Church to the church catholic through the faithful witness to the apostolic tradition and the interpretation of a living faith. Ordered ministers carry responsibility as communicators of the tradition enacted in word and sacrament, education and service. They serve as resident theologians, called to bring the church’s theological heritage into the context of God’s mission in the world.

They are ordained and commissioned to the ministry of The United Church of Canada within the Holy Catholic Church. Consistent with the historic traditions of the church, in the United Church ordination and commissioning take place through the laying on of hands and once enacted, are not re-enacted.

Within the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea ordained ministers are called to serve roles of pastor, teacher, evangelist or other roles according to their own talents and the church’s need. There is no difference between a minster and a layperson as a new being in Jesus Christ. However the minister is distinguished from a layperson because of the responsibilities they hold. In a sense of serving the church wholly, the responsibility is a most dignifying, useful, and professional role.

Within the PROK ordained ministers are expected to be sincere in faith and be capable of teaching; healthy and committed to the mission of the gospel. They should manage their own families well, and receive respect from others (1 Timothy 3:1-7).

Ministers are called to lead worship authorized by presbytery. They select hymn, psalms, Bible passages for worship and they are responsible for pastoral prayer, sermon, and benediction. They have authority to exercise ritual, that is, baptism and sacrament by the determination of the board meeting (which is composed of the minster and elders) or the permission of presbytery. They have responsibility to lead the baptized to enroll in a church. And when the pastor is asked to administer the sacrament and baptism by another denomination, church, church association, and other special cases, they can exercise or participate as long as it is not against their conscience.

PAGE 114 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Ministers are in charge of church administration and discipline for the holiness and peace of the church. Ordained ministry within the PROK is understood to express the commitments of the diakonia in service, education and social justice.

Ministers teach the Bible, doctrines, and church rules to their congregations. They do pastoral visits. They should pray and serve especially for the poor, the ill, the wounded, and the weeping. Ministers can serve educational organizations, administrative institutes, and other mission organizations and they should be devoted to their responsibilities.

Ministry Partner and Eligibility for Call

Mutual Recognition of Ministries means that the ministries of both denominations are considered to be eligible for call, appointment or service within both denominations subject to individual approval as a ministry partner.

Ministers of both denominations must be approved through the respective processes of each denomination to be recorded as a ministry partner. The application of a minister from either denomination is based on a letter of good standing from their respective denominations. The PROK and the UCC commit to ensuring that such letters of good standing ensure that the denomination commends the minister to the other, that their credentials are in order, and that there are no disciplinary actions in process. In addition, letters of reference will be provided indicating that their ministry has demonstrated effective and faithful qualities and character.

Within The United Church of Canada, An ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea is invited to apply to the national officer of the United Church responsible for oversight of this agreement. The application format (available on-line) includes a personal statement on ministry and the interest in serving within the United Church. An interview will be arranged either in person or electronically, to review the minister’s interest and to determine the preparation and suitability for doing so. As part of the process, the PROK minister applying to become a ministry partner is expected to have gained an appropriate understanding and appreciation for the ethos and polity of the United Church. To assist in this preparation, the United Church provides a range of materials available on-line. Once approved as a ministry partner the PROK minister will have the same standing as all United Church ministers in eligibility for call or appointment to a United Church congregation. This status will enable a PROK minister either from within Canada or from Korea (or elsewhere in the world) to make applications to United Church congregations advertising for a minister and indicate that they are eligible for call or appointment. It is important to note that this status of eligibility for call does not predetermine or eliminate the further steps that will be required through Immigration Canada (Government of Canada) for a work permit in Canada.

Within the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea, An ordained or diaconal minister of the United Church of Canada is invited to apply to the national officer of the PROK responsible for oversight of this agreement. The

PAGE 115 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

application format includes a personal statement on ministry and the interest in serving within the PROK. An interview will be arranged either in person or electronically, to review the minister’s interest and to determine the preparation and suitability for doing so. As part of the process, the UCC minister applying to become a ministry partner is expected to have gained an appropriate understanding and appreciation for the ethos and polity of the PROK. To assist in this preparation, the PROK provides a range of materials.

Once approved as a ministry partner the UCC minister will have the same standing as all PROK ministers in eligibility for call or appointment to a PROK congregation. This status will enable a UCC minister either from within Korea (or elsewhere in the world) to make applications to PROK congregations through the usual processes.

It is important to note that this status of eligibility for call does not predetermine or eliminate the further steps that will be required for a work permit in Korea.

Responsibilities Recognizing the different cultures and practices that define each other’s identity and the difficulties that are present in adapting to ministry in an unfamiliar context, the PROK and the UCC commit to ensuring that adequate programs exist within each denomination to support ministry partners. These support programs will include mentoring and accompaniment of ministry partners for the first year or more of their appointment or call.

The PROK and the UCC, through their Presbyteries or other appropriate means, will also undertake a reflection meeting with the ministry partner at the end of their first year of service. The intention of this reflection is to assist the ministry partner in reviewing the first year of ministry in the partner denomination, and determining what additional work or support might be helpful in more effectively functioning in ministry.

Contexts of Ministry The PROK and the UCC commit to honouring the specific contexts and commitments of each other’s ministry. Each denomination will encourage its minsters seeking to become a ministry partner in the other denomination to be sensitive to and to honour these commitments.

Discipline and Accountability Ministry Partners, who are called or appointed to a ministry in the partner denomination, are seen for the purposes of discipline and accountability, to be equivalent to being admitted to the ministry of the denomination while under appointment or call.

While under appointment or call they are fully accountable to the respective Presbyteries and subject to its discipline. Such oversight and discipline will be consistent with the polity and practices of the denomination they serve. Forms of disciplinary action will vary by context and the practice of denominations, but ultimately can lead to the removal of ministry partner status. In such a case, the relationship of the partner denomination with the ministry partner is severed, the pastoral relationship, call or appointment ends, and disciple and accountability reverts to their

PAGE 116 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015 home denomination. In all processes of discipline of a ministry partner, the partner denomination commits to ensuring that the home denomination is informed of the outcome of such processes. The status of ministry partner is also dependent upon the good standing of the ministry partner with their home denomination. In the event that the letter of good standing is revoked by the home denomination, the status of ministry partner also ends, the relationship of the partner denomination with the ministry partner is severed and the call or appointment is terminated.

Benefits and Compensation Ministry partners, while under appointment or call in the partner denomination will be compensated by and receive the appropriate benefits within that denomination. The home denomination of the ministry partner will have no responsibility for providing compensation or benefits. The partner denomination will ensure that ministry partners are compensated according to the established policies of the denomination and that adequate benefits are in place for health and insurance coverage and for pension contributions as permitted.

Time Limit of Ministry Partner Status A ministry partner, following application, interview and acceptance by the partner denomination, will maintain the status of ministry partner for a period of three years or for the duration of a call or appointment.

If the ministry partner is unable to secure a call or appointment within a three year period, ministry partner status must be renewed through a new application process. Each denomination will determine the extent of the re-application process and documentation required.

If the ministry partner has secured an appointment or call, the status continues throughout the call or appointment. At the end of the call or appointment, and at each change of pastoral relationship, a new application must be made for ministry partner status to be renewed. Each denomination will determine the extent of the re-application process and the documentation required.

Internship Supervised ministry education opportunities for ministry students will be explored. The PROK and the UCC will explore the ways in which such opportunities for cross cultural learning can be offered to candidates for ministry in the partner denomination. The exploration will include recognition of such internships as credit towards fulfillment of ordination requirements in the home denomination.

Implementation Guidelines Implementing Guidelines will be developed and approved by the respective Executive bodies of the denominations. Such guidelines will be updated periodically and include:

o Compensation, benefits and pension o Terms of appointments o Eligibility for consideration for formal admission (in recognition of the reality of migration but with a clear intention that the agreement not be a vehicle for emigration)

PAGE 117 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

o Options for those pastors who have relocated and desire to be recognized in their new church home o Oversight and discipline o Cultural sensitivities o Denominational identity, ethos, and culture o Form for tri-lateral covenant between the denominations and the ministry partner o Other required forms for application o An ongoing structure to intentionally evaluate and evolve the concept and practice of mutual recognition

Approval of this Agreement This agreement will be approved by the appropriate governing bodies of each denomination.

PAGE 118 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

GS56 FULL COMMUNION AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST Origin: General Secretary, General Council

The General Secretary proposes that the Executive of General Council

1. Receive the following proposal for a Full Communion Agreement with the United Church of Christ (USA)

2. and forward it to the 42nd General Council (2015) with a recommendation for adoption.

Background The General Secretary of General Council was authorized by the Executive (November 2013) to proceed with full communion conversations with the United Church of Christ (USA). This grew out of conversations on the mutual recognition of ministries with a number of partner denominations in the world. A joint partnership committee was established and has been meeting through the last year. The joint committee is now recommending that both churches proceed with a full communion agreement. A final report of their work is in process and will be complete for inclusion with the following proposal for the General Council.

Proposal: Full Communion Agreement with the United Church of Christ (USA) Origin: The Executive of General Council

The Executive of General Council proposes that the 42nd General Council of The United Church of Canada, meeting in Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador (August 8-15, 2015) make the following mutual declaration with the 30th General Synod of the United Church of Christ, meeting in Cleveland, Ohio (26-30 June 2015):

That the 42nd General Council

Acknowledge and celebrate before God that the United Church of Christ (USA) is an authentic, faithful part of the one, universal body of Christ.

Declare and celebrate that a relationship of full communion now exists between the United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ (USA), by which is meant that both churches will pursue with intention ways of expressing the unity of the Church. This includes commitment to mutually recognizing ordained ministers of each partner church as truly ministers of word and sacrament, and ways of manifesting the common mission of witness and service.

Commit itself to work, with God's help and together with its partner churches, to effect greater unity in the whole church of Jesus Christ, and

PAGE 119 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Together with the United Church of Christ;

Encourage study of the biblical, theological, and practical implications of the full communion agreement,

Direct the General Secretary, General Council to work collaboratively with the General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ to establish a United Church Partnership Committee to give guidance to this process,

Receive the final report of the joint full communion working group, including the possibilities presented for common life and witness together, and

Agree to commence the full communion agreement with the signing of the common agreement by the two Heads of Communion at a joint service of celebration that will include opportunities for local congregations and conferences across the two churches to celebrate in meaningful ways.

Background The United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ (USA) share a rich and similar history as “united and uniting” churches in North America. While the two churches share common heritage and values, both churches recognize that greater opportunities for shared common witness can be explored in the context of a full communion agreement. The 30th General Synod (2013) of the United Church of Christ (USA) and the Executive of General Council (November, 2013) therefore directed that work be undertaken to explore the possibility of such an agreement.

The United Church of Christ (USA) currently has three full communion agreements, each of which is an expression of visible unity, while exhibiting unique elements that define the relationship between the partners. 1The experience of the United Church of Christ therefore brought to this discussion a significant history that assisted in the exploration and meaning of a full communion agreement. This proposal comes after a year of study and engagement by representatives of both churches, charged with returning to General Council 2015 and General Synod 2015 a common document. The group of twelve (six from each church), determined that the churches, while similarly engaged, could learn from each other in ways that would enhance their mission and ministry in their respective contexts.

This resolution is a beginning that invites the United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ to explore and give vision to living in full communion in the twenty-first century and beyond. This is a vision of oneness in Christ.

1 The UCC(USA) is in a full communion agreement, including mutual recognition of ministries, with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and in two larger agreements across a number of denominations in the United States which emphasize common mission but do not include mutual recognition of ministries. PAGE 120 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Because the gospel of Jesus Christ unites Christ's followers in a single community of faith and compels us to make our unity visible so "that the world may believe..." (John 17:21, cf. Eph. 4:4- 6, 1 Cor. 12:12-26);

Because, the United Church of Christ and the United Church of Canada have common ecumenical partners, vision of the Church, commitment to social justice, the inclusion of all persons, and to a diverse theological expressions;

Because, the United Church of Christ and the United Church of Christ in our local churches, Conferences, and in national and international settings are witnessing significant signs of the movement of the Holy Spirit toward unity;

Because, the United Church of Christ and the United Church of Canada entered into a year of common discernment to seek God’s will and direction for ways to live as the one body of Christ;

Therefore the joint partnership committee in common agreement and spirit, offer this recommendation that a full communion agreement be established between our two churches.

Biblical, Theological and Ethical Rational In his last prayer with his disciples, Jesus prayed, “that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21, NRSV). The desire for unity and visible unity is at the heart and commitment of the ecumenical movement.

The United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ (USA) affirm this biblical understanding of unity which continues to guide the ecumenical commitment and engagement with other churches. The churches continue to seek meaningful ways to attend to the call in the gospel and to overcome the separations that stand in the way of the unity of the church that Jesus prayed for. As Christians there is an imperative to find ways to live in unity and to create visible unity for the life of the Church. This call is the essence of the ecumenical movement which seeks to find unity-in-diversity, creating the space to engage divergences and convergences through on-going dialogue and engagement.

Both churches were created by organic union and live into being “united and uniting” churches. The United Church of Canada was formed in 1925, united through the merger of the Methodist Church of Canada, two-thirds of the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the of Canada. In 1968, the Evangelical United Brethren joined in the union. Formed in 1957, the United Church of Christ (USA) brought together the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the Congregational Christian Churches, both of which were products of earlier mergers. The moment of organic union was not to be experienced as an end, but as a beginning, opening to a realm of possibilities to receive the oneness Jesus prayed for.

The establishment of a joint partnership committee followed two intentional meetings of the staff leadership of both communions. The joint partnership committee was charged to explore the possibility for full communion between the United Church of Canada and the United Church of PAGE 121 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Christ (USA), and to bring to the General Synod and the General Council in 2015 a full communion agreement.

The two churches envision full communion as a dynamic and growing relationship that is more than just accepting one another as we now are. It is a mutual commitment to grow together toward a vision of the church that enriches our theological traditions, enhances service and mission, and deepens worship. The United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ (USA) will find diverse expressions of what it means to live in full communion in Christ as we experience life together.

Unity and mission are inseparable. If the United Church of Christ and the United Church of Canada imagine being sacramentally one and do not engage together in mission, we deceive ourselves. Christ calls us to unite in one mission in and to a suffering and divided world. The church is called to visible oneness as a sign, instrument and foretaste of God's saving reconciliation of all things in Christ. In declaring full communion, these two churches acknowledge that they are partners together in God's mission to and for the whole world.

The mission of the church takes many forms. The church engages in mission through worship, through proclamation of the gospel, and through action. In worship, the church recalls and celebrates the mighty acts of God in creation, redemption, and providence. Thus graciously renewed in faith, hope, and love, its people are sent out in the power of the Holy Spirit to be ambassadors, witnesses, and servants of Christ in the world. In proclamation, the church tells the story by which its own life is defined. As it confesses unambiguously the Christ in whom it lives; the church invites all who will to enter its fellowship of life in Christ. In its action, the church embodies God's justice, peace, and love. As the church reaches out to others, both individually and systemically, it manifests God's reconciling purpose and saving reign in all the earth.

In partnership, the United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ (USA) fully claim the mission and make deliberate commitment to engage in mission together, wherever and whenever possible.

Members of the Joint Partnership Committee:

United Church of Christ: United Church of Canada: Sue Davies Mark Toulouse David Greenhaw Danielle Ayana James Campbell Lovett Daniel Hayward Bernice Powell Jackson Cheryl-Ann Stadelbauer-Sampa Karen Georgia Thompson (staff) Bruce Gregersen (staff) Accompanying the work of the committee: General Minister and President General Secretary Geoffrey Black Nora Sanders

PAGE 122 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

APPENDIX A: FULL COMMUNION Written by Professor Mark Toulouse for the United Church of Christ and United Church of Canada Full Communion Conversations, September 2014

Just what does an ecumenical partnership or “full communion” actually mean? The first thing to note is that these terms do not define a merger between different denominations. An ecumenical partnership emphasizes more a style of pragmatic unity in terms of witness, service, fellowship, worship, and the proclamation of a common faith. The United Church of Christ has, historically, entered several ecumenical partnerships. These partnerships generally rest on five pillars of acceptance and cooperation. Each of these are rooted in scripture and based upon the theological understandings reached and explored by both the COCU Consensus: In Quest of a Church of Christ Uniting (1984) and the Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry document (1982).

Five Pillars of Full Communion “Full Communion” does not constitute satisfaction with the status quo, but rather looks forward to “a dynamic and growing relationship.” It allows responsiveness, even as it provides an identity including mutual accountabilities. The agreement remains fluid by allowing autonomies within each church. Full communion is not tied to existing or future modes of governance within either denomination. A closer look at each of the five pillars that support a relationship of full communion affords us the opportunity of exploring some of the major theological assumptions supporting ecumenical progress in today’s Christian church.

(1) “Common Confession of Christ.” This pillar is built upon the common theological presupposition shared by both churches, that God is in Christ, reconciling the world to God’s self, and is the One in whom “we live and move and have our being (2 Cor. 5:19; Acts 17:28).’” Standing behind this common confession is the whole notion of covenant. In an ecumenical partnership, both churches recognize that covenant is a good word to describe God’s gracious and binding embrace of human life and our response to it. But churches in relationship with one another also recognize that God’s covenant can never be reduced to only one understanding or one particular dimension.

Two different traditions of covenant exist in the Old Testament. On the one hand, God’s covenant with Israel, sealed on Mount Sinai with Moses, is seen to be conditional, depending upon whether Israel obeys the challenge God has laid down for the people of God (Ex. 24). Will Israel obey God’s laws or not (Ex. 19:5; 1 Kings 6:12; 9:1–9)? In this understanding of covenant, the covenant itself requires those who are a part of it to be concerned with justice and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8).

On the other hand, the Old Testament also describes a covenant like the one made with Noah, Abraham, or David (Gen. 9:9–17; Gen. 17; 2 Sam. 17:14–15). In this covenantal relationship, God promised to fulfill God’s promises regardless of human obedience. For these three biblical characters, God’s grace came in the form of an unconditional and unmerited gift. Out of the depths of their hearts, each of them came to understand that such grace could only be fulfilled as each of them truly learned the meaning of stewardship. All that they had and were came from God. This recognition led them to be responsible stewards of themselves, the resources they found at their disposal, and the whole of the created order. PAGE 123 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

These two notions of covenant have long stood in tension with one another. The tension has continued even in the Christian community as it came to see itself as standing under the “new covenant” relationship with God as the “new Israel” (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 7—10; Gal. 6:14–16). Both sides of this tension, however, point to the fact that the covenant rests in God’s grace. Without God’s gracious activity, there would be no covenant and, therefore, no human response. For Christians, the offer of God’s grace calls those who receive that grace to the fulfillment of responsibilities, not because they are threatened, or because they hope to gain God’s favor, but because God’s grace has enabled a faithful human response born of love and gratitude. God’s divine initiative empowers Christians to be “response-able,” and thus gives them the ability to address the demands of God pertaining to the establishment of justice and the embodying of mercy in a broken and divided world. In this way, the concept of covenant speaks as much to human relationships as it does to the divine- human relationship. It is through this covenantal relationship with God that Christians who confess Christ know themselves to be in covenant with each other working on the behalf of all the peoples of the world, the entire family of God. In this, their common confession of Christ, the members of the United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ churches would be announcing that their status of “full communion” rests securely on a foundation established by God’s redemptive activity in Christ.

(2) “Mutual Recognition of Members.” This second pillar affirms what might be referred to as the concept of “mutuality.” Ecumenical conversations have taught both our churches that we have much to learn from the expressions of faith found in other Christian communities. In this second affirmation of full communion, both the United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ churches would recognize and affirm one another’s , and also affirm the members of one another’s churches. In full communion, both churches would agree to the “transfer of membership” between their local congregations “by letter.” Neither church would give up its own normative approach to the practice of baptism or church membership. Instead, their commitment to one another merely represents a desire to express their commitment to the fact that any differences in practices in this area should not divide them as churches.

These two limited representatives of God’s church, by entering full communion with one another, would point to the wider affirmation that God wills all Christians to live as one together, regardless of their differences. Paul, when confronted with bickering between Christians, warned that the house of Christ cannot be divided (1 Cor. 1:12–13). Full communion communicates a message, to one another and to other Christians, of full acceptance in spite of any differences existing between them. In this effort, they work to “Welcome one another…for the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7). In welcoming one another, the early Christian community could come to affirm the fact that diversity is a gift of God, given for the “common good” of the community (I Cor. 12:4–11). Mutuality is a current expression of this biblical insight.

(3) “Common Celebration of the Lord’s Supper/Holy Communion.” Since these churches confess Christ in common, and since they recognize one another’s baptism and accept one another’s members in each other’s congregations, it naturally follows that they should, when occasion might allow, share in the Lord’s table together. A recognition of full communion

PAGE 124 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015 would encourage congregations to cross borders where they might be geographically close to one another and to share worship and communion together.

(4) “Mutual Recognition and Reconciliation of Ordained Ministries.” In full communion, the two churches would affirm one another’s “ordained ministries” as belonging to the “one ministry of Jesus Christ.” Of course, the ministry of Jesus Christ is not limited merely to the ordained clergy. It includes all those who claim the name of Christ’s followers. Christ lived as one who served the people of God, and as one who proclaimed God’s reign among them. In the same way, Christ sends all Christians into this form of ministry in the world. Yet, there is a more specialized way to talk about ministry. The ordained ministry of the church, the work of women and men who dedicate themselves to become ministers of Word and sacraments, has a long history. The ordained ministry does what it can to facilitate and enable the wider ministry into which all Christians are called.

In ecumenical conversations, current ordained ministries are seen as an extension of the ministry performed by Christ in his life, death, and resurrection. Christ performed a ministry that represented God to all humanity. Empowered by the presence of the Holy Spirit, the ministry of today’s church continues the ministry of Jesus Christ. If it is to be true either to its heritage in Christ or to its calling by the Holy Spirit, the ordained ministry in any time and every location must serve on behalf of the church universal, not simply act in the name of a particular denomination. In the context of their full communion, these two churches would state their mutual recognition of each church’s ministries as belonging to the ministry of Jesus Christ. Ministers in one church will be recognized as ministers in the other church. Each may serve, when invited, as minister to the other. Though ministerial credentials are immediately recognized, each minister will need to go through the standard processes established by each denomination to gain official “standing” within the denomination. If a minister in either church is called to serve as a congregational minister in the other denomination, the minister will need eventually to demonstrate some familiarity with the history and identity of the denomination before complete ministerial standing within the denomination will be granted.

(5) “Common Commitment to Mission.” This fifth pillar of full communion between these two churches recognizes that genuine unity and mission are inseparable from one another. As John 17:21 states it, unity is essential to success in mission: “that they may all be one…so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” The modern ecumenical movement has affirmed with Emil Brunner that “the church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning.”2 Therefore, mission is not an option for the church; rather it, like unity, is part of its very essence. When the church is not engaged in mission, it ceases to exist as church. As the church is one, so must also the mission of the church be one. As these two denominations enter into full communion, they will recognize the various ways mission is undertaken by both churches and embrace the diversity associated with this one mission of the church.

2 Emil Brunner, The Word and the Church (London: SCM Press, 1931), p. 108. PAGE 125 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

MEPS 23: EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND HEALTHY PASTORAL RELATIONSHIPS REPORT FOR ACTION Origin: Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services

The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council recommend that the 42nd General Council, 2015:

1. Approve the principle of locating oversight and discipline, and pastoral relations policies with Conference, or equivalent; 2. Approve the principle that the denomination, or representative body, be responsible for education and communication about the denomination-wide oversight and discipline, and pastoral relations policies, and the best practices that consider regional and contextual circumstances; 3. Recognize the successful practices demonstrated by the testing Conferences, and ensure the incorporation of the following specific practices into pastoral relations procedures throughout the church: a) Prioritize financial and staffing support for programs intended to foster collegiality among ministry personnel; b) Provide support to local ministry unit governing bodies in their employer role and in particular, training and consultation for Ministry and Personnel Committees, Pastoral Relations/Settlement Committees; c) Maximize available communication and database management systems to support pastoral relations systems; d) Ensure access to conflict management and change management training for leaders who are initiating or implementing change; and 4. Recommend that the testing continue to further develop the principles to inform future policies.

Background These recommendations originate with work initiated by the 38th General Council, 2003 which referred the Report of the Task Group on Options for Simplifying Policies and Procedures Related to Pastoral Relations to the Executive of the General Council. The 39th and 40th General Councils referred eight further proposals that called for evaluation of oversight, discipline, and pastoral relations processes to the General Secretary to inform ongoing work.1

In May 2010, the General Secretary’s report “Planning for a Future Grounded in Faith and Action” and the subsequent motion of the Executive of the General Council directed proposals to be developed to simplify pastoral relations processes and shift responsibilities for some or all pastoral relations from presbyteries to Conferences. The report envisioned presbyteries being freed from the administrative burden of complex human resource and regulatory work so that its leadership could focus on

1 The 39th General Council, 2006 referred proposals GS3, GS23, BC4, LON3, TOR4, MNWO1, and GC94. The 40th General Council, 2009 referred proposal ANW16. PAGE 126 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015 supporting local ministries in their mission and ministry and foster a sense of greater support and collegiality among ministry personnel. The report also imagined that simplified processes would encourage a greater range of ministry possibilities by being more open and adaptable.

The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services undertook a number of initiatives to better understand the causes of the concerns being raised by these many petitions and proposals to General Councils and to research possible courses of action to address them. Current practices and requirements were evaluated, input on the experience of them was gathered, and best practices in other churches, professional and not-for-profit organizations were considered. These initiatives included: 1. the Isolation in Ministry project which engaged a major research survey of nearly 1,600 ministry personnel conducted in partnership with the research division of Warren Shepell (2005); 2. the Task Group on Demographics of Ministry Personnel which reviewed the current and projected demographics for ministry personnel, and the implications for recruitment, retention, and the pension and benefits plans (2008); 3. the Oversight and Discipline of Ministry Personnel projects which produced the Ethical Standards and Standards of Practice policy (2006), an extensive legal review of our oversight and discipline policies (2010) and two major reports (2008 and 2011) with recommendations for extensive changes to policy; 4. the Working Group on Isolation in Ministry (2010) which developed specific recommendations to address the issues identified in the 2005 research project; 5. the Pastoral Relations Policy Review Steering Group, which reviewed all policies in The Manual related to pastoral relations with recommendations for extensive changes to policy and polity (2010); 6. the Collaborative Research Project (2011), undertaken with the professional research firms Myers Norris Penny and Prairie Research Associates, surveyed more than 1,700 lay and ordered members of pastoral relations, pastoral oversight, and disciplinary hearing committees across the church testing earlier research conclusions and proposed directions for policy changes; 7. in addition to the above research and data, the Permanent Committee drew on the General Secretary’s church-wide invitation to comment on areas of policy needing simplification. A significant 135 responses were received from individuals, pastoral charges, presbyteries, and Conferences. The responses, though varied, spoke to a central theme: complex processes. A separate survey was posted to engage the youth voice and from youth and young adults.2

The research and studies revealed numerous recurring conclusions among members: 1. professional level support is required to assist pastoral charges with ministerial compensation and benefits, annual review and assessment of ministry personnel, and on-going discernment of mission and call; 2. volunteers, often with limited knowledge and experience are asked to manage the human resource aspects of pastoral relationships, often leading to unfavourable and inconsistent outcomes;

2 For further information on any of these initiatives/ reports, please see http://www.gc41.ca/background-material PAGE 127 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

3. presbytery/district pastoral charge oversight processes are often not effective or helpful, leaving presbytery/district to intervene only when a crisis erupts; 4. the Ministry and Personnel Committee dilemma: members are required to be parishioners while at the same time fulfilling employer roles; 5. ministry personnel feel powerless to affect change and worry about the future of their vocation; 6. presbytery/district-managed pastoral relations often contributes to inconsistent application of policies and standards; 7. responsibilities of presbytery/district should focus less on oversight and discipline and more on collegial support for ministry personnel, mission and programs; 8. overlap of responsibilities between decision making bodies (pastoral charge, presbytery/district, Conference) creates redundancies and poor use of resources, i.e. people repeating the same work; 9. ethno and linguistic specific congregations agree that pastoral relations policies and processes do not meet their needs; 10. high turnover of volunteers increases the burden of training and results in a limited repository of skill and knowledge related to pastoral relations, oversight and discipline; 11. needs assessment, search and selection processes take too long; many pastoral charges report spending a year or more without permanent ministry leadership; 12. presbytery/district, as a circle of peers, is perceived to be often incapable of acting impartially in review panels and disciplinary proceedings; 13. disciplinary responsibilities of presbytery/district hinders collegiality and peer support among ministry personnel.

Between the summer of 2011 and the winter of 2012, the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services discerned and tested three principles for responding to the collected concerns and recommended changes: 1. the pastoral charge and the presbytery/district be accountable for the discernment and articulation of mission and ministry leadership needs, and the support and nurture of pastoral relationships and ministry personnel; 2. the Conference be accountable for the pastoral relations processes related to credentials, placement, and oversight and discipline of ministry personnel; 3. the courts resource pastoral relations as well as oversight and discipline policies with trained paid accountable staff.

In March of 2012, the Executive of the General Council received a revised report (p.78-89), and proposed to the 41st General Council, 2012 that it be authorized to undertake the development and testing of simplified pastoral relations policies that are flexible to contextual and regional differences, supported within overall financial capacity, and reflect, but are not limited to, the proposed principles for the distribution of jurisdiction as well as the provision of staff to manage the pastoral relations and the oversight and discipline work.

Process for this Proposal The 41st General Council, 2012 passed the following motion, granting authorization to test new ways of doing pastoral relations and oversight and discipline:

PAGE 128 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

1. The 41st General Council, 2012 directed the Executive of the General Council to develop and test simplified pastoral relations as well as oversight and discipline policies that are: a. flexible to contextual and regional differences b. supported within overall financial capacity c. reflective of, but not limited to, a model that: i. the pastoral charge and the presbytery be accountable for the discernment and articulation of mission and ministry leadership needs, and the support and nurture of pastoral relationships and ministry personnel; ii. the Conference be accountable for the pastoral relations processes related to placement, oversight and discipline of ministry personnel; and iii. the courts resource pastoral relations as well as oversight and discipline policies with trained paid accountable staff; and 2. the Executive of the General Council be authorized to implement pastoral relations as well as oversight and discipline policy changes that do not require a Remit and that are consistent with and responsive to the ongoing work of the “Comprehensive Review of How The United Church of Canada Envisions and Lives Out Its Identity.” (2012 Record of Proceedings, p. 296)

The Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships project was originally designed around ten program goals: 1. improving the “fit” of pastoral relationships as reported by ministers and pastoral charges 2. increasing the number of ministers and pastoral charges who report having a “healthy relationship” 3. increasing the number of ministers who state that they receive the support they need to perform their ministry well 4. decreasing the number of ministry personnel who report that they feel isolated 5. increasing the vitality of pastoral charges and other local ministries 6. proving viability within overall financial capacity 7. decreasing volunteer workload 8. increasing the competency for handling pastoral relations, oversight and discipline 9. increasing the consistency within each Conference in how pastoral relations, oversight and discipline are handled; and 10. increasing the efficiency of pastoral relations, oversight and discipline.

It was the vision of the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services that increased health in pastoral relationships, increased policy efficiency, increased consistency and competency in the application of policy, and decreased feelings of isolation amongst ministry personnel could all be achieved, over time, by a new model of pastoral relations and oversight and discipline. This model would be simplified, the responsibility of one court, separated from collegiality and programmatic support for ministry personnel, and would be supported within existing overall financial resources.

This model also recognizes that paid accountable ministry is both a vocation and a profession, and that the Church holds a commitment to engage ministry personnel and local ministries with policies that are fair, just and consistently applied (Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Polices and

PAGE 129 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Services Guiding Theological Perspectives). Effective paid accountable leadership and healthy pastoral relationships among ministry personnel, the local ministry and the governing bodies of the Church are critical components to the faithful and vital fulfillment of God’s mission that we sing of in The United Church of Canada. It is crucial that the policies and procedures supporting the initiation of these relationships, the on-going support and accountability of them, and the conclusion of them be flexible and transparent. It is also important that they be responsive to particular contexts of region and culture. The 2,400 ministers serving in active calls and appointments throughout the church are among The United Church of Canada’s greatest assets in responding to the call to be the Church:

to celebrate God's presence, to live with respect in creation, to love and serve others, to seek justice and resist evil, to proclaim Jesus, crucified and risen, our judge and our hope. (A New Creed 1968, rv 1995)

Summary of Conference Projects In the late fall of 2012, the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships project management team was appointed from the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services and resourced with staff from the Ministry and Employment Unit of the General Council Office. The project management team’s initial step was to send an open invitation to all Conferences to participate in the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships project test, beginning with a face-to-face meeting of exploration and planning. Twelve of the thirteen Conferences came to the initial meeting, and ten Conferences decided to participate in the project. It is the opinion of the project management group that when 70% of the Church participates in a change that is optional, significant It is the opinion of the project transformation is both possible and timely.3 The Conferences management group that when participating in the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral 70% of the Church participates in Relationships project include: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, a change that is optional, Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario, Manitou, London, significant transformation is both Toronto, Bay of Quinte, Montreal and Ottawa, Hamilton, and possible and timely. Maritime.

The participating Conferences were given allowance by the Sub-executive of the General Council (p.75) to operate outside of some of the pastoral relations policies of The Manual for the sake and length of their Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships test. Each of the Conferences designed their own test model, which resulted in four types of tests:

1. movement of all pastoral relations and oversight and discipline policies to Conference, with a focus on collegial support and programming in the presbyteries (British Columbia, London, and Toronto); 2. movement of all pastoral relations and oversight and discipline policies to Conference, with a focus on collegial support and programming in the presbytery, but with the test limited to one presbytery within the Conference (Hamilton and Manitou); 3. test through the Conference, but limited to select policy/procedural policy changes (Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario); and

3 Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships Report for Information and Feedback, Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services, September 19-20, 2014. PAGE 130 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

4. test within two or more presbyteries, and limited to select policy/procedural policy changes (Maritime, Bay of Quinte, and Montreal and Ottawa).

The participation of Saskatchewan Conference was focused on the collection of data regarding the financial and volunteer hours associated with current pastoral relations and oversight and discipline processes. For a number of reasons, including geographical challenges, the data collected did not allow for a comparison with the whole project. However, insights and wisdom from the process are included in the results below. For a summary of the projects in each Conference, please see MEPS 23Appendix A in the online library.

Summary of Evaluation Knowing the challenge of evaluating a project in which each of the test sites is distinct, the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships project management team worked with consultant Leanne Douglas of the Winnipeg branch of Canadian business advisory, accounting and research firm, MNP, to create an evaluation framework that had the capacity to access data from Conferences and presbyteries who were participating, as well as all active ministry personnel and local ministry units within the United Church of Canada. The evaluation was built to measure the project against the original program goals (see p. 4) at the one, three, and five year marks. The first round of evaluation was completed in the spring of 2014 when the majority of Conferences were at or around the one-year anniversary of implementation.

The initial evaluation included four distinct pieces. Conferences and presbyteries who were participating in the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships project were sent a spreadsheet with a series of quantitative questions about policy, financial capacity, volunteer effort and training, continuing education resources offered by the court, and change management. Ministry personnel and local ministry units/church members were sent an on-line survey that was largely perception-based that asked questions about pastoral relations and oversight and discipline policy, volunteer effort, time commitment, support structures, and staff support. The response rate for the ministry personnel and member surveys was much higher than the Conference and presbytery surveys.

Sufficient response was received from Conferences to make use of the data, but unfortunately not from presbyteries. Some of the feedback from both presbyteries and Conferences was that the information requested was time-consuming and difficult to collect, and that if the evaluation framework had been articulated at the beginning of the project, this information could have been collected throughout the testing. This is a significant learning for the project management team, and for the Permanent Committee: in large projects such as Effective Leadership, evaluation must be incorporated into the project from the beginning. Although the rationale for delaying the development of the evaluation framework In large projects such as Effective included a desire to understand the breadth of the individual Leadership, evaluation must be projects, the extra work required from the staff in the incorporated into the project from Conferences to gather the required information became an the beginning. impediment to the efficiency of the evaluation.

It was also reported to the project management team that the financial cost to implement the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships projects was more than initially expected. Participating

PAGE 131 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Conferences received a one-time grant from the General Council Office of between $260 and $8,000 in the 2013 calendar year to off-set implementation costs which ranged from $7,500 to $43,000. The expectation of the 41st General Council, 2012 that a project such as this could be implemented and “supported within the overall financial capacity” was unrealistic. As a result, British Columbia, London, and Hamilton Conferences hired program staff to support the development and initial implementation of the project, while Toronto Conference hired additional administrative staff to support the ongoing implementation. Further, feedback from non-participating Conferences suggested that had the availability of grant money been made known, they may have participated in the project. Finally, all participating Conferences reported an underestimation of the length of time required to develop, offer training for, communicate about, and implement the project4.

Through the fall and winter of 2014/2015, further consultative conversations occurred with the participating Conferences about project structures, best practices, and elements of Conference projects that could have been improved. An intentional conversation was also held with the Conference Personnel Ministers at their fall gathering in November 2014.

All Conferences that Rationale moved their pastoral Approve the principle of locating oversight and discipline, and relations processes from pastoral relations policy systems with Conference, or equivalent. presbytery reported a faster turnaround time The data from participating Conferences in the evaluation showed a for changes in pastoral decrease in volunteer workload and increase in process efficiency. relations. Ministry Personnel also reported that search and selection processes are fairer and more consistent. In consultative conversations with Conferences, settlement committee, staff and ministry personnel reported significant decreases in the timelines necessary from a request for change in pastoral relationships to final selection of ministry personnel.

One of the ways that the flexibility of the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships project met the contextual and regional differences is reflected in the development and implementation of some of the projects. British Columbia, London and Toronto Conferences have each implemented projects in which all pastoral relations and oversight and discipline policies have been moved to the court of Conference. Each Conference implemented a different project according to the culture in which they live and worship, and adjusted the implementation plans accordingly. London Conference set a date for implementation and then lived into their project. Toronto Conference established policy and procedures and then followed through with implementation of their project. British Columbia Conference hired a Project Manager and then implemented their project in two stages.

Approve the principle that the denomination, or representative body, be responsible for education and communication about the denomination-wide oversight and discipline, and pastoral relations policies, and the best practices that consider regional and contextual circumstances.

4 Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships Report for Information and Feedback, Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services, September 19-20, 2014.

PAGE 132 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Many of the projects focused specifically on congregational mission development as required by contextual circumstances. Best practices of these projects included Hamilton Conference’s Essence Statements and Montreal & Ottawa Conference’s Living Ministry profiles, where staffing and resources were directed to congregational mission. In British Columbia Conference, the name and foci of the triannual oversight visits is being shifted to Ministry Vision & Support visits, which offer the Presbytery an opportunity to support and walk with local ministry units in mission and ministry work. Finally, in Maritime Conference, staff time is directed to assisting congregations with assessment reports regarding the vision, mission and vitality of the ministry to enable the Conference to “come alongside” a pastoral charge when stability is needed.

When consulted, the Conference Personnel Ministers expressed concerns about regionalization being an unintended consequence of the project. The original intention was to open up the search and selection system to increase consistency and efficiency. Due to the fact that there is no longer one process for calls and appointments, ministry personnel are challenged when entering search processes outside of their own Conference. Similarly, Manitou Conference reported a challenge in the implementation of the project in only one presbytery and the lack of consistency created internally.

The online system in use in Toronto Conference that matches ministry personnel profiles with pastoral charge profiles is facilitating a more equitable short-listing process in the selection of ministry personnel, thus increasing the diversity of ministry personnel participating in the interview stage of search processes.

Recognize the successful practices demonstrated by the testing Conferences, and ensure the incorporation of the following specific practices into pastoral relations procedures throughout the church:

1. Prioritize financial and staffing support for programs intended to foster collegiality among ministry personnel. When consulted, each of the participating Conferences indicated essential agreement for the benefit associated with collegial programming. However, the means to engage this goal differed in each project. Hamilton Conference’s Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships project was limited to Bruce Presbytery and focused on congregational mission development and support of ministry personnel. Bruce Presbytery’s test included ministry personnel retreats, which were exceptionally well-attended. Saskatchewan Conference highlighted an important reminder that with the continued prevalence of part-time ministries in that Conference, the capacity of ministry personnel to participate in collegial programming is compromised.

That said, regardless of the number of opportunities that ministry personnel had to network with ministry colleagues, Conference, or community size, the majority of respondents reported that ministry personnel need to build stronger collegial relationships with each other.

2. Provide support to local ministry unit governing bodies in their employer role and, in particular, training and consultation for Ministry and Personnel Committees, Pastoral Relations/Settlement Committees.

PAGE 133 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The majority of ministry personnel report that the United Church of Canada is a better than average (or excellent) employer, that their current ministry is a comfortable and energizing place to work, and that they are appreciated and supported by the community they serve. In comparing responses from two previous surveys of ministry personnel (the Isolation in Ministry survey in 2005 and the Collaborative Research Project in 2010), an encouraging trend appears to be emerging.

One of the overall goals of the project is to improve the fit between ministry personnel and pastoral charges. When surveyed, 71% of local ministries described the fit between the programming leadership and the ministry needs in their church as excellent or good.

In London Conference’s project the traditional joint needs assessment and joint search process has been replaced by a process where the congregation does both the needs assessment and the search supported by Conference resources, including handbooks and on-line training of the congregational interview teams by the Conference Personnel Minister. Most congregations have been able, under the new process, to move from a request for a change in pastoral relations to interviewing inside of 90 days. Montreal and Ottawa Conference developed a new joint needs assessment process that includes the Living Ministry profile referenced above, that is designed to be accomplished in a one-day workshop. This encourages a broader participation of the congregation, and an expedited process.

In terms of support to ministry and personnel committees, British Columbia Conference is providing resources for ministry personnel performance reviews, while Bay of Quinte Conference reports increased staff availability for ministry and personnel committees.

Conference pastoral relations and settlement committees have also 68% of ministry shifted responsibilities in some Conferences with processes like personnel in participating centralizing the processing of applications for ministry positions. Conferences noticed a Toronto Conference has established a team of volunteer reviewers decrease in volunteer whose responsibility is to ensure the accurate completion of pastoral relations forms. Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario Conference screens applications for eligibility, ensuring that mandatory training is complete, and credentials are cleared for admissions candidates. Best practices such as these contribute to a more

PAGE 134 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

efficient and consistent application of systems; 68% of ministry personnel in participating Conferences noticed a decrease in volunteer workload.

3. Maximize available communication and database management systems to support pastoral relations systems. Many Conferences reported a volunteer shortage to fulfill the responsibilities of supporting pastoral relations systems. However, Conferences reported that the use of technology is decreasing volunteer effort, especially in terms of travel, meeting time, and cost. Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario Conference has developed PowerPoint presentations to be used in the training of joint search committees that both ensure a level of training and education, as well as reduce the level of staff involvement.

Toronto Conference’s project is very focused on technology and is using an on-line matching tool to address bias and cultural assumptions in matching ministry personnel and local ministry units for calls and appointments.

As was highlighted in the Isolation in Ministry report in 2006, there continues to be pastoral charges with little to no access to high-speed internet. While this contributes to the sense of isolation ministry personnel in those areas experience, it also limits the capacity of using technology for the work of pastoral relations, and should be an ongoing consideration for future development.

4. Ensure access to conflict management and change management training for leaders who are initiating or implementing change. One thing that can be stated with certainty is that the future effectiveness of ministry in the local church will require significant changes to practices of congregational mission development, the ministry personnel search and selection process, and oversight and discipline procedures. In the responses to the evaluation, more than half of local ministries agreed with the statement "Typically, it is difficult for anyone to make significant changes in our local ministry without it resulting in conflict.” Knowing that systemic change is essential, and that change raises levels of conflict, it makes good sense to increase the provision training for conflict and change management as we introduce systemic change throughout the church.

General Observations There are many faithful and competent presbytery volunteers throughout The United Church of Canada who have dedicated many hours to the work of pastoral relations and oversight and discipline. Many of the Conferences reported concerns from presbyters that moving these systems to Conference would create a gap between the local context and the oversight body. At the same time, reports of renewed collegiality and capacity to support mission and ministry development within congregations are also emerging. There is also a sense of collaboration between different projects with resources and processes being shared as they are developed. As a result, the proposed changes will continue to build on these insights as the church continues to support and enable the ministry personnel and lay leaders within communities of faith across the country.

PAGE 135 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

TICIF 2 A PROPOSAL FOR ONE ORDER OF MINISTRY Origin: Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee

The Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee proposes that the Executive of General Council:

1. Receive the report A Proposal For One Order of Ministry;

2. Express its appreciation for the joint work of the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee and the Permanent Committee Ministry and Employment Policy and Services in the development of the report;

3. Recommend to the 42nd General Council the approval of the report.

BACKGROUND The Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee is a standing committee of the General Council and reports directly to the Council. However, the report “A Proposal for One Order of Ministry” was developed jointly with the Permanent Committee, Ministry and Employment Policy and Services, a committee of the Executive. The report is also denominationally shaping in that it proposes a significant change in the nature of ministry for the church. For these reasons the TICIF Committee believes it appropriate to invite the Executive to review the report and consider the proposed action of recommending the report for approval to the 42nd General Council.

A PROPOSAL FOR ONE ORDER OF MINISTRY

The Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee proposes:

THAT the 42nd General Council recognize one order of ministry within The United Church of Canada, known as the ordained ministry; 1. provide within the ordained ministry of the church, for those who so choose through an appropriate educational program, ordination to the diakonia; 2. develop multiple paths of educational formation to the ordained ministry based on an overall equivalency of educational and spiritual formation; 3. authorize remits to Presbyteries and to Pastoral Charges to test the will of the United Church with respect to this recognition; 4. incorporate (grandparent) into the ordained ministry all diaconal ministers who so choose 5. incorporate (grandparent) into the ordained ministry all recognized designated lay ministers who so choose and who are currently serving in recognized or accountable ministries; 6. Direct the General Secretary to edit the Statement on Ministry to reflect the decision of the church in regards to this proposal.

Background The Permanent Committee, Ministry and Employment Policies and Services and the Theology and Inter- Church Inter-Faith Committee, (the Committees) following the directions of the 41st General Council (2012), have continued in a long process of exploring critical issues related to Paid Accountable Ministry in PAGE 136 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The United Church of Canada. The Committees have tested in surveys and workshops assumptions that the issues identified here are significant and need to be resolved; that what is at stake relates to the integrity of the church’s ministry; and that current practices cannot continue without damage to the ministry and ministers of the church.

At the heart of these issues is the identity and functioning (as expressed in the Statement on Ministry 2012), of: Designated Lay ministers, who “are members of the church called to exercise gifts for leadership in mission and ministry that respond to a need within a local congregation or community ministry”; Diaconal ministers, who “serve in all aspects of ministry and are formally called to education, service, social justice, and pastoral care”; Ordained ministers, who “serve in all aspects of ministry and are formally called to word, sacrament and pastoral care”, and paid staff in other forms of lay ministry.

The Committees have developed this proposal believing that the current definitions and expressions of ministry do not have theological integrity, and cannot be explained simply and theologically to ourselves and to others.

The Committees have noted that most of the ministry personnel of the church, in spite of the purported differences between the streams, are called or appointed to the same function (i.e. solo pastoral ministry). It also believes that most members of the church do not understand the differences between the various streams of ministry, and that candidacy processes in many cases have not been able to adequately differentiate between them. (In 2014 there were 1709 Ordained ministers of which 1543 were in pastoral appointments; 141 Diaconal ministers of which 125 were in pastoral appointments; and 143 recognized (and 75 applicants) Designated Lay ministers in pastoral appointments.)

Finally, the Committees have heard in numerous surveys the expectation of an educated clergy at the heart of the identity of the church. They note however the tension between this desire and the need for ministry personnel to serve small, part time or remote churches. The Committees believe that these needs must be held in tension, but fundamentally the church cannot sacrifice the expectation that all ministers of the church should have a basic equivalency in educational preparation for ministry leadership.

The Problem in Greater Detail The Statement on Ministry (2012), offers a theological reference point for understanding ministry in The United Church of Canada. It outlines in three sections: the Ministry of All (the ministry of the whole people of God); the Ministry of Leadership (those both paid and unpaid, who serve in many aspects of oversight and leadership in the church); and Paid Accountable Ministry (those who are called to designated lay, diaconal, or ordained ministries.) This report deals with the third category of Paid Accountable Ministry.

The Permanent Committee, Ministry and Employment Policy and Services and the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee were tasked to examine two proposals related to the Statement directed to them by the 41st General Council (2012). The first of these issues related to the proposal for the study of “local ordination” as an alternative to the existing category of designated lay ministers (DLMs) serving in pastoral ministry roles. The second involved a proposal for the sacramental authorization of diaconal ministers as a rite of commissioning. The Committees, through a Joint Working Group determined that an underlying issue present in both assignments is the church’s lack of clarity in its current multiple streams of ministry and the complexity and confusion that they create.

The processes that lead to the first version of the Statement on Ministry in 2009 (The Meaning of Ministry Task Group 2006-2009) pointed to the difficulties the church has in differentiating the various streams of PAGE 137 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

ministry. That Task Group struggled to give adequate definition to the streams and found particular difficulty in articulating a difference between designated lay ministry and ordained ministry. It noted the challenge in defining “lay” in the Designated Lay Ministry category and particularly rejected definitions that emphasized designated lay ministry as having a closer relationship to people than those who were commissioned or ordained. Of significant concern was the clear statement of many designated lay ministers themselves that the current definition does not represent their self-understanding and that many find the name itself offensive, and therefore unacceptable.

In the current process (2012-2015) the Joint Working Group of the Committees was also challenged to differentiate the three streams of ministry.

The Working Group noted that the proposal for local ordination was an attempt to resolve the difficulty present in designated lay ministers serving in pastoral ministry in ways indistinguishable from ordained ministry. Many DLM personnel speak of their life-time commitment to ministry within the whole church that arises from a deep and personal call to ministry. Most are authorized for sacraments and, while still requiring yearly appointments, are effectively functioning as if available for call. Recent decisions have also extended the option for life-time membership in Presbytery to those retiring designated lay ministers who request it.

The Committees heard and agreed with challenges to the concept of local ordination; particularly that the “local” in local ordination was not clear or enforceable. It also noted concern over the differences in educational preparation for designated lay ministry and ordered ministry.

The Committees also noted the importance of considering what forms of educational preparation are required for effective leadership in paid accountable ministry today and for the future. They believe that the inability to effectively differentiate commissioned/ordained and designated lay ministry could ultimately situate the DLM program as the basic level of educational preparation for ministry.

However, Designated Lay Ministry was developed with an understanding that it would be time limited and localized. “Ministry Together” (GC 2000) set in place the criteria for Designated Lay Ministry as follows:

“The report offers the perspective that the vocation of the Ordained or Diaconal Minister involves lifelong service and accountability to the church. It is ordination or commissioning to the church universal. The vocation of the lay minister, on the other hand, is spontaneous, localized, and temporary in its service and accountability. This report affirms that there is a place for designated lay ministry alongside ordered ministry. Given the demands of ministry today, the church needs to be confident that the spiritual, theological, interpersonal, and educational competencies are the same for comparable ministries.” (Page 614 Record of Proceedings GC 2000).”

Because of this, the DLM educational program was also more limited than other programs. However, designated lay ministers themselves as well as significant parts of the church have affirmed that a different understanding has emerged: that designated lay ministry is now seen as a life time call serving the whole church. This understanding was also affirmed by the 2009 General Council in the changes made to the Statement on Ministry. If designated lay ministry is now understood to be a life time vocation to ministry, serving the whole church, then the Committees believe that the educational requirements must change.

As it was expressed by the Ministry Together report above, the Committees believe that the church does want to be assured that the “spiritual, theological, interpersonal and educational competencies are the same PAGE 138 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

for comparable ministries.” The Committees believe that there needs to be a variety of educational paths to ministry leadership, as will be further outlined. This will include a stream of educational preparation that lifts up the circle and experiential model of the current DLM program. However, the Committees believe that there needs to be a basic educational equivalency between these different paths.

The Committees similarly struggled with the difference between ordained and diaconal, particularly given the request referred from the 41st GC, that diaconal ministers be afforded sacramental authority as a rite of commissioning.

While there are possible distinctions in emphasis and in training, and certainly in the intentional identification with the world-wide diakonia movement for diaconal ministers, the challenge is articulating functional and theological differences between the ordained and diaconal ministries as they live out their specific call to ministry in the church today. The Working Group particularly had difficulty with anecdotal comparisons between the two ordered streams: of ordination focused on power and authority in comparison to diaconal commitments to mutuality and empowerment; or of diaconal ministry as lacking theological depth or missing the skills for overall congregational leadership.

In considering the proposal for authorizing diaconal ministers for the sacraments as a rite of their commissioning, the Committees note that a large majority of diaconal ministers are serving in pastoral ministry roles, often as solo paid accountable ministers, in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from ordained ministers. While the training and commitment of diaconal ministers is focused on teaming and mutuality in ministry, their opportunities to serve in team ministry positions within the United Church are limited (and dwindling). Other diaconal ministers serve in community ministries where sacramental actions, such as gathering around the common table in communion, or being able to baptize individuals when serving in a housing or health-care facility as a chaplain or outreach minister, are important options within worship experiences in those settings.

The Committees note that the Statement on Ministry chose not to distinguish between streams of ministry by sacramental authority. It did so because of the long established patterns in the church of extending authorization for sacramental ministry to those in many forms of pastoral leadership, including most recently sacraments elders. While authorization for sacraments for all those who are not in ordained ministry is still required, the practice of almost universal approval in most conferences, particularly for diaconal and designated lay minsters in solo pastoral ministry, suggests that the church has moved well beyond the more traditional understanding that authority for the sacraments resides solely with the ordained ministry. For this reason, the Committees believe that authorization for sacramental ministries should be extended to diaconal ministers as a rite of commissioning. However such a position reinforces that challenge in distinguishing diaconal and ordained ministry.

The Committees acknowledge that diaconal ministry is more than a question of what functions are performed. The Working Group on Diaconal Ministry, which recently reported to the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services, noted that educational formation for the diakonia emphasizes teaming, mutuality and non-hierarchical style, with commitment to justice, diversity, and at its heart a rootedness in community and transformation. The report affirmed that “while these characteristics are not exclusive to diaconal ministry, they are characteristics explicitly associated with a diaconal identity and approach to the practice of ministry.”

The long ecumenical history of the diakonia, its foundations in the scriptures and in the early church, and its ongoing support within the United Church, suggested to the Committees that a diaconal option and PAGE 139 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

emphasis in both study and function should continue in some form. The Committees believe, however, that this would best be done as part of one ordained ministry. This is particularly important as we move into consideration of mutual recognition of ministry with partner churches.

The work of the Comprehensive Review Task Group reinforces the reality that we will be a much different church in the future. We will likely be smaller, more congregational and will need to be more effective in our use of resources. We must be more open to diversity while greatly simplifying our structures and our polity. This proposal for “one order of ministry” represents the desire of the Committees to prepare the ministry of the church for such a future. In particular, the committees believe that the move to one order of ministry does not reduce the diversity of ministries within the church, but rather opens a unified ministry up to much greater diversity; in other words, one ministry, many different expressions.

The Proposal: One Order of Ministry “The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way unto him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.” Ephesians 4:11-16

“Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All of these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.” 1 Corinthians 12:4-11

The Scripture passages above point to a number of principles underlying the thinking of the Permanent Committee, Ministry and Employment Policy and Services and the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee, in making this proposal for one order of ministry. They wish to affirm that there is a fundamental unity to all expressions of paid accountable ministry in the church; that the church’s understandings of ministry need to be as consistent as possible with a global ecumenical consensus; that interpretations of the nature and function of ministry within the church need to be able to be expressed simply, clearly and with theological integrity; and that a commitment to an educated clergy capable of equipping people to live out their faith in meaningful, loving and mature ways is fundamental to United Church identity.

The Committees propose the following understanding of ministry within the United Church of Canada:

There shall be one order of ministry of The United Church of Canada, known as the ordained ministry. The rite of ordination in the United Church includes for those who so choose, through the appropriate educational processes, ordination to the diakonia.

PAGE 140 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry document of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, published in 1982, remains the most significant consensus document on the nature of ministry in the global Christian community. The centrality of the term “ordination” within the Ministry section of that document provides the strongest rationale for maintaining the term within The United Church of Canada. The document references a traditional three-fold pattern of ordination for bishop, presbyter and deacon. In reformed traditions, the document notes, the episcopal role of the bishop is carried by councils. This is the understanding and practice of the United Church. Throughout the history of the church, the place of deacons or the diakonia has changed as well, but there is significant historical precedent for speaking of ordination to the diaconate.

The proposal for one order offers a return to this understanding. Those who choose to be ordained to the diakonia would prepare themselves through a specific educational path and would commit themselves to the values and principles of the worldwide movement of the diakonia. They will be ordained ministers of the church who offer a commitment to uphold the values and principles of the historic global community of the diakonia. While more detail will have to be developed about the nature of this commitment and the language that will accompany it, for all those ordained ministers who make such a commitment, and for those who do not, there will no difference in respect to authority and function within the church.

Staff Associates In this proposal, the Committees also affirm the continued valid place of Staff Associates in the overall ministry of churches. Staff Associates are lay people (their membership remains in a congregation) who are congregationally employed and always function in relationship with an ordained minister or ordained minister candidate.

The Committees note that Designated Lay Ministry, initiated in 2000, was an attempt to incorporate into one category a broad range of “lay” ministries in the church, among them Lay Pastoral Ministers and Staff Associates. The Working Group has heard and accepted that the grouping of this broad collection of paid accountable positions into one category has not been satisfactory for most of the personnel. It believes that the proposal for one order of ministry addresses the challenges in the situation of Designated Lay Ministers serving in solo pastoral ministry who are responding to a life-long call to the vocation of ministry that is not limited to a specific place and time. It proposes a return to a familiar language and practice for those who were formerly called staff associates. The further implication of this proposal would be that “Congregational Designated Ministry” would end and be subsumed into the Staff Associate category.

The emphasis in this category of ministry would be on “associate.” In other words, those functioning in a staff associate position would always be understood to be functioning in association (or team) with an ordained minister or candidate. Staff associates would continue to be lay persons meaning that their membership would continue to reside in a congregation and the call and definition of their work would be focused on, and limited to that local ministry.

In the current terminology, these positions would also be congregational designated positions, or those employed and accountable to the congregation. While these positions will need to meet standards of employment, the congregation will be the sole employer.

The Committees note that the majority of staff associates will be congregational accountable; among them Christian Education workers, pastoral visitors and caregivers, parish nurses, youth workers and music directors. There is, however, an important exception that needs to be considered: those who see themselves functioning as a “staff associate” but who have sought out specialized training and preparation for a PAGE 141 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

particular expression of their ministry. Examples of this would be youth workers who have completed specialized programs, or Christian education workers with a Masters of Religious Education. In these circumstances there has been a desire for some process of recognition of the specialized training that they have undertaken. The Committees’ encouragement is that such individuals see the ordained ministry as expansive and able to incorporate such specialized ministry. This will be increasingly true as new expressions of faith communities emerge. Ministry leadership in these new expressions should be seen to be a full part of the ordained ministry of the church.

The proposal then recognizes two stages of ordained ministry, as ordained candidate and as ordained. The intention is that everyone who is in paid and accountable pastoral leadership of a community of faith must be approved through a discernment process and committed to and entered into one of a number of educational paths to ordained ministry.

Within this model, the current category of designated lay ministry is incorporated within the ordained ministry of the church. The Committees understand this to be consistent with the overall direction of designated lay ministry as a life time call to the ministry of the whole church. It does not understand this to be a “lay” ministry, but rather one indistinguishable from ordained ministry. The critical issue, the Committees believe, are rather the educational requirements for this path of ministry, to be addressed in the next section.

The structure of ministry in the church, as expressed in this proposal would therefore be as follows:

Staff Associate Ordained Ministry (Candidate) Ordained Ministry Congregational Accountable Presbytery Accountable Presbytery Accountable Conference Recognition Conference Ordination Congregational membership Presbytery membership (while Presbytery membership under appointment) Sacramental authority (while Sacramental authority under appointment) approved by Conference Always in team with ordained Team or solo leadership in Team or solo leadership in minister or candidate congregation or ministry unit congregation or ministry unit. with supervision by an

ordained minister.

The Joint Working Group has developed this proposal independently of the Comprehensive Review Task Group but has been in conversation with them throughout the process. While it has not incorporated the proposal for a College of Ministers into this proposal, it does believe that the concept of one order of ministry would be workable either in that structure or the current one.

Multiple Streams of Educational Preparation An important concern in the development of this proposal for one order of ministry is the question, “What educational requirements are necessary for paid accountable ministry leadership?”

The Committees believe that that there should be an equivalent educational expectation for all members of the order of ministry of The United Church of Canada. What “equivalency” looks like is a critical factor of this proposal. Educational requirements will need to be expanded to prepare for a greater range of ministries; and there will need to be a variety of educational programs that address different learning styles. PAGE 142 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The Committees believe that there are options already existing within the church that represent the approximate level of equivalency that is desired. In particular the committee notes the basic equivalency that has already been established between the various Master of Divinity (M.Div.) programs, the Centre for Christian Studies (CCS) program and the Sandy Saulteaux program for Aboriginal Ministry. The CCS and the Sandy Saulteaux models provide for four to five year non-residential programs based on an integration of ministry and learning circles and both grant a diploma on graduation. M.Div. programs are also available throughout the church in a variety of formats from distance learning programs to the more traditional three year residential models. Part of the requirement for ordination for M.Div. students includes a full time internship of eight months or equivalent. (St. Andrews’s has developed a model with a 20 month ministry internship.) The Atlantic School of Theology offers a five year distance learning program for those engaged in ongoing ministry. Thus M.Div. programs also correspond to a four to five year preparation time.

The Centre for Christian Studies and the Sandy Saulteaux programs are usually undertaken while in part- time employment. Many M.Div. students also serve in paid part-time ministry appointments during their studies in addition to their paid supervised ministry placement (either the eight month or two year options.) The end result is that these two streams and the M.Div. stream require a similar amount of time in preparation and are approximately equivalent in personal financial cost. The somewhat greater cost of the residential M.Div. program (primarily from forgone earning from full time studies) is offset by the gaining of an academic degree.

The Committees affirm that there is a distinctive reality for aboriginal ministries that requires a program specifically addressed to the context of First Nations communities. For this reason it believes that the Sandy Saulteaux program should continue, as it addresses specifically preparation for the order of ministry for First Nations peoples. The Committees also believe that the Centre for Christian Studies program should continue as an educational path specifically focused on those who are committed to the diakonia.

The church therefore recognizes both degree and diploma paths for ministry formation. Both the degree and diploma schools carry “testamur” authority from the church, to certify that their candidates are prepared for ordination or commissioning.

The Committees propose that a fourth diploma educational path be developed following the model of the Designated Lay Ministry formation program.

Diploma in Theology and Pastoral Care The Designated Lay Ministry Program currently requires three years of non-residential theological education, in residential learning circles (two two-week learning circles a year with assigned work in between circles), and in Supervised Ministry Education (supervision) while in appointments of at least 50% time. In addition, students are required to take three additional university level courses. The Committees believe that the Designated Lay Ministry Program can fulfill the level of equivalency expected by extending the program to five years and modeling it on the Sandy Saulteaux or Centre for Christian Studies program, or the lay and summer distance programs of other schools.

The current Designated Lay Ministry program, under this proposal, would therefore need to be renamed, possibly lodged within an existing theological institution and expanded into a five year model. The Committees propose the terminology of a “Diploma in Theology and Pastoral Ministry” and for the sake of clarity will use that term in the remainder of this paper.

PAGE 143 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The Committees acknowledge that the proposal for one order of ministry will likely lead towards a greater convergence of theological schools and training for ministry. While continuing to uphold the M.Div. as the traditional standard for congregational ministry leadership, it is also possible, given the transitions that seem inevitable in the social context, that initiatives such as a Diploma in Theology and Pastoral Ministry might, in the future, become the primary entry point for ministry leadership. Therefore, the Committees have explored several questions:

First, what should be the prerequisite for entrance into a Diploma in Theology and Pastoral Ministry stream? Or in other words, what will be the minimum prerequisite for beginning studies towards ministry leadership in the United Church?

Currently there are four prerequisite options for entry into the Designated Lay Ministry program. (One of: Successful completion of a Licensed Lay Worship Leader (LLWL) program; Successful completion of the Leadership Development Module at the Centre for Christian Studies; Successful completion of a lay certificate in ministry (at a United Church theological college); Successful completion of a Prior Learning Assessment that demonstrates a basic level of competence in critical theological reflection.)

The Committees propose that one year of university studies within an established undergraduate program should be an expectation for anyone entering into ministry leadership in the United Church. The Committees believe that a commitment to life-long learning is required for effective ministry. They believe that completion of (at least) a first year level of university study would be a minimum indication of capacity and discipline necessary for such a commitment. A first year university program would also provide a basic introduction to humanities as a prerequisite for the Diploma in Theology and Pastoral Ministry study. The Committees expect that the Aboriginal community would continue to establish its own prerequisite requirements in order to best suit the needs of their communities.

Second, the Committees note that the current DLM program requires completion of three academic courses offered by other United Church theological institutions. The Committees propose that in the new Diploma program, this should be expanded to eight courses (such as that required by the CCS program) to ensure that there is deeper connection with candidates of all educational streams into the experience of theological studies and its interrelationship with critical thinking around mission and ministry. It also notes that a wide range of courses are now available through on-line options.

Finally, not all candidates for ministry in the various programs of study complete their course within the minimum time frames of the respective programs. This parallels the reality of many undergraduate and certainly graduate degree programs in general university studies. Therefore it is to be expected that candidates for ministry in any of the educational streams will vary in the time taken to complete the program. However, there is also a benefit to the church and to the individual to set a maximum time for completion of the program. The Committees propose that eight years is a realistic time frame to complete the educational requirements for ordained ministry.

Competency Based Assessment Consideration of competency based educational models that are currently underway throughout North America and in the United Church can also provide further opportunities to explore the meaning of equivalency in educational expectations. This report is addressed primarily to the theology and function of the order of ministry and is not directly linked to these proposals. However the use of competencies does offer a mechanism to continue to ensure that “the spiritual, theological, interpersonal, and educational

PAGE 144 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

competencies are the same for comparable ministries” and that life experience is taken into account in assessing overall fitness for ministry leadership.

Candidates for the Order of Ministry The Committees note that it has become a common practice for many students in all streams of ministry to be appointed into ministry positions either as part of their educational or candidature processes or as a means of funding their education. They therefore propose that a common terminology be established for all candidates who are appointed into paid accountable leadership that affirms their status and acknowledges their ongoing journey towards ordained ministry. It is proposed that the simple language of “candidate” accompany the term ordained. In other words, all individuals in any of the educational streams who have been appointed to a recognized ministry of the church would be able to identify themselves in this way. Ordained Candidates appointed to a recognized ministry would, in this model, have their membership held in a Presbytery.

Can this model meet the needs of the church for Ministry Personnel? In this model, a person who feels called to broader, longer-term ministry leadership to the church would be required to apply to the Order of Ministry before appointment. There would be a discernment, interview and appointment process that would lead to the status of Ordained Ministry (Candidate) and a requirement of entering one of the educational streams. The assumption that underlies this approach is that everyone in solo ministry leadership in a community of faith would be on a journey towards, or have achieved an equivalency in educational preparation and be committed to formal life-long learning. For an individual called later in life to offer a number of years of service in ministry, the educational stream might never be finished, but it would represent a commitment to life-long learning and continuing preparation for more effective ministry leadership. For someone in early or mid-life, the expectation is that the educational work would be completed within eight years. In both cases the educational work would be undertaken while in either full-time or part-time ministry depending on the learning style and life circumstances of the individual.

If a person has gifts for some aspects of ministry but is not able to or chooses not to enter into one of the educational streams for ordained ministry, then the Working Group would encourage that his or her gifts for ministry be used either in a staff associate role, or possibly in a regional team model. This model is outlined here and offers an important option for ensuring that the varied gifts of ministry are available and effectively used for the ministry of the church.

The Committees recognize that the current structures of the church might change dramatically in the future. The committees believe however that this proposal can be adapted to whatever structure the church ultimately adopts. What this proposal offers, the Committees propose, is theological integrity, ecumenical consistency and simplicity in structure and understanding. They also believe that this proposal honours and does not diminish, the various gifts currently shared by ministry personnel within the United Church today.

PAGE 145 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

TICIF3: TOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF MEMBERSHIP Origin: The Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee

The Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee proposes that the Executive of General Council:

1. Receive the report Towards a New Model of Membership;

2. Express its appreciation for the work of the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee in the development of the report;

3. Recommend the report and its proposals to the 42nd General Council for approval.

BACKGROUND The Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee is a standing committee of the General Council and reports directly to the Council. The report “Towards a New Model of Membership” proposes a church wide study, and an interim step in changing the nature of membership in the church that will likely be denominational shaping. For this reason the TICIF Committee believes it appropriate to invite the Executive to review the report and consider the proposed action of recommending the report for approval to the 42nd General Council.

Towards a New Model of Ministry

The Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee proposes that the 42nd General Council:

1. Direct the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee to invite the church into a study of the meaning of membership, including the relationship of baptism and membership, and bring to the 43rd General Council a new model of membership for the church;

2. Approve that the full members of a community of faith may consent to allow adherents to vote on all matters before meetings of the community of faith and authorize a remit to Pastoral Charges and Presbyteries to test the will of the church in respect to this change.

Background Why this proposal? Our current practices and the challenges they present. What does it mean to be a member of The United Church of Canada? What does it mean for the church when formal understandings of membership no longer work? Should membership be primarily about discipleship and faith, or about governance of the church? Is baptism necessary for membership and or leadership in the church? Is it possible for someone to be a member of the United Church without belonging to a congregation? How might individuals involved in new emerging faith communities be members of the church? What might membership mean in non-congregational settings like community ministries? What happens to

PAGE 146 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

membership for those whose church closes and for whom no other United Church community is accessible? How does the United Church deal with a generational shift away from formal structures and therefore formal understandings of membership? Is membership at all a meaningful term today? If membership is no longer working, how can the United Church govern itself?

These are some of the questions that the church is facing. In this new social context, the generational shifts that have emerged point to profound questions about formal understandings of church membership. Many churches experience welcoming people who have not been baptised and who have had little or no experience with traditional church life. Many of these people desire to be involved and are often invited into participation and leadership as part of a journey of deepening faith and connection with the church.

Diana Butler Bass and others have pointed to a major paradigm shift in church membership from Believing – Behaving – Belonging to Belonging – Behaving – Believing1.

Many today desire activity and engagement as an entry point to church involvement. Many find that it is through belonging and participating in a community that they are invited into deeper reflection and faith.

For most people today membership is synonymous with belonging. Showing up, attending worship, giving, serving on committees and leading activities are all related to this sense of being members, of belonging. It is a challenge for most to understand the significance of Christian baptism and profession of faith as intimately linked to membership. Many have found themselves in circumstances where they discover and are surprised that they are not considered members and eligible to vote or serve on church councils.

In part, this is because our current membership practice clearly represents the former paradigm above. This model is not a challenge in an overwhelming Christian society where most people are baptised as children. But it looks quite different from the context of someone who has no church memory or history and for whom profession of faith and baptism are entirely new concepts.

Adult baptism, and a public profession of faith is, in this context, a significant step that most would choose to take only after a longer journey of exploration and formation. And in many cases it is leadership roles in the congregation that bring individuals to such a faith commitment.

Is baptism then best practiced as the required entry point to membership and active participation in the life of a congregation, or is it better seen as a significant step of discipleship and spiritual commitment emerging from that participation? What might it mean to open our understanding of membership to a new paradigm of membership in which the entry point is the choice to join to participate in God’s mission? And how might a shift in this practice allow the church to deepen and strengthen its practice of baptism at the heart of its life?

1 Christianity After Religion. Diana Butler Bass. 2012 PAGE 147 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The United Church has extensively explored its understanding and practice of membership since the 1960’s. In 1962 the Division of Mission in Canada released the report “Doctrine and Practice of Church Membership.” It was followed by several years of exploration on Christian Initiation (1980 – 1984) including the first remit extended to all pastoral charges. The most recent report “Belonging: Privilege and Responsibility” was received by the 37th GC (2000).

In 1984 and 2000, remits were sent to pastoral charges and presbyteries testing the affirmation that all who are baptised are members of the church. (The remits emerged from the ambiguous meaning of Basis 5.8.1. which suggest that all baptised children are members, but have the “privilege and duty” when they reach the age of discretion to enter into “full membership”.) In essence the failure of both remits is understood to mean that a formal profession of faith (expressed for children as confirmation) in addition to baptism is required for membership. While the 1984 remit also sought clarity around the admission of children to communion, and failed, momentum reflected in the liturgical practices of the church, and the significant and timely report “A Place For You” has clearly answered the question, regardless of the remit, that children are indeed welcome at communion. The 2000 remit tested a proposal that the church no longer use the term “full membership.” While the remit also failed, it is clear that momentum has continued with many churches no longer making a clear distinction between baptism and “full” membership.

The 37th General Council (2000), possibly in anticipation of the difficulties presented by the remit, requested the Theology and Faith Committee to prepare the “necessary resources that would enable The United Church of Canada to engage in a discussion of the meaning and theology of baptism as well as the nature of the church (ecclesiology).” While no formal action was taken by the Theology and Faith Committee on this request, the committee responded for other reasons to the challenge of ecclesiology with the report “A Church With Purpose” to the 41st General Council (2012.)

While questions remain of the relationship of baptism, full membership, and profession of faith, it is clear that other questions surrounding the meaning of membership are also taking on significance.

As rural and remote congregations close, what avenues of continued membership remain for faithful members for whom there is no easily accessible United Church community? The Uniting Church of Australia authorizes Presbyteries to maintain membership roles in such situations. Should this be a practice in the United Church?

Community (outreach) ministries are questioning models of the church that exclude people on the margins of society (most often encountered in community ministries) as not full participants or members of the church. Are not many of the attributes of church membership, they question, present among the people who participate in these ministries irrespective of, or perhaps specifically because of the reality that they are often among the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society?

Currently membership is limited to those recorded by a church session or its equivalent (with the exception of armed forces chaplaincies). Membership, in other words, presupposes an established and traditional congregational model. Many new forms of faith communities are emerging. How might it be possible for those who choose to express their faith in these new forms of community to

PAGE 148 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015 share in membership and leadership in the United Church? Is it possible to open other avenues of church membership that acknowledge much greater variety in what faith communities will look like today and certainly into the future?

Increasing numbers of United Church congregations are responding to requests from members of other faiths who wish to align themselves with the United Church while also remaining connected to their home faith. Is it possible to structure a form of associate membership that has a different quality to it than “adherent?” Does the term “adherent” any longer adequately address the character of commitment and engagement that is represented by those who choose to align themselves with the United Church?

The Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee believes that reflection on membership is timely and necessary at this moment in the church’s life. As part of its work it has consulted extensively with the Comprehensive Review Task Group and agreed that clarity around membership in the church is critical to whatever redesign is proposed around its structure.

In undertaking this proposal the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee (TICIF) recognizes an ongoing debate about whether membership in the church needs to be based on welcoming and inviting participation of a new generation of seekers who have little commitment to formal understandings of membership or, should be focused on high expectations of discipleship and significant preparation for a life changing decision. It believes that whatever proposal is offered needs to meet both objectives.

The challenge of developing a new model of membership, therefore, is that it must represent a church attuned to the new realities of our time while maintaining connection to 2000 years of history; that creates space for local communities of faith to emerge and thrive while at the same time affirming a national identity; to affirm that the church, and therefore membership, is not just an institutional act, but is also incorporation into the body of Christ; and to be open to people in many stages of a faith journey while continuing to affirm baptism as the one universal sacrament of belonging for the world-wide community of Christ.

Why the interim step of allowing Adherents to vote on all matters before congregational meetings? There are two situations which most reveal the challenges to our current membership practices. The first is the restrictions placed on adherents in voting on “spiritual” matters in congregational meetings. By definition, adherents are active participants in a community of faith. Currently the Manual Section 3.7.2 allows, with the approval of full members, adherents the right to vote solely on financial and administrative matters. Further restrictions are placed in Section 3.7.3 on specific areas on which adherents may not vote. Basis 5.8.2 also limits adherents to voting on temporal matters.

For many, the difference between being a full member and adherent is whether they were baptised and confirmed at a younger age, or came into the church later in life and simply became involved. In other words, the difficulty confirms the analysis above that belonging is more important to many today than formal criteria of membership. The restrictions also maintain an increasingly unclear

PAGE 149 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015 distinction between spiritual and temporal matters. Why can an adherent vote on the budget of a community of faith, with significant spiritual implications, while not being able to vote on anything related to the order of worship? This proposal moves the church in the direction of a new model consistent with that which the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee believes is emerging, and allows congregations to determine for themselves how adherents may participate in decisions of the community of faith.

The second area of difficulty is the restriction against adherents serving on the governing board of a community of faith. Currently all members of the governing board must be full members (Section 7.3.1). Many congregations currently ignore this restriction and allow adherents to serve at times in formal positions of leadership. This proposal does not address this problem. It leaves in place the requirement recognizing it is part of the larger discussion on membership and discipleship and will need to be addressed in a more comprehensive proposal.

One Possible Model of Membership The Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee has developed a new model of membership and offers it in Appendix A as one possibility that it believes should be tested further in the church. In the initial testing of the model, however it became clear that a key issue is the relationship of baptism and membership. This is one of the issues that will require further study and conversation across the church. It is expected that further conversation and study will help to refine this model, or contribute to the development of a new and different approach. The Appendix also includes a theological section.

Appendix A - A Possible Model of Membership Developed by the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee

Member The Members of a Community of Faith are those who have been welcomed by the governing board and have affirmed their desire to: • Follow Jesus by choosing to live a life of compassion • Live and act in hope for God’s world • Grow in faith within (this) community of The United Church of Canada

Children of Members are also members of the Community of Faith. At an appropriate age to be determined by the Community of Faith they will be invited to make their own affirmation of membership or to become Professing Members.

Members of the Community of Faith are eligible to vote at all meetings and to serve at all levels of governance of the community subject to the oversight of the Community of Faith.

Professing Member A person becomes a Professing Member of the Community of Faith with the approval of the governing board (or the Community of Faith) through baptism (if not already baptised) and profession of faith.

PAGE 150 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

It is the hope of The United Church of Canada that every member of a Community of Faith will be invited to become professing members of the church.

The Community of Faith may determine which offices and roles within its structures require professing membership.

All candidates for accountable ministry and representatives to other courts of the United Church shall be professing members.

A roll of professing member will be held local communities of faith and may also be held by the General Council.

Associate Member A Community of Faith may enter the names of individuals on their membership roll who wish to align themselves with the mission and ministry of the Community and The United Church of Canada as Associate Members. Associate Members shall have voice at all meetings of the Community of Faith but shall not vote.

Implications: In this proposal, baptism will not be required for membership in a local community of faith nor for positions of leadership in that community of faith. Members (rather than only Full or Professing Members) will also be allowed to vote on spiritual (non-temporal) matters.

The proposal for “Professing Member” is a change in name from “Full Member” but leaves intact the existing manual provisions, while requiring that all candidates for accountable ministry leadership, and all representatives to higher courts be professing members. The name of “Associate Member” is changed from the existing category of “Adherent” and Associate Members will have voice at all meetings of the Community of Faith, but no vote.

Background to the Model Member The model emphasizes an invitation to become members of the church to all those who desire to follow Jesus by living a life of compassion; who wish to align themselves in hope to God’s mission and to grow in faith within a local community of The United Church of Canada. These words have been chosen as a basic, open and invitational call to join with a community of seekers and believers.2 The phrasing of “to follow Jesus by living a life of compassion” (rather than simply to follow Jesus) is intentional in giving meaning and focus to an often abused concept. It also lifts up the link to the scriptural qualities of faith, hope and love.

To follow Jesus by choosing to live a life of compassion Love To live and act in hope for God’s world Hope To grow in faith within this community of The United Church of Canada Faith

2 With appreciation, the first two are drawn from the work of Kennon Callahan. PAGE 151 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The affirmations emphasize the movement of the spirit in the life of an individual to engage in ministry as well as function within the organization of the community of faith. It moves us away therefore from institutional understandings of membership based on rights and responsibilities.

Membership will be initiated by a request to the governing board. (For example it could be an Application for Membership card with the above criteria that is signed and given to the minister or other representative of the community.) Members are those who are affirmed by the governing board and who are recorded on the roll of members. Members are eligible to vote at congregational or community meetings on all matters and to serve in all positions of leadership within the community of faith (subject to the oversight of the Community of Faith – see later.)

The critical difference from existing policy is that baptism and a formal, public profession of faith will not be required for local church membership.

Professing Member The term Professing Member is chosen as a way of being descriptive rather than hierarchical. Professing Members are those who have been baptised and have made a public profession of faith.

The model maintains the existing terminology in the Manual for “Full Member” and upholds the language of the Basis of Union 8.6.2 (b) “that no terms of admission to full membership shall be prescribed other than those laid down in the New Testament.”

The intention of the policy would be to encourage “members” to move towards “Professing Member” as a journey in discipleship, i.e. to see it as an invitational and significant spiritual step rather than as something necessary for either “fitting in” or as a hurdle to participating in the decision-making of the congregation.

It is proposed that the following statement be added to the Manual accompanying the description of Professing Member: It is the hope of The United Church of Canada that every member of a community of faith will be invited to become professing members of the church.

The community of faith will maintain responsibility for oversight of membership and could vary in their practices for Professing Member from a formal process of study and a one time “profession of faith”, to more informal practices of multiple occasions of “profession.”

The community of faith will also have responsibility for determining which offices must be filled by Professing Members. In other words, a community of faith might choose to follow a more traditional pattern and determine that all members of the governing board will be Professing Members, or perhaps the Session and Elders if that model of governance is chosen. These options provide for significant diversity in the practices of membership among communities of faith within the United Church. Christian but denominational identity is maintained in setting the foundations of membership in the required three affirmations.

PAGE 152 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Identity and continuity with the global Christian community is also maintained by requiring all candidates for paid accountable ministry (and therefore all ministers) as well as representatives to other courts of the church to be baptised and professing members. It would also be the hope of the church that a majority of members of a local community of faith would become professing members.

A roll of Professing Members will be maintained by a local community of faith, but also might be maintained by the General Council. This would provide a location in which professing (or previously “full” members) of the church whose congregation have closed might maintain their connection with the larger church. Maintaining a record of professing members at the General Council could also replace transfer of membership processes.

Associate Member The category of Adherent will be renamed as Associate member. Associate Members will be individuals who wish to align themselves with a community of faith (and with the United Church) as a sign of support for their work in the community and the world. It might involve individuals who are members of other faith bodies who do not desire to leave their own tradition (and do not wish to be involved as a voting member of the United Church community) but wish to stand with the United Church community in solidarity. It might be someone who periodically visits (summer or winter home) and again does not want to be a voting member. Associate Members will be recorded on the membership roll and will have voice at community of faith meetings, but no vote. This understanding of Associate Membership would also mean that distinctions between spiritual and temporal (financial) matters would no longer be necessary.

Multiple or Dual Memberships In this model, there is no restriction necessarily placed on multiple or dual memberships. This will be the responsibility of the governing board of the congregation to determine. The welcoming as members (of the local community) of those from faiths other than Christian will depend on the willingness of the individual to make the affirmation required (which is possible for many other faith traditions.) In this case it will still be the responsibility of the governing board to explore the reasons for their request to be a voting member of the community of faith, rather than an associate member.

Individuals who desire to maintain membership in other denominations or faiths would not be eligible for Professing Membership, since this involves authorization for serving on governing bodies beyond the local community of faith, and as accountable ministers of the denomination. There will no restriction to those who wish to hold membership or professing membership in more than one United Church community of faith.

Theological Background The document Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982) of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches lift ups the centrality of baptism as the universal sacrament of entry into the body of Christ (the church). Together with One Baptism: Towards Mutual Recognition (2011) these documents point to diversity in the practice of baptism while maintaining its central meaning

PAGE 153 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015 of incorporation into the body of Christ, the church. Both documents identify as an aspect of diversity the possibility of significant time between the various rites of initiation.

The United Church has historically affirmed both infant and adult baptism even though has long been the usual practice. It is not the intention of this proposed model of membership to diminish the church’s emphasis on infant baptism. It will undoubtedly remain the established and normative liturgical celebration of the welcoming or initiation of the child of a believing family into the community of faith. However, as a number of theologians have noted, among them Douglas John Hall, the end of Christendom requires the church to reorient its life. This includes, Hall argues, the recovery of the practice of adult baptism.

As noted earlier, the challenge the church faces appears to be between adopting a stance of radical welcome and hospitality to a new generation of seekers versus a focus on high expectations of discipleship and significant preparation for membership in the church.

To choose the latter suggests that baptism, profession of faith and therefore membership would come only after an extensive time of preparation and that any form of leadership or spiritual decision making in the life of the congregation would be delayed until that time. To choose the former appears to mean abandoning any standards of belief and behaviour for membership.

To accept this polarity however, fails to recognize that growth in faith and capacity for leadership and spiritual discernment takes place over time and through engagement. It fails to acknowledge, as Butler-Bass suggests, that for a new generation, belonging and therefore participating is the entry point to this journey.

This model proposes that it is possible to embrace both directions. It offers an entry point that is based on a simple and yet meaningful affirmation of faith. It is responsive to the nudging of the spirit to allow an individual to say that they find their heart aligned with this community of faith, that they are drawn to be part of it. It invites them into a journey of growth through participation. It acknowledges that God’s spirit can be active in their lives before baptism as well as after and that they can offer wisdom and leadership to the community while they are growing in faith.

It is not the intention of this model to separate local from national membership. Member and Professing Member will both be located with a local community of faith. What this model offers is an acknowledgment that people are on a spectrum of journeys within a community but they are all a part of the baptised community.

While the United Church has struggled with the lack of clarity in its Basis of Union between “member” and “full member” there is no question as the two remits have shown, that a profession of faith is an integral part of this rite of initiation. But as noted in the World Council statements above, the rites of initiation, which also historically includes participation in the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist, are “taken at different points over an extended period of time.” It is this extended period of time that points to the relationship of baptism, profession of faith and membership as fluid and varied depending on the particular needs of the community and of the time.

PAGE 154 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

This model emphasizes that baptism brings the community into being as the body of Christ. But within the baptised community there are those who are at all stages of faith, those who have made a profession of faith through baptism, those who are on a journey of deepening faith, and those who desire only to align themselves with the mission and life of the community expressed in the affirmations of faith for membership. In other words, in this model, room is made for those who are held by the baptised community on their journey towards deeper and fuller expressions of discipleship. In doing so it mirrors the call of Jesus to his disciples, to come and follow me; a call that did not presume baptism, but invited them on a journey.

It affirms that baptism represents the universal and local dimensions of the church. The visible signs of the Kingdom of God at the local level are offered through “membership”, locally defined by the community of faith in inclusive and invitational ways, and the “Professing Member” provision connects the local community of faith spiritually (with the baptismal ritual) and institutionally with the wider denominational and global church.

It seeks to hold up baptism at the heart of the community of faith; not as a bridge to participation and leadership, nor as a solely individualistic expression of faith, but rather as the declaration of the whole community that its members are journeying together in faith and discipleship.

And it therefore assists in recovering the importance of baptism and profession of faith in the life of the church; first in the basic affirmations that are part of being a member of a community of faith, and then in the invitation towards public profession. It moves profession of faith away from confirmation (or as some have said, the graduation model) towards a post-Christendom reality of decision for faith.

There are a wide range of biblical foundations for the model: the journey motifs in Genesis, ’s famous sermon (based on 2 Kings 10:15) "Is your heart right, as my heart is with your heart .. If it is, give me your hand"; the gifts of the body (1 Corinthians 12); dry bones taking on flesh as a metaphor for membership (Ezekiel 37) ; “Come and see” (John 1:45); Jesus’ call of the disciples.

Participation (belonging) in a Community of Faith, together with the basic affirmations of faith, becomes the main criteria for entry into local church membership. The model welcomes participation and affirms that it is integrally linked to decision making (voting) and leadership (office holding.) The expectations of preparation for profession of faith and baptism as well as the determination of which offices within a local community of faith require professing membership is left to the community itself. Professing membership, in this model, is upheld as a life decision for discipleship.

Finally, the flexibility offered by this model for membership and for associate membership, represents the long standing commitment of the United Church to be in partnership with all those who share our commitment to “mending the world.” It welcomes into our local communities of faith those who share our values and hopes. It witnesses to the church as a community which seeks allies where they can found for the sake of God’s work in the world.

PAGE 155 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

PMM 16 YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULT MINISTRY (YAYA) STRATEGY Origin: Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry

The Permanent Committee on programs for Mission and Ministry proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council:

a. Affirm the Youth and Young Adult (YAYA) Ministry strategy

b. Direct the General Secretary, General Council to implement this strategy in the 2015-2018 triennium

Background In Spring of 2011, the Communities in Ministry/Communautés et ministères Unit-wide Committee was charged by the Permanent Committee: Programs in Mission and Ministry (PC:PMM) to develop a new strategy for Youth and Young Adult Ministry. The strategy was to be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time bound, and lay before the church what could be expected over the next triennium from the General Council with regards to Youth and Young Adult Ministry. In Autumn of 2014 a task group was struck to evaluate progress on the strategy and propose directions for the coming triennium.

The task group used the current strategy as a foundation for a new strategy. The task group also acknowledges the directions of the Comprehensive Review Task Group and their plan to recommend “a faith project with significant resources to renew current ministry, enable new forms of ministry, enliven and equip our leadership, and lift up and celebrate our successful ministries.” Increased meaningful engagement with youth and young adults must be included in this project, and so the strategy is bold in its scope. If the results of the Comprehensive Review and consequent decisions by the General Council should decrease staffing and funding for ministry with youth and young adults at the General Council Office, the strategy may be used as a guide for ministry with youth and young adults in regional and local settings.

YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULT (YAYA) MINISTRY STRATEGY REPORT Origin: Permanent Committee of Programs for Mission and Ministry

Youth And Young Adult Strategy 2015-2018 The United Church of Canada is at a critical moment in its life. In order to engage young people and people of all ages, we must learn to see the world differently and we must learn to see the church differently. We must move beyond seeing ourselves as small, self-enclosed affinity groups that protect our own people and our own interests. We must focus on something other than our own survival and self-preservation. Churches must re-engage with their neighbourhoods, not to attract neighbours into the church, but to discover where God is already active in the neighbourhood and to join God’s mission to love creation through loving the PAGE 156 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

neighbourhood. This strategy seeks to promote and develop a missional mindset for youth and young adult ministry in the United Church.

Evaluation of Current Strategy There were five foci of the strategy and specific programs within each focus area: 1. Networking a) Creation of a Regional YAYA Staff Network b) Development of a National First Third Ministry Association c) Improved Involvement and Integration of Young People in the work of General Council

2. Leadership Development a) Regional Internship Program for Young Adults b) General Council Youth Forum c) Support for Campus Ministries d) Support for United Church Camping e) New Funding for Continuing Education in YAYA Ministry & Reorganization of Vision Fund

3. Credentialing a) Analyses and Communication of Current Pathways to Paid Accountable YAYA Ministry b) Partnership with A.S.T. in Development of MDiv Honours Program with YAYA Specialization

4. Mission Engagement a) Regional Internship Program for Young Adults (see above) b) Support for SCM and WSCF c) Global and Ecumenical Engagement in Partnership with the Partners in Mission Unit d) New Funding for Exemplary Mission-Related Programs & Reorganization of Vision Fund

5. National Gatherings a) Rendez-vous b) General Council Youth Forum c) Camping Connections d) YAYA Presence at Other National Gatherings

While most of the programs were engaged with relative success, funding for the Regional Internship Program was not found and the Communities in Ministry/Communautés et ministères Unit-wide Committee voted to remove it from the strategy in 2013. There have also been no youth-specific visits to global partners sponsored by the General Council in this triennium although significant support for such experiences was offered through the Vision Fund to local congregations or regional ministries. Previous Youth for Peace exposure trips to Israel/Palestine and Colombia were significant and life changing experiences for participants. Many of the participants have remained actively engaged in social justice campaigns and actions of the church. The First Third Ministry Association is still relatively small and fragile, but holds significant promise and requires further support.

PAGE 157 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Outcomes of the current strategy include a deepening of relationships amongst conference and presbytery YAYA staff due to the annual gathering. They develop collaborative projects, providing feedback and evaluative support for both regional and national YAYA initiatives. This connection has also provided a path of mutual participation in planning for and contributing to General Council programs and resources.

A recent informal survey of youth, young adults, and their leaders indicated that all groups felt “most connected” to the United Church of Canada through Rendez-vous and other national events. 71% of youth respondents felt most connected through Rendez-vous and 41% through conference and presbytery events. Amongst young adult respondents, 63% named Rendez-vous and 48% indicated their local churches have made them feel most connected. For adults, 92% felt most connected to the United Church through Rendez-vous and other national events while 50% named their local church as the place they felt the most connection. Clearly, national events such as Rendez-vous foster a connection between young people and the United Church, as well as between YAYA leaders and the church.

Finding ways to foster a sense of identity as Christians and as members of The United Church of Canada continues to be important to this Youth and Young Adult Strategy. Finding connection and developing relationships and networks of support and collaboration are equally important if we are to develop sustainable models of ministry with, for, and by youth, young adults, and their leaders.

The task group used the current strategy as a foundation for a new strategy. The task group also acknowledges the directions of the Comprehensive Review Task Group and their plan to recommend “a faith project with significant resources to renew current ministry, enable new forms of ministry, enliven and equip our leadership, and lift up and celebrate our successful ministries.” Increased meaningful engagement with youth and young adults must be included in this project, and so the strategy is bold in its scope. If the results of the Comprehensive Review and consequent decisions by the General Council should decrease staffing and funding for ministry with youth and young adults at the General Council Office, the strategy may be used as a guide for ministry with youth and young adults in regional and local settings.

Our Vision We pray that the Holy Spirit empowers youth and young adults as they partner with others and continue to enliven and transform The United Church of Canada in service of the mission of God. A Song of Faith states, “We sing of God’s good news lived out, a church with purpose: faith nurtured and hearts comforted, gifts shared for the good of all, resistance to the forces that exploit and marginalize, fierce love in the face of violence, human dignity defended, members of a community held and inspired by God, corrected and comforted, instrument of the loving Spirit of Christ, creation’s mending. We sing of God’s mission.”

We gather so that youth and young adults discover their identity as Christians, within the expression called The United Church of Canada. From A New Creed we remember that, “We are called to be the Church: to celebrate God’s presence…to proclaim Jesus...our judge and our hope.” A Song of Faith states, “We are called together by Christ as a community of broken but PAGE 158 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

hopeful believers...”

We unite leaders and youth and young adults to collaborate, share experiences and resources, network and find support in our common call. A New Creed reminds us that “we are not alone.” A Song of Faith states, “So God creates the universe and with it the possibility of being and relating.”

We equip young people and their leaders to: • Recognize and claim their gifts of the Spirit to enhance the church and community; • Confidently know, live, and share the stories of God’s people; and • Live as disciples of Christ, carrying out God’s mission. The original Basis of Union of the United Church of Canada recognizes that the church should exist for the “up-building of the saints.” A Song of Faith reminds us, “We are each given particular gifts of the Spirit. For the sake of the world, God calls all followers of Jesus to Christian ministry.”

We engage young people to act with love, pursuing the mission of God in the world; believing personal transformation, social and systemic change will create a more just world. A New Creed calls us to “…love and serve others, to seek justice and resist evil…” According to Song of Faith “In and with God, we can direct our lives toward right relationship with each other and with God.”

Components We Gather (National Gatherings) – The first connection a young person makes with a faith community is always local, whether that is through a camp, church, campus ministry, etc. National gatherings, however, serve a unique role in the overall ministry of the United Church of Canada. They allow young people to experience and explore the diversity of the church that isn’t always represented locally. For some youth and young adults local and regional ministries may be limited or non-existent and national gatherings can help them realize that they are not alone in finding a place of acceptance and ministry in The United Church of Canada. Such events can be personally transformative and can be the spark that fosters a life-long involvement in the church. They do not substitute for long-term local ministries, but hopefully energize and inspire participants to create meaningful opportunities in their regional and local settings. The YAYA Strategy affirms the important roles played by three YAYA-specific national events (Youth Forum, Camping Connections, and Rendez-vous) and the importance of including a YAYA presence at national events open to the wider church.

For Rendez-vous 2014 the Regional Financial Development Officers of the Philanthropy Unit offered an opportunity for directed giving for those interested in supporting the event. The effort showed huge potential as the officers raised over $40,000 in directed donations for the event. With this success in mind, the General Council commits to the continuation of funding for national YAYA events. Ecumenical partnerships will be explored to broaden the scope and share the financial liability of these events. The General Council also commits to do all possible to ensure that national events create spaces in which people are affirmed for who they are – in all their diversity as children of God. The events will intentionally model diverse leadership and PAGE 159 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

radical welcome to young people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, varied theological perspectives, and diverse expressions of gender and sexual identity. The General Council will provide tools and resources that will help young people tell the stories of these experiences in meaningful ways so that the whole church is impacted by the energy and transformation that occurs at national events.

We Unite (Networks) – Finding ways to unite youth to youth, young adults to young adults, leaders to leaders, and across the generations is an important component of the strategy. YAYA ministry can be lonely, challenging, and isolating. Leaders need opportunities for personal faith development and accountability in the midst of these challenges. When connections are made, either in person or electronically, resources and ideas can be shared and collaboration resulting in stronger relationships and support for our common call will occur. With limited resources of time and money, finding ways to collaborate is essential. It will also be important in coming years to consider how we can better partner with denominations that we are entering into relationships of mutual recognition and other types of agreements. The YAYA Strategy seeks to create more intentional networks, especially for those in leadership roles. Under this strategy, the General Council commits to the following pieces of work: • Regional YAYA Staff Network: General Council commits to hosting an annual, gathering for regional YAYA staff people. The purpose of the gathering will be for information sharing, relationship building, collaboration, study of societal shifts and trends, and best practices in YAYA ministry, • National First Third Ministry Association: General Council commits to strengthening a national association of first third ministry practitioners. First third ministry is a term used in describing the collection of ministry fields that serve people between the ages of 0 to 30 – roughly the first third of life. A first third ministry association would be made up of leaders (volunteers and paid accountable) from the various circles of youth ministry, campus ministry, camping ministry and children’s ministry. A team will be assembled to develop criteria and benefits for membership. Experts will be recruited to provide content and commit to responding to questions. Intentional promotion will occur. • Online Networks: General Council commits to continuing support to youth, young adults, and their leaders through online groups and communities. The recent survey indicated that Facebook is still the most widely used form of online community for young people and their leaders. All groups still use Facebook as a way to network and to both receive and share information. Currently, besides the First Third Ministry Facebook group, there is a group for Youth and Young Adults, a group for the Regional YAYA leaders, and groups formed around events such as Rendez-vous and General Council Youth Forum. There is also a Faith in Action Facebook group and e-newsletter that highlights the work of United Church ministries that function outside of congregations: Affirm United/S’affirmer Ensemble Affirming Ministries; Camping Ministries; Campus Ministries; Chaplaincies; Community & Social Justice Ministries; Education Centres; Seniors’ Facilities; Theological Schools. We must also continue to discern the uses of other forms of social media in our ministry with youth and young adults.

PAGE 160 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

• Partnership Development: General Council commits to strategic conversations with partner denominations about connecting our youth and youth ministry leaders with theirs for deeper and richer relationships and ministries.

We Equip (Equipping Leaders) – Part of General Council’s work is to connect leaders with the people, resources and opportunities they need to succeed. Equipping and supporting leaders in YAYA ministry, therefore, is a key part of the strategy’s focus, and the General Council commits to the following pieces of work: • The Vision Fund: The Vision Fund will be reimagined as a way to incubate, foster, and fund new, entrepreneurial and sustainable ministries with, for, and by youth and young adults. The General Council will bring together creative and resourceful leaders seeking to reimagine and birth new and sustainable ministries for youth and young adults. Regional training events and ongoing cohort groups will be established to develop sustainable and missional YAYA ministries. The regional training events will also include interested donors and voices from the margins.

The General Council will continue to provide $150,000 per year for grants to United Church congregations and ministries that commit to receiving training, participation in cohort groups, and continued relationship with denominational staff, councils, or structures. Additionally, a preference will be given to projects that are inter-cultural and missional, e.g. reaching out to young people in the community.

For leaders seeking to pursue continuing education in the field of YAYA ministry, the General Council will maintain funds in the amount of $25,000 annually for continuing education bursaries. Special consideration will be given to young people and leaders from remote settings.

• General Council Youth Forum: The YAYA Strategy affirms the key role Youth Forum plays in shaping young leaders and seeks to continue the development of this program. Youth Forum at the 42nd General Council will be significantly different from previous Youth Forums with three components including a Winter Retreat, Summer Pilgrimage, and General Council. Evaluation of the outcomes of this new way of doing Youth Forum will be done with an eye towards the future of Youth Forum.

• United Church Camping: The General Council commits to continuing to offer Camping Connections, a triennial gathering of United Church Camping leaders for the purposes of information sharing, support, and continuing education. The General Council commits to raising the profile of United Church Camping among the YAYA ministries of the United Church and to promote YAYA ministries within the camping community. Creating resources for congregations to celebrate Camping Sunday will also continue.

PAGE 161 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

• Campus Ministry: This strategy affirms campus ministries as a space for challenge, growth, leadership development and wrestling with deep questions of faith. Campus ministries also offer a home away from home where students can deepen their sense of self and the world around them. Campus ministries provide caring leadership development for young adults, particularly walking with them as they search for their call and vocation. Campus ministries have a great deal of experience working within an intercultural, queer-positive, and secular reality. They have much to teach the rest of the church. The General Council commits to supporting the network of campus ministers through the Faith in Action e-newsletters and online group. The General Council will also work with campus ministers to develop and provide a series of webinars for them based on their needs and recommendations.

• Mentors/Elders, Coaches, and Consultants: In partnership with Edge, educations centres, and theological schools, mentors, coaches, and consultants will be trained and coordinated to meet the needs of those in ministry with youth and young adults. Mentors or Elders share what they personally know – what they have learned over time. A coach assists by helping people discover answers and solutions to questions and challenging situations. Consultants provide expertise in particular areas. All three will be necessary to develop and support successful and sustainable ministry with youth and young adults into the future.

Mentors will be sought to partner with leaders working within these contexts or with groups that include, but are not limited to: Those new to youth and young adult ministry; Seeking a more missional approach to YAYA ministry; Young people struggling with questions around gender and sexual difference; Racialized young people; Young people struggling with mental health issues; Groups that are inter-cultural or leaders that are working with young people of a pre- dominantly different racial/ethnic group from their own.

• Video Resources: Youth and young adult ministry has moved away from a focus on the downloading of knowledge or belief from one generation to another. Yet resources are still needed to assist young people in knowing the stories of God’s people that have sustained the generations and to provide the particular perspective of the United Church of Canada on these stories. Resources are needed to help young people sing a song of faith and articulate why their faith calls them to action and engagement with God’s mission in the world. Young people need to be able to recognize and claim their gifts for ministry in a hurting world, and then have the church help them utilize those gifts. Such resources can be launching points for discussion, debate, and determining one’s own belief.

The General Council will create short videos using whiteboard animation. The videos will focus on partnership, mission and ministry, as well as issues such as inter-culturalism and sexuality and gender identity from a United Church perspective. The purpose of the videos

PAGE 162 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

will be to give youth and young adults a better understanding of the work of the church in a language and format that speaks to them.

• Student Internships: For many years now, a student internship has been part of the candidacy pathway for those entering ordered ministry. The benefits of placing potential leaders in local ministries alongside experienced supervisors have been well documented and many graduates cite this internship period as the most transformative aspect of their education. Not only do candidates benefit from engaging in hands-on ministry, local ministries and the church as a whole benefit from having these new leaders share their developing gifts through internship.

The YAYA Strategy seeks to offer the same kind of experience to young adults between the age of 19 and 25, exploring a vocational call to ministry. The General Council will partner with regional and local ministries to provide internships of varying lengths. Ministry sites will be carefully screened to ensure adequate supervision and meaningful experiences. Where possible, partnerships will be developed with United Church intentional communities to provide housing and supportive relationships for interns.

• Self-evaluation: Perhaps more than other organizations, churches tend to do things year after year because “we’ve always done it this way.” Evaluation is often based on outputs rather than outcomes, e.g. “we had 20 youth group meetings with an average of 12 youth during the past year.” The General Council will develop a self-evaluation tool for YAYA ministries to determine their effectiveness based on multiple criteria including: theological, missional, inter-cultural, and welcoming of all sexual and gender identities.

We Engage (Engaging in God’s Mission) – God’s world needs leaders to become aware of what is happening in their communities and enter into relationships marked by service and engagement with God’s mission in the world. Successful youth ministry involves youth in action and reflecting and sharing transformative experiences in community. This strategy seeks to partner with and resource initiatives within our church that get young people engaged with God’s mission. The General Council commits to the following pieces of work: • Resources will be developed for YAYA ministries seeking to intentionally and meaningfully engage young people with a theology of difference. Tools for self-analysis regarding social class and various forms of privilege and marginalization will be provided. A menu of options will be developed to assist in connecting with local agencies, and leaders, including local band councils, social agencies, community ministries, etc., and movements and campaigns Guiding questions for engaging in inter-faith experiences will be provided.

• Considerable resources will be spent curating partnerships and processes to assist faith communities in developing a consciousness of their surrounding communities. Faith communities will be challenged and supported to begin a missional journey, engaging with their communities and discerning where God is at work and how to join in the mission of God in their own neighbourhoods.

PAGE 163 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

• Food justice campaign: Seeding Life: Breaking Ground for Food Justice is a three-year (2014–2016) United Church campaign that seeks to communicate three messages. Together we can build a world in which food is produced, distributed and consumed in ways that respect Earth and its ecosystems. We can honour food as a sacred gift from God and part of the global commons. And we can effect change for food justice that can have a life-sustaining impact on our families, communities, and Earth itself. Seeding Life: Breaking Ground for Food Justice calls United Church members to participate in advocacy initiatives designed to help build a world where food justice is the norm and hunger is eliminated.

The General Council commits to continue connecting United Church young people with opportunities to engage with ecumenical and global partners, particularly those who are involved in ministries of food justice. Careful consideration will be given to an education and exposure trip to visit a partner advocating for food justice in another region of the world with the commitment to return to Canada and engage in issues of food security and justice.

• WSCF and SCM: General Council has a long history of supporting the Student Christian Movement in both its national and international embodiments. Many local and regional ministries also support local chapters of SCM on campuses throughout the country. SCM and WSCF have long been effective vehicles for engaging United Church young people in God’s mission of justice, equity and leadership development.

General Council commits to continue limited funding for both the national SCM ministry, WSCF North America and WSCF International. Funding will be provided and re-evaluated annually. SCM and WSCF staff will continue to report annually about their activities and United Church participation. These reports will be tracked over the upcoming years, to ensure that General Council support is based upon effective mission engagement that resonates with United Church young adults, rather than nostalgia for years gone by.

We Pray (Commitment to the Strategy) – This strategy is a set of commitments, promises of action in the area of Youth and Young Adult Ministry, made by the General Council, and for which the General Council is accountable. It is the responsibility of the entire General Council Office, committee members and volunteers, to follow through on these measures, not simply the YAYA Staff of General Council. As partners in our national ministry, it will be important for all local and regional ministries to be mutually accountable for the commitments made in this strategy.

Respectfully submitted the YAYA Working Group members: Mitchell Anderson Sheryl Johnson Allyce Mutungi Debbie Poirier, PCPMM member Amy Crawford, staff resource

PAGE 164 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

GS 53: LIVING APOLOGY TO MEMBERS OF LGBTTQ COMMUNITIES Origin: General Secretary, General Council

The General Secretary, General Council proposes that the Executive of the General Council recommend:

That the 42nd General Council meeting in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, August 2015:

1. Adopt the Process of a Living Apology as a vehicle for dialogue, story-telling, education and reconciliation with members of the Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender Queer (LGBTTQ) community,

2. Direct the General Secretary to partner with Affirm United/S’affirmer Ensamble on the Living Apology Art installation project.

3. Invite the United Church into a 3-year journey of dialogue and reconciliation with members of LGBTTQ communities, that would involve: • creative opportunities for conversation, worship and education • opportunities to explore concepts such as reconciliation, justice, and lament to be reported and celebrated at the 43rd General Council in 2018 in acknowledgement of the 30th Anniversary of the 1988 decision of the full participation of LGBTTQ peoples in the church.

Background At its meeting in November 2014 the Executive of General Council (GCE) asked the Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry (PCPMM) to develop a process and wording for an apology to the LGBTTQ communities

After consultation with members of LGBTTQ communities, organizations, and various committees within the church about an apology, it was felt that it was not the right time for a formal apology. The collective wisdom was that we needed a longer process of dialogue, story- telling, and education. I am therefore proposing an apology process over the next triennium. By developing a 3-year process, communities of faith are given time to discern how they may live into an apology and what journeys need to be taken on a personal and communal level to create change, reconciliation and healing. In addition, the process seeks to ensure that as many voices as possible are heard, as there are unique and diverse stories from the community.

Invitation The 42nd General Council in August 2015 would invite the church to engage in a three-year process of dialogue, reconciliation and education. The invitation would convey the importance of listening to difficult stories, a willingness to learn and reflect, and the need to create change in the church.

PAGE 165 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

This invitation could be offered in conjunction with opportunities to engage the General Council such as a learning option, a resource table made available throughout the meeting, or as a theme for a worship service.

Implementation One of the primary tools that would be used to engaged in dialogue, story-telling, and education is an art-installation that would act as a “Living Apology”. (Additional information about the Living Apology is available in Appendix A – attached pages 167-168.)

Over the three-year process, resources would be developed to enable communities of faith to engage in courageous conversations around creating space for lament, storytelling, and fostering reconciliation. Furthermore, regional events will be offered to support this work and give members of the United Church from across the country a chance to participate in the Living Apology and participate in community building and workshops.

The United Church would also use social media and online resources to host conversations and offer online workshops.

Celebrations The three-year process would give the church an opportunity to best discern how to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the 1988 decision that all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, who profess faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to him, are welcome to be or become full members of the church. The findings of this process would be shared and celebrated at the 43rd General Council in 2018.

PAGE 166 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Appendix A

Living Apology

The Living Apology is an interactive art installation piece that gives participants an opportunity to hear the stories of others, contribute their own, and make their personal commitment to living into the apology. The Living Apology is structured as a spiral labyrinth design with three components.

Component 1: Remembering/Story-telling The first section displays the stories of hurt/harm that has been caused by the church due to homophobia, transphobia, heterosexism, cissexism, and . Individuals will be invited to contribute their stories prior to the event, during their participation in the art installation, or afterwards (as they feel called to). Remembering and story-telling is an essential piece to an apology which enables people to feel heard and seen in their pain (that can often be silenced or surrounded by a sense of isolation). Not only does the collection of stories enable people to recognize they did not experience harm alone, it also helps the rest of the church understand the complexity and multitudes of experiences members of LGBTTQ communities have in the church.

Component 2: Accountability/Apology The second section would be featured in the centre of the spiral. The middle section of this journey invites participants to reflect on the role they have had perpetuating harm to members of LGBTTQ communities and how they have benefitted from the injustice. This section would include the official words of the apology, but would also opportunities for individuals to write their own personal apologies, or for particular communities and/or organizations to share their own apologies as well (i.e. UCW, AOTS, GCO staff, Conference Office staff, Youth Forum, etc.). This section is important as it enables be to be healed from the apologies that have been offered by others without erasing the different forms of privilege which exists even within the LGBTTQ spectrum (i.e., A gay person may be called to reflect on their participation in bi erasure, or a cis lesbian may be called to reflect on their cissexism).

Component 3: Hope/ Moving Forward The third section highlights the need for ongoing dedication and action to ensure the apology’s transformative power is recognized. This section enables people to celebrate and affirm the many ways that members of LGBTTQ communities and their alive have been resisting oppression and creating change before any major policies in the Church were implemented and before the apology. This section gives people an opportunity to share their experiences of joy and resilience. Also, this section provides an opportunity for people to share their hopes for how the apology will impact communities of faith across the country.

PAGE 167 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Method: The Living Apology is an ongoing art piece that would require a curator to answer any questions an individual may have about participating and ensure that the piece is maintained in a physical sense, but also that the any of the contributions ensure that they uphold the spirit of the apology.

Accessibility: -The inclusion of laptops with audio/visual stations would make the stories more accessible to those with visual impairment -The art installation would have be constructed to reflect measurements that would enable someone to use a wheelchair or mobility device with ease throughout the installation. -Due to the content material that would be discussed in the Living Apology, it would be important to have several chaplains available on site that had access to a private and comfortable place for pastoral care.

Preparation: -National call out for submission of stories, gathering stories from the GLBTT Consultation (2011), asking people to bring stories as commissioners from their communities, -planning and creation of art installation base -coordinating chaplains

Proposed Sharing of the Living Apology The Living Apology has the potential to be adapted and recreated by any community as a local event (i.e. Conference AGM, youth gathering) by making some of the stories collected available through pdf documents/pictures.

A walking tour of the Living Apology could also be filmed and made available online for those who are unable to attend an event in person.

PAGE 168 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

TICIF 5 ONLINE COMMUNION Origin: Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee

The Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee proposes that the Executive of General Council:

Receive the report of the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee on Online Communion and commend it to the church.

Report - Online Communion The General Secretary and Executive of General Council asked the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee to provide advice on the following questions:

Is the celebration of communion to an extended online community theologically appropriate? What circumstances would allow communion to be appropriately celebrated through virtual connections or community?

This question was raised through the decision to reconvene the 41st General Council in an online meeting, and to begin the meeting as required by the Manual with the celebration of communion. Was this appropriate and should it be repeated with the 42nd General Council?

There is however a related question about changing forms of congregational life: What forms and expressions of online community are acceptable to United Church polity? And what means of blessing and consecrating elements are appropriate to welcome the participation of people in new virtual expressions of community life?

In summary, the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee offers the following response: In United Church polity, the Session (or its equivalent) has final authority for the worship life of the congregation. There are however limitations. For example the Session is not free to change the baptismal formula. The Theology and InterChurch InterFaith committee believes that authorizing the practice of online communion does fall within the authority of the local church session or its equivalent. The implications of online communion, for example, are not so critically significant to ecumenical relationships nor to the integrity of worship within the United Church that the authority of the session in this matter can be limited.

Therefore the advice of the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee is that the final decision on the practice of online communion rests with the Session or its equivalent.

However, the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee believes that it would be appropriate to offer guidance to the church concerning the practice of online communion and by implication the practice of communion during meetings of the General Council.

PAGE 169 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The United Methodist Church (USA) has done extensive work on the issue of online communion and published a series of papers following a major consultation.1 Their papers and summary documents can assist congregations in understanding the issues involved in considering whether to approve online communion. United Methodist policy currently calls for a moratorium on the practice of online communion and is based on the following key points:

• Historically, the Church has understood a service of Holy Communion to be a celebration within a physically gathered community. The emergence of interactive digital media raises new questions about the meaning of gathered community and requires further thinking about our beliefs and practices.

• We affirm the church’s exploration and use of interactive digital media in the fulfillment of its mission.

• Participation in the Lord’s Supper entails the actual tactile sharing of bread and wine in a service that involves people corporeally together in the same place.

• For the sake of the unity in the Body of Christ, the establishment of unprecedented sacramental-like practices (such as online communion) should be worked through in conversation with ecumenical partners, and especially with those partners with whom we already have covenants.

The collected papers of the consultation provide some compelling arguments against online communion practices. For example:

• Communion as “remembrance” of the self-giving of Jesus reflects God’s incarnational action. The incarnation is symbolized in bread and wine and words (“this is my body”) and in the gathered community. • Communion is not primarily about “consuming” but about “sharing.” Online communion overemphasizes the consuming of the elements and fails, especially in solitary communion, to lift up the sharing aspect of the celebration. • Communion is God’s gift to the gathered community. It is based in a communal ethic rather than an individualistic ethic. Its purpose is to “build up the church in love” so that it might be a witness to the world of genuine community. A fundamental characteristic of the communion meal is that the elements are received, i.e. not taken. Communion is fundamentally about sharing a meal. The communal aspect is not incidental. • The use of “sacramental elders” and the Methodist practice of circuit riders offer an alternative. (They also provide a Protestant option to the Roman Catholic tradition of “reserved sacrament.”) The history of once of month communion (or quarterly) in part came from the tradition of circuit riders who visited communities periodically to conduct

1 These materials can be found at: http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/the-united-methodist- view-of-communion

PAGE 170 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

the sacraments. Would it not be better to choose a path which emphasized personal contact and sharing? • The global consensus on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM 1982) is significant. It is important to commit to ecumenical accountability in these foundational characteristics of the universal church. The forms of celebration of the Lord’s Supper need to pay attention to the larger ecumenical consensus.

The Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee explored these arguments in depth. They also noted other arguments that support online communion. 2

The Presbyterian Church in Canada for example, has considered online communion and through its Committee on Church Doctrine offered guidelines for its conduct. In particular the report suggests that:

• Virtual communion should always be built on the foundation of pre- established face to face relationships. • At least one ordained elder (member of session or elder) normally needs to be present recognizing that some exceptions might apply. • Communion should be part of a service of the word and part of public worship. • Use of media needs to be carefully considered (e.g. are the elements clearly visible?)

Their conclusion; “it is the opinion of the Committee on Church Doctrine that such a celebration of communion via various communication media is proper within the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

In exploring arguments in support of online communion, the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee affirmed the following insights:

• Experiments in online communion give priority to the mission of the church over and above established practice. This option for mission is grounded in the Methodist experience but it also has roots in our other predecessor bodies.

• The ethos and the polity of the United Church give freedom for worship and encouragement for liturgical innovation.

• The church needs to offer opportunities for nurturing faith in new ways for those not willing or able to enter a church building or a traditional worshipping community. With care and caution, as will be noted below, the Committee feels that experiments in ministry and mission using online worship and communion are appropriate, in our time and context.

2 http://www.umcmedia.org/umcorg/2013/communion/offer-them-christ-celebrating-the- eucharist-online-langford.pdf

PAGE 171 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The Committee believes that communion is fundamentally a remembrance of the incarnational action of God in the life of Jesus and is meant to be celebrated in the gathered community. As such, its practice must be directed towards strengthening and gathering the community of faith. In other words, online communion should not be seen solely as a personal spiritual experience. While receiving communion online can invite people into deeper experiences of the divine, this experience should be directed towards fuller participation in the life of the community of faith. The Committee believes, in consensus with the Methodist consultation, that a fundamental characteristic of the communion meal is that the elements are received, not taken. This means that whenever possible online communion experiences take place with others physically present. The intention is that the elements are not “taken” but are offered. The Committee recognizes that there must be exceptions to this, in the case of remote or isolated individuals or in experiments in mission outreach.

An example of this would be the situation of elderly shut-ins. It would be preferable for such individuals who wished to watch the communion service of their church online and participate, to be accompanied by a member of the church. The member would be with them, and would serve (and be served, if possible) the elements. If this is not possible however, then the desire for participation in communion should take priority.

Online communion for members of the community unable to be present for communion (perhaps due to illness or travel) can also provide a sense of deep ongoing connection with the community. In this situation again the committee believes that participating with another Christian is always preferable. However priority should be given to the desire to experience and maintain communion with the community of faith.

In respect to the actions of the General Council, in reconvening the Council with the celebration of communion, the Committee believes that the same principles apply. It notes that the Manual is clear that General Council be convened in a service of worship and communion that is public and open to all. Therefore, if the General Council is convened online in between full sessions, care should be taken that the opening worship be as broadly accessible as possible within the church. An option for this would be to invite all congregations to gather and participate with the members of the Council in the online worship and communion.

Whenever possible, members of the Council should gather in clusters for the celebration of communion, rather than join in isolation. Again, the exceptions of remote or significant challenges in gathering should not prevent an individual from participating.

The Committee welcomes the exploration of new forms of online sharing of worship between congregations. In particular it provides an opportunity to share the gifts of leadership between congregations with differing ministry resources. Whenever possible, the committee believes, the online sharing of communion between gathered communities should be accompanied, in the remote congregation, by a sacrament elder. For example, the fraction and distribution of the elements in the main site of worship should be accompanied with similar action by a sacrament elder in the remote site. If a sacrament elder is not appointed or present the action should be undertaken by a session member or, failing that, someone acting on behalf of the gathered group.

PAGE 172 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Care should also be taken in the positioning of cameras to ensure that the communion elements remain clearly visible.

Finally, the Committee notes the long practice of the Methodist roots of the church in what were once called circuit riders. The intention was to ensure that small and remote communities had access to periodic services and the sacraments. Online forms of ministry, the Committee believes are new expression of this old pattern. However, some expressions of the older patterns are important to preserve, in particular the emphasis on personal contact and sharing. Online initiatives, in other words, should be accompanied by renewed efforts of exploring how personal presence and sharing can accompany and support all experience of online communion.

PAGE 173 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

PMM 17 EXTENSION OF UNSETTLING GOODS CAMPAIGN: CHOOSE PEACE IN PALESTINE/ISRAEL – PRAY, CHOOSE, SPEAK Origin: Permanent Committee Programs for Mission and Ministry

The Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council:

1. receive the Interim Campaign Report: Unsettling Goods: Choose Peace in Palestine and Israel for information, and

2. extend the “Unsettling Goods: Choose Peace in Palestine and Israel” Campaign to the 43rd General Council in 2018 in order to:

a. respond to the Kairos call of Christian Palestinians for action to end the intensifying occupation of Palestinian territories

b. engage United Church members in economic action, worship, prayer, study, trust- building and advocacy (Pray, Choose, Speak)

c. continue to deepen the awareness of United Church members about the issues of the ongoing occupation, particularly the increase in the building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land, and its impact on the lives of Palestinians and Israelis.

Background: After reviewing the interim report of the Unsettling Goods Campaign: Choose Peace in Palestine/Israel and in seeking to be responsive to the continued call of ecumenical and global partners for solidarity, the Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry believes that it is important to continue the Campaign for the following reasons:

1. There has been insufficient time to fully implement the campaign. The campaign is only at this point one year and three months old. This has not been enough time to implement “a church-wide campaign of education and economic action” as mandated by General Council in August 2012. The General Council Executive directed the General Secretary to activate the campaign in May 2013; the campaign was launched in December 2013.

2. There is a need for continued basic awareness raising and congregational outreach to build on campaign strengths such as strong local leadership. The interim report reveals that while the campaign has areas of strength such as strong local leadership, good initial take up on economic action supported by clear concise resources, and local civil society collaboration, there is still a need for continued basic awareness raising and PAGE 174 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

congregational outreach where, in some cases, action on the campaign has just recently begun. An example of this is the “Let’s Keep Talking” series which will roll out during the 2015 Easter Season. These resources, which were developed based on feedback and an assessment of the campaign after 6 months of implementation, seek to address barriers that have blocked people’s participation in the campaign.

3. The intensification of the occupation, the rise of the religiously sanctioned extremism in the Middle East and emergence of signs of hope within this context necessitate continued action now toward a non-violent end to the occupation and the creation of conditions for just peace in Palestine/Israel. The Unsettling Goods campaign is a key part of the United Church’s contribution to the creation of these conditions. a. Intensification of the occupation: Since General Council 2012, the occupation has intensified. In 2013 alone, the greatest number of settler homes were approved to be built on Palestinian land since 1967. b. There have been two wars on Gaza since the 41st General Council, with Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza striking further into Israel. There are increasing levels of settler violence, home demolitions, and increasing difficulty to access to holy sites for Christians and Muslims. There have been more acts of violence by individual Palestinians in 2014 than there were in the previous three years. c. The rise in religiously sanctioned extremism in the region, particularly in Syria and Iraq - both Israeli and Palestinian partners of the United Church remain convinced that ending the occupation is an essential step toward healing in the Middle East. d. Change is possible and there are signs that it is starting to happen amidst the intensification of the occupation. Through Unsettling Goods, we can contribute to this change: i. It is argued that global campaigns focussed on SodaStream and its settlement products impacted the company’s shares, and contributed to its 2014 announcement that it would be moving its factory out of the Mishor Adumim Industrial Zone in the settlement to a location in the Negev within Israel’s internationally-recognized borders. Pressure on the company needs to continue to ensure it follows through and complies with international law. ii. The European Union and certain parliaments have taken tentative steps toward imposing trade restrictions on goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements.

PAGE 175 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

INTERIM CAMPAIGN REPORT: UNSETTLING GOODS: CHOOSE PEACE IN PALESTINE AND ISRAEL Origin: Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry

Introduction In the Kairos document of 2009, Palestinian Christians issued a call for immediate action: “a cry from within the suffering…a cry of hope…a cry full of prayer and faith”. The God of kairos, the God of “now”, calls the people of God to act now, or to risk missing the moment for justice. “Today I bring salvation to you” said Jesus. To delay action for justice is to participate in injustice.

It is in this context that at its May 2013 meeting, the General Council Executive directed the General Secretary to activate the Palestine/Israel Education and Economic Action Campaign beginning spring 2013, in the following phases: • June – September 2013: engagement with select companies and retail stores; • September 2013 – June 2014: consumer economic action, highlighting spiritual reflection and action for the Advent, Christmas and Lenten seasons; • July – December 2014: evaluation, follow-up actions, and preparation of final report for March 2015 General Council Executive.

The goal of the Unsettling Goods campaign as mandated by the 41st General Council is to build “awareness of United Church members of the illegal settlements’ unjust continuation of the occupation and its impact on the lives of Palestinians and Israelis” (2012 policy 9.2).

In December 2014, Kairos Palestine celebrated its fifth anniversary and has become a global movement for justice for Palestinians, linking people in action and solidarity. The Kairos call for action is all the more relevant and urgent today. The past five years have seen the further entrenchment of Israel’s occupation. In 2013 alone, the greatest number of settler homes was approved to be built on Palestinian land since 1967. Gazans have experienced three wars during this time period.

With continued failure by the international community to implement international law and end the 48-year long occupation of Palestinian territory, empire and impunity have combined with religiously-sanctioned extremism to further destabilize the region. This is clear with the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria and Iraq. These concerns appear to supersede the urgent need to end the occupation, decreasing hopes for a viable Palestinian State. Palestinians are faced instead with increasing violence by settlers, closures, home demolitions, increasing difficulty in access to holy sites for both Christians and Muslims. The situation has not deteriorated equally for Palestinians and Israelis. Partners remain convinced that ending the occupation is an essential step toward healing the Middle East.

Even with these negative developments, we are now experiencing a kairos moment where focused action can have positive effects. There are signs of hope. Leadership from the United States is no longer at the center of the so-called peace process, signaling a change in the international political landscape. Palestinian political leaders are now approaching the United PAGE 176 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Nations and related institutions for a political solution and legal actions that limit the culture of impunity in the whole region. Many other powers—especially in Europe—are speaking in favor of ending the illegal Israeli occupation and recognizing the State of Palestine. The European Union and certain parliaments have taken tentative steps toward imposing trade restrictions on goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements. It is more important than ever for people’s movements to pressure their governments to intensify these efforts.

The Unsettling Goods Campaign: Choose Peace in Palestine and Israel was launched in December 2013. It included a direct mailing to all pastoral charges and web resources. A variety of ways of engaging in the campaign including economic action, worship and prayer, study, positive actions for peace, trust-building, political advocacy, and come-and-see trips were presented as ways in which United Church people could “Pray, Choose and Speak to End the Occupation of Palestinian Territories”. The campaign is still being implemented with new educational resources being launched in mid-January.

Economic Action As stated above, the goal of this campaign is to raise awareness about the settlements and the occupation among United Church people, who can act by bringing pressure on companies operating in or benefiting from illegal Israeli settlements. This will influence these companies to end financial relationships with the settlements, thereby removing the economic support that sustains them and perpetuates the occupation.

The logic of economic action: Economic action is intended to expose the unethical or illegal behaviour of corporations and/or governments and to influence change in this behaviour to conform to ethical/legal frameworks. Companies are sensitive to customer/public opinion and to the impact this may have on their financial bottom lines and corporate responsibility.

Campaign Objective To affect change in the behaviour of a number of companies operating in or benefitting from the illegal Israeli settlements so that they comply with human rights principles/international law.

Strategies and activities: National engagement with manufacturers Three companies were selected for economic action. They were Keter Plastics, SodaStream, and Ahava. The following criteria guided the selection of the companies and products for economic action: 1. The entire product, or a significant component of the product, is produced by a company that has economic interests in one or more Israeli settlements. Economic interest would include the company having commercial operations in a settlement or sourcing settlement products as ingredients or components for its own product.

2. The company’s products are available in stores or through on-line sales across Canada, thereby enabling the participation of as broad a spectrum of the United Church constituency as possible.

PAGE 177 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

3. The company’s products are available in major retail stores, rather than only in small, independent stores (larger stores have a history of dealing with and engaging consumers on ethical issues; economic action toward a smaller store could make the owner feel threatened. Also larger stores have more sales volume and therefore the impact of economic action is likely to be greater).

4. The products of a company are the object of economic action by other churches and civil society groups so that the impact of the United Church’s action can build on other efforts.

The General Council Office wrote letters to the three manufacturing companies asking them to end their operations in, or connections to, the settlements by July 31, 2013. In addition, the companies were asked to clearly label products produced in the settlements so that consumers could clearly distinguish between settlement products, and products made in Israel or other countries by the same company. Only SodaStream sent a response, suggesting we visit their production plant in the West Bank industrial zone of Ma’ale Adumim. We accepted the offer, but could not find a mutually suitable date for the visit.

National Engagement with Retailers Home Depot, The Bay, Canadian Tire and Walmart were selected as retailers for the campaign focus. The General Council Office wrote to the Canadian national offices of these retailers outlining concerns regarding the settlement products that they carry. In these letters, the retailers’ own ethical codes of conduct were cited and a meeting was requested to discuss the church’s concerns. Meetings were held with Walmart and Home Depot.

Outcomes Both meetings were productive in that company officials had little understanding of the occupation or the United Church’s concerns. Officials we met asked questions, sharing that the facts about the issue provided new information for them. They showed a willingness to learn more. Further company engagement and consumer pressure however is needed to move these companies toward specific actions such as de-shelving or re-labelling products.

A meeting was also held with the Retail Council of Canada based on the recommendation of the meeting with Home Depot. The Retail Council of Canada’s influence is limited in that it cannot set standards for its members and only has an educational role in the area of corporate social responsibility. Staff turnover at the Council has hampered follow-up.

Supporting Local Engagement with Retailers Local leadership to the campaign has been provided by: 1. United for a Just Peace in Palestine and Israel (UNJPPI), an independent network that speaks to and not for the church. UNJPPI consists of more than 200 members across the country, the majority identifying as United Church. It also includes people of other denominations and some people of Jewish faith. Liaison and support to UNJPPI is provided by the Church in Mission Unit staff as part of its work with advocacy networks.

PAGE 178 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

2. Unsettling Goods ‘champions’ are United Church members who are active in supporting the campaign and offering leadership across the country. Church in Mission staff convene champions by conference call usually once every two months. Participants share ideas and information about effective campaign activities, events and resources, as well as helpful contacts, and support one another’s efforts. It has also been an opportunity for General Council staff to test campaign strategies and resource ideas with constituents and informally evaluate current strategies and usefulness of resources.

3. Returned Ecumenical Accompaniers (EAs) have been key members of both of these groups, providing key local leadership for awareness raising, advocacy, and outreach for the Unsettling Goods campaign, and functioned as the campaign’s Speakers Bureau. The United Church of Canada has participated in the World Council of Churches' Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI). Once returned, EAs commit to sharing their experience in ways that enrich the United Church (writing, speaking, visiting United Church congregations and groups) and, in particular, contribute to the ongoing United Church advocacy efforts related to peace with justice in Israel and Palestine.

4. Participants in the 2013 Learning for Intentional Faith Engagement Seminar led by the Canadian Churches’ Forum for Global Ministries and hosted locally, in Palestine/Israel, by Sabeel. This was a two week in situ leadership training module whose objective was to increase the capacity of participants to lead their own “Come and See” pilgrimages to Palestine and Israel as a response to the Kairos call.

Strategies and activities Economic action resources were offered to pastoral charges and groups to support a) their avoidance of the purchasing products made by Keter, Ahava and Sodastream and b) direct engagement with key Canadian retailers. The launch of the United Church campaign was supported by the UNJPPI network which held its own press conference regarding the launch at the beginning of December 2013, and mobilized its members for local retailer engagement.

Outcomes Data gathered from bimonthly meetings with Champions suggests the following about local engagement with retailers: • Local engagement with retailers by United Church members predominantly occurred between December 2013 and June 2014 with a particular focus on Canadian Tire and SodaStream from April – June 2014. This engagement was coordinated by UNJPPI in cooperation with the Canadian Boycott Coalition. • Engagement with retailers occurred in the following Conferences: Newfoundland and Labrador, Maritime, Montreal and Ottawa, London, Toronto, Manitoba and North Western Ontario, Hamilton, and British Columbia. Further inquiry is needed to find out whether engagement happened in other Conferences not represented on the calls. • Engagement with retailers often happened in coordination with other civil society groups. • Consumer advocacy toward terra20, an Ottawa store selling healthy and sustainable products, resulted in the store announcing that it will no longer sell items produced by PAGE 179 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. To our knowledge, it is the first store in Canada to remove SodaStream products from its shelves.

Economic action has had a significant impact. It is argued that global campaigns focussed on SodaStream and its settlement products impacted the company’s shares, and contributed to its 2014 announcement that it would be moving its factory out of the Mishor Adumim Industrial Zone in the settlement to a location in the Negev within Israel’s internationally-recognized borders. Pressure on the company needs to continue to ensure it follows through and complies with international law.

Further promotion of local engagement with retailers is needed to continue to energize this part of the campaign.

Political advocacy

Campaign Objective To urge the Canadian government to take a more vocal and principled position in opposition to the presence and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a position more consistent with Canada’s existing and long-standing policy.

Strategies and activities In February 2013, as a precursor to the launch of Unsettling Goods campaign, the General Secretary wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird. The government was asked: • to introduce guidelines for retailers that would encourage them to label goods from the settlements differently than products made in Israel. • to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement to exclude settlement products.

Through an online Take Action, United Church members were invited to email Minister Baird and Trade Minister Ed Fast indicating that they supported the General Secretary’s letter and to write their own letter and to meet with their Member of Parliament.

Outcomes While the Canadian government’s position has not changed to date, this Take Action had the highest level of response of any that the United Church has issued, with 1542 page views. As one example of local engagement, Southminister-Steinhauer congregational members (in Edmonton) sent 9 different members of parliament 107 letters.

Deepening Awareness Toward Action

Campaign Objective Strengthen and increase the number of United Church members/congregations who engage in sustained reflection on, solidarity with, and action towards a just peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

PAGE 180 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Strategies and activities To support engagement in the campaign, General Council Office staff developed and distributed: • seasonal print materials; • online worship, study, meeting and workshop resources; and • an online collection of personal stories from global partners, Ecumenical Accompaniers and others. As well, a speaker’s bureau of return Ecumenical Accompaniers was organized for groups and congregations seeking to hear stories of first person engagement and accompaniment with the people of Palestine and Israel.

A new multimedia resource titled “Let’s Keep Talking” has been developed to continue to draw new people into participating in the campaign through encouraging courageous conversations. It was launched in mid-January, 2015.

Outcomes Conference calls with UNJPPI and champions, reports on website links, and resource distribution statistics have collectively revealed the following:

• Activities at the Conference level have occurred or been planned in at least 6 Conferences • Presbytery engagement has occurred in at least 7 Conferences • Congregational presentations, workshops, worship services took place in 9 Conferences • Movie showing and Film Festivals were used widely across the country at educational events • Local engagement often occurs in conjunction with civil society including interfaith and, to a lesser degree, ecumenical groups. • 6000 Unsettling Goods postcards were distributed to pastoral charges in the first months of the campaign • Response to the Advent Peace Box resource in cooperation with Zatoun was excellent and helped the campaign reach a new audience. There were over 1000 views of the Advent Peace Box webpage with viewers spending just over 5 minutes on the page. The worship resource to accompany the box was downloaded over 180 times and 145 Peace Boxes were purchased, a large number of them by rural congregations who had never purchased Zatoun products before.

While more in-depth evaluation is needed, these initial indicators suggest that Unsettling Goods has increased the number of United Church members/congregations who have engaged in reflection on and working toward just peace in Israel/Palestine. They also suggest that continued outreach and awareness-raising is necessary in order to build broader awareness across the United Church members of the illegal settlements’ unjust continuation of the occupation, its impact on the lives of Palestinians and Israelis, and the imperative to take action.

Trust-building Trust-building initiatives and their contribution to a just peace have been another component of this campaign.

PAGE 181 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Campaign Objective To contribute to a non-violent end to the occupation by supporting trust-building initiatives between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians, and Jewish and Palestinian Canadians.

Strategies and activities As part of Unsettling Goods: • Partner programs and broader initiatives in the area of trust-building have been promoted with United Church constituents/members. Between Christmas and New Year’s Eve 2014, partner’s trust building programs were highlighted on a daily basis on the United for Action Facebook site. This was timely given the seasonal emphasis on the Holy Land. The online response was good. • Possibilities for United Church support of trust building initiatives between the Jewish Canadian community and the Palestinian Canadian community have been, and continue to be, explored. We have been looking for groups engaged in or open to being involved in trust-building initiatives in the Jewish and Palestinian communities in Canada and have explored various possibilities. Groups may be involved in interfaith dialogue but do not necessarily engage the issue of just peace for Israel/Palestine. Moreover, it is important to define clearly what is the role of the United Church in trust-building initiatives between Jewish and Palestinian Canadian community. • Currently efforts are being made been made to reach out to leaders within the United Church who may have connections through local trust-building initiatives such as members of United Against Boycott.

Learnings Responsiveness is a key attribute of campaign coordination. While the economic action was picked in 8 Conferences, the action didn’t appear to be gathering momentum. Within the frame of the “education and economic action campaign” mandated by General Council, resource production and animation therefore took on more an educational emphasis. Consequently, the Advent Peace Box (seasonal story based concrete worship resources) and the “Let’s Keep Talking” series that addresses barriers to engaging in the struggle for just peace in Palestine/Israel were produced.

Conclusion Based on this report, Unsettling Goods has the following strengths: • Strong local leadership across the country • Economic action that has been undertaken across 8 Conferences with the support of the General Council Office, with clear, concise resources to support this action. • Local civil society collaboration • Strong response to calls for political advocacy • Building momentum in the area of awareness raising • Responsive approach to campaign development.

With awareness and understanding beginning to grow and increase in ministries across the church, many of which have only just begun to engage the campaign, there is a need to keep the momentum going, support new interest, and sustain existing participants. The evolving situation, PAGE 182 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015 such as Palestine’s application to the International Criminal Court and Israel’s response, generate increasing questions, concerns and calls for action across the church. Building on the successes and knowledge gained in the campaign to date will enable General Council staff to continue resourcing the church’s work, rooted in faith and hope that together with others The United Church of Canada can contribute to ending the occupation sooner, and strengthen the foundation for a just and lasting peace.

As we do this in the United Church, we will join other churches globally who have also moved forward on economic action against settlement products, on divestment and other advocacy actions. We join the historic churches of Palestine who are living stones of our faith that we follow. We are also part of the broader civil society and interfaith movement that seeks an end to the occupation. And we respond to the calls of partners, who resist the normalization of violence in their lives, and dream daily of an end to the occupation. They ask us, in faith, to accompany them on this journey.

PAGE 183 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

PMM 18: MISSION AND MINISTRY WITH MIGRANT CHURCHES Origin: Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry

The Permanent Committee, on Programs for Mission and Ministry proposes that the Executive of General Council:

i) Receive the report “Mission and Ministry with Migrant Churches” and

ii) Forward it to General Council 42 as part of the background materials to accompany proposals for Mutual Recognition of Ministries, Associate Relationships and the Full Communion Agreement with the United Church of Christ.

Mission and Ministry with Migrant Churches In August 2015, the 42nd General Council will receive proposals dealing with, and celebrate the initiation of, Associate Relationships, Mutual Recognition of Ministries and a Full Communion agreement. This report offers background and context to these new initiatives that have the potential to transform the church.

This report emerges from the work of the Migrant Church Working Group, a shared initiative of staff and elected members participating from three areas of responsibility: The Permanent Committee: Ministry and Employment Policy and Services, the Permanent Committee: Programs for Mission and Ministry, and the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee.

Global migration is changing the church and the world. Significant numbers of migrant churches are emerging bringing gifts of energy, life and new forms of worship and identity. In 2006 The United Church of Canada committed to becoming an intercultural church, understanding that this would be a multi-generational endeavor. It was a necessary decision, not only because of the changing nature of Canada through immigration, but because we fundamentally believe that God’s spirit is behind something new happening in our midst. God is calling the United Church and indeed Northern and Western churches to see the world through different eyes, to know that God is speaking from the marginalized places and peoples of the world. And God is inviting the church to be transformed by hospitality.

A Biblical Imperative The Bible is steeped in the imagery of the sojourner. From Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Moses, Ruth and Naomi, to Mary and Joseph the Bible is full of stories of those who have left their homes to seek a better land. Psalm 137, for example, captures the heart cry of a people forced from their homes, in language that echoes throughout the scriptures: “How can we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?”

The biblical record speaks of Jesus born in the midst of a “worldwide” migration, of his family fleeing from a threat and becoming political refugees, of being questioned about his legitimacy because of the place of his birth. It is why the Bible speaks unmistakably about God’s call to PAGE 184 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

welcome the stranger: to the people of Israel because they were once strangers themselves in the land; and to the followers of Jesus because it is in the face of the stranger we meet our Lord.

“When an alien resides with you in your land do not molest him. You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you, have the same love for him as for yourself, for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt.” Leviticus 19:33-34

“Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Matthew 25:34-36

A central mark of the church might well be understood as being a migrant community itself, or a diaspora, a scattered and dispersed people. The letter to Hebrews declares that believers “have no lasting city but seek one that is to come.” All of us are strangers in the land, all of us find only a temporary residence while struggling and searching together for the promise of a new creation.

“All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country – a heavenly one.” Hebrews 11:13-16

“Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it. Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them; those who are being tortured, as though you yourselves were being tortured.” Hebrews 13:1-3

Throughout history the church has been challenged to overcome its desire for self-protection, its fear for losing its identity and traditions in the face of otherness, and to acknowledge that as a pilgrim community, it is called to welcome the stranger, to be hospitable, to become a place of mutual welcome.

The spirit of mutual welcome is at the heart of the new creation on which the church is founded. It is based in the realization that in Christ all of us are one people.

“Here there is no Greek nor Jew, circumcision or uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free, but Christ is all in all.” Colossians 3:11

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

PAGE 185 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

The United Church is challenged to be a faithful witness to the claims of the gospel that the church is a foretaste of the new creation where all people are valued and are loved.

It is not then that the current members of the church need to become better at welcoming others. Rather, the source of the welcome is the essence of the church itself and belongs to the whole community; both those who have been present and those who are newly come. It is a mutual welcoming to a transformed and new church.

The Age of Migration A migrant may be defined as a foreign born national who has decided of their own choice to move to a new country to stay temporarily in search of or for work and is subject to immigration controls. The UN uses the term migrant worker to refer to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national.

The term migrant does not refer to refugees or internally displaced persons. Refugees are persons who been forced to leave their home in order to escape war or persecution. An Immigrant on the other hand is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

In 2012, the National Bureau of Statistics reported that the migrant worker population had reached 262 million with an average annual increase of about 3.9%.

The difference between a migrant and an immigrant can be defined by the length of stay in the foreign country. The similarities are that they may be seeking a better life and eventually develop social ties to the community they live in. Migrant churches are generally composed of both migrant workers and immigrants who are seeking to become or are Canadian citizens. We will use the terms somewhat interchangeably with this general distinction in mind.

Migration does provide for increased opportunities for many people. Migrant communities contribute in significant ways to their new countries, expanding economies and providing much needed labour. They also provide important funds to their home countries through remittances, which now far exceed the total of all foreign aid transfers.

However there are major human and social costs involved in migration. Poverty and the vast inequalities of wealth and power throughout the world are the major drivers of migration and many migrants, in particular women and children, end up in very vulnerable positions. Many leave husbands or wives and children to work abroad. Many journeys begin with selling property or taking on considerable debt in the hope of a better future. Migrants are vulnerable to exploitation in receiving countries and are often treated as commodities in such areas as domestic work. Structural racism often places barriers to employment and participation in their new countries. Migrants are all too often exploited for political purposes and used to create tension and even hatred between communities. At its worst human trafficking and other forms of extortion (including sexual trafficking and organ removal) result in the worst violations of human dignity imaginable. The impact on migrant’s home countries can be equally severe with the loss of often the most highly educated and skilled workers. PAGE 186 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Nevertheless, it is clear that we have entered a new time, an age of migration that is dramatically changing the world which we know.

The Challenge for the Church The Christian witness starts with the affirmation that all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. This is a simple statement that has profound implications. It suggests that everyone has a right to live a life that is truly human, to seek security and safety for themselves and their family, to provide for their future. Throughout human history this has often meant migration. Drought, crop failures, changing climates, war, poverty, have all been factors that have forced large scale human movements. In the past century, world wars displaced millions. Today globalization, economic disparities, and climate change are proving to be drivers of even larger numbers of migrant populations. While the vast majority of migration is intra-regional and the wealthy northern countries experience comparatively small numbers of migrant peoples, nevertheless, many of these countries, including Canada, place significant limits on immigration.

It is in this context that the church is called to offer a different vision of the world; a world that welcomes migration because we are all immigrants; that affirms the rights of people to seek a better life for themselves and their children, because we are all part of one human family.

Members of the United Church are likely among those Canadians who desire to be open and welcoming to immigrants. On a political level it implies a willingness to address immigration policies and social and institutionalized practices that in society not only restrict immigration, but also limit the full participation of migrant peoples.

The church has also been involved or supported a wide range of programs and ministries with migrant peoples including; an extensive program of refugee sponsorship, advocacy on issues such as health coverage for refugees and visa quotas, the provision of sanctuary, ministry with migrant workers, new ministry initiatives, challenging racism and the many initiatives related to the commitment to become an intercultural church.

On a deeper human level, the task the church faces is a change of heart. Canada has benefited significantly from exploitation of global resources that has led to economic dislocation in many countries. It has done little to address climate change which is forcing more and more people from their homes. The change of heart is about believing that people do have a human right to seek safety and security, including financial well-being for themselves and their families, elsewhere, when it is not possible within their own country.

What do migrant churches look like? New migrant churches are emerging and growing in almost all parts of Canada. The members of these churches are most often either first generation Canadians or migrant workers who desire to maintain contact and connection with their home communities. Many if not the majority of these new communities are Catholic or Pentecostal in origin. However a number are from historic Methodist or Reformed roots and come from home denominations which have deep connections to these two global confessional bodies. PAGE 187 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

As a member of both the World Methodist Conference, and the World Communion of Reformed Churches, the United Church’s Methodist and Presbyterian roots provide connections that have invited contact and exploration from these churches.

It is not surprising that immigrant communities desire to maintain contact with their home communities while engaging the challenging task of integration into a new society. The church can be both a place of comfortable connection to the familiar and a place of integration into the new society.

Some immigrants do seek to be part of existing United Church congregations, if they feel welcomed and find some familiarity in language or style of worship. However many find significant language barriers and much different customs of worship. Church and worship are heart experiences, and both need to connect with our heart language. So also for most immigrants, worship in their home language is a critical aspect of feeling welcome. So migrant communities gather together sometime in homes, sometimes in more formal churches and often reach out to their home denominations to assist them. Sometimes the home denomination has been instrumental in establishing the community, more often the community comes together on its own. Their connection to the home denomination often involves a pastor assigned to them from the denomination. Often formal visits are made by the presiding bishop or a superintendent. Migrant church communities often send funds back to their home denominations.

Two specific examples of this pattern are Ghanaian and Zimbabwean people who have come to Canada bringing with them their Methodist heritage and connections.

In both cases, church communities in various locations in Canada have been established. In the Ghanaian situation formal and structured churches with pastors sent from the Methodist Church of Ghana have been formed. In the Zimbabwean situation, less formal structures with lay leadership exist.

Both denominations are steeped in the Methodist tradition of connectionalism and believe strongly in honouring relationships with Methodist churches (or United Churches with Methodist roots) in the new locations.

The Methodist Church of Ghana for example, has a formal policy of requesting its diaspora churches to seek relationships with the Methodist denomination in the new country. The expectation is that their churches will stay in connection with the Ghanaian home church through the Presiding Bishop’s office. Ghanaian clergy are assigned and sent by the denomination. But expectations are also that these churches and their clergy will function best under the oversight and discipline of the local Methodist church, or in Canada’s case, the United Church.

Associate Relationships Conversations with the Presiding Bishop of The Methodist Church of Ghana (who worshipped with a United Church congregation in Ottawa for several years while doing doctoral studies)

PAGE 188 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015 initiated the overall conversation on associate relationships in the United Church. Our model of Associate Relationship reflects loosely agreements that the Ghanaian church has established elsewhere in the world.

In Associate Relationships the intention is to honour the distinctiveness of migrant churches and their desire to be in relationship both to the United Church and to their home denominations. It seeks to avoid patterns of assimilation that have characterized the past; to value differences and therefore to be open to being transformed in the relationship.

Past approaches to congregations desiring to join the United Church could be characterized as “all or nothing.” In other words, such congregations would be incorporated into the United Church including property, membership and authority for ministry. While this option is still available, it has clearly not worked in recent years by evidence of numbers alone. But it is also not worked in a more important way. By its very nature, incorporation (or assimilation) is designed to make the other like us; to effectively become like us and function under our structures. It offers little room for maintaining separate identities or for developing dual identities and connections.

The 41st General Council approved the definition of Associate Relationship and defined its parameters. Migrant church communities that belong to denominations outside Canada, associated with the , the World Communion of Reformed Churches, or are a partner denomination through the United Church’s global partnership program are eligible to be Associate congregations. The Executive of General Council has the responsibility for approving Associate Relationship agreements. These agreements, while following a similar pattern, are distinctive to each relationship and are generally made with the home denomination. Ministers of Associate congregations are assigned by their home denominations and have status in the United Church only while under appointment to these congregations. Currently a remit is before the church entitling ministers of Associate congregations to full membership in the Presbytery in which the congregation or ministry is located. The Associate Agreements are meant to define responsibilities such as pastoral and ministry oversight, denominational ethos and aspects of mutual accountability.

Associate Relationships have been formerly established with the Methodist Church of Ghana and are in process with both Methodist Churches in Zimbabwe, the United Church of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands, the Methodist Church of the Caribbean and the Americas and the Methodist Church of Haiti.

It could be accurately said that this approach is an experiment in building relationships with migrant communities. It is not distinctive to us alone. It is built on other models around the world. Yet it will need to be carefully monitored and evaluated.

Associate relationships are not without risk or challenge. Many differences do exist and do require dialogue and understanding. If Associate Relationships are effective however, they will provide opportunities for United Church and Associate congregations to learn and grow in faith with each other, to find God at work in new ways, to experience different forms of worship, to

PAGE 189 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

see the world through different eyes and experiences, and to represent the United Church as a community of welcome.

Mutual Recognition of Ministry Agreements Mutual Recognition of Ministry allows for what is also sometimes called an “orderly exchange” of ministers, or flexibility among ministry personnel to move back and forth across denominational lines with as little hindrance as possible. In essence it means that two denominations who agree to mutual recognition, would accept the credentials of each other’s ministers, authorize them to accept calls and to be employed within each other’s churches under the same or similar processes used for processing a call for one of their own ministers, and if possible allow for the continuation of pension, group insurance and other benefits to be maintained in the home denomination. While Associate Relationships deal with whole congregations and their ministers in relation to that congregation; mutual recognition deals specifically with ministry personnel themselves.

Mutual recognition of ministry conversations were proposed in part to seek the assistance of global partners in helping the United Church to address the changing demographic character of Canada. We know that the growth of population of Canada through the last two decades has been primarily due to immigration. We know that we need help in reaching out to immigrant communities in establishing new communities of faith, and in transitioning existing congregations faced with changing demographics in their neighbourhood.

The Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea and the United Church of Christ of the Philippines are long standing global partners of the United Church closely connected to us in theology, social justice engagement and understandings of ministry. The Korean and Filipino communities of Canada are large and growing. Korean United Churches also represent the largest number of ethnic specific congregations in the church. Seeking mutual recognition agreements with these two denominations is a way of honouring the long relationships, and also asking for their assistance in reaching out to these growing communities in Canada. It is an expression of reverse mission in which we need their assistance and help to fulfill God’s mission for the United Church in Canada.

Mutual recognition is being explored for other reasons as well. Part of the rationale is to find mechanisms of deepening ecumenical life and relationships at a time when other patterns of ecumenism are withering. It is certainly to simplify processes of admission for historic church partners and is in response to direct requests specifically from the United Church of Christ of the Philippines.

Mutual Recognition of Ministry agreements have been approved by the Executive of General Council (and will be celebrated at GC42) with the United Church of Christ of the Philippines, and with the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea. These two agreements will provide models of mutual recognition that could be extended to other global partner churches in the future. Recently, the ongoing United Church Anglican Dialogue has agreed to focus on mutual recognition of ministries between our churches.

PAGE 190 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Each agreement has and will be developed to address the specific context of the relationship. Attention has been given to ensuring that the agreements are mutual and reciprocal. For example, the agreement with the United Church of Christ of the Philippines seeks to address concerns such as the loss of personnel (the brain drain). (The UCCP has expressed appreciation for the sensitivity of the agreement and see it as a model to be used with other partners around the world.)

Mutual Recognition of Ministry Agreements will not result in dramatic shifts in ministry personnel. In each one there will still be steps of approval and assessment. Care will be taken to ensure understanding of the distinctive ethos of each denomination, such as the commitment of the United Church to full inclusion of people irrespective of sexual orientation or gender identity. The key implication is that we will honour and accept the status of each other’s ministers. The impact is likely to be felt over a long period. But it does open the path to new patterns of relationship that can transform us.

The development of mutual recognition agreements reflects a desire to explore new expressions of ecumenical co-operation. They are about strengthening the ministry of the church for God’s mission. They reflect an acknowledgement that the United Church cannot face its challenges alone; that it does not have the capacity and the skills to do so. And they express a willingness to open channels of mutual accountability to sister churches in the world.

Full Communion Agreement with the United Church of Christ The Executive of the General Council in 2012 authorized the invitation to move towards mutual recognition of ministries with several Canadian, U.S., and global church partners. The Executive at the time recognized that mutual recognition of ministry agreements are usually found within larger “full communion” agreements between denominations.

The United Church of Christ, in responding to a request for mutual recognition of ministry from the United Church of Canada, indicated that such an agreement for them would normally take place within the larger agreement. The United Church of Canada welcomed the response and affirmed its willingness to move towards such an agreement.

Full Communion agreements have become identified historically by five marks: common confession of Christ; mutual recognition of members; common celebration of the Lord's Supper/Holy Communion; mutual recognition and reconciliation of ordained ministries; and common commitment to mission. Full communion agreements, therefore, have a significant history within the ecumenical movement. There is also a rich history of theological reflection that supports their content and direction.

While the existing patterns of full communion agreements are important, they do represent an established framework rather than an opening to something new. Our conversations with the United Church of Christ are exploring if it is possible to imagine a vision of full communion that honours this historic framework while pointing to new visions in ecumenism. In particular, it is imagining the emergence of a new relationship that breathes life into our churches and opens new possibilities for united and uniting churches elsewhere in the world.

PAGE 191 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Each of our churches faces challenges through changing social contexts. The United Church of Canada faces a dramatically shifting society, both demographically and sociologically as does the United Church of Christ. Increasing diversity in our societies mean the both churches must become far more diverse. Increasing secularization, again in both our societies, means that Sunday worship will likely be no longer sustainable as the main identifier of church life. In other words, both churches must now reinvent themselves for a different future.

We cannot and should not pretend that these challenges are unique to us or that we can address them alone. It will take a refreshed web of interconnectedness, experimentation and prototyping with partners who share our commitments and vision. In other words, the kind of work we need to do into the future is distinctive to our North American context, our liberal and progressive theological identity, and our commitment to social justice.

Together in ecumenical partnership our two churches can bring each one’s distinctive and perhaps contrasting approaches, gifts, and skills to the task of building new churches of the future.

The Full Communion Agreement with the United Church of Christ will come for approval to the 42nd General Council.

The Tasks Ahead The commitment of the United Church to become an intercultural church is just beginning and will be a multi-generational task. It will require a transformation unlike anything that the church has experienced before. It is something that we cannot do alone and to accomplish it we need the help and assistance of partners in Canada and around the world.

This report is about only part of this intercultural journey. Associate Relationships, Mutual Recognitions of Ministry, and Full Communion Agreements can and likely will be extended beyond the current initiatives. Each requires ongoing commitments in their implementation, in their practice and in evaluation. Each in their own way helps the United Church to respond to the presence of migrant churches in Canada, and assists the church in becoming a place of hospitality and mutual welcome.

PAGE 192 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

TICIF 4 PHYSICIAN ASSISTED DYING Origin: Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee

The Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee proposes that the Executive of General Council:

1. Enable the Church to be prepared to respond to a change in the laws of Canada that will provide a greater number of options in end of life decision making.

2. Affirm the right and capability of individuals to engage with all of the issues involved in end of life decisions. That in all of the complexity of end of life decision-making, the church affirms moral reasoning undertaken in relationship with family, loved ones, close friends and community and one’s physician as taking precedence over absolute statements.

3. Encourage congregations to develop pastoral capacities to assist those who are facing end of life decisions, including a willingness to talk openly about death and dying.

4. Direct the General Secretary to provide resources for study, sermon development, worship and conversation on end of life decision making, including options for advance directives for end of life care.

5. Direct the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee to examine the theological implications of physician assisted dying and to offer guidance to the Executive on the development of a church statement on the issue.

Background In October 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in the appeal of Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor v. the Attorney General of Canada (see Note 1 below.) The Moderator, recognizing the direct involvement of United Church members and widespread interest across the church in the issue of physician assisted dying, issued a personal message through his blog (below.) Recognizing, as well, the significant issues involved, the Moderator requested assistance from Bruce Gregersen (Senior Advisor, Theology and Faith) and the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee in preparing for the message. (The background materials prepared by Dr. Gregersen are also recorded below.) Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously struck down the ban on providing a doctor-assisted death to mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients, and has given the Canadian government 12 months to draft new laws in the area.

While reviewing the background materials and supporting the overall direction, the Theology and InterChurch InterFaith Committee was not able to explore in the depth it wished the key theological issues involved in the legalization of physician assisted dying. The committee also recognizes that the Supreme Court decision will involve Canadian society and possible the PAGE 193 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015 church in further consultation on the parameters of the new laws. It therefore offers proposals 1 through 4 as laying a foundation grounded in United Church practice. Proposal 5 invites the Committee to develop for consideration of the Executive a formal church statement on physician assisted dying.

______Going into that Good Night Posted on October 13, 2014 by Gary Paterson Just over 18 months ago I sat at my mother’s bedside during her final days. Her decision had been not to pursue further medical treatment, which inevitably meant that her death would be imminent. But she was content, and at peace. The palliative care that she received provided comfort and she left this world as she had lived her life – with dignity.

A dear friend chose a different path as he struggled with health issues over the past few years. He courageously endured numerous rounds of treatments that, at times, tested him mercilessly. But he was a stubborn, determined soul who squeezed as much time as he could from a life that had been well-lived.

Two different people, two different choices, yet their decisions are strikingly similar when you realize that in both cases, when faced with death, they determined they wanted to be the authors of their own destiny.

As a United Church minister, I have often journeyed with people as they grasp onto, sometimes firmly, sometimes not, every last moment of life. It is a privilege to be with people during these times – but it can be a challenge when faced with troubling questions about what constitutes a “good death”, and how does one achieve that when pain or disability can sometimes prevent an individual from living as they would want to during their last weeks, days, or hours on this earth. The question of being able to die with dignity has been on my mind lately as I listen to renewed public debate over the question of whether assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legalized. In June, the Quebec government approved legislation that allows doctors in that province to assist terminally ill patients who wish to die. In the months leading up to that decision, voices were heard both for and against what some people consider legalized murder, and others believe is compassionate care. It is a debate that is unlikely to be over soon.

This week, the Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to once again address the issue of assisted suicide and euthanasia when it hears an appeal by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) in the Carter v Canada case. The BCCLA is challenging the laws that criminalize doctors for helping competent, seriously ill individuals who wish to hasten death. Legal arguments aside, often the most compelling advocates for the right to die are the people who were faced with that fight in their own lives. Sue Rodriguez, Dr. Donald Low, and Gloria Taylor are just a few of the voices that have spoken passionately for the right of Canadians to die in a manner and a time of their own choosing.

For others though, any form of physician-assisted dying is a slippery slope that society must avoid at all costs. Clearly consensus is not something that will be easily achieved.

PAGE 194 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

And so what insight or wisdom might I offer as a religious leader as the Supreme Court listens to arguments on both sides of a question that I believe challenges us as a society to hold in tension not only the legal ramifications of this debate, but also the moral and ethical issues that arise when discussing assisted suicide and euthanasia.

For Christians, life is a sacred gift from God and needs to be valued and protected. But we also know that both life and death are part of the whole created order. Life itself isn’t absolute. Nor certainly is death. To speak of the sanctity of life is to affirm God’s desire for abundance of life for all of creation. God is love, and the Christian affirmation is that God’s love is the only absolute. “In life, in death, in life beyond death, God is with us” says our creed.

So the United Church’s theological tradition is not to suggest that believing in the sanctity of life means that any attempt to end life must be prevented. Instead, what we are called to do is first listen to the struggles of those who are facing hard decisions and to make sure that they are not alone in those decisions, and second, to trust people with difficult choices about their own lives. We also live, however, within the legal framework of our society and are bound to honour our laws. But laws change and this is an area where I think they should change in order to allow physician-assisted dying in circumstances that meet carefully defined criteria.

I came to this conclusion after weighing a persuasive range of moral, ethical, and legal arguments on all sides of this question. In the end, I concluded that as a society we have to talk more about death and dying. Our communities need to be places where no one struggles with life and death decisions without a listening ear and a warm hand. And as individuals we need help with the difficult choices we are called to make in our lives today, choices that all too often involve having to choose between the lesser of evils.

Hastening death should never be a first choice, but sometimes, for some people, when faced with the unbearable suffering of ALS, or a hundred other terminal illnesses, it may be the right choice. We need only listen to the stories of those who are walking and have walked this path, and trust the decisions they make about their own lives. Sue Rodriguez, Dr. Donald Low, Gloria Taylor, and I believe God, would want it that way.

A Word to the Church on Assisted Dying The Rev. Bruce Gregersen Senior Adviser, Theology and Faith With input from the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee September 2014

Background Notes for the Moderator on the Matter of Physician Assisted Dying

1. In mid-October 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the appeal in the case of Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor v. the Attorney General of Canada. Both women suffered from intractable and progressive diseases and joined with others in bringing a civil claim before the British Columbia Supreme Court challenging the criminal code provisions against

PAGE 195 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

assisted suicide and euthanasia. Madame Justice Smith of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in support of Carter and Taylor. The Attorney General of Canada appealed this decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which overturned the judgment. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, on behalf of Ms. Carter and Ms. Taylor, who are both now deceased, has been given leave by the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the decision. Gloria Taylor was a life-long member of The United Church of Canada and has been featured in a number of articles in The United Church Observer. Formal hearings are scheduled for October 15, 2014.

2. The United Church has no formal position on assisted dying or euthanasia. In 1995 the Division of Mission in Canada issued a study document entitled “Caring for the Dying: Choices and Decisions.” In summary, the document said: “We believe that it is appropriate to withdraw medical treatments that are not benefiting the patient and that are prolonging suffering and dying when the competent patient so decides, and when firm evidence of disease irreversibility exists. We believe that much can and should be done to facilitate the gentle, peaceful death that so many of us wish for, and the United Church should give leadership in this area. We do not believe, however, that the legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia is justified, or will help make such a death possible.”

The paper strongly supported the strengthening of palliative care options. As an alternative for those who have sought and received palliative care “and still believe that they want to end their lives, we believe that an acceptable alternative that does not require external assistance is to stop eating and drinking.”

No formal policy positions were brought forward as a result of the study document.

3. The positions outlined by the 1995 paper were consistent with the best prevailing social and medical opinions of the time. At that time, the legality of passive euthanasia, or the withholding or withdrawing of life support, was an ongoing debate. Indirect euthanasia, or the administration of large doses of analgesia to relieve suffering, but in the knowledge that it could indirectly bring on death, also placed medical staff in a questionable legal position. Today the first is considered appropriate care, and the second is now an accepted part of palliative care in which the goal is the comfort of the patient rather than the prolonging of life. (Arthur Schafer, “The Great Euthanasia Debate,” The Globe and Mail, November 5, 2009).

Practices have changed, it can be argued, not because of declining moral standards, but because experience has shown that previous practices were in fact detrimental to patient well-being. These and other changes, including the approval of physician assisted suicide in some locations, have also generally been shown not to have been a slippery slope of a society increasingly devaluing the lives of vulnerable people, but rather have resulted in “doctors and hospitals [becoming] kinder and gentler; patients’ wishes … better respected than previously; and society [accepting] the importance of individual autonomy at the end of life.”

PAGE 196 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

4. The United Church has a long tradition of affirming relational ethics and the capacity of individuals to struggle with difficult life decisions. This has been most visible in the debates surrounding human sexuality and, specifically, abortion. Affirming abortion as a matter to be determined between a woman and her doctor and as a question of struggling with choices that involve the “lesser of evils,” the church rejected an absolutist ethic.

In the long journey of the church in forming positions around human sexuality, a United Church ethicist notes the shift from “a primarily act-centered sexual ethic to a primarily relational sexual ethic...” (Tracy Trothen, Linking Sexuality and Gender, WLU Press, 2003). This involved placing a greater emphasis on the quality of relationships rather than on the perceived morality or immorality of certain acts.

The dual aspects of relational ethics and moral agency of individuals lay the foundation for a United Church statement in support of the capacity of an individual to morally and capably engage, with their loved ones and their doctor, the difficult choices involved in physician assisted suicide. Life itself is sacred but not absolute, always to be valued and protected, but also to be considered in the context of the quality of life of the individual and of the community.

5. United Church positions emphasizing the quality of relationships and personal capacity for moral thinking and decision making are grounded more broadly in a theology that emphasizes the radical depth of the incarnation. It is because of God’s incarnation in human life, and indeed in all of life, that “we are not alone.” Our lives are filled with relationships. Our very understanding of God as triune being speaks of relationship.

Death is never understood as the enemy in Christian theology. It is a part of the continuity of God’s creation. The First Nations understanding of the continuity of all of creation expressed in the affirmation “All My Relations” reminds us that we are part of the natural order of all of life. Nevertheless we recognize that humanity carries a special responsibility or stewardship for creation. This is not based in domination, as many Christians in the past once argued and some today still hold, but rather understood in terms of “mending.” In some ways, we are all like physicians, whose first calling is to do no harm; and beyond, to care for the well-being of our world and each other. In other words, we cannot escape the responsibility that each of us carries to engage morally and theologically with decisions that truly impact life and death issues. In making these decisions, the wellness or wholeness of the individual—spirit, mind, and body—must be kept in the forefront.

6. Clarity of language is important. The church should use descriptions that clearly indicate the implications of the choices being offered. While many terms apply to various aspects of end of life decisions, for this purpose the two critical terms are physician assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. A key assumption is that involuntary euthanasia is unacceptable and, in fact, murder.

7. The distinguishing factor between physician assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia is the personal action of the individual. Physician assisted suicide most commonly takes place

PAGE 197 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

through a prescription for drugs. The individual on their own initiative makes the final decision and takes the final action in self-administration of the drugs. This responsibility for action is often seen as the final safeguard that the decision to end one’s life is truly voluntary. It is what distinguishes suicide from euthanasia. In voluntary euthanasia, while consent must be given by the individual, the final action that results in death is initiated by another.

8. An alternate term that is sometimes used is physician hastened death. This term can be used to apply to actions by doctors that hasten an individual’s death regardless of who initiates them. The argument is that distinctions or clarity of who initiates the action frequently breaks down in the midst of end of life care.

A question for the church is whether the term suicide has such moral judgment attached to it that using the term will unnecessarily complicate already difficult circumstances. However, the church’s emphasis should be on the moral agency of an individual to make such a truly difficult decision, in effect a lesser of evils decision, with their doctor. It is not to hide the difficulty of this decision, and always to ensure that it is seen as a final resort in the midst of unbearable choices. Furthermore, the emphasis on the final action of the individual is critically important. This further ensures that doctors are always advisers in this respect, not decision makers. From this perspective, the continued use of the term suicide is warranted.

9. Ensuring the protection of vulnerable people must be a key priority for the church. In particular the church needs to be aware of the significant concern expressed by associations of disabled people regarding assisted dying arguments. They note that almost all the physical conditions expressed as underlying reasons for seeking assisted suicide are also related to disabilities: loss of personal freedom, ability, independence, and control; dependency on others and physical suffering. The significant fear is that societal approval of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia will lead to a devaluing of the lives of disabled people and subtle or not so subtle encouragements to end one’s life to be less of a burden to family and society. Similar fears are also expressed for the elderly and the possibility of coercion, for example, to preserve inheritances.

These concerns are significant and need to be addressed. However, it is also important to reject paternalistic attitudes toward disabled people who also have the right and capacity to make decisions about their own lives.

Concern for vulnerable people, as well as other concerns, has led many jurisdictions that support physician assisted suicide to reject the next step of pre-planned euthanasia. Most jurisdictions also include numerous steps of assessment designed to protect against coercion. In addition, some programs set criteria for eligibility for assisted suicide requiring a diagnosis of a terminal illness with a 6- to 12-month prognosis of death. In some of these jurisdictions, no criteria are included involving pain or suffering.

In almost all jurisdictions, legislation requires the involvement of a second doctor, a waiting period, and criteria to prevent unconscious coercion (implying a duty to die.)

PAGE 198 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

10. Nevertheless, relief of pain and suffering is a primary concern for most people who support physician assisted suicide. It is for this reason that access to palliative care and increased capacity for pain management must accompany any movement to legalize physician assisted suicide. This must involve a greater appreciation for multiple approaches (a larger, more effective toolbox) to managing pain and support for designations of pain management. We need to recognize that ongoing physical pain can, and often does, have a huge impact on one’s mental and spiritual well-being.

As noted earlier, experience has shown that the provision of physician assisted suicide, instead of detracting from the provision of palliative care services and pain management, has instead supported their development.

There are also experiences that show that patients who have qualified for physician assisted suicide have been helped in dealing with their pain and suffering by the knowledge that another option is available if the suffering becomes unbearable. In other words, some patients who apply for physician assisted suicide end up not using the drugs that have been prescribed.

11. Support for physician assisted suicide (in contrast to voluntary euthanasia) raises particular concerns for individuals suffering from progressive diseases such as ALS, which was the illness Gloria Taylor faced. Justice Smith, in her ruling, specifically noted the inequality before the law faced by individuals in such situations given that suicide itself is no longer a crime. While those who face other forms of illness have the knowledge that they will maintain capacity to take personal action, ALS sufferers and others in similar situations must deal with the reality that there will come a time when they can no longer take personal action. The dilemma they face therefore is whether to take action before this time arrives. In other words, they are forced into a situation where, if they choose to end their life, they must do so prematurely.

Legislation for physician assisted suicide might, however, provide for careful assessment of such situations and allow, at a time of choosing of the individual, for the insertion of an intravenous drip and the provision of a mechanical aid that could begin the insertion of lethal medication into the drip on the action of the individual (perhaps controlled by a breath tube.) This would preserve the importance of the final step of individual action. This option, however, would require increased oversight, but it is not beyond resolution.

A similar but more difficult situation is presented by sufferers of dementia and Alzheimer’s. Here the progressive loss of reasoning capacity presents a profoundly difficult conundrum to individuals who know that they are losing their ability to make any decisions at all. Justice Smith’s argument concerning the inequality faced by such individuals is even more present. However, to take an additional step of allowing for pre-planned euthanasia in such cases after the person has lost reasoning capacity and can no longer initiate the act themselves (regardless of the extent of the advanced directives) raises profound questions of personal responsibility for the action. To imagine a society where, as a matter of course, individuals

PAGE 199 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

who had reached a certain stage of dementia would be euthanized is inconceivable, regardless of whether the action is supported by end of life directions. It would still of necessity involve someone other than the individual making the final determination. It also could potentially lead to unconscious or more blatant societal coercion that such directives were expected. The difficult reality of dementia-related illnesses would best be addressed through the development of better care options and facilities.

12. Support for physician assisted suicide must take into account the difficulties faced by medical staff both in contributing to the ending of a patient’s life, and in the emotional implications that might result. The head of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Chris Simpson, recently commented that there are enough doctors in Canada willing to perform doctor-hastened death if the law allowed. But doctors first need safeguards to protect the vulnerable and a strategy to urgently shore up palliative care “so that this is not seen as a first, or second, or even a third choice, but a choice that’s appropriate for people after all other reasonable options are exhausted.”

The emphasis on physician assisted suicide being a decision between an individual and their doctor implies that the doctor must also be allowed the right not to participate if they believe it inappropriate to do so.

Some Thoughts for Discussion and Action How might the United Church affirm the right and capability of individuals to engage with all of the issues involved in end of life decisions?

In all of the complexity of end of life decision making, how can the church affirm the importance of moral reasoning undertaken in relationship with loved ones, close friends, community, and one’s physician over and above absolute statements?

While it is not clear what judgment the Supreme Court of Canada will take, should the church welcome a change in the laws of Canada that provide a greater number of options in end of life decision making?

Should the church affirm physician assisted suicide as an appropriate moral and faithful decision for an individual in circumstances when no other options seem bearable, to honour and preserve an individual’s sense of wholeness and well-being?

How can congregations develop capacities to assist members who are facing end of life decisions?

How might congregations talk more openly about death and dying? What resources are needed for study, sermon development, worship, and conversation? In particular, how might resources for pastoral care of members facing end of life decisions, including options for advance directives for end of life care, be developed?

PAGE 200 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

Should the United Church continue to offer an alternative voice to religious arguments against any options for hastening death or ending life through physician assisted suicide?

How can the United Church lobby for and support increased capacities across of the country for palliative care?

PAGE 201 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

GS57 ST. COLUMBA HOUSE PROPERTY – ENCROACHMENT SERVITUDE Origin: General Secretary, General Council

The General Secretary, General Council proposes that:

the Executive of the General Council authorize Rosemary Lambie, Executive Secretary of Montreal and Ottawa Conference, or such other officer of The United Church of Canada as named by the General Secretary, to execute an encroachment servitude for a neighbouring owner over the property located at 2365 rue Grand Trunk, in the City of Montreal, which is currently occupied by the outreach ministry of St. Columba House.

Background:

St. Columba House is an outreach ministry of Montreal Presbytery. It operates on property held in the name of The United Church of Canada at 2365 rue Grand Trunk in Montreal.

There is a minor encroachment by the neighbouring property onto the St. Columba property. The owner of the neighbouring property has asked The United Church of Canada to provide an encroachment servitude to document and regulate the encroachment. It will not affect the operations of St. Columba House.

This transaction is within the authority of the General Secretary to approve as it involves property value of less than $1 million. No approval is required from the Executive/Sub- Executive of the General Council for the transaction itself.

Quebec law requires that property documents be executed in the presence of a Quebec notary; however, all the signing officers for The United Church of Canada are based in Toronto.

The most cost-effective way to have documents signed by The United Church of Canada for this transaction is for the Executive of the General Council to delegate signing authority to a church officer available in Quebec. In this case, the appropriate church officer would be the Executive Secretary of Montreal and Ottawa Conference.

PAGE 202 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Action March 21-23, 2015

GS58: ALTERNATE PROPOSAL FOR ACTION ON EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND HEALTHY PASTORAL RELATIONSHIPS REPORT Origin: General Secretary

The General Secretary proposes:

That the Executive of the General Council:

1 Receive the report of the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services on the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships testing; 2 Thank the Committee and the Conferences for the work that they have been doing; 3 Forward the report to the 42nd General Council, 2015 for information; 4 Ensure that the recommendations contained in the report inform the development of new policies consistent with the directions determined by the 42nd General Council, 2015 with respect to church polity and structure; 5 Recommend to the 42nd General Council, 2015, that testing continue to develop the principles until such time as new polity and policies are established by the General Council or its Executive.

PAGE 203 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

REPORT ON TRAVEL RATE FOR 2016 Origin: The General Secretary

The travel rate is the rate at which pastoral charges are to reimburse ministry personnel for automobile use. It is also the minimum rate at which the General Council reimburses General Council staff and elected members for the use of private automobiles for church business.

The formula used by the General Secretary to determine this rate is 75% of the average January 1st provincial and territorial governments’ rates from the year prior to the implementation of the rate. The 2016 rate is based on 75% of the January 2015 average government rate.

The travel reimbursement rate for 2016, to be reported to the Executive of the General Council by the General Secretary at the March 2015 meeting, will remain at $0.41.

Background Prior to 2006 the rate was approved annually by the Executive, or Sub-Executive, of the General Council on the recommendation of the Ministry and Employment Unit. The Sub-Executive, in the spring of 2006, approved the rate for 2007 and directed that in the future, the General Secretary determine the rate annually and report it to the Executive.

In the fall of 2008 the General Secretary consulted with the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services regarding the formula used to calculate the travel rate. The General Secretary decided that the travel rate calculation be based on the Treasury Board of Canada’s Travel Directory. The formula will be 75% of the average kilometric rate of 13 provinces and territories. The annual travel rate is reviewed by the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services and reported to the Executive of the General Council by the General Secretary.

PAGE 204 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

MEPS: ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT FOR 2016 Origin: Chair, Permanent Committee, Ministry and Employment Policies and Services

The economic adjustment is determined by a formula established by the Executive of the General Council and is reported by the chair of the Permanent Committee, Ministry and Employment Policies and Services to the Executive each year for information.

Background The Executive of the General Council, at its meeting in April of 2002, moved as policy that “the application of the last completed year’s December year-end cost of living increase as the cost of living for the next year. That this figure would be determined by the Human Resources Committee and applied to the General Council/Conference staff system and the Ministry Personnel minimum with reporting for information to the Executive of the General Council.” (GCE 2002-04-26-0364)

Staff of the Ministry and Employment unit researches the Consumer Price Indices data posted by Statistics Canada. The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services, the successor of the Human Resources Committee of the General Council, which advises the Executive of all matters related to compensation and benefits in the pastoral relations and General Council and Conference Offices systems reviews the data and reports the conclusion to the Executive.

Therefore the Chair of the Permanent Committee Ministry and Employment Policies and Services reports that: • The economic increase for the pastoral relations system and the General Council and Conference offices in 2016 is 2%.

PAGE 205 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON LEADERSHIP FORMATION FOR MINISTRY Origin: Formation for Faithful Leadership Working Group

Faithful, Effective and Learned Leaders for the Church We Are Becoming: A Competency-Based Approach to Ministerial Education and Formation

Recommendations Having received the report of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry, the Executive of General Council:

1. Recommend to the 42nd General Council that it: 1. Approve the adoption of a competency-based approach to equipping and evaluating people for leadership in ministry and mission. 2. Affirm that assessing the academic readiness and competence for leadership in ministry and mission is a core responsibility of the church. 3. Affirm The United Church of Canada’s relationship with its theological schools, and education and retreat centres, and recognize their on-going contribution to the formation and education of church leadership by continuing to provide funding for representative institutions as outlined in this document. 4. Direct the General Secretary to establish a process to implement the competency- based approach. This process will include working with the Theological Schools Circle, and other educational partners, to realize the recommendations of the Task Group and the items identified in the Consensus Statement of the Theological Schools Circle, including the tradition of Testamur-granting schools. This process will also include integrating the competency-based approach with other leadership formation and education initiatives that have been, or may be, approved: the One Order of Ministry proposal of the Joint Ministry Group, the Report of the Candidacy Pathways Pilot Project Steering Group, and the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relations initiative.

Mandate and Membership of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry, and List of Groups and Individuals Consulted: see Appendix A (Appendices: The Report of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry online Additional Information)

Background, Description and Rationale Faithful and effective leaders are vital to the fulfilling of the church’s vocation in the world. We know this because from his calling of the twelve disciples, to his farewell at the , to his crucifixion Jesus taught and embodied transformative leadership. We know this because evidence-base data, like that used as the basis for the 2010 Call to Action report of the United Methodist Church, confirms that effective pastoral leadership is among the top 4 “drivers of vitality” in communities of faith. We also know this to be true anecdotally as each of us observes the connection between strong leadership and United Church congregations that are responding to the needs of their contexts with imagination and impact. Moderator Gary Paterson, reflecting the conviction of the Comprehensive Review Task Group, affirmed this in his March 2013 blog: “…leadership is absolutely key to the ‘new church,’ whatever it’s going to look like.”

PAGE 206 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

This being true, three key questions present themselves: 1. What kinds of leaders are needed for the church we are becoming? 2. What knowledge and skills do these leaders need in order to be faithful and effective? 3. What church policies and practices will best form, educate and equip these leaders for ministry and mission in the 21st Century?

These are the questions the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry used as the basis for its conversations and consultations across the denomination, and beyond. Virtually every other mainline denomination in North America has been wrestling with the same questions, and they certainly are not new questions to us. Few topics over the history of The United Church of Canada have been as discussed, studied and reported on as “theological education”. All the previous studies and reports have been helpful resources to the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry in its deliberations, and it believes a competency- based approach to ministry represents a newly relevant and responsive articulation of the United Church’s historic commitment to having an educated ministry.

The competency-based approach being proposed here is an attempt to give a future to the best of our past, and to let go of outdated assumptions, policies and practices. This proposal is not a quick fix, but an attempt to rise to the adaptive challenges that the United Church’s current approach to preparing ministerial leaders is struggling to accommodate.

Recommendation 1: That the 42nd General Council approve the adoption of a competency- based approach to equipping and evaluating people for leadership in ministry and mission. Under the current policies of The United Church of Canada, candidates for commissioning and ordination, and those seeking to become Designated Lay Ministers, are required to attend a limited number of United Church-related schools and programs, where they must complete a specified degree or diploma. A more complete description of these policies can be found in Appendix B (Appendices: The Report of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry online Additional Information).

The United Church’s current approach is problematic in two notable ways: 1) It puts strict limits on where candidates and students can receive their education; 2) By making the possession of a degree or diploma a requirement for ordination, commissioning or recognition, it does not adequately acknowledge that there are other ways knowledge is obtained.

In one sense, requiring students to attend only United Church schools and programs reveals that there remains an expectation that schools will fulfill the traditional seminary function as inculcators of United Church ethos and theologies. This is one of the contributions schools make to the United Church, and students consistently name this as a valuable benefit in attending a school related to the United Church. There are, however, additional ways to experience and learn United Church ethos without restricting where people can enroll. The policy restricting approved schools and programs also contributed to the viability of the schools by ensuring that the relatively small pool of candidates and students was distributed among the fewest possible regionally based United Church schools.

PAGE 207 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Requiring people preparing for ministry to earn a degree or diploma from a United Church school has been one of the ways the United Church has sought to fulfill its expectations of having properly educated ministry personnel who are able to function pastorally and theologically within the United Church of Canada. There are several assumptions underlying this expectation that need to be critically examined more fully in another context. For the purposes of this proposal, however, the important matter is the cumulative effect of requiring specific academic credentials of people (as opposed to assessing what they know), and limiting where those credentials must be obtained.

The Working group heard from, or about, faith communities: • that have been in a perennial struggle to find ministry personnel who have travelled the required educational pathway • that are linguistic-specific congregations of The United Church of Canada that have difficulty finding a minister already resident in Canada who can speak their language • that are immigrant congregations wishing to enter The United Church of Canada but whose current minister does not meet the specific educational qualifications of The United Church of Canada, and who is unable to engage in the required program of study because they are supporting their extended families through their job(s).

The Working Group also heard from, or about, individuals: • who are not in a position to enter ministry because they cannot incur the additional debt of re-locating to study (most schools offer tuition support, but the cost of living remains a significant source of student debt) • who cannot find a nearby appointment to fulfill a core requirement of the in-ministry programs • whose spouse and/or children cannot be relocated because of jobs and schooling • who cannot relocate because they are caring for a dependent parent • who have significant theological knowledge in addition to many of the “non-traditional” skills now required for many forms of ministry and mission, such as community development, social enterprise, global justice, and initiatives in international ecumenical or intercultural collaboration. This group often hears from the church “Your knowledge, experience and skills will serve you well once you are in ministry, but first you must go to school and get your degree.” This mindset, and its accompanying policies, is a source of immense frustration, especially for younger people. Globally wired and networked digital natives are gaining knowledge and abilities quite apart from traditional educational institutions, and the church’s inability to credit this knowledge is a source of discouragement. • who teach, or have taught, in a theological school, and who have many years of offering leadership in the United Church, but who would be required to enroll in a full M.Div. or Diploma in Diaconal Ministries program in order to be ordained or commissioned. • whose academic credentials, obtained at a non-United Church theological school, are not recognized by our denomination and are required to begin all over again at a United Church school. This reality is especially troubling because the largest number of people the church puts in this position are from two groups: those who come from an evangelical background; and people belonging to racialized communities who possess degrees or

PAGE 208 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

diplomas from universities or colleges in the developing world. It is in the interest of the church to have a diverse leadership representing the broad theological and racial spectrum of The United Church of Canada.

In light of these realities, the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry is proposing a competency-based approach to formation and education that will:

• continue the United Church’s commitment to having an educated, faithful and effective leadership • increase accessibility and inclusion • recognize prior learning • increase options for those called to lead emerging, diverse expressions of mission • improve stewardship of intellectual, spiritual, and financial resources

The Competency-based Approach In a competency-based approach, the church is prepared to ordain, commission, or recognize people if they are able to demonstrate that they possesses the necessary competencies for the expression of ministry into which they are being called. It recognizes that there are multiple and diverse ways to becoming well-equipped for ministry. A degree program, combined with a Supervised Ministry Education experience (an internship or an in-ministry degree program), will still be an excellent, tried and true, learning pathway that provides proficiency in a great many of the competencies. In addition to the excellent theological schools affiliated with The United Church of Canada, however, people will be able to obtain their theological degrees from an educational institution of their choice. If they choose this option, they will still be required to demonstrate competence in, and commitment to, the ethos, history, theology and polity of The United Church of Canada. The United Church of Christ in the United States has been using a competency-based approach since 2005 and reports that a majority of people are still choosing the M.Div. as their chosen pathway to achieving the competencies. The Working Group expects that this will also be the case for The United Church of Canada, but the M.Div. or Diploma in Diaconal Ministries, or the Designated Lay Ministry program currently hosted at St. Andrew’s College will no longer be the sole pathways.

Using Competencies for Faithful and Effective Ministry, and a forthcoming document outlining culturally-appropriate competencies for Aboriginal ministries, the competencies a person brings into the candidacy process from previous education and experience is evaluated through a formal prior learning assessment, and an Individual Education and Formation Plan is developed that will guide the person as they move forward to achieve the remaining competencies. This Plan may include ways a person can achieve some competencies via non-degree pathways e.g. individual courses taken at any number of schools; intensive supervised training like Clinical Pastoral Education; supervised ministry as a Candidate or Student Supply; mentored projects and/or community involvements; certificate or diploma programs; mentored reading and individual study; teaching from elders; time-intensive workshops; cohort learning etc.

Studies taken at centres of transformational adult learning, like the United Church’s education and retreat centres, may also be recognized as effective means of achieving some competencies.

PAGE 209 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

Innovative programming offered by the EDGE Network and regionally-based initiatives, like B.C. Conference’s LeaderShift, will be similarly recognized and promoted. Such recognition should, in turn, till the ground for the planting and growth of further grassroots, context- responsive, leadership development initiatives. Again—the focus is not so much on how the person achieved the competencies, but on their demonstrated readiness to engage in faithful and effective ministry.

Competencies for Faithful and Effective Ministry document At the heart of this new approach is a process of life-long discernment and assessment employing a comprehensive description of competencies as its primary resource, guide and tool. These competencies for non-Aboriginal ministries are currently contained in a single document that applies to all expressions of ministry: Competencies for Faithful and Effective Ministry. This document is an updated version of the Learning Outcomes for Ministry document approved by the Executive of General Council in 2007. The complete revised document can be found in Appendix C (Appendices: The Report of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry online Additional Information). It clusters specific competencies into four broad categories:

1. Personal, Spiritual, and Vocational Formation for Ministry 2. Knowledge and Skills for Ministry and Mission 3. Cultural, Contextual, and Global Literacy 4. Leadership

Lifelong, Discernment, Continuing Education, and Assessment The processes of discernment and assessment do not end once a person becomes a candidate or DLM applicant, although the language we often use suggests this: “Finally, I have finished my discernment!” Every person in ministry will serve in multiple contexts over the course of fulfilling their vocation. Deciding which context God is calling one into requires careful discernment, and assessment of knowledge and skills. Furthermore, when a call into a new context is answered, one must discern what must be learned to serve effectively, and an Individual Education and Formation Plan should be developed in concert with one’s faith community. This Plan then becomes the touchstone for pursuing continuing education and is a valuable resource for the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relations initiative. Competencies for Faithful and Effective Ministry will serve both ministry sites and Ministry Personnel well in the search and selection process, and will be a touchstone document in the church’s exercise of oversight and continuing development of leaders. It will also be a tool for discernment and assessment regarding continuing education plans that strengthen leaders’ competence for effective leadership in their current contexts for ministry and mission. Discernment is a life-long endeavour. It begins with one’s initial feeling of being called into ministry and continues until retirement—and even beyond. To achieve this vision, a strong “culture” of lifelong call, discernment, continuing education, and assessment must be sown and nurtured.

In the candidacy phase of discernment, the church must be vigilant in ensuring that the description of competencies is not used as a “checklist” applied in a perfectionist manner to every person. Care must also be taken not to misunderstand possessing a competency as related

PAGE 210 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015 only to areas of knowledge. As Competencies for Faithful and Effective Ministry demonstrates, every aspect of a Candidate’s personal, spiritual and educational readiness for ministry is considered. This document is a tool for discernment and dialogue between the person and the church used in a constructive way to plot an educational and formational pathway for each individual according to their calling, knowledge and circumstances. Vigilance will also be needed to prevent any single notion of “leadership” from dominating the church’s assessment of a person’s progress. It remains true today that, “There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord, and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (1 Cor. 12: 4-7)

Please refer to Appendix C (Appendices: The Report of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry online Additional Information) for further important information regarding the content, nature, and appropriate employment of the competency-based approach.

A Brief Outline of the Process and Procedures (for a broad schematic outline refer to Appendix D) (Appendices: The Report of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry online Additional Information) • A person hears either an inner or outer call to ministry, and seeks to test and discern this call with a Regional Assessment Board. Together they may decide that the person’s calling lies elsewhere.

• The Inquirer and the Regional Assessment Board discern together which of the expressions of ministry the person is being called into (ordained, diaconal, designated lay ministry, or a form of congregationally-based lay ministry)

• Once this is discerned, the assessment process begins. This process has 3 phases: i. Initial Assessment: is an extensive process of evaluating the gifts, qualifications, and developmental needs of an individual using Competencies for Faithful and Effective Ministry. This evaluation will examine such things as a person’s transcripts of formal education and training, Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR), demonstrated expertise and knowledge, ministry experience, life circumstance and experience, demonstrated and evident spiritual giftedness. In addition psychological, vocational, leadership, intercultural, personality assessment tools could be used. The main outcome of the Initial Assessment is a person’s Individual Education and Formation Plan (IEFP). This plan will give shape and define the programs and endeavours in which a person will participate as a means to make progress in gaining competence in the named areas.

ii. On-Going Assessment: is a process of annual review to monitor a person’s progress in meeting the goals of his/her IEFP. These reviews allow for adjustment and adaptation of the IEFP and the individual initial discernment of which expression of ministry she/he feels called into.

iii. Assessment for Ordination, Commissioning, and Recognition: is a summative assessment that reviews and builds on all that is known about the person from Initial

PAGE 211 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

and Ongoing Assessments, a person’s portfolio (transcripts, supervision & education reports, projects, self and peer assessments etc.), and the assessment groups experience while accompanying the individual. Competencies for Faithful and Effective Ministry is the primary measure for determining readiness for ordination, commissioning or recognition.

• Candidates and DLM applicants will be responsible for maintaining an educational & formational portfolio. As a person moves through the equipping phase of their preparation, evidence is added to their portfolio demonstrating how they are meeting the goals of their IEFP through education, training, supervised ministry experiences, projects, reading, mentoring etc.

Specific Challenges Moving Forward The competency-based approach received a very positive reception by the great majority of those with whom the Working Group consulted. Four concerns about a competency-based approach were raised over and again, however:

1. Will the church ensure that the Regional Assessment Boards are highly competent? The integrity of this approach rises and falls with the real and perceived competence of the Regional Assessment Boards to carry out effective and supportive assessment and accompaniment. For this approach to function, and to not do harm to individuals, members of regional Assessment Boards must be carefully chosen for their emotional maturity, spiritual depth, experience in the church and its ministries, wisdom, and commitment to their ministry as members of a Regional Assessment Board. This group, which will include a balance of men and women, lay people and members of the Order of Ministry, must also be trained. It will be ideal if there are members with specific expertise in educational assessment, theological education, prior learning assessment, psychological or vocational assessment, and spiritual guidance. Few Boards will possess all the needed expertise and experience, however. The General Council must ensure, therefore, that every Regional Assessment Board has access to the expertise it needs to effectively carry out its responsibilities. This must include assistance and resourcing from General Council staff.

2. Will the church have the capacity to implement and sustain a competency-based approach? The approach of assessment and accompaniment being proposed will require a significant dedication of time and energy from the members of the Assessment Boards. Each Board need not be large (6-8), and when Boards feel they have reached the limit of the number of people they can assess and accompany, additional Boards can be created. Nevertheless, as those who have been involved in the Candidacy Pathways Pilot Projects will attest, a person-centered, relational approach can be exhausting if it is not structurally supported, properly staffed, and receiving ongoing training as members rotate out.

3. Will this approach result in the lowering of educational standards and, therefore, a less educated body of ministry personnel? This is the concern that is, in some ways, the most difficult to address because often underlying it is the assumption that the M.Div. is

PAGE 212 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

the “gold standard” against which all other credentials should be judged. Those without an M.Div. degree are, thereby, considered to be less, or less than, competent. This assumption has been slowly cracking under the weight of contrary evidence for a number of years, as the excellent ministries of Diaconal Ministers, Sandy-Saulteaux Spiritual Centre graduates, and Designated Lay Ministers have become impossible to deny.

Just as there is now, a percentage of candidates and students will continue to feel the call to pursue post-graduate academic studies, perhaps with an eye to teaching at a theological school. As long as the church calls self-initiating and life-long learners into leadership, the desire to learn more broadly and deeply will remain. The vocation of the theological scholar is one that the church will continue to need. The Working Group encourages the United Church to give a higher profile to this vocation, and to invite its recognized scholars into an even greater participation in its life and work.

4. Will this competency-based approach adversely affect the theological schools? It will certainly change things for the schools, although it is difficult to predict how adverse the changes will be in the long run. Some people will choose alternate educational pathways, others whom the church at an earlier time would have compelled to take a full degree or diploma program will no longer be required to do so, and still others will choose to attend a non-United Church school. There is no way to accurately predict these numbers, but for our smaller theological schools especially, the loss of even a few students each year is a serious matter.

The results of a recent informal survey of currently enrolled and recently graduated students bode well for the theological schools. The great majority of respondents said that if the requirement to study in a United Church school had not been in place, they would still have enrolled in one. They valued the chance to study in an atmosphere that reflects United Church ethos, inclusivity, and theology, with United Church faculty, and in a learning community that included other United Church students. The generous tuition subsidies, scholarships, and bursaries available for United Church students at schools related to the United Church were also named as an important factor. Most of those people who said they would have chosen a non-United Church school, acknowledged the loss of these benefits in their choice. The hope was expressed that, if needed, the church would help them to further their experience of United Church ethos and polity.

The Working Group also hopes that, should Recommendation 3 of this proposal be adopted, the increased United Church presence in the schools will also serve to attract candidates and students.

The Leaders We Need for the Church We Are Becoming Even if The United Church of Canada implements an excellent competency-based approach to education and formation, it will be not transformative unless people with certain gifts, qualities and mindsets are being called into leadership. The leadership challenge before the church is larger than educational pathways and programs. Given this, the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry sought responses in its consultations to the question, “What kind of

PAGE 213 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

person does the church need in leadership?” The most common answers were that we need people who: • have a deep and questing Christian faith • have a strong, loving character • are psychologically and spiritually healthy • have a resilient emotional and relational intelligence • are proactive, self-directed, lifelong learners • have a capacity for critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, and networking • have gifts and skills for adaptive, transitional leadership • have a global, justice-seeking/justice-living worldview • bring an entrepreneurial mindset to community development and social enterprise • have gifts for leading from the front with humility

Recommendation 2: That the 42nd General Council affirm that assessing the academic readiness and competence for leadership in ministry and mission is a core responsibility of the church. General Council staff and representatives of the theological schools are in continuing, cooperative conversation on the implications of the competency-based model on the tradition of naming certain schools as testamur-granting institutions. The goal of these conversations is to develop a procedural framework that does two important things: implements the competency- based approach; and honours the assessments of students that the schools make in course evaluation. Such a framework will eliminate redundancies, simplify, and expedite.

Recommendation 3: That The General Council affirm The United Church of Canada’s relationship with its theological schools, and education and retreat centres, and recognize their on-going contribution to the formation and education of church leadership by continuing to provide funding for representative institutions as outlined in this document. All of the theological schools and education and retreat centres will continue to be key partners and participants in making a rich variety of learning opportunities available to the people of The United Church of Canada. The schools and education centres are seeking to renew and strengthen their role within The United Church of Canada. In appreciation of this opportunity, the Working Group is recommending continued financial support for the currently funded schools and the education centres: St. Andrew’s College, Centre for Christian Studies, Sandy- Saulteaux Spiritual Centre, Emmanuel College, Le Séminaire Uni, Atlantic School of Theology, Naramata Centre, Five Oaks Centre and . It is also being recommended that annual funding for the Vancouver School of Theology (VST) be reinstated. The purpose of General Council funding for school and centres will change, however.

Instead of providing funds to financially support broad operational budgets, the General Council will divide the available funding for United Church faculty positions according to a formula presented by the Theological Schools Circle (Principals, Keeper & Deans).

Some purely operational funding will continue to be granted to the Sandy-Saulteaux Spiritual Centre, and the Centre for Christian Studies in recognition of the historic and ongoing

PAGE 214 added 13 March 2015 Executive of the General Council For Information March 21-23, 2015

commitment of The United Church to contexts and expressions of ministry that prepare people for Aboriginal and Diaconal ministries.

Recommendation 4: Direct the General Secretary to establish a process to implement the competency-based approach. This process will include working with the Theological Schools Circle, and other educational partners, to realize the recommendations of the Task Group and the items identified in the Consensus Statement of the Theological Schools Circle. This process will also include integrating the competency-based approach with other leadership formation and education initiatives that have been, or may be, approved: the One Order of Ministry proposal of the Joint Ministry Group, the Report of the Candidacy Pathways Pilot Project Steering Group, and the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relationships initiative.

To have leadership it needs for the church it is becoming, The United Church of Canada requires a newly-integrated set of policies, procedures, and practices. The months following General Council 42 will provide the opportunity to coordinate and integrate the candidacy, educational and ministry-related proposals before the 42nd General Council.

The Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry has already given significant thought to how these various initiatives might be integrated into a coherent and coordinated set of policies and procedures, and to where such an integrated process might be located within the structure being proposed by the Comprehensive review Task group (see appendix E). Based on this work, the Working Group is confident in the compatibility of these initiatives. Further integrating work will need to be done implementation group representing the General Council and the educational institutions and programs of The United Church.

For additional supporting documents, see the following appendices (Appendices: The Report of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry online Additional Information):

Appendix A: Mandate and Membership of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry Appendix B: Current Policies Regarding Educational Pathways Appendix C: Competencies for Faithful and Effective Ministry in The United Church of Canada (draft) Appendix D: A Candidates Journey Appendix E: Addendum & Chart showing an Integrated Approach

PAGE 215 added 13 March 2015 The Sub-Executive of the General Council, October 15, 2014, Teleconference Call 129

THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

MEETING OF THE SUB-EXECUTIVE OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL MINUTES Wednesday, October 15, 2014 (Teleconference Call)

The Sub-Executive of the General Council of The United Church of Canada met from 12:30 p.m. Eastern until 12:45 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2014, by teleconference call. Moderator Gary Paterson chaired the meeting.

Attendance

Voting Members: Thom Davies, Bev Kostichuk, Marie-Claude Manga, Charles McMillan, Gary Paterson, Lynella Reid-James, Nora Sanders, Florence Sanna, Mardi Tindal, Erin Todd.

Regrets: Nelson Hart, Shirley Cleave.

Welcome The Moderator led a time of check in and then opened the meeting with a prayer.

Constituting the Meeting Au nom de Notre Seigneur, Jésus-Christ, seul chef souverain de l'Église, et par l'autorité qui m'a été conférée par le 41e Conseil général, je déclare ouvert, par la présente, le sous-exécutif du Conseil général et ses travaux pour chercher à bâtir le Royaume de Dieu."

"In the Name of Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, and by the authority vested in me by the 41st General Council, I hereby declare this meeting of the Sub-Executive of the General Council to be in session for the work that may properly be brought before it to the glory of God."

Procedural Motions Motion: Nora Sanders/Erin Todd 2014-10-15-154 That Karen Smart be the corresponding member and that Susan Sigal be the recording secretary for this meeting of the Sub-Executive of the General Council. Carried

Minutes of the Sub-Executive of the General Council Motion: Nora Sanders/Charles McMillan 2014-10-15-155 That the Sub-Executive of the General Council approve the minutes of the Sub-Executive of the General Council meeting held on September 4, 2014. Carried

Nominations Committee – Recommendations for Appointment Florence Sanna spoke to this motion.

Approved Motion 2014-11-27-179 130 The Sub-Executive of the General Council, October 15, 2014, Teleconference Call

Motion: Florence Sanna/Bev Kostichuk 2014-10-15-156 That the Sub-Executive of the General Council appoint the following members, with terms as stated.

Executive of the General Council (GC42, August 2015) 1 expression of interest offered by the 5 invited candidates • John Lee (Ordained, Toronto Conference), Ethnic Ministries Constituency

Governing Committee of Project Ploughshares, nominee (December 2015 – December 2018) 4 expressions of interest for 1 vacancy • Paula Butler (Lay, Toronto Conference)

Working Group on Theologies of Disability (August 2015) 17 expressions of interest for 2-3 vacancies, increased to 4 vacancies • Daniel Hayward (Ordained, Bay of Quinte Conference), as named by the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee • Bill Steadman (Ordained, Hamilton Conference), as named by the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee • Kyung Chang Lee (Ordained, Alberta and Northwest Conference) • Kathleen James-Cavan (Lay, Saskatchewan Conference) • Laura MacGregor (Lay, Hamilton Conference) • Susan Woodhouse (Ordained, London Conference)

Carried

Mardi Tindal closed the meeting in prayer.

______Moderator, Gary Paterson General Secretary, Nora Sanders

Approved Motion 2014-11-27-179 Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014, General Council Offices, Toronto 131

THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL Draft MINUTES November 15-17, 2014

The Executive of the General Council of The United Church of Canada met from 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, November 15, to 4:00 p.m. on Monday, November 4, 2014 at the General Council Offices, Etobicoke, Ontario. The Moderator, Gary Paterson, presided.

Attendance Nicole Beaudry, Sue Brodrick, Adam Brown, Janice Brownlee, Graham Brownmiller, Shirley Cleave, Brian Cornelius, Thom Davies, Laura Fouhse, Susan Gabriel, Paula Gale, Ivan Gregan, Charlotte Griffith, Vilvan Gunasingham, Adam Hanley, Andrea Harrison, barb janes, Ray Jones, Mel King, Bev Kostichuk, John Lee, Jean Macdonald, Marie-Claude Manga, Kellie McComb, Charles McMillan, Tracy Murton, Bob Mutlow, Gary Paterson, Colin Phillips, Lynella Reid- James, Mary Royal Duczek, Nora Sanders, Florence Sanna, Michael Shewburg, Miriam Spies, Bill Steadman, John Thompson, Norma Thompson, Mardi Tindal, Erin Todd, Pauline Walker, Roy West, Jim White, Sybil Wilson, Doug Wright, John H. Young

Corresponding Members David Allen, Michael Blair, Phyllis Buchner, Bill Doyle, Doug Goodwin, Alan Hall, Peter Hartmans, David Hewitt, Will Kunder, Rosemary Lambie, Faith March-MacCuish, Martha Martin, Erik Mathiesen, Shannon McCarthy, Bill Smith, Cheryl-Ann Stadelbauer-Sampa

Regrets Nelson Hart, Cheryl Jourdain, Donna Kennedy Lynn Maki, Martha Pedoniquotte, Anna Stewart, Nichole Vonk, Ramzi Zananiri

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Welcome The Moderator welcomed the Executive to gather on the traditional land of the Mississauga of New Credit First Nations. As a mixture of strangers and friends he asked all to join in community for a moment of silence to prepare for the meeting.

The Moderator constituted the meeting in both languages.

Worship Worship was coordinated by Adele Halliday, Bronwyn Corlett and Alydia Smith. The scripture reading Matthew 25:31-37, with Ivan Gregan, barb janes and Marie-Claude Manga reading the litany of voices.

In Memoriam The Executive gratefully acknowledge the following members of our Church family who have left bequest gifts, annuity residues and insurance proceeds (May 2014 – October 2014).

Draft Minutes 132 Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014 General Council Offices, Toronto

Bequests to Mission and Service from the estates of: James Bragan Edith Edna Johns Agnes Mary Roulston Helen Carter Lyndon Raymond Langille Edna Grace Rowe Marion E. Current Zella Josephine Leavey Margaret Jean Saunders Hertha Falk Edna Agnes McDonald Archibald MacSween Thelma J. Fast John Raymond McFadden Stalker Margaret A. Haight Sarah Dorothy Morgan Doris R. Zurbrigg Gertrude Husband Albert Fred Muth

Bequests to other United Church of Canadian ministries from the estates of: Florence Helen Bell Marion E. Current Luella McCleary James Bragan Bessie Marguerite Dayfoot Shirley Florence Paul J.C. and N.E. Buck Clifford Stanley Clara B. Sanderson Gordon Butler Henderson Margaret Jean Saunders Dorothy Margaret Cooney Oliver R. Hodge

In Memoriam gifts to Mission and Service made in honour of: Phyllis Adams Kathy Dedrick Catherine Mercer The Rev. Dr. Murray Pauline Ervin The Rev. Walter Peter Arnill James Fell Mittler George Astles Alice Findlay Alice Modin Safwat Ayoub The Rev. Melbourne Margaret Montgomery L. Roy Babstock Fisher Kaye Mullen Raymond Balsom Keith Galway Edith Murray Dorothy Barbour Robert Gibbons Shirley Nichol-Hellam Emily Bartlett The Rev. Eldon Gunn The Rev. John Nicols The Rev. H.A. (Bert) Levina Hanchurak Victoria Nicklin Batstone Effie Hobden Arnold James Palin Marina Blackwood Alistair Imrie Agnes E.B. Parnham Ruth Blewett Winnifred Jamieson John Picket Isobel Bond Buzzy Johnson Frank Plain Sheila Brooks Charlie Kennedy The Rev. Linda Reid Shirley Brown Jean Kobylka Wayne Renwick The Rev. F. Jim Burn Audrey Kolesar Loa Reuber Bert Caslick Robert Layton Murray Rutherfored Faye Chatten Anne Lazure Louis Sonneveld Zella Conell Winnie Marie Le Drew Violet Schneider The Rev. Ross Connal John Francis Luce Mary Scribner Gordon Conquergood Muriel MacIntosh Pearl Seunarine Sheila Cooper Vincent MacDonald Joyce Shorter Willis Copeland Frances MacKinnon Florence and Walter Turko Jean Coutls Dorothy MacNeill Margaret Ann Tyndall Douglas Cunnington Mitch McGill Mildred E. Waring Marilyn Davie Betty Marsh

Draft Minutes Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014, General Council Offices, Toronto 133

In memory of those who have empowered God’s mission into the future: Since our last meeting in May 2014, the church has received $1,259,631.99 from the estates of members of our church and by individuals giving to honour those who have died.

Bequests to the United Church of Canada to M&S – 18 gifts totaling $418,383.16 Bequests to other United Church of Canada ministries – 16 gifts totaling $410,715.02 Gifts of annuities to M&S – 10 gifts totaling $111,498.21 Gifts from the proceeds of insurance to M&S – 6 gifts totaling $298,662.60 In Memoriam gifts to M&S in honour of 65 members – 192 gifts totaling $20,373.00

Governance – Agenda Shirley Cleave, chair of the Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda, gave an overview of the agenda for the day.

GS45 OPENING MOTIONS The General Secretary presented the opening motions.

Motion: Nora Sanders/Shirley Cleave 2014-11-15-157 The General Secretary, General Council proposes: That the Executive of the General Council: 1. Approve the minutes of the Executive of the General Council meeting held May 3-4, 2014.

2. Receive for information, the minutes of the meetings of the Sub-Executive of the General Council held March 21, May 21, June 20 and September 4, 2014.

3. Receive for information the following: • General Secretary’s Accountability Report • Interim Report on Full Communion Conversations with the United Church of Christ • Moderator’s Accountability Report • 42nd General Council Planning Committee Accountability Report • Committee on Indigenous Justice and Residential Schools Accountability Report • World Council of Churches Report • Pension Board Report • Aboriginal Ministries Council Accountability Report • Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee Accountability Report • Permanent Committee on Finance Accountability Report • Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda Accountability Report • Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services Accountability Report • Permanent Committee on Programs for Mission and Ministry Accountability Report • Memorandum of Understanding – Methodist Caribbean Church • Memorandum of Understanding – Methodist Church of Zimbabwe • Correspondence to the Executive of the General Council to October 15, 2014

4. Adopt the following proposals (Consent Proposals found at Addendum A, p. 148a-148u): • MEPS 12 – Transitional Steps from Former Staff Associate Status to DLM

Draft Minutes 134 Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014 General Council Offices, Toronto

• MEPS 13 – Licensed Lay Worship Leader Policy • MEPS 14 – Congregational Designated Ministry Policy • MEPS 16 – Group Insurance Renewal Proposal • MEPS 17 – Human Resources Policy Changes • PMM 9 – Joint Consultation with China Christian Council • PMM 10 – Mission Theme 2015-2017 • PMM 13 – Week of Prayer for the Democratic Republic of the Congo • GS49 Memorandum of Understanding for Associate Relationships

5. Refer the following proposal to the Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda: • PMM 15 – Formation for Faithful Leadership Working Group –Competency Proposal CARRIED

Procedural Motions Nora Sanders introduced the procedural motion.

GS46 PROCEDURAL MOTIONS Motion: Nora Sanders/Shirley Cleave 2014-11-15-158 Worship, Music and Theological Reflection That the worship leadership for this meeting be coordinated by Adele Halliday and Bronwyn Corlett and Alydia Smith.

That the music leadership for this meeting be provided by Joe Ramsay, Lindsay Traichevich and Josette Blais-Jol.

That the theological reflector for this meeting be The Rev. Basil Coward.

Resource People That resource people for this meeting be the Executive Ministers and Officers, Fred Monteith, Marcus Robertson, Andrew Richardson, Cathy Hamilton, Kenji Marui, Lauren Hodgson, Vic Wiebe, Beth Symes, Diane Bosman, Bronwyn Corlett, Adele Halliday, Cynthia Gunn, Joe Ramsay, James Scott, Steve Willey, Karen Smart and Alydia Smith.

Administrative Staff/Volunteers That the administrative staff for this meeting be Susan Fortner, Stephanie Uyesugi, Shirley Welch and Susan Whitehead. That the administrative volunteers be Gary McKay, Karen McLean and Jean Wilson. The minute secretary for this meeting be Susan Fortner.

Chaplain That the Chaplain for this meeting be Thom Davies.

Friend in Court That the Friend in court for this meeting be Roy West.

Reference and Counsel That the Reference and Counsel for this meeting be barb janes and Kellie McComb.

Draft Minutes Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014, General Council Offices, Toronto 135

Sessional Committee Co-Chairs That the co-chairs of Sessional Committees for this meeting be: Blue Sessional: Adam Hanley and Graham Brownmiller Red Sessional: Norma Thompson and John Young

Agenda That the Executive of the General Council adopt the agenda for this meeting and that changes to the agenda, which may be necessary as the meeting evolves, be made on the recommendation of the Agenda Table. CARRIED

Table Group Check-in Shirley Cleave invited the table groups to consider the questions: “What riches has God given you. Where has your heart been enlightened since we last met.” Using the scripture passage Ephesians 1:18.

Moderator’s Accountability Report (Addendum B, p. 148u-148x) The Past Moderator, Mardi Tindal, took the chair. The Moderator spoke briefly to the force of resurrection and the need to trust the power of the spirit. Lifting up his hopes and dreams for the church, while reiterating that throughout this triennium he has experienced and witnessed the many vital communities of faith within our midst.

Table groups were invited to discuss the piece of work from the Moderator’s Accountability Report using the questions noted below.

Standard Table Group Questions

“What is it in this report that you see God is calling you to?”

“What have you heard in these reports?”

The Past Moderator, Mardi Tindal, offered a prayer of thanksgiving for the Moderator, Gary Paterson, who returned to the chair.

General Secretary’s Accountability Report (Addendum C, p. 148x-148dd) Nora Sanders, General Secretary, General Council, spoke to her accountability report addressing how the church at this time is called to hope in the midst of change. In acknowledging the dedicated and faithful work of the Comprehensive Review Task Group it was noted that the draft recommendations would be presented during this meeting.

Nora highlighted the continuing discussions with the United Church of Christ on full communion and mutual recognition of ministry.

Also noted was the ongoing dialogue the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry is having with the United Church theological schools.

Draft Minutes 136 Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014 General Council Offices, Toronto

Table groups were then invited to discuss this report using the standard questions (page 135 of these minutes).

World Council of Churches (Addendum D, p. 148dd-148gg) Miriam Spies, representative to the World Council of Churches Central Committee, offered background information on the Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace.

WWC1 WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES’ CENTRAL COMMITTEE Motion: Miriam Spies/barb janes 2014-11-15-159 The World Council of Churches’ Representative proposes: That the Executive of the General Council:

1. Receive and accept the invitation of the World Council of Churches to join in the ecumenical Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace.

2. Develop a process for the integration of the Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace into the on-going work and life of the wider church, with reflection on the United Church’s vision, mission, and mutual sharing of insights.

3. Seek avenues to continue to collaborate with other denominations and faith groups in Canada, with a focus on the Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace. CARRIED

Permanent Committee on Finance Accountability Report (Addendum E, p. 148hh-148pp) Brian Cornelius, chair of the Permanent Committee on Finance, gave an overview of the ‘New Budgeting Model’ as amended replacing Appendix FIN 1 (page 64) and Exhibit FIN1 (page 79) in the workbook.

Table groups were then given time to discuss the budget as presented.

Brian addressed questions and concerns arising from the table group discussions while underscoring the committee’s recommendation that the 2015 budget be adopted as presented.

GS50 APPROVAL OF 2015 OPERATING BUDGET Motion: Nora Sanders/Brian Cornelius 2014-11-15-160 That the Executive of the General Council approve the 2015 Operating Budget as summarized in the “2015 Budget Proposed” Column in the attached exhibit (Addendum E, p. 148oo). CARRIED

FIN6 MINIMIMIZING MEETING COSTS AND CARBON FOOTPRINT Motion: Brian Cornelius/William Steadman 2014-11-15-161 That the Executive of the General Council endorse the principle that face to face meetings should be minimized to save money and reduce the carbon footprint associated with our governance activity. CARRIED

Draft Minutes Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014, General Council Offices, Toronto 137

Partner Council Mary Royal Duczek, chair of the Permanent Committee, Programs for Mission and Ministry, and Patti Talbot, Asian Partnership Program, Communities in Mission staffperson, spoke to the ongoing dialogue, discussion and reconciliation within the diverse global context. Mary and Patti also acknowledged the gratitude the members of the Partner Council felt as they were welcomed to journey with Aboriginal peoples towards justice and peace.

PMM11 PARTNER COUNCIL MESSAGE Motion: Mary Royal-Duczek/Michael Shewburg 2014-11-15-162 The Executive of the General Council receive with thanks the message from the United Church of Canada Partner Council and:

1. consider its calls:  Press Canadian governments to live up to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples and honour agreements and treaties made with Aboriginal peoples.  Press Canadian governments to expedite the resolution of outstanding land claims.  Work for the just and equitable treatment of Aboriginal peoples in Canada particularly around issues of health care, housing and education.  Engage with newcomers to Canada so that they may learn about Aboriginal history and concerns and join the building of right relationships.  Actively engage with civil society on Aboriginal issues and concerns.  Seek ways to engage and empower Aboriginal youth, supporting innovative ways of learning and recovering language, tradition and heritage.  Find new ways of supporting communities as they work with youth at risk and others suffering from psychological trauma and addictions.  Join with others who aspire to justice and reconciliation for all, reaching out to all faith communities to be part of the journey towards healing.  Ensure that when developing strategies that respond to the church’s financial concerns, the vision and work of building right relationships remains a high priority for the allocation of resources.

2. disseminate this message and calls to action from the Partner Council to those in the church already working on these issues;

3. integrate and strengthen education and awareness building of the issues named in the calls to action within the United Church of Canada, particularly in the time leading to the formal closure of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and,

4. strengthen the integration of right relationships with aboriginal peoples into the ethos of the United Church, including leadership education. CARRIED

Aboriginal Ministries Council Accountability Report (Addendum F, p. 148qq-148tt) Ray Jones, chair of the Aboriginal Ministries Council, highlighted the ongoing collaborative work of the Aboriginal Ministries Council, Finance and All Native Circle Conference in preparing the draft Real Property and Capital Plan for implementation.

Draft Minutes 138 Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014 General Council Offices, Toronto

He noted the energy, priority and commitment of the church to continue the journey of building right relations.

Ray reflected on the 2014 National Aboriginal Spiritual Gathering at the Oneida First Nation (Ontario) and the appreciation of those attending to having the global partners in attendance.

Memorial for Alvin Dixon Eulogies were offered celebrating the life of Alvin Dixon, GCE member from BC Conference who died on July 20, 2014, by Jamie Scott, Doug Goodwin, Ray Jones, barb janes and John Young.

Jim White recounted briefly his life with Alvin, concluding his remarks with thanks and appreciation for the ongoing support of the United Church’s faith family.

Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda Accountability Report (Addendum G, p. 148ll-148vv) Shirley Cleave, chair of the Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda, spoke to her report, introducing the work to date of the 42nd General Council 2015.

42nd General Council Planning Report (Addendum H, p. 148ww-148xx) Roy West, chair of the 42nd General Council Planning Committee, and Faith March-MacCuish, Conference Executive Secretary, Newfoundland and Labrador, spoke to the report.

Roy introduced and offered background information on the proposals being brought forward to proceed with prioritizing the work coming to the 42nd General Council 2015.

Discussion ensued around the number of Commissioners required to lift items from the consent agenda. Clarification was given on the role of sessional committees.

G&A6 PRIORITIZING OUR WORK: OPENING BUSINESS PROCEDURAL MOTIONS FOR THE 42ND GENERAL COUNCIL Motion: Shirley Cleave/Bev Kostichuk 2014-11-15-163 That the Executive of the General Council recommend that:

The 42nd General Council (2015): shall prioritize its work in the following manner:

Category 1 Proposals are those that deal directly with the Comprehensive Review Task Group report and recommendations and all related Proposals and Response forms. These will receive priority attention at the 42nd General Council (2015). They shall be referred to a Sessional Committee that shall bring its recommendations to full court for decision.

Category 2 Proposals are those, other than those outlined in Category 1, which contemplate substantive changes to the Basis of Union that affect denominational identity and would require the 42nd

Draft Minutes Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014, General Council Offices, Toronto 139

General Council (2015) to authorize a Category 3 Remit. They shall be brought before the full court for decision.

Category 3 Proposals are those calling the church to take a time-bound stand on national or global issues and/or on an issue for which the church does not have an existing policy or statement. They shall be referred to a Commission for decision.

Category 4 Proposals are those which contemplate changes to existing General Council policies and procedures, or those which more properly fall within the purview of another court of the church. They shall be referred to the Business Committee for prioritization and may be referred to the full court, a Commission, the General Council Executive, or to the court which has responsibility, for decision.

Category 5 Proposals are those calling the church to broader support for existing statements, policies, or procedures of the General Council. They shall be referred to the General Council Executive for decision or the General Secretary General Council for action. CARRIED

G&A7 REPORTS TO THE 42ND GENERAL COUNCIL Motion: Shirley Cleave/Ivan Gregan 2014-11-15-164 That the Executive of the General Council directs that:

Reports to be put before the 42nd General Council (2015) shall normally be between two and five pages in length.

And that, with the exception of the report and recommendations of the Comprehensive Review Task group, any report put before the 42nd General Council (2015) shall be a maximum of ten pages in length, which shall include an executive summary as the first page of said reports,

And that at the discretion of the General Secretary, General Council, background material to reports put before the 42nd General Council (2015) shall be available to all Commissioners and to the church as a whole through links to the web page for the 42nd General Council (2015) or upon request to their Conference office.

At the discretion of the General Secretary of the General Council, said background material may be included as appendices to the Record of Proceedings of the 42nd General Council (2015). CARRIED

G&A8 PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING A CHANGE – WITHDRAWING A PROPOSAL FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AT THE 42ND GENERAL COUNCIL Motion: Shirley Cleave/ Adam Brown 2014-11-15-165 That the Executive of the General Council recommends to the 42nd General Council that:

Draft Minutes 140 Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014 General Council Offices, Toronto

The 42nd General Council adopt the following procedure in the event that a Commissioner desires that a Proposal be withdrawn from an Omnibus motion and/or that a Proposal be assigned to a body other than that recommended by the Business Committee:

1) The Commissioner making such a request shall normally have one minute to make their request and provide their rationale for their request.

2) The Moderator or his designate will ask, having heard the request and rationale, “Are there TWENTY Commissioners who support the request and rational? Please indicate your support of this position by holding up your voting card.

3) If there are not TWENTY Commissioners who support the request and rationale then the request is denied.

4) If there are TWENTY Commissioners who support the request then the Moderator will direct the Business Committee to find a place for the work consistent with the request. CARRIED

G&A9 ADDRESSING THE WORK OF THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW TASK GROUP AT THE 42ND GENERAL COUNCIL Motion: Shirley Cleave/ Bev Kostichuk 2014-11-15-166 That the Executive of the General Council approve that:

1. The report and recommendations of the Comprehensive Review Task Group and related Response Sheets and Proposals shall be referred to a Sessional Committee of the 42nd General Council (2015);

2. The role of the Sessional Committee shall be to consider said material with a view to bringing recommendations to the full court for consideration and decision.

3. Said Sessional Committee shall be comprised of one Commissioner from each of the Conferences. Each Conference shall nominate two Commissioners, one lay and one ministry personnel, in a manner appropriate to their particular context given the following criteria: • An ability to think clearly and reflect theologically. • A strong knowledge of the ethos and history of The United Church of Canada. • An openness to the leading of the Spirit in the context of a rapidly changing society and church. • An ability to hold the tension between their own particular perspectives and the good of the whole church. • An ability to articulate their thoughts and beliefs, in a clear and concise manner. • A demonstrated ability to work in a collegial and collaborative manner.

4. Cognizant of the criteria outlined above, the Business Committee shall determine the Conference representation and have the power to add up to five members, and to appoint the chair to the Sessional Committee in addition to those named by the Conference. CARRIED

Draft Minutes Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014, General Council Offices, Toronto 141

G&A10 RESPONSE TO A PROPOSAL FROM BQ – MAXIMIZE TIME FOR DISCERNMENT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW TASK GROUP Motion: Shirely Cleave/Ivan Gregan 2014-11-15-167 The Permanent Committee on Governance and Agenda proposes:

That having adopted Proposals G&A 6, 7, 8 and 9, that this proposal has been received, considered and has been replaced by an alternative proposal, therefore no further action will be taken. CARRIED

Permanent Committee, Ministry and Employment Policies and Services (MEPS) Accountability Report (Addendum I, p. 148xx-148ccc) Tracy Murton, chair of the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services, invited the table groups to enter into conversation on her accountability report.

Candidacy Pathways Report Joe Ramsay, Manager, Ministry Personnel Policies & Program spoke to the ongoing work of the Steering Group on Candidacy Pathway, noting a pilot project was established following the 40th General Council 2009 with a revised time frame to complete the work by the 42nd General Council 2015.

Table groups were then given time to discuss the following questions: 1. What do you affirm in the candidacy pathway model? 2. What concerns you about the candidacy pathway? 3. What needs to be clarified in the sessional committee?

Permanent Committee, Programs for Mission and Ministry Accountability Report (Addendum J, p. 148ccc-148ggg) Mary Royal-Duczek, chair of the Permanent Committee, Programs for Mission and Ministry, invited the table groups to enter into conversation on the accountability report.

Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith (TICIF) Report (Addendum K, p. 148ggg-148kkk) Bill Steadman, chair of the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee, noted that work has begun on forming the Theologies of Disability Working Group. The response has been overwhelming, indicating the importance of this area of work within our church.

Bill also highlighted the ongoing work of the groups in dialogue with Anglican and Roman Catholic dialogue groups.

Comprehensive Review Task Group Cathy Hamilton, chair of the Comprehensive Review Task Group, introduced the process by which the task group would present and engage the Executive of the General Council in table group discussions over the course of the meeting.

Cathy provided clarity regarding the concepts outlined in the Comprehensive Review report, noting that this is a time of renewal and change for the church.

Draft Minutes 142 Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014 General Council Offices, Toronto

Presentations outlining the vision and principles for each section of the report were made by the members of the task group. The table group responses were collected and the information compiled and shared with the task group.

Kenji Marui welcomed the table groups into discussion with a reading from Ecclesiastes 4.

Theological Reflection The Rev. Basil Coward offered theological reflection. Weaving the common thread of faith and hope shaped and formed by the tensions we hold. Basil closed in prayer.

Thom Davies, chaplain for the meeting, announced the sudden death of The Rev. Mary Harris in St. John’s. He led the court in reading the 23rd Psalm responsively followed by a time of prayer for her family, friends and colleagues in Newfoundland and Labrador Conference.

Sunday November 16, 2014

Worship with Covenanting Worship with communion was led by Alydia Smith and Lindsay Traichevich. The scripture reading was Ezekiel 34:11-16, 20-24. An offering of $1,067.40 was received for the Mission and Service Fund, with a further amount of $2,152.61 offered as voluntary donations from expense forms, totalling $3,220.01.

A covenanting service with those attending their first meeting of the triennium was led by the Moderator and Nora Sanders. Names of those elected and appointed to the membership in the Executive of the General Council: Phyllis Buchner, Paula Gale, John Lee, Jean Macdonald, Sybil Wilson.

Comprehensive Review Task Group Cathy Hamilton, chair of the Comprehensive Review Task Group outlined the process for presenting on each section of the report. Table group discussions were held with written feedback being collected following each reporting session.

Faithful, Effective and Learned Leaders for the Church We are Becoming (Addendum L, p. 148kkk-148lll) Andrew Richardson, chair of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry, presented by Skype an overview of the report from the Working Group.

He noted that over the course of two years extensive discussion, research and consultation has taken place. The church’s partnership with the theological schools is a valued relationship supporting continued cooperation and collaboration.

Theological Reflection The Rev. Basil Coward offered theological reflection. Talking about the journey as a people of God, how we can celebrate our ministry as we travel towards transformation. He ended in prayer.

Draft Minutes Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014, General Council Offices, Toronto 143

In-Camera Time Motion: Shirley Cleave/Adam Brown 2014-11-15-168 That the Executive of the General Council move into an in-camera session with the following membership: voting members of the Executive of the General Council. CARRIED

Voting Members Time With Moderator The meeting was adjourned and those assigned to table groups were invited to stay for a discussion with the Moderator regarding reporting back to their home constituency.

Monday November 17, 2014

Worship Worship was led by Bronwyn Corlett, Adele Halliday and Alydia Smith.

Motion: Shirley Cleave/Adam Hanley 2014-11-15-169 That the Executive of the General Council move out of In Camera session. CARRIED

Comprehensive Review Task Group Gary Paterson led the table groups through a process of discussing each recommendation individually. Table groups at the conclusion of each point indicated their support by using warm or cool cards. Comment sheets where collected, to be shared with the task group.

The Moderator and the Executive of the General Council extended their thanks and appreciation for the work of the Comprehensive Review Task Group.

Pension Board (Addendum M, p. 148lll-148ttt) Marcus Robertson, chair of the Pension Board, informed the Executive of the General Council both of their fiduciary obligation as legal administrator and that of the role of the pension board.

Marcus highlighted the continued work of the Risk Assessment Working Group as they continue to look at the plans for long term sustainability. This report will be tabled in 2015.

In summary he noted that there will be a number of changes in the Pension Board’s membership in 2014. The Nominations Committee will be recruiting applications to fill the vacancies.

Global Partner A pre-taped report was offered by Ramzi Zananiri, our global partner from the Department of Service to Palestinian Refugees of the Middle East Council of Churches (DSPR). In it he spoke of the heighten tensions in Jerusalem and the suffering of the Palestinian people.

He concluded his remarks by expressing his thanks for the ongoing solidarity from our global partners.

Draft Minutes 144 Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014 General Council Offices, Toronto

Sessional Reports – Blue The Blue Sessional leadership team co-chaired by Adam Hanley and Graham Brownmiller presented the following motions as amended by the Blue Sessional group.

BLUE 1 CONSENT (Addendum N, p. 148ttt-148eeee) Motion: Graham Brownmiller/Adam Hanley 2014-11-15-170 That the Executive of the General Council adopt the following proposals: PC MEPS 15 Program of Debt Repayment for Ordered Ministry PC PMM 14 National Strategy for Ministries in French CARRIED

PMM12 APOLOGY TO MEMBERS OF THE LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TWO- SPIRIT, TRANS, AND QUEER (LGBTTQ) COMMUNITIES Motion: Michael Shewburg/Bill Steadman 2014-11-15-171 That the Executive of the General Council:

1. Approve in principle an intention to apologize to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, two-spirit, trans, and queer (LGBTTQ) communities for past experiences of institutional and individual homophobia, heterosexism, biphobia, transphobia, and other forms of oppression within the United Church, and

2. directs the General Secretary, General Council to develop the official wording of the apology through dialogue with members of the LGBTTQ communities, their allies, individuals who were engaged with the 2011 GLBTT Consultations, Affirm United/S’affirmer Ensemble, and members of the Racial Justice and Gender Justice Advisory Committee and report back to the March 2015 meeting of GCE, and

3. develops relevant resources to support the apology that are: • educational in regards to gender identity and sexuality. • informative of the past, present, and future work of The United Church of Canada in regards to gender identity and sexuality. • provide insight into the significance of this work from a Christian perspective. • can enable communities of faith to engage in a process of discerning how best to live into the apology, given their individual ministerial contexts. CARRIED

BLUE 2 Motion: Colin Phillips/Bill Steadman 2014-11-15-172 That the Executive of the General Council:

1. Directs the General Secretary, General Council to explore a plan to address compensation and emergency expense funding to ministry personnel serving in remote, high cost areas and to report to the March 2015 meeting of GCE. (follow-up to Compensation Model GS48). CARRIED

Draft Minutes Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014, General Council Offices, Toronto 145

MEPS11 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR DIACONAL MINISTRY Motion: Adam Brown/barb janes 2014-11-15-173 The Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services proposes that:

a) “Settlement to Presbytery-Recognized Ministries – Policies and Procedures” in the Pastoral Relations: Engaging and Supporting Handbook, October 2013, page 34-35 be amended as follows: i. the first of the three minimum criteria for a Presbytery Recognized Ministry be removed, allowing commissionands, ordinands, and current members of the order of ministry to serve in a Presbytery Recognized Ministry in an agency whether or not the agency has a covenant relationship with Presbytery; ii. the covenant relationship for a presbytery-recognized ministry involve three parties: God, the presbytery, and the ordered minister.

b) statistical data related to the initial ministry positions of Diaconal Ministers be collected and reviewed on a three-year cycle;

c) the Program Coordinator, Ministry Recruitment has a thorough understanding of Diaconal Ministry, and the educational requirements and available programs of preparation for Diaconal Ministry;

d) all resources and handbooks created by the General Council, Conferences, Presbyteries and General Council Office accurately and appropriately represent all ministry streams, taking special care to ensure that no one type of ministry is given preference over another;

e) a review be undertaken to determine whether the lack of a stipend or salary during field placements is an impediment for individuals entering Diaconal Ministry.

f) the General Council increase financial support to its Diaconal Candidates since the program for Diaconal preparation for ministry at the Centre for Christian Studies does not have any required component for which Candidates receive an income. CARRIED

GS48 COMPREHENSIVE COMPENSATION FOR MINISTRY PERSONNEL Motion: A.Hanley/G. Brownmiller 2014-11-15-174 The General Secretary proposes that the Executive of the General Council approve that:

1. the new minimum comprehensive compensation model for ministry personnel not residing in a manse be implemented July 1, 2015 for new calls and appointments; 2. that existing calls and appointment renewals transition to the new model at the discretion of the pastoral charge and ministry personnel by July 1, 2018; 3. that the minimum comprehensive salaries (including housing allowance) under the new model be established as laid out in Appendix A 4. and that minimum salaries where a manse is provided as “free accommodation” continue to utilize the current minimum base salary schedule. CARRIED

Draft Minutes 146 Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014 General Council Offices, Toronto

Sessional Reports – Red The Red Sessional leadership team co-chaired by Norma Thompson and John Young presented the following motions as amended by the Red Sessional group.

GS47 FAITHFUL, EFFECTIVE AND LEARNED LEADERS FOR THE CHURCH WE ARE BECOMING: A COMPETENCY-BASED APPROACH TO MINISTERIAL EDUCATION AND FORMATION Motion: John.Young/NormaThompson 2014-11-15-175 The General Secretary proposes the Executive of the General Council:

1. Recommend to the 42nd General Council that it: a. Approve the adoption of a competency-based approach to equipping and evaluating people for leadership in ministry and mission. b. Affirm that assessing the academic readiness and competence for leadership in ministry and mission is a core responsibility of the church. c. Affirm The United Church of Canada’s relationship with its theological schools, and education and retreat centres, and recognize their on-going contribution to the formation and education of church leadership by continuing to provide funding for representative institutions as outlined in this document. d. Direct the General Secretary to establish a process to implement the competency- based approach. This process will include working with the Theological Schools Circle, and other educational partners, to realize the recommendations of the Task Group and the items identified in the Consensus Statement of the Theological Schools Circle, including the tradition of Testamur-granting schools. This process will also include integrating the competency-based approach with other leadership formation and education initiatives that have been, or may be, approved: the One Order of Ministry proposal of the Joint Ministry Group, the Report of the Candidacy Pathways Pilot Project Steering Group, and the Effective Leadership and Healthy Pastoral Relations initiative.

2. Receive the draft report of the Working Group on Leadership Formation for Ministry, and refer it back to the working group with the request that the final report, incorporating any changes that seem appropriate once the recommendations of the Comprehensive Review Task group are known, be submitted to the March 2015 meeting of the Executive for referral to the 42nd General Council.

3. Affirm the contribution of the Designated Lay Ministries Program, currently hosted at St. Andrew’s College, and continue to provide funding as long as this program is required. CARRIED

MEPS10 THE STEERING GROUP ON THE CANDIDACY PATHWAY Motion: Norma Thompson/John Young 2014-11-15-176 The Executive of the General Council: Proposes to the 42nd General Council 2015 that:

1. the implementation of a seven-phase Candidacy Pathway and its purpose to call forth, identify, accompany, equip, assess, authorize, and celebrate those persons whom God Draft Minutes Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014, General Council Offices, Toronto 147

calls to and endows for the Order of Ministry, offering leadership in Christ’s diverse ministries contributing to God’s mission in creation (see GCE 6, 40th General Council, 2009, Appendix A, resource library);

2. the implementation of the seven-phase Candidacy Pathway be informed by the report of the Steering Group on Candidacy Pathway;

3. authorize revisions to The Manual of The United Church of Canada required to implement the Candidacy Pathway;

4. the Executive of the General Council be directed to develop a policy document for the Candidacy Pathway reflective of these recommendations and to develop a Candidacy Pathway implementation strategy; and

5. it approve the development and implementation of a seven-phase Pathway toward Recognition as a Designated Lay Minister with the purpose to call forth, identify, accompany, equip, assess, authorize, and celebrate those persons whom God calls to and endows for service as Recognized Designated Lay Ministers, offering leadership in Christ’s diverse ministries and contributing to God’s mission in creation. CARRIED

GCE28 NOMINATIONS REPORT AND PROPOSAL Motion: Florence Sanna/Pauline Walker 2014-11-15-177 The Nominations Committee proposes that the Executive of the General Council

1. Receive for information the Nominations Report: Spring – Fall 2014

2. Receive for information the Nominations Report: November 2014

3. Appoint or reappoint the people recommended in the Nominations Report: November 2014 to the committees and task groups of the General Council and as representatives of The United Church of Canada, with the stated terms. CARRIED

ACT Alliance Dan Benson, Executive Minister, Communications and Pat Elson, Resource Management, Communities in Mission spoke to the churches active partnership since its inception with ACT Alliance. Our partnership with ACT allows us to expand our reach to respond to emergencies and humanitarian crisis worldwide. The ACT Alliance Global Strategy 2015-2018 was presented during their General Assembly in the Dominican Republic in October. These commitments were endorsed by The Permanent Committee, Programs for Mission and Ministry.

Governance – Reporting Back Home, Evaluation Shirley Cleave spoke to the Executive’s role in reporting back to Conferences on the Comprehensive Review Task Group Report. The task group will prepare communications package that can be shared shortly.

Draft Minutes 148 Executive of the General Council, November 15-17, 2014 General Council Offices, Toronto

Mary-Frances Denis will create a Highlights Report of the meeting which will be circulated in a few days.

Table groups spent time in closing their time together and business were competed.

Moderator and Nora Sanders extended their thanks and courtesies to the staff and volunteers who supported this meeting.

CLOSING PROCEDURAL MOTION Authorizing the Sub-Executive of the General Council Motion: Nora Sanders/Shirley Cleave 2014-11-15-178 That the Executive of the General Council authorize its Sub-Executive to deal with the business placed before it by this meeting of the Executive and any emergent business that may arise prior to the next meeting of the Executive of the General Council. CARRIED

Theological Reflection The Rev. Basil Coward invited the table groups to take a deep breath, holding the question of our ministry in context. There is hope within us, in our struggles and in our joy. He concluded is time of reflection in prayer.

______Moderator, Gary Paterson General Secretary, Nora Sanders

Draft Minutes The Sub-Executive of the General Council, November 27, 2014, Teleconference Call 149

THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

MEETING OF THE SUB-EXECUTIVE OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL MINUTES Thursday, November 27, 2014 (Teleconference Call)

The Sub-Executive of the General Council of The United Church of Canada met from 1:00 p.m. Eastern until 1:20 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 27, 2014, by teleconference call. Past Moderator Mardi Tindal chaired the meeting.

Attendance

Voting Members: Thom Davies, Bev Kostichuk, Charles McMillan, Lynella Reid-James, Nora Sanders, Florence Sanna, Mardi Tindal, Erin Todd

Regrets: Nelson Hart, Shirley Cleave, Marie-Claude Manga, Gary Paterson

Welcome The Past Moderator led a time of check in and then opened the meeting with a prayer.

Constituting the Meeting Au nom de Notre Seigneur, Jésus-Christ, seul chef souverain de l'Église, et par l'autorité qui m'a été conférée par le 40e Conseil général, je déclare ouvert, par la présente, le sous-exécutif du Conseil général et ses travaux pour chercher à bâtir le Royaume de Dieu."

"In the Name of Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, and by the authority vested in me by the 40 th General Council, I hereby declare this meeting of the Sub-Executive of the General Council to be in session for the work that may properly be brought before it to the glory of God."

Procedural Motions Motion: Nora Sanders/Thom Davies 2014-11-27-179 That Karen Smart, Kathy McDonald and Erik Mathiesen be the corresponding members and that Susan Sigal be the recording secretary for this meeting of the Sub-Executive of the General Council. Carried

Minutes of the Sub-Executive of the General Council Motion: Erin Todd/Bev Kostichuk 2014-11-27-180 That the Sub-Executive of the General Council approve the minutes of the Sub-Executive of the General Council meeting held on October 15, 2014. Carried

Loan Guarantee for Pelham Community Church Erik Mathiesen spoke to this motion.

Approved Motion 2014-12-18-183 150 The Sub-Executive of the General Council, November 27, 2014, Teleconference Call

Motion: Florence Sanna/Lynella Reid-James 2014-11-27-181 The General Secretary proposes: That the Sub Executive of the Executive of the General Council approve the attached financial resolution by which The United Church of Canada guarantees a $550,000 construction loan arrangement on behalf of Pelham Community Church in Pelham Community Church in Pelham. Carried

Request for Formal Hearing Kathy McDonald spoke to this motion.

Motion: Charles McMillan/Thom Davies 2014-11-27-182 The General Secretary proposes that: 1. The Sub Executive of the General Council order a Formal Hearing to consider the appropriate consequence to be imposed on the respondent with respect to complaint SAPRPP 2014 – 006 under the Sexual Abuse Prevention and Response Policy; 2. Laurie Joe, Reverend Hans Van Nie and Reverend Edward Bentley be appointed as the Formal Hearing Committee; 3. The costs of the Formal Hearing, including administrative costs and travel and accommodation costs of the Formal Hearing Committee, be borne by the Executive of the General Council in accordance with United Church policy for reimbursement of expenses; 4. The Formal Hearing be held as soon as reasonably possible; and 5. The Formal Hearing Committee report its decision to the Sub Executive of General Council as soon as reasonably possible Carried

______Past Moderator, Mardi Tindal General Secretary, Nora Sanders

Approved Motion 2014-12-18-183 The Sub-Executive of the General Council, December 18, 2014, Teleconference Call 151

THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

MEETING OF THE SUB-EXECUTIVE OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL MINUTES Thursday, December 18, 2014 (Teleconference Call)

The Sub-Executive of the General Council of The United Church of Canada met from 12:30 p.m. Eastern until 12:40 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 18, 2014, by teleconference call. Moderator Gary Paterson chaired the meeting.

Attendance

Voting Members: Bev Kostichuk, Charles McMillan, Gary Paterson, Nora Sanders, Florence Sanna, Mardi Tindal

Regrets: Shirley Cleave, Thom Davies, Nelson Hart, Marie-Claude Manga, Lynella Reid-James, Erin Todd

Welcome The Moderator led a time of check in and then opened the meeting with a prayer.

Constituting the Meeting Au nom de Notre Seigneur, Jésus-Christ, seul chef souverain de l'Église, et par l'autorité qui m'a été conférée par le 41e Conseil général, je déclare ouvert, par la présente, le sous-exécutif du Conseil général et ses travaux pour chercher à bâtir le Royaume de Dieu."

"In the Name of Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, and by the authority vested in me by the 41st General Council, I hereby declare this meeting of the Sub-Executive of the General Council to be in session for the work that may properly be brought before it to the glory of God."

Procedural Motions Motion: Nora Sanders/Bev Kostichuk 2014-12-18-183 That Erik Mathiesen be the corresponding member and that Susan Sigal be the recording secretary for this meeting of the Sub-Executive of the General Council. Carried

Minutes of the Sub-Executive of the General Council Motion: Nora Sanders/Florence Sanna 2014-12-18-184 That the Sub-Executive of the General Council approve the minutes of the Sub-Executive of the General Council meeting held on November 27, 2014. Carried

Financial Services of Maritime Conference of The United Church of Canada – Indemnity Agreement with Maritime Conference and General Council Erik Mathiesen spoke to this proposal.

Approved Motion 2015-01-187 152 The Sub-Executive of the General Council, December 18, 2014, Teleconference Call

Motion: Nora Sanders/Charles McMillan 2014-12-18-185 The General Secretary, General Council proposes that:

The Sub-Executive of the General Council approve the execution by the General Council of the Indemnity Agreement with Financial Services of Maritime Conference of The United Church of Canada and Maritime Conference, in substantially the form attached as Schedule “A”. Carried

Winnipeg Presbytery – Grace Fund – Change in Terms of Fund Erik Mathiesen spoke to this proposal.

Motion: Nora Sanders/Mardi Tindal 2014-12-186 The General Secretary, General Council proposes that:

The Sub-Executive of the General Council approve the use of the Grace Fund held by Church Development Inc., for presbytery endeavours throughout Winnipeg Presbytery as follows: a) interest from loans and investments continue to be remitted annually to the operating budget of Winnipeg Presbytery; and

b) capital be used for loans for United Church building repairs and renovations in Winnipeg according to current Winnipeg Presbytery policy. Carried

Gary Paterson ended the meeting wishing everybody a Merry Christmas!

______Moderator, Gary Paterson General Secretary, Nora Sanders

Approved Motion 2015-01-187 The Sub-Executive of the General Council, January 7, 2015, Teleconference Call 153

THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

MEETING OF THE SUB-EXECUTIVE OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL MINUTES Wednesday, January 7, 2015 (Teleconference Call)

The Sub-Executive of the General Council of The United Church of Canada met from 1:00 p.m. until 1:22 p.m. (Eastern) on Wednesday, January 7, 2015, by teleconference call. Past Moderator Mardi Tindal chaired the meeting.

Attendance

Voting Members: Shirley Cleave, Marie-Claude Manga, Charles McMillan, Nora Sanders, Florence Sanna, Mardi Tindal, Erin Todd

Regrets: Thom Davies, Nelson Hart, Bev Kostichuk, Gary Paterson, Lynella Reid-James

Welcome Erin Todd offered a Happy New Year in Finnish. The Past Moderator led a time of check in and then opened the meeting with a prayer.

Constituting the Meeting "Au nom de Notre Seigneur, Jésus-Christ, seul chef souverain de l'Église, et par l'autorité qui m'a été conférée par le 40e Conseil général, je déclare ouvert, par la présente, le sous-exécutif du Conseil général et ses travaux pour chercher à bâtir le Royaume de Dieu."

"In the Name of Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, and by the authority vested in me by the 40th General Council, I hereby declare this meeting of the Sub-Executive of the General Council to be in session for the work that may properly be brought before it to the glory of God."

Procedural Motions Motion: Nora Sanders/Shirley Cleave 2015-01-07-187 That Karen Smart be the recording secretary for this meeting of the Sub-Executive of the General Council. Carried

Minutes of the Sub-Executive of the General Council Motion: Florence Sanna/Charles McMillan 2015-01-07-188 That the Sub-Executive of the General Council approve the minutes of the Sub-Executive of the General Council meeting held on December 18, 2014. Carried

Nominations Committee – Recommendations for Appointment Florence Sanna, chair of the Nomination Committee, spoke to this motion.

Approved Motion 2015-02-17-190 154 The Sub-Executive of the General Council, Jan. 7, 2015, Teleconference Call

Motion: Florence Sanna/Marie-Claude Manga 2015-01-07-189 That the Sub-Executive of the General Council appoint the following member, with terms as stated:

Anglican Church – United Church Dialogue (January 2015 – January 2018) • Brenda Simpson (Lay Person, London Conference) Carried

The business being completed, the Past Moderator declared the meeting adjourned with a prayer, and Florence Sanna offered a New Year’s Blessing. Mardi and Nora thanked everyone for taking part.

______Past Moderator, Mardi Tindal General Secretary, Nora Sanders

Approved Motion 2015-02-17-190 This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Status – Page Complete; No. Target Date Soon, Motion Action Manual Update Court Source Proposal Title Body Decision Directed to Number Required Pending; Final Approval GC42; Ongoing Work; Other; lack capacity lift from plenary Consider GS has Commons GC41 consent - to Responsibility to Carried as rescinding determined no GC41 LON 2 Consent, 2012- purple - Protect reworded and rejection further action. Purple 080 Referred to GS of policy COMPLETE - Michael GCE2 - Comes into Simplification of GC41 REF Carried as Manual effect August 1, GC41 Church Processes Plenary 2012- GS56 amended. Committee 2013. - Foundation 009 2012 COMPLETE GCE2a Comes into Simplification - GC41 - REF Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 Rules for Keeping 2012- Carried GS55a Consent Committee 2013. Minutes 010 2011 COMPLETE GCE2b Decisions by Comes into GC 41 REF Congregations Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 2012- Carried GS55b and Pastoral Consent Committee 2013. 010 2011 Charges COMPLETE GCE2c Comes into Composition of GC41 REF Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 Committees and 2012- Carried GS55c Consent Committee 2013. Other Bodies 010 2011 COMPLETE GCE2d Comes into GC41 REF Delivery Times for Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 2012- Carried GS55d All Notices Consent Committee 2013. 010 2011 COMPLETE GCE2e Comes into Calculating Time GC41 REF Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 Periods for 2012- Carried GS55g Consent Committee 2013. Notices 010 e 2011 COMPLETE GCE2f Comes into Admitting Newly GC41 REF Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 Elected Members 2012- Carried GS55f Consent Committee 2013. to Session 010 2011 COMPLETE Pastoral Charge GCE2g Committees: Comes into GC41 REF Faith Formation & Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 2012- Carried GS55g Education, Manse, Consent Committee 2013. 010 2011 Nominations & COMPLETE Stewardship Request lift from consent GC41 GCE2h – Carried by Terms of 2012- GC41 REF Commons Carried Green Reference for 041 Comes into GS55h Consent, None because 15 M&P Committees Manual effect August 1, 2011 Green changes Committee 2013. made by new COMPLETE GCE Carried Carried By-Laws – Take No Action 2012-10- GS 24 come into 26-013 effect with the 2013 Manual 1 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Status – Page Complete; No. Target Date Soon, Motion Action Manual Update Court Source Proposal Title Body Decision Directed to Number Required Pending; Final Approval GC42; Ongoing Work; Other; lack capacity Comes into GCE2i Audits for GC41 Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 REF Financial 2012- Carried Consent Committee 2013. GS55i Statements 010 COMPLETE GCE2j Comes into Terms of Office for GC41 REF Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 Chair of Pastoral 2012- Carried GS55j Consent Committee 2013. Charge 010 2011 COMPLETE GCE2k Request lift Comes into Chair of Meetings Commons GC41 REF Manual from consent effect August 1, GC41 of Congregational Consent, 2012- Adopted GS55k Committee – Carried by 2013. Trustees Green 042 2011 Green COMPLETE GCE2l Comes into GC41 REF Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 Presbytery Roll 2012- Carried GS55l Consent Committee 2013. 010 2011 COMPLETE GCE2 Notification Re: Request lift Comes into Commons GC41 m REF Discontinue Lay Manual from consent effect August 1, GC41 Consent, 2012- Carried GS55m Ministry Committee – Carried by 2013. Green 043 2011 Appointment List Green COMPLETE GCE2n Comes into GC41 REF Covenanting Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 2012- Carried GS55n Service Consent Committee 2013. 010 2011 COMPLETE GCE2o Adjourning Comes into GC41 REF Special Meetings Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 2012- Carried GS55p of Presbytery & Consent Committee 2013. 101 2011 Conference COMPLETE GCE2p Honouring Comes into GC41 REF Deceased Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 2012- Carried GS55q Members of Consent Committee 2013. 010 2011 Conference COMPLETE GCE2q Comes into Responsibilities of GC41 REF Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 the General 2012- Carried GS55r Consent Committee 2013. Secretary 010 2011 COMPLETE GCE2r Comes into General Council GC41 REF Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 Meeting 2012- Carried GS55s Consent Committee 2013. Procedures 010 2011 COMPLETE Request lift GC41 GCE2s Police Record from consent. On track – Staff 2012- GC41 REF Checks Commons Carried Carried by drafting purpose 044 GS55t Consent, Green – & role

2011 Green statement. 15

Policy to be Report to MEPS GCE - MEPS GCE Refer to PC Consent Carried created for Spring 2014 2012-10- GCE 6 MEPS approval by To GC42 24-013 GC42

2 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Status – Page Complete; No. Target Date Soon, Motion Action Manual Update Court Source Proposal Title Body Decision Directed to Number Required Pending; Final Approval GC42; Ongoing Work; Other; lack capacity GC41 GCE2t Commons Manual GC41 Historic 2012- REF Consent Carried Committee Congregation Roll 010 Comes into GS6a effect August 1, 2012 Publication of Amended By- 2013. 15 Consent Carried the 2013 GCE Laws 2012-10- COMPLETE GS15 Manual 26-13

GC41 Distribution of Manual GCE2u 2012- GC41 Funds by Commons Carried REF 045 Request lift Comes into Disbanding Consent, GS56c from consent- effect August 1, Congregations Green 2012 Carried by 2013. 15 Publication of Green COMPLETE GCE Amended Consent Carried the 2013 GS16 2012-10- By-Laws Manual 26-013 GC41 Manual GCE2v Two Treasurers 2012- Commons Carried Committee GC41 REF for Each Pastoral 010 Comes into Consent GS56d Charge effect August 1, Publication of 2012 2013. 15 Consent Carried the 2013 GCE Amended By- 2012-10- COMPLETE Manual GS17 Laws 26-013

Representation from Men's & GCE2 Women's Comes into GC41 w REF Organizations on Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 2012- Carried GS 56c Official Board or Consent Committee 2013. 010 2012 Church Council COMPLETE Simplification Processes GCE2x Comes into Pastoral Charge GC41 REF Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 Responsibility for 2012- Carried GS56f Consent Committee 2013. Support to Seniors 010 2012 COMPLETE GCE2y Congregational GC41 On track – Staff GC41 REF Designated Commons 2012- drafting purpose Carried GS56g Ministers Consent 010 Policy to be & role 15

2012 created for statement. Carried GCE - MEPS GCE Refer to PC Consent 2012-10- approval by Report to MEPS GCE 7 MEPS 26-013 GC42 Spring 2014 Members of the GCE2z Order of Ministry GC41 GC41 REF in Leadership in Commons 2012- Comes into Carried Publication of GS56 h Other Faith Consent 010 Manual effect August 1, the 2013 2012 Traditions Committee 2013. 14 Carried Manual Consent 2012-10- COMPLETE GCE GS5 Approve Amended 26-013 By-Laws

3 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Status – Page Complete; No. Target Date Soon, Motion Action Manual Update Court Source Proposal Title Body Decision Directed to Number Required Pending; Final Approval GC42; Ongoing Work; Other; lack capacity GC41 2012- GCE2a 010 Carried 25 GC41 a REF When Presbytery Commons Comes into GS56i Chairs Take Office Consent Publication of Manual effect August 1, 2012 the 2013 Committee 2013. Manual 2012-10- Defeated COMPLETE GCE Amend By- Laws 26-023 Carried GS 6 2012-10- 27-024 Request lift GC41 GCE2a from consent, Licensed Lay 2012- GC41 b REF Commons Carried Carried by Worship Leaders 046 Report to GS 56j Consent, Green Spring 2014 2012 Green 15 Meeting of PC Policy to be Refer to PC MEPS GCE Consent Carried GCE - MEPS created for MEPS 2012-10- GCE 8 approval by 26 GC42 Settlement for Request lift GCE2a GC41 Pastoral Charges Commons from consent, GC41 c REF 2012- Not in Compliance Consent, Carried Carried by Comes into GS56K 047 with Pastoral Green Manual Green effect August 1, 2012 Relations Committee 2013.

Carried Publication of COMPLETE 14 GCE 2101-10- Approve Amended Consent the 2013 GS7 26-013 By-Laws Manual Membership of the Executive of GCE2a Comes into General Council - GC41 d REF Commons Manual effect August 1, GC41 Chairperson of the 2012- Carried GS56m Consent Committee 2013. General Council 010 2012 COMPLETE Business Committee Documents and GC41 GCE2a Notices Sent by 2012- GC41 e REF Commons Carried Comes into Courier 010 GS56p Consent Manual effect August 1, Publication of 14 2012 Committee 2013. Approve the 2013 GCE Consent Carried COMPLETE Amended-By 2012-10- Manual GS8 Laws 26-013 Request lift Comes into GCE2a Commons GC41 Grounds for a 363 Manual from consent effect August 1, GC41 f REF Consent, 2012- Carried Review Committee – carried by 2013. GS56q Green 048 Green COMPLETE GCE2a Request lift Comes into Commons GC41 g REF Members of Joint Manual from consent effect August 1, GC41 Consent 2012- Carried GS56r Search Committee Committee – carried by 2013. Green 054 2012 Green COMPLETE

4 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Request lift from consent – carried by GC41 GCE2ah Green Warrant to 2012- REF Commons Carried GC41 Covenant 055 Comes into GS56s Consent, Changes 15 Manual effect August 1, 2012 Green made in Committee 2013. redrafting of COMPLETE Consent Carried the new GCE Take No Action 2012-10- GS 24 Manual – to 26-013 come into effect with 2013 Manual Remit 1 sent to GCEai Vacancies in presbyteries – GC41 REF Session, Church Commons Manual May 21, 2013 GC41 2012- Carried GS56v Board and Consent Committee responses due 010 2012 Church Council by Feb 18/2014 To GC42 GCEaj Recognition of GC41 No Action REF Commons Manual GC41 Designated Lay 2012- Carried Required. GS56w Consent Committee Ministers 010 COMPLETE 2012 Remit 2 sent to GCEak presbyteries – Staff as lay GC41 REF Commons Manual May 21, 2013 GC41 Members of 2012- Carried GS55x Consent Committee responses due Presbytery 010 2012 by Feb 18/2014 To GC42 Remit 3 sent to Presbytery presbyteries – GCEal Representation GC41 Commons Manual May 21, 2013 GC41 REF from Presbytery 2012- Carried Consent Committee responses due GS56y Accountable 010 by Feb 18/2014 Ministries To GC42 Transfer & Settlement - Remit 4 sent to Presbytery presbyteries – GCE2a GC41 Recognized Commons Manual May 21, 2013 GC41 m REF 2012- Carried Ministries or Consent Committee responses due GS56z 010 Presbytery by Feb 18/2014 Accountable To GC42 Ministries Remit 5 sent to GCE2an Election of presbyteries – GC41 REF Commissioner Commons Manual May 21, 2013 GC41 2012- Carried GSaa by Overseas Consent Committee responses due 010 2012 Personnel by Feb 18/2014 To GC42 Presbytery GC41 Request lift CE2ao Calling 2012- from consent – GC41 REF Congregational Commons Carried 056 Manual carried by Comes into GS56ab Meetings Consent Committee Green effect August 1, 2012 Green 15 2013.

To take Effect COMPLETE GCE Approve Consent Carried 2012-10- with the 2013 GS 9 Amended By- 26-013 Manual Laws GC41 GCE2ap Sending Commons GC41 Manual Comes into Carried REF Documents by Consent 2012- Committee effect August 1,

GS56 ac Email 010 2013. Carried GCE Consent Publication of COMPLETE 15 5 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

GS10 Approve 2012-10- the 2013 Amended By- 26-013 Manual Laws

Oversight of GC41 GCE2aq Retired Members 2012- GC41 Commons Carried Manual REF of the Order of 010 Comes into Consent Committee GS56ad Ministry effect August 1,

Publication of 2013. 15

Approve the 2013 COMPLETE GCE Consent Carried GS11 Amended By- 2012-10- Manual Laws 26-013 Members of the GC41 GCE2ar Order of Ministry 2012- Carried Manual GC41 REF Under Commons 010 Committee GS56ae Appointment Consent Comes into 2012 Exercising effect August 1, Functions of 2013. Appointment Publication of COMPLETE

Carried the 2013 GCE Approve Consent 15 2012-10- Manual GS12 Amended By- 26-013 Laws Request lift Appointing a GCE2as GC41 from consent – GC41 New General Commons Manual – REF 2012- Carried carried by Secretary Consent Committee Comes into GS56la Green Green effect August 1, – 2012 15 2013.

Approve Consent COMPLETE 2012-10- Carried Publication of GCE Amended By- GS13 26-013 the 2013 Laws Manual GC41 GCE2at Audited Financial 2012- Manual GC41 REF Statements Commons Carried Comes into 010 Committee GS56b Consent effect August 1,

2012 Approve Publication of 2013. 15 GCE Amended By- Carried Carried the 2013 COMPLETE 2012-10- GS14 Laws Manual 26-013 GC41 Ratifying and 2012- Enacting Remits Commons 004 and Carried GC41 GS1 1 through 6 GC41 A,B,C, 2012 - Comes into Authorized by 005 Manual effect August 1, the 40th General Committee 2013. Council Publication of COMPLETE GCE GS21 Consent Carried the 2013 Amend By-Laws 2012-10- Manual 26-013

Dan to price GCE1 GC41 1 a ,2 Accept Report Seriatim – GS cost of colour REF The Basis of 2012- Carried and GS to GC41 Commons to Implement – business cards GCE58 Union and Crest 006 and 1b,2 Carried implement Peggy, Dan & letterhead 2012 007 COMPLETE GC41 GCE 14 Doctrine of GC41 Peggy, John Commons Refer to - REF Discovery 2012 Bird and Ray GCE GCE 60 Jones are

2012 working on an

amended 22 – 24 Carried GCE Amended 2012-10- background for 6 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

GCE 2 Statement 26-018 the proposal

COMPLETE

Task Group Appointed GCE Oct 2012 – Comprehensive Appoint Task Study Review of How Group by GCE GCE15 - documents to the United GC41 Oct 2012 to REF Carried as Pastoral GC41 Church of Commons 2012- GCE examine GCE59 amended Charges fall Canada Lives 008 Comprehensive 2012 2013, Faithfully in Vision & report Presbytery & God's World GC42 GCE winter/spring 2014 To ensure GC41 policies & Statement on Carried as GC41 TICIF1 Commons 2012- GS procedures of On track. Ministry amended 012 the church are consistent To engage the GC41 Carried as GS – TICIF & church in a GC41 TICIF2 Local Ordination Commons 2012- On track amended MEPS study re “local 013 ordination” Regional Team GC41 GC41 TICIF3 Commons Refer to Models 2012 GCE COMPLETE 24

2012-10- GCE TICIF 3 Carried 26-019 Make report available to GC41 the church & Ecclesiology 2012- Carried as GC41 TICIF4 Commons GS – Gail Allan prepare study Report 014 and amended material in 015 consultation with TICIF #1- GCE to develop and test Pastoral Effective Relations, Leadership and GC41 Oversight & GCE16 Healthy 2012- Discipline GC41 REF Commons Relationships 022, Policies – GCSE 023, 024 reporting back 2012-05- Seriatim to GC 23-240 # 1- Carried regularly;

Effective #2- Carried #2- GCE Pts 1 & 2 – PC On track – Leadership and as amended implement 21 MEPS/Alan pilots in Healthy #3 policies not Pt. 3 Erik conferences Relationships amendment requiring

Continued Carried remits;

#3 – GS

monitor costs

GCE Omnibus 2012-10- NEW 5 26-015 PC MEPS to test and GCSE to approve Conference for Testing

7 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

GC41 #1-Carried Plan approved 2012 UCC #2 –Carried GCE May 2013 The Working -011 Policies & as amended – see motion GC41 GS3 Group on Commons Receive GS/GCE-Bruce Actions to # 3-end 2013-05-04- Israel/Palestine d Report reflect Carried as 068 on page 68 -017, proposal amended Ongoing Work 018, 019 Consent, Responding to GC41 Commons GC41 LON 1 the Palestinian Commons 2012 COMPLETE Take no Call for Solidarity 026 action Modifying the United Church of Consent, Canada's GC41 Commons GC41 BC2 Commons COMPLETE Recognition of 2012 Take no Israel as a action Jewish State Affirming the Consent, General Council GC41 Commons GC41 BC6 Commons COMPLETE Israel/Palestine 2012 Take no Report action Accept the Kairos Palestine Consent, 2009 Document GC41 Commons GC41 HAM 7 and to Act on its Commons COMPLETE 2012 Take no Call to the action Churches of the World Consent, Proposal on the GC41 Commons GC41 HAM 5 Palestine/Israel Commons COMPLETE 2012 Take no Dispute action Support of Recommendatio ns of "Report of the Working Consent, Group on GC41 Commons GC41 M&O 3 Commons COMPLETE Israel/Palestine 2012 Take no Policy, reporting action to the 41st General Council, August 2012" Amend United Church Consent, Recognition of GC41 Commons GC41 HAM 6 Commons COMPLETE Israel from 2012 Take no "Jewish state" to action "state" Accepting the Kairos Palestine Consent, MNWO 2009 Document GC41 Commons GC41 Commons COMPLETE 4 and Acting Call 2012 Take no to the Churches action of the World Boycott Divestment and Consent, Sanctions as GC41 Commons GC41 BC 4 Solidarity Action Commons COMPLETE 2012 Take no Toward a Just action Peace in Israel/Palestine

8 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

On track. detailed work- plan has been developed. In 1 Receive addition to the Report lenses & the GC40 2 Adopt event, ministry 22 GCE12 - Intercultural 2012 GC41 Vision personnel are REF PC Ministries: Living 3 GCE engaged in PMM 17 Into 2012-10- Unfinished establish learning 2012 Transformation 26-016 Business accountabi processes, Refer to GCE Commons lity additional GCE 4 GCE processes resources are

4 Report being Carried Progress requested (e.g.

GS to GC42 intercultural 2012-10- worship 26-17 To support resources); integration work is being done to follow up on specific ideas from the report.` May create a working group or ask GS or G&A to do research to tell the history as a Inclusion of the 1st step Evangelical GC41 HAM 1 Research 15 United Brethren GC40 Unfinished project Church Symbol Commons 2012 Business - assigned to in the United Referred to Karen Smart Church of GCE spring/summer Canada Crest 2013

GCE 5 Refer to PC G&A

Carried Consent 2012-10- PC G&A

26-013 GCE 92

1. Have

celebration Celebrating the 2013-11- Carried of 50th 50th Anniversary 16-104 GCE G&A 2 2. Update of Union with Manual EUB 3. Take no further action Motion carried – plan party & update Manual

Affirm United has been to lead GCE assigned to GCO in work with GCE Affirming Ministry Consent “Affirming – led first Status for GC41 Commons GS – G&A or Ministry Study GC41 BQ2 Commons discussion May General Council 2012 Carried as PCom Program” and 2013 and its Executive amended bring report &

recommendati Staff continues ons to GC42 to work with Bruce on 9 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

making connections between the affirming ministry study program & the intercultural lens. Some work is being done towards education in GCO about the affirming process. Affirm United/ s’affirmer ensemble is aware of the work that is being done. GCE10 GC 41 Administration of GC41 REF Purple 2012 – Carried Sacrament of Comes into GS68 079 Baptism in Manual effect August 1, 2012 Emergencies Committee 2013. Publication of 21 COMPLETE GCE Omnibus 2012-10- Carried the 2013 Amend By-Laws NEW 3 26-015 General Council Addition to By- GCE 7 GC41 Review of Laws GC41 REF Purple 2012 – Carried Manual Judicial GS64 081 Committee Comes into Committee 2012 effect August 1, Decision: 2013. Options for 15 COMPLETE Action Publication of GCE Consent 2012-10- Carried the 2013 GS 20 26-013 Amend By-Laws Manual General Council Amend By- GCE6 GC41 Review of Manual Laws GC41 REF Purple 2012 – Carried Judicial Committee Comes into GS63 082 Committee effect August 1, 2012 Decision: 2013. 15

Grounds Publication of COMPLETE GCE Consent 2012-10- Carried the 2013 GS19 26-013 Amend By-Laws Manual Acknowledgeme nt of the Hardship of Rural Churches & Reinstatement of the Former Carried as Congregational reworded - GC41 Accountable Acknowledg GC41 SK1 Purple 2012 - COMPLETE Ministry Policy e Hardship 083 Allowing and Take no Congregational Action Accountable Ministers (CAM'S) to Work Up to 13.75 hours

10 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Expect work completed by fall 2014 GCE Plain meeting. Much Plain Language GC41 Language Maritime GS – Erik & of the GC41 Handbook for the Purple 2012 - Carried Handbook – 5 David information Sale of Property 078 Sale of exists and will Property be drawn together into one Handbook COMPLETE – GCE11 Report of the GC41 GS – Alan All actions REF Implement GC41 Interim Ministry Purple 2012 - Carried Manual completed – MEPS Policy Steering Group 084 Committee referred to 30 2012 working group Staff working on this. May or Copyright Explore GC 41 may not Procedures for creation of a GC41 MAR 2 Purple 2012 - Carried GS - Dan happen. There Worship single 078 are challenges Resources interface due to legal restrictions Appointment of a GC41 MNWO Defeated as GC41 Licensed Lay Purple 2012 - COMPLETE 1 reworded Worship Leader 091 GC41

GC41 MAR 1 Clarification of Purple 2012 – Carried

363(c ) During 093 Comes into

Maternity/Parent Manual effect August 1,

al Leave Committee 2013. 15 Publication of COMPLETE the 2013 GCE GS22 Amend By-Laws Consent 2012-10- Carried Manual 26-013 Ordination/ Remit sent Redefine Commissioning GC41 January 2014 GS – Alan – alternatives for GC41 SK3 Dependent Upon Purple 2012 - Carried Response Date Cynthia Ordination & Settlement or 092 Jan 31/2015 Commissioning Call Only To GC42 Conference Take no Action Interviews for GC41 – the new Interim Ministers, Carried as GC41 TOR 1 Purple 2012 - Manual 2013 COMPLETE Section 465.1 of reworded 086 addresses the The Manual concern (2010) Sabbaticals for GC41 GS GC41 HAM 10 Persons Involved Purple 2012 – Carried as

in Interim 085 reworded

Ministry On track

21 PC MEPS - GCE NEW 1 Refer to PC Omnibus 2012-10- Carried Wendy MEPS 26-015 Noah or Create a Belshazzar - The program for United Church of Staff Advise GC41 action on Canada and Carried as that we lack the GC41 M&O 2 Purple 2012 - GS – Michael Global Global Warming: reworded capacity for this 090 Warming with Dare We Risk a work recommendati Challenge ons for GC42 Deferred?

11 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

United Church Response to the Write a letter Staff Advise GC41 Tar Sands Carried as and UCC that we lack the GC41 TOR 2 Purple 2012 - GS - Michael Impact on reworded communication capacity for this 087 Indigenous campaign work Rights Paying Attention to the Global Staff Advise Ocean - GC41 that we lack the Carried as Implement a GC41 M&O 5 Reporting to the Purple 2012 - GS - Michael capacity & reworded study 41st General 089 expertise for Council, August this work 2012 United Church Staff Advise Write a letter Response to GC41 that we lack the Carried as and UCC GC41 TOR 3 Canada's Purple 2012 – GS - Michael capacity and reworded communication Contribution to 088 expertise for campaign Climate Change this work To be implemented By-Law Change in 15 effect with GC41 2013 Full Member 2012 – GC41 MTU 3 Status for 060 Carried Conference-

Elected Alternate Orange Executive of By – Law By-Law General Council Change and Change 27 Representatives Policy - GCE – Complete PC G&A PC G&A to

create policy COMPLETE 2012-10- GCE GS 23 Consent Carried The Amend By-Laws 26-013 Conference

GCE 9 Carried Executive Refer to PC G&A 2012-10- Secretaries 26-028 will care for

the preparation of Alternates attending GCE

GC 2nd sitting set the category for Election of this remit + General Council extended remit GC41 Commissioners - Prepare a release date – GC41 TOR 4 Orange 2012 - Carried GS- Cynthia President- Remit Released 060 Elect/Leading February/13 – Elder responses due Janaury31/15 To GC42

Election of GC 2nd sitting General Council set the GC 41 Commissioners - Prepare a category for GC41 TOR 5 Orange 2012 - Carried GS - Cynthia Designated lay Remit this remit + 070 Ministers Section extended remit 423 (a) of The release date – 12 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Manual (2010) Released February/13 – responses due Janaury31/15 To GC42

Election of For Comes into General Council GC41 implementatio effect August 1, GC41 TOR 6 Commissioners Orange 2012 - Carried GS – Manual n – Change 2013. Change of 062 Committee Manual COMPLETE Eligibility The Granting of GC41 To review the Right to 2012 - GC41 ANW1 Orange Refer to granting rights Administer 071 GCE, of Sacraments Sacraments to Carried. to DM at All Diaconal Referred to Commission- Ministers at the Joint Ministry ing Time of Their Task Group 15

Commissioning GCE – PC

GCE GCE 10 Consent Carried MEPS & TICIF Refer to PC 2012-10-

MEPS 26-013 COMPLETE – New Sacrament Elder MNWO Sacrament GC41 Handbook GC41 Orange Carried GS – MEPS 5 Elders 2012 2013 + GS policy ruling 09- 006-O – no policy change required Reverse the Decision to Make 67 the Minimum Age for Letter sent to GC41 To Application for government GC41 SK 4 Orange 2012 - Carried GS - Michael communicate Old Age Security January 2013. 069 stance and Guaranteed COMPLETE Income Supplement Benefits Full-Time GC41 For GC41 HAM 3 Employment Orange 2012 – Refer to consideration On track. 072 GCE, Report with Carried recommend- ations to Spring 15 GCE GCE 11 Refer to PC Consent 2012-10- Carried PC MEPS 2014 MEPS MEPS 26-013 GC41 Part 1 & 2 Pension Plan Carried. Take GC41 HAM 4 Orange 2012 - No Action, COMPLETE Changes no Action 064 Carried Pension GC41 GC41 HAM 9 Contributions Orange 2012 – Carried as GCE – Pension Explore policy 065 reworded GCE for Pension Review Contributions underway by for Retired PPAC 15 GCE GCE 12 Refer to Pension Consent 2012-10- Carried Pension Board Supply Board 26-013

13 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Orange 1 - Composite Composi GC41 No Action, GC41 Proposal - see Orange COMPLETE te - MAR 2012 Carried below 3, M&O 4 Orange COMPLETE – 2 – Published a Composi Take no Reference in GC41 Re Goldcorp Inc. Orange See Orange 3 statement & te for Action Counsel communication MAR 3 & sent M&O4 COMPLETE. Pension GC41 Orange GS - Alan & Publish a Published & GC41 Concerns re Orange 2012 - Carried 3 Michael– PMM statement communicated Goldcorp 067 a statement United Church of Canada Pension Take no Action Maritime No action. GC41 Board Orange – see Orange COMPLETE 3 Carried. Divestment form 2 Goldcorp Living with Dignity on Earth as Members of the Same Body: A Proposal that the United Take no Action No action. GC41 M&O 4 Church of Orange – see Orange COMPLETE Carried. Canada Pension 2 Fund Dispose of Shares It Holds in the Mining Company Goldcorp Inc. From Province to GC41 Province: The GCE GC41 M&O 1 Orange 2012 – Carried. Beaconsville 069 Initiative January

1-12, 2012:

Strengthening Petition, Partnerships and lobbying and On track. Studying the funding Ongoing work. Impact of support Canadian Mining

Interest in the

Philippines 16

– PMM & GS - GCE GCE 13 Consent 2012-10- Carried Refer to PC Michael 26-013 PMM . Decided work Child Poverty GC41 would not be GC41 ANW2 Needs to be the Orange 2012 – Carried GCE led by the Concern of 063 GCO. To develop Everyone Leadership has 16 strategies been given by GCE GCE 14 Refer to PC Consent 2012-10- Carried PC PMM the UCW and PMM 26-013 Conferences. COMPLETE Review of GC41 MNWO No Action, GC41 Harassment Orange 2012 - COMPLETE 3 Carried. Prevention 064 14 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Policies

GCE 3 Comes into GC41 REF Definition of Manual effect August 1, GC41 Orange 2012 - Carried GS60 "Sexual Abuse" Committee 2013. 060 2012 COMPLETE GCE 4 Comes into GC41 REF Definition of Manual effect August 1, GC41 Orange 2012- Carried GS61 "Party" Committee 2013. 060 2012 COMPLETE GCE 5 Appeals and GC41 Manual Carried GC41 REF "Directly Affected Orange 2012 – Committee Comes into

GS62 Parties" 073 effect August 1,

2012 Publication of 2013. Carried GCE Amend the By- Consent 2012-10- the 2013 COMPLETE 15

GS 18 Law 26-013 Manual GC 2nd sitting set the GC41 Associate category for GCE13 2012 - GC41 Relationships Orange Carried as this remit + REF PC 074 with Migrant reworded. Prepare extended remit 21 PMM 18 Churches GS - Cynthia Category 2 release date – 2012 Remit Released

GCE Omnibus Carried February/13 – NEW 2 2012-10- Amend By-Laws responses due 26-015 Janaury31/15 To GC42 Expand the Structure and Received GC41 Scope of the and took no GC41 BC3 Orange 2012 - COMPLETE United Church action. 061 Interfaith Partner Carried Relations Report to MEPS Spring 2014. the Congregational Financial Handbook revised to Recognize recognize importance of spiritual regular direction as a Composite spiritual legit con ed Green 2 - direction; & expense, an GC41 Green Developed after GS – Alan GS to article on

consideration of encourage spiritual MTU1 and BC1 Presbyteries/D direction & its istricts to value will create annual appear in gatherings Connex, & through the Effective Leadership project, many new ways for ministers to gather collegially are 15 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

being explored. COMPLETE

Funding for Ministry GC41 Took no See Composite GC41 MTU 1 Personnel Green COMPLETE 2012 action Green 2 Spiritual Growth and Direction Added Compensation for Ministry GC41 No Action, See Composite GC41 BC 1 Green COMPLETE Personnel for 2012 Carried. Green 2 Spiritual Direction Likely not feasible. Our Buildings, Increasingly Our Future - professional Beyond Bricks service and Mortar volunteers are unable to commit to site visits. We have very few architect volunteers, but most such GC41 volunteers GC41 HAM 2 Green Carried GS -Erik 2012 have had to limit their involvement to teleconference s & increasingly charge for their Our Buildings, time. We do Our Future - hope to build Beyond Bricks up online and Mortar communities & CONTINUED discussion groups to share experiences & advice. On track. Letter to Federal Department of Health & Write letters & Provincial compile Ministries of Including resources re Education GC41 Persons Living GS – Michael - mental health mailed in April GC41 SK 2 Green 2012 - Carried with Mental PMM for 2014. 032 Health Issues congregations The requested and leadership biography will be online shortly. Congregational engagement is in process. Resources 16 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

which draw on resources from sister denominations should be ready for fall 2014. On track. From Policy to The March Action 2013 Mandate

focused on

“Poverty in

Canada”. Work

is underway

with Canadian

Produce study and global

material, equip partners

GS –Michael - pastoral through GC41 The charges and education GC41 HAM 8 Green 2012 - Carried Discipleship & ask for action resources and 033 Witness Cluster for our most network

vulnerable building. The

citizens TURNing Over

Tables nations

justice event

also engaged

this as a focus.

Incorporated From Policy to this into a work- Action plan for further Continued animation. On track. Incorporated Prophecy and GC41 GS/GCE GCE mobilize into a work- GC41 BQ 3 Empire Green 2012 Carried as UCC plan for further reworded. GS call on animation;

Ecumenical & pulling on

Global existing 16

Partners to resources from PC PMM - The mobilize in the empire GCE GCE 15 Refer to PC Consent 2012-10- Carried Discipleship & similar fashion work & PMM 26-013 Witness Cluster covenanting for life. Declare Several support – by Meetings took writing place. Letter Received Minsters of Reinstatement of GC41 sent to MNWO and took no Heritage & GC41 Katimavik Green 2012- GS - Michael government. 6 action. Finance Funding 030 No further Carried Leader of the action to be Opposition & taken. The Prime COMPLETE Minister Encourage On track. congregations This will be GS – Michael – to seek to incorporated GC41 Communities in MNWO Took no raise into the work GC41 Gossip Green 2012 - Mission + 2 action awareness of on courageous 038 Discipleship & the harmful conversations. Witness aspects of The curriculum gossip & have should be 17 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

caring launched in the conversations fall 2014. Issue a Staff advise Justice in statement of there is no GC41 Adopted with Environmental concern re capacity or GC41 BC5 Green 2012 - minor GS - Michael Assessment future expertise for 034 change Hearings assessment this work. hearing IN Complete GC41 Received & Assistance with GC41 BQ1 Green 2012 - took no COMPLETE Charity Returns 049 action Address Study & GC41 GC41 LON3 Systematic Green Adopted with GCE – discern 2012 – On track. Staff Inequality in minor practical 050 are obtaining Clergy change issues to and analyzing Compensation continue to data address 15 2012-10- GCE GCE 16 Refer to PC Consent Carried PC MEPS systemic 26-013 MEPS inequality GC41 MTU2 Green GC41 GCE – Further Study 2012 – 051 1. Financial consultation 15 GCE GCE 17 Consent PC MEPS with students 2012-10- 2. Students 26-013 may consult with Fin Program of Consent Assistance Blue 1 Debt/Loan 2014-11- Co. GCE Repayment for 15-170 3. UC On track. 143- Referred to Ordered Ministry Foundation Staff are 144 GCE for Personnel consider working on further study creating a options for the

Leadership working group Development Fund 4. Staff research student debt – causes of it 5. Take no further action on MTU2

Termination of GCE8 Comes into Pastoral GC41 REF Manual Change By- effect August 1, GC41 Relationship Green 2012 - Carried GS65 Committee Laws 2013. With or Without 052 2012 COMPLETE Cause GCE9 Comes into GC41 Adopted with REF GS – Manual effect August 1, GC41 Quorum Green 2012 - minor GS66 Committee 2013. 031 change 2012 COMPLETE GC41 ANCC1 Northern Green GC41 Adopted with Publicly Follow up has Gateway 2012 – minor support Native been done Pipeline 035 change Ministries of through a press BC & release and communicate other this decision to mechanisms all courts of and the the church, decision was 18 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

and made public & governments communicated GS –Michael & of Canada, to the church. Peggy/Jamie + Alberta & BC, COMPLETE 16 GCE GCE 18 Consent Carried PC PMM Enbridge and Refer to PC 2012-10- to all Canadian PMM 26-013 through

Received for Review of Received for GC41 Information Centralized Information GC41 MAR 4 Green 2012 - and no further COMPLETE Pastoral Charge and took no 040 action be Payroll Program action taken

The new business dealt GCE with by the

Executive of General Council Procedural 2012-08- GCE GS Carried COMPLETE 1 motions 18-001 2012- Election of Nominations GCE GCE 1 08=18- Carried Sub-Executive 1-2 Report 002 - COMPLETE Closing 2012-08- GCE Procedural Carried COMPLETE 3 003 Motions Procedural 2012-09- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 1 motions 06-004 Approval of 2012-09- GCSE GS Minutes of June Carried COMPLETE 3 06-005 27, 2012 Election of Members of the Nominati Nominations 2012-09- Moderator’s GCSE Carried 4 ons Report 06-006 Advisory Committee - COMPLETE Members elected to Nominati Nominations 2012-09- Nominations GCSE Carried 4 ons Report 06-007 Committee, GCSE- COMPLETE Procedural 2012-09- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 5 motions 06-008 Approval of 2012-09- GCSE GS Minutes of Sept. Carried COMPLETE 5 06-009 6, 2012 Terms of Approved the Reference for Nominati 2012-10- Terms of GCSE Comprehensive Carried 7 ons 01-010 Reference. Review Task COMPLETE Group Appointment of Appointment Nominati 2012-10- GCSE Member of Carried approved. 8 ons 01-011 PCMEPS to the COMPLETE 19 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Pension Board Procedural 2012-10- GCE GS2 Carried COMPLETE 10 Motions 26-012 2012-10- GCE GS1 Opening Motions Carried COMPLETE 14 26-013 Revised the Terms of Reference for Revised Terms PC G&A 2012-10- The General GCE of Reference – Consent Carried 14 1 26-013 Secretary’s Policy 3.16 Supervision Committee - COMPLETE Terms of Reference for 2012-10- GCE GS3 Conference Consent Carried COMPLETE 14 26-013 Records Review Task Group Nominations 2012-10- GCE GCE 19 Carried COMPLETE 19 Committee 26-014 Adoption of 4 2012-10- proposals – GCE NEW 6 Omnibus Motion Carried COMPLETE 21 26-015 New 1, 2, 3 & 5 Group Insurance 2012-10- GCE MEPS 1 Plan Design Carried COMPLETE 24-25 26-020 Changes Receive 2013 Budget Outlook & approve 2013 Budget 2012-10- existing grants GCE FIN 1 Carried COMPLETE 25 Outlook 26-021 for 2013 but give notice they are not guaranteed in 2014 Task Group GCE to Task Group on appointed establish a Adoptions from 2012-10- GCE - 2013-01-29- GCE GS 4 Carried Task Group to 25 UCC Maternity 26-022 Nominations 041. advise on next Homes COMPLETE steps

2012-10- 26-025 Move in and out GCE 2012-10- Carried COMPLETE 26 of In-Camera 26-026

Develop The process or shareholder mechanism to proposal will be participate developed with Shareholder PC G&A – & likely Proposal on 2012-10- consulting with Until delegated to GCE NEW 4 Carried 28 - 29 Executive 26-029 PC Fin & developed – the new Compensation PC PMM authorize UCC Responsible to be signatory Investment to shareholder Reference proposal to Group which is banks we hold just being 20 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

stock formed in spring of 2014. Direct the GS in this instance to become the signatory Closing 2012-10- GCE GS Procedural Carried COMPLETE 30 26-030 Motions Procedural 2012-11- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 31 motions 19-031 Minutes of Oct. 2012-11- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 31 1, 2012 19-032 Increase Indebtedness – 2012-11- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 32 1st UC Social 19-033 Housing Society Relocation of the 2012-11- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 32 UC Archives 19-034 Appointment – Catherine Hamilton – 2012-11- GCSE GS chairperson – Carried COMPLETE 32-33 19-035 Comprehensive Review Task Group Procedural 2012-12- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 33 motions 12-036 Minutes Nov. 19, 2012-12- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 33 2012 12-037 Appointment CES – Hamilton 2012-12- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 34 Conference – 12-038 Peter Hartmans Procedural 2012-01- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 35 motions 13-39 Minutes Dec. 2013-01- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 35 12, 2012 29-040 2013-01- GCSE GS Nominations Carried COMPLETE 36 29-041 Transfer from 2013-01- GCSE GS UCC to the UCC Carried COMPLETE 36-37 29-042 Foundation Ongoing Membership in 2013-01- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 37 Imagine Canada 29-043 Ethical Code 1st UC Property 2013-01- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 37 Transfer 29-044 Recruitment Criteria for the 2013-01- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 37 Pension Board 29-045 Chair Designated Lay Ministry Program 2013-01- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 38 – Prerequisite for 29-046 Admission Supervised 2013-01- GCSE GS Ministry Carried COMPLETE 38-40 29-047 Education 21 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

(Internship) Compensation Procedural 2012-02- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 50 motions 21-049 Minutes Jan. 29, 2012-02- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 50 2013 13-049 Appointment of Shannon 2012-02- GCSE GS McCarthy – CES Carried COMPLETE 51 13-050 MNO Conference Procedural 2012-03- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 52 motions 21-051 Minutes Feb. 2012-02- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 52 21, 2013 13-052 Distribution of Proceeds – Sale of Ina Grafton 2012-02- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 52 - 53 Gage Home – 13-053 Moose Jaw, SASK SHARE Responsible 2012-02- GCSE GS Property Carried COMPLETE 53 13-054 Management Code Appointment of The Rev. David 2012-02- GCSE GS Mundy – Director Carried COMPLETE 53-54 13-055 Bridge St. UC Foundation 2012-02- GCSE GS Nominations Carried COMPLETE 54-55 13-056 Appointment of Michael Blair – Executive 2012-02- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 55 Minister – 13-057 Church in Mission Unit Procedural 2012-03- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 56 motions 21-058 Minutes March 2012-03- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 56 21, 2013 13-059 Lease Extension 2012-03- GCSE GS at 3250 Bloor Carried COMPLETE 57 13-060 Street Nominations – 2012-03- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 57 Observer Board 13-061 Procedural 2013-05- GCE GS26 Carried COMPLETE 59-60 Motions 04-062 2013-05- GCE GS25 Opening Motions Carried COMPLETE 60-61 04-063 2013-05- GCE GCE Move in Camera Carried COMPLETE 67 04-064 Move Out Of in 2013-05- GCE GCE Carried COMPLETE 67 Camera 04-065 Receive Supervision 2013-05- GCE GCE Carried COMPLETE 67 Committee 04-066 Report 22 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

GS to take necessary 2013 Budget + 2013-05- Carried – steps to GCE GCE 2014 Budget COMPLETE 68 04-067 with regret implement Outlook these decisions From June 2013 – engage select companies & stores + select target items All decisions From Sept from GCE have Implementation 2013 – be of GC – consumer implemented 2013-05- GCE GS27 Palestine/Israel Carried economic except for the 68 04-068 Education + action + reference for Economic Action spiritual GCE to explore reflection & the implications action of divestment

July-Dec 2014 – evaluation & follow up + prepare report for GC42 Disability 2013-05- GCE MEPS 2 Carried COMPLETE 68-69 Management 04-069 TICIF to Proposal under proceed with “A Question of 2013-05- development. GCE TICIF 1 Carried study on the 69 Membership” 04-70 Expected to be meaning of before GC42 Membership 1. Publicly Support call National Inquiry of NWAC & Petition: Missing AFN for a & Murdered National Aboriginal Inquiry Women & Girls 2. GS to write PM Harper 3. Communica Letter to te decision Stephen across Harper July 2013-05- GCE AMC 1 Carried GS - Maggie Canada 2013 was & 69 04-71 4. Encourage posted and UCC circulated. members to COMPLETE National Inquiry sign NWAC Petition: Missing petition & Murdered 5. Convey Aboriginal UCC Women & Girls actions to CONTINUED the UN Indigenous Forum Aboriginal Russell Burns Member to 2013-05- GCE GS29 Carried was named by COMPLETE 70 Comprehensive 04-72 AMC Review Task 23 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Group 1. Affirm Directions as core commitment of UCC 2. PCs to engage recommend ations 3. Comment Report to Comp Review TG 4. GS to implement that UC – i) Core identity – justice seeking church ii) Undertake actions so 2013-05- UCC re- Ongoing Work GCE PMM2 GLBTT Report Carried 70 04-73 emerges as leader for justice iii) Intention- ally increase welcome in the life of the church iv) Education-al & relationship- building initiatives to create an Intercultural UCC v) UCC hold another round of consultation s in 5 to 7 years 2013-05- GCE GCE 20 Nominations Carried COMPLETE 71 04-74 Missing GCE find ways 2013-05- GCE GCE 21 Aboriginal Men Carried GS - Maggie to address 71 04-75 and Boys issue GS to: 1. enter talks Conversations with UC of 2013-05- fully underway. GCE GS 30 Full Communion Carried Christ 71-72 04-76 Anticipate (USA) + Report to GC42 others 2. Appoint 24 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

UC reps to reference groups 3. Report back to GCE from time to time Closing 2013-05- GCE GS31 Procedural Carried COMPLETE 72 04-077 Motions Procedural 2013-05- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 73 motions 16-078 Minutes April 19, 2013-05- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 73 2013 16-079 2012 Audited 2013-05- GCSE GS Financial Carried COMPLETE 74 16-080 Statements Test Sites for 2013-05- GCSE GS Effective Carried COMPLETE 75 16-081 Leadership Pilots Deferral – U of Winnipeg 2013-05- GCSE GCSE Proposal re Carried COMPLETE 76 16-082 Faculty of Theology Signing Officers 2013-05- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 76 for UCC 16-083 Procedural 2013-06- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 77 motions 20-084 Minutes May 16, 2013-06- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 77 2013 20-085 Re-appointments to Observer 2013-06- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 78 Board 20-086

Covenant – UCC 2013-06- GCSE GS & Observer Carried COMPLETE 78 20-087 Board Appointments – Board of 2013-06- GCSE GS Regents – Carried COMPLETE 79 20-088 Discontinuanc e with understanding University of 2013-06- the university GCSE GS Winnipeg Faculty Carried COMPLETE 79 20-089 will establish a of Theology Centre for Theological Studies Procedural 2013-11- GCE GS36 Carried COMPLETE 81-82 Motions 16--090 2013-11- GCE GS35 Opening Motions Carried COMPLETE 82-83 16-091 Adjourn for 2013-11- GCE GCE Special Meeting, Carried COMPELTE 83 16-092 2nd Sitting GC41 GC GC42 Procedural GC 41 Carried COMPLETE 25 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Motions AM2nd Sitting 2013- 001 GC 41 AM2nd Authorization – GC GC42 Sitting Carried COMPLETE Remit for SK3 2013- 002 GC 41 AM2nd Authorization – GC GC42 Sitting Carried COMPLETE Remit for TOR 4 2013- 003 GC 41 AM2nd Authorization – GC GC42 Sitting Carried COMPLETE Remit for TOR 5 2013- 004 GC 41 Closing AM2nd GC GC42 Procedural Sitting Carried COMPLETE Motions 2013- 005 Omnibus Motions – 2013-11- GCE GS39 Format of 3 Carried COMPLETE 84 16-093 Remits 7, 8 and 9 2013-11- GCE GCE Move in-Camera Carried COMPLETE 84 16-094 Move Out of in- 2013-11- GCE GCE Carried Complete 85 Camera 16-095 Receive the Report of GS 2013-11- GCE GCE Supervision Carried Complete 85 16-096 Committee for information 2013-11- Omnibus Motion GCE GCE26 16-097 Carried Proposal to 87 to Refer GCE# GCE 23 – GCE May 2014 23 and CEE24 to appointment 2

PC G&A Francophone

And GCE 25 to Reps as

PC MEPS Commissioner

s to GC

GCE 24 –

presence of

Responsible

for Ministries

in French at

GCE

GCE 25 –

reconsider

2014 Pulpit

Supply Rates

Pulpit/ Weekend GCSE GS 2013-12- Carried COMPLETE 98 Supply Rates 13-116

26 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

Loan Guarantee 2013-11- GCE GS40 for Riverbend Carried Complete 88 16-098 United Proposed 2013-11- GCE PMM 3 Elected Member Carried Complete 89 16-099 Structure Socially Responsible 1. Receive 2013-11- GCE PMM 5 Investment & Carried Report COMPLETE 89 16-100 Resource Extraction 2. Approve recommend Socially ations and Approved Responsible GS to recommend- 2013-11- GCE PMM 5A Investment & Carried implement ations. 90 16-101 Resource as possible COMPLETE – Extraction within GCE Nov 2014 existing resources Nominations 2013-11- GCE GCE22 Carried Complete 90 Reports 16-102 Guiding 2013-11- GCE G&A3 Carried Complete 90-91 Principles GC42 16-103 GS & Youth Forum Working Group to explore funding for larger numbers of Proposal for participants. 2013-11- GCE GS38 GC42 Youth Carried Taken to GCE 92 16-105 Forum Nov. 2013. Referred to GS for further work. Approved by Sub-Executive Fall 2013. COMPLETE 1. Receive Report 2. Direct TICIF to devise a paper and statement 3. Direct GS to Adoption Task 2013-11- GCE PMM4 Carried create 94-95 Group 16-106 resources to continue work Proposal approved by GCE Nov 2013. COMPLETE. Make research Adoption Task 2013-11- GCE PMM4A Carried public. 95 Group 16-107 COMPLETE Take no Limiting COLA 2013-11- GCE GS37 action - COMPLETE 95 for 2014 16-108 Carried

27 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

1. Received Report 2. TICIF to engage UCC in exploration 3. Implement recommenda Michael Blair + tion as staff from CiM possible with and ME; Tom Consultation on 2013-11- existing GCE PMM 6 Carried Reynolds 95- 96 Disabilities 16-109 resources (contract writer) 4. Provide + TICIF update to

GCE May 2014 A detailed work plan has been developed, Ongoing work Complete Correct Report 2013-11- GCE GCE27 from Disabilities Correct names Complete 96 16-110 Consultation Closing 2013-11- GCE Procedural Complete 97 16-111 Motions Procedural 2013-11- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 98 motions 28-112 Minutes June 20, 2013-11- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 98 2013 28-113 Appointments to 2013-11- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 98 -99 PC MEPS 23-114 Procedural 2013-12- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 98 motions 13-115 Procedural 2014-01- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 98 motions 31-117 GCSE GS Minutes Nov 28, 2014-11- Carried COMPLETE 103 2013 28-118 GCSE GS Minutes Dec, 13 2014-11- Carried COMPLETE 103 2013 28-119 GC42 Youth 2014-01- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 104 Forum 31-120 Changing Length 2014-01- GCSE GS of GCE May Carried COMPLETE 105 31-121 2014

Procedural GCSE GS 2014-02- Carried COMPLETE 106 motions 13-122 Approval of 2014-01- GCSE GS Minutes – Jan Carried COMPLETE 106 31-123 31, 2014 Nominations - M&S Advisory, 2014-02- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 107 Investment Co. + 18-124 Judicial Co. Procedural 2014-03- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 108 motions 21-125 Approval of 2014-03- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 108 Minutes – Feb 21-126 28 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

18, 2014 Nominations – Youth Forum 2014-03- GCSE GS Carried Complete 109 Co., Pension 21-127 Board + GCE Procedural 2014-05- 111- GCE GS41 Carried COMPLETE Motions 03-128 112 2014-05- 111- GCE GS40 Opening Motions Carried COMPLETE 03-129 112 Adopt: FIN 4 – Real Estate & Capital Assistance, G&A4 – 2014-05- Francophone 112- GCE GS43 Consent Agenda Carried COMPLETE 03-129 Com. GC42, 113 G&A5 – Budget GC42 MEPS 9 – Police Records Checks Commence 2014-05- 113- GCE FIN 3 Endowing Carried COMPLETE 03-131 114 Legacy Gifts 2014 Operating 2014-05- GCE FIN 3 Carried COMPLETE 114 Budget 03-132 2014-05- GCE GCE Move in Camera Carried COMPLETE 115 03-133 Move Out Of in 2014-05- GCE GCE Carried COMPLETE 116 Camera 03-134 Receive 2104-05- GCE GCE Supervision Co. Carried COMPLETE 116 03-135 Report Mutual Approved in Recognition – 2014-05- GCE GS42 Carried Principal. 116 UC Christ - 03-136 COMPLETE Philippines Funding – 2014-05- 116- GCE PMM 7 Education Carried COMPLETE 03-137 117 Centres French Language 2014-05- GCE PMM 8 Carried COMPLETE 117 Translation 03-138 Strategy 2014-05- GCE 03-139 NEW 7

Referred to GCSE SGCE 2014-06- 1. Fit with CIM

GGE 20148 mandate GS47 Forwarded to 118 Annual Week of 2. Priority issue PC PMM to Prayer… Congo 2014-11- for UCC? consider 135 157 - 3. Capacity for

consent this work

4. Role for CIM

GCE affirmed with workplan 29 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

for March 2016 Closing 2014-05- GCE GS44 Procedural COMPLETE 118 03-140 Motions

Procedural GCSE GS 2014-05- Carried COMPLETE 121 motions 21-141 Approval of 2014-01- GCSE GS Minutes –March Carried COMPLETE 121 31-142 21, 2014 Nominations – Cdn. Forces, Responsible Investment, 2014-05- GCSE GS Pension Plan Carried COMPLETE 122 21-143 Advisory, Anglican – UCC Dialogue + Observer 2013 Audited 2014-05- 122- GCSE GS Financial Carried COMPLETE 21-144 123 Statements

Procedural GCSE GS 2014-06- Carried COMPLETE 124 motions 20-145 Approval of 2014-06- GCSE GS Minutes –May Carried COMPLETE 124 20-146 21, 2014 BQ Conference Space Rental at 2014-06- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 125 St. Matthew’s 20-147 UC Expressed thanks & given Response to actions in line Knox UCC re 2014-06- GSCE GS Carried with GC41 COMPETE 126 Report of WG on 20=149 decisions – no Israel/Palestine further action to be taken Update to General Funds 2014-06- Approved GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 126 Investment 20-150 updated policy Policy

Procedural GCSE GS 2014-09- Carried COMPLETE 127 motions 04-151 Approval of 2014-09- GCSE GS Minutes –June Carried COMPLETE 127 04-152 20, 2014 Approved Nominations to Nominations Co. 2014-09- Investment GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 128 Report 04-153 Co. , Nominations Co. & GCE

Procedural GCSE GS 2014-10- Carried COMPLETE 127 motions 15-154 Approval of 2014-10- GCSE GS Carried COMPLETE 129 Minutes – 15-155 30 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

September 4, 2014 Nominations to GCE, Governing Co. Nominations 2014-10- GCSE GS Carried Ploughshares, COMPLETE 130 Report 15-156 &WG on Theologies of Disability Opening Motions – Consent 2014-11- GCE GS40 Carried COMPLETE 133 Agenda Items 15-157 Below: Terminate Former Learning Assessment Steps from Staff as of March MEPS12 Consent Carried COMPLETE 133 Associate 31/15 & new handbook written and in effect for April 1/2015 Recommend MEPS13 LLWL Policy Consent Carried LLWL Policy to 134 GC42 Congregation Recommend MEPS14 Consent Carried 134 DM Policy Policy to GC42 Design Group Insurance MEPS16 Consent Carried Changes COMPLETE 134 Renewal approved HR Policy MEPS17 Consent Carried COMPLETE 134 Changes Joint Accepted Consultation – invitation – GS PMM9 Consent Carried 134 China Christian to form a Council delegation “Prophets in the Mission Theme House” was PMM10 Consent Carried COMPLETE 134 2015-2017 approved as the theme Understanding between the UCC &: the Methodist Church of the Memorandum of Caribbean and Understanding – GS49 Consent Carried Americas COMPLETE 134 Associate (MCCA), + the Relationships Methodist Church of Zimbabwe - GS to sign the agreements GGE use Formation for Carried Referred to PC integrative PMM15 Faithful Consent COMPLETE 134 Referral G&A approach for 4 Leadership WG major reports Procedural 2014-11- GCE GS41 Carried COMPLETE 134 Motions 158 31 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

1. Report Received for Information 2. GCE to develop process to 2014-11- GCE WCC1 WCC Report Carried integrate 136 15-159 Pilgrimage of Justice 3. Seek way to collaborate with other faith groups Operating 2014-11- GCE GS50 Budget FOR Carried COMPLETE 136 15-160 2015 Minimizing the 2014-11- GCE FIN6 Carried COMPLETE 136 Carbon Footprint 15-161 Partner Council 2014-11- GCE PMM11 Carried COMPLETE 137 Message 15-162 Prioritizing Work 2014-11- Recommends 138- GCE G&A6 Carried for GC42 15-163 to GS42 139 2014-11- GCE G&A7 Reports to GC42 Carried COMPLETE 139 15-164 Withdrawing 2014-11- Recommends GCE G&A8 from GC42 Carried 139-40 15-165 to GS42 Consent Agenda Sessional Committee to be formed by Work of CRTG at 2014-11- GCE G&A9 Carried GC42 Business 140 GC42 15-166 Co. from names given by CESs Proposal from 2014-11- No further 140- GCE G&A10 BQ re CRTG Carried COMPLETE 15-167 action. 141 Report at GC42 2014-11- GCE GCE Move in Camera Carried COMPLETE 142 15-168 Move Out Of in 2014-11- GCE GCE Carried COMPLETE 143 Camera 15-169 CONSENT 2014-11- GCE BLUE 1 Carried 144 MOTIONS 15-170 Debt Repayment MEPS15 Consent See MTU2 for OM National Strategy PMM14 for Ministries in Consent COMPLETE 144 French 1.Approve in principle 2. direct GS to Apology to 2014-11- develop GCE PMM12 LGBTTQ Carried 144 15-171 wording + Communities relevant resources to support it Explore a plan 2014- to address High Cost Areas GCE BLUE 2 1115- Carried Direct GS compensation 144 - Compensation 172 for emergency expenses with 32 | Page

This is a summary of the actions of the 41st General Council, 2012, and is subject to revision. This is not the Official Record Amended 12/19/2014 Version 11

report back to March 2015 GCE 1. Amend Policies & Procedures 2. Collect Future Directions Statistics 1014-11- GCE MEPS11 – Diaconal Carried 3. Review 145 15-173 Ministry resources and stipends + increase financial support Approved for Comprehensive 2014-11- GCE GS48 Carried Implementation COMPLETE 145 Compensation 15-174 July 1, 2015 Faithful, Effective 2014-11- Recommend to GCE GS47 and Learned Carried 146 15-175 GC42 Leaders Candidacy 2014-11- Recommend to 146- GCE MEPS10 Carried Pathway 14-176 GC42 147 Nominations 2014-11- GCE GCE28 Carried. COMPLETE 147 Report 15-177 Closing 2014-11- GCE GS51 Procedural Carried COMPLETE 148 14-178 Motions

33 | Page