1
UCC Café / Re: Riddle me this
« on: June 11, 2013, 06:13:40 AM »
Because elephants don't have fingernails.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
4
UCC Café / Re: Prayer Request
« on: June 02, 2013, 02:49:40 PM »
And the ecclesiastical council is today, at 3PM CDT.
http://foxvalley.ilucc.org/upcoming-events.php?event=941
http://foxvalley.ilucc.org/upcoming-events.php?event=941
5
UCC Café / Technology in Worship: Tablets
« on: May 29, 2013, 01:14:54 AM »
I've seen some people use an iPad or other tablet in worship.
On Pentecost, I used an Asus tablet on which I had an acrobat .pdf file of the entire bulletin with the sermon inserted inline. I did have a backup paper bulletin and paper sermon, but didn't need it. I found the tablet worked well: no shuffling paper noises, no sheets blown by the breeze through the open windows or ceiling fans (or spirit rushing through - this was Pentecost!)
Do any of you use similar technology in worship? How do you use it? What apps do you use? How is it working for you?
On Pentecost, I used an Asus tablet on which I had an acrobat .pdf file of the entire bulletin with the sermon inserted inline. I did have a backup paper bulletin and paper sermon, but didn't need it. I found the tablet worked well: no shuffling paper noises, no sheets blown by the breeze through the open windows or ceiling fans (or spirit rushing through - this was Pentecost!)
Do any of you use similar technology in worship? How do you use it? What apps do you use? How is it working for you?
6
UCC Café / Re: Riddle me this
« on: May 21, 2013, 12:08:51 AM »What will the butter do when the roll is called up yonder?"
Go to hell in a handbiscuit.
7
Theology Forum / Re: Marriage in the eyes of God, the Bible, SCOTUS & more?
« on: April 19, 2013, 01:45:08 AM »
The incest question is interesting. Let's tease apart its elements:
Reasons for preventing (or at least discouraging) incest:
If we can decide why we don't like incest, we can start to think about what constitutes incest that should be prohibited or discouraged.
Finally, there's the question of the effect of availability of marriage on whether incest will occur.
To sum up:
With that: my answers:
Closely genetically-related people have higher risks for recessive traits that may be problematic. Genetic counseling and, when warranted, contraception can address this issue for fertile heterosexual couples. Additionally, there can be harmful psychological and power issues in a sexual relationship between closely-related persons. This can be addressed by counseling. Finally, there are religious and social issues around incest, which can be addressed by religious instruction and the imposition of social mores.
For couples who love each other, do not have a history of familial contact between each other, and who are incapable or reproducing, it would seem incest has few genetic and psychological risks.
That said, I am not interested in a sexual or romantic relationship with any of my relatives, and I would think that those who are interested constitute a small fraction of society. It would be more helpful to address the issue by reducing harm than by stigmatizing such couples, as the latter would merely increase the chance that the relationship would be carried on in secret.
edited to correct typographical error
Reasons for preventing (or at least discouraging) incest:
- Is incest a problem because of the risk of birth defects? If so, does that mean genetically unrelated family members are "fair game"?
- Is incest a problem because of the psychological issues that may come about? What about people who did not know they were related?
- Is incest a problem because of the power dynamics that can be involved?
- Is incest a problem for religious reasons?
- Is incest a problem because we find it distasteful, regardless of our source (social, religious, etc.) for this distaste?
- Are there multiple problems with incest?
If we can decide why we don't like incest, we can start to think about what constitutes incest that should be prohibited or discouraged.
- Do we merely want to prevent offspring? If so, sterilized/non-procreative/asexual couples are not a problem
- If there are other problems with incest, what about couples who do not have sex?
Finally, there's the question of the effect of availability of marriage on whether incest will occur.
- Can incest occur if people are not married?
- Can related people be married and not engage in incest? (I know a couple who did consumate their marriage on their honeymoon, and never had sex again. They are still happily married after many decades.)
- How do we know whether a couple is related? If one partner - or his or her ancestors - were adopted, the couple could become married without knowledge of their ancestry. (see http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/gadgetbox/anti-incest-app-built-iceland-college-students-1C9392483 for one solution)
To sum up:
- What's bad about incest?
- What constitutes incest?
- How do we reduce the risk of harm?
With that: my answers:
Closely genetically-related people have higher risks for recessive traits that may be problematic. Genetic counseling and, when warranted, contraception can address this issue for fertile heterosexual couples. Additionally, there can be harmful psychological and power issues in a sexual relationship between closely-related persons. This can be addressed by counseling. Finally, there are religious and social issues around incest, which can be addressed by religious instruction and the imposition of social mores.
For couples who love each other, do not have a history of familial contact between each other, and who are incapable or reproducing, it would seem incest has few genetic and psychological risks.
That said, I am not interested in a sexual or romantic relationship with any of my relatives, and I would think that those who are interested constitute a small fraction of society. It would be more helpful to address the issue by reducing harm than by stigmatizing such couples, as the latter would merely increase the chance that the relationship would be carried on in secret.
edited to correct typographical error
8
Theology Forum / Re: Marriage in the eyes of God, the Bible, SCOTUS & more?
« on: April 17, 2013, 11:01:37 PM »
If we're going to use a religious context for civil marriage, we're going to immediately run into trouble. For one, the Roman church doesn't recognize marriages not done in the Roman church - which is most, if not all, of the so-called "married" people on this forum. At some point, there would be no marriage at all, as every religion could raise an objection, and there would be no marriage that would withstand all the challenges.
OTOH, without the religious overtones, civil marriage is a contract between two individuals of majority age.
OTOH, without the religious overtones, civil marriage is a contract between two individuals of majority age.
9
UCC Café / Re: Riddle me this
« on: April 01, 2013, 09:00:15 PM »
Two mothers and their two daughters had lunch together. They each decided to have a slice of cheesecake for dessert. The server informed them that there were only three slices of cheesecake left.
Fortunately, there was a way for both mothers and both daughters to each have what they wanted without having to share. How was this accomplished?
Fortunately, there was a way for both mothers and both daughters to each have what they wanted without having to share. How was this accomplished?
10
Social Issues and Public Policy / Re: The President's Views On Marriage
« on: March 20, 2013, 03:05:45 PM »
There certainly seems to be a trend. http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/03/18/National-Politics/Polling/release_221.xml
Regarding "asking any priest, pastor or immam to compromise their faith in tending their flocks":
Clergy can legally refuse to officiate at weddings for all manner of reasons, from "they're not members of my church" to "I don't think they're a good fit" to "I just don't feel like it." Clergy are not legally obligated to officiate at all. So, to my understanding, the legality of marriage between members of the same sex (MOTSS) changes nothing in this regard, except that clergy who desire to officiate at weddings for MOTSS will be allowed to do so.
Communities of faith can legally refuse to recognize, for ecclesiastical purposes, marriages done outside their tradition. The Roman church does this regularly: couples who were married outside the church need to have their union solemnized by the church in order for it to be recognized.
The difficult part, however, will be setting the dividing line between religious and secular. If a church hires someone that the church would not consider married under its own doctrine, that person may still be legally married. For example, a friend of mine in San Francisco worked for Catholic Charities. Her marriage would not be recognized under the Roman church, but for employment purposes they treated her as married. I suspect this will be the new point of contention. But if churches recognize - for legal purposes - the marriages of employees even if those weddings could never have been done in those churches, those churches ought to apply the same standard to MOTSS.
On a personal note: though Mary and I have had a Holy Union (in a church in 1998), I think it's time we make it legal.
Regarding "asking any priest, pastor or immam to compromise their faith in tending their flocks":
Clergy can legally refuse to officiate at weddings for all manner of reasons, from "they're not members of my church" to "I don't think they're a good fit" to "I just don't feel like it." Clergy are not legally obligated to officiate at all. So, to my understanding, the legality of marriage between members of the same sex (MOTSS) changes nothing in this regard, except that clergy who desire to officiate at weddings for MOTSS will be allowed to do so.
Communities of faith can legally refuse to recognize, for ecclesiastical purposes, marriages done outside their tradition. The Roman church does this regularly: couples who were married outside the church need to have their union solemnized by the church in order for it to be recognized.
The difficult part, however, will be setting the dividing line between religious and secular. If a church hires someone that the church would not consider married under its own doctrine, that person may still be legally married. For example, a friend of mine in San Francisco worked for Catholic Charities. Her marriage would not be recognized under the Roman church, but for employment purposes they treated her as married. I suspect this will be the new point of contention. But if churches recognize - for legal purposes - the marriages of employees even if those weddings could never have been done in those churches, those churches ought to apply the same standard to MOTSS.
On a personal note: though Mary and I have had a Holy Union (in a church in 1998), I think it's time we make it legal.
11
UCC Café / Re: Prayer Request
« on: March 20, 2013, 12:13:48 AM »
Unfortunately, troubled churches often have few financial resources. The options are:
- Call someone part-time, when they really need a full-time pastor
- Call someone fresh out of seminary, when they really need an experienced pastor
- Both a and b [shudder]
- Pay less than conference guidelines
- Some combination of a, b, and d [facepalm]
- Pay more than they can afford
12
Seminarian Connection / Graduation, Approval, Call, Ordination
« on: March 19, 2013, 08:26:17 PM »
This topic came up on another thread, and I thought it might be good to discus here.
What is the sequence for events at the end of seminary?
What do you think is the better/best sequence?
In my association:
1. No more than 6 months before graduation: Begin process:
3. At least 24 months after first becoming Member in Discernment, and no more than six months before graduation: Pre-Ecclesiastical Council Interview
4. Upon approval for Ecclesiastical Council, may circulate profile.
5. After graduation, Ecclesiastical Council
Of course, these steps may also be taken after graduation. The sequence above details only the earliest dates.
What is the sequence for events at the end of seminary?
What do you think is the better/best sequence?
In my association:
1. No more than 6 months before graduation: Begin process:
- Prepare UCC Ministerial Profile (including criminal background check)
- Seminary Transcripts
- CPE evaluation
- Field Placement evaluation
- Psychological / vocational evaluation
- If transcripts do not show you have graduated, must have letter from registrar indicating that you are expected to graduate on date referenced in step 1
- Letter from seminary advisor
- Letter from In-Discernment Mentor
- Letter from UCC Clergy other than mentor
- Additional letter of reference
- Sample Sermon
- Ordination paper
3. At least 24 months after first becoming Member in Discernment, and no more than six months before graduation: Pre-Ecclesiastical Council Interview
4. Upon approval for Ecclesiastical Council, may circulate profile.
5. After graduation, Ecclesiastical Council
Of course, these steps may also be taken after graduation. The sequence above details only the earliest dates.
13
UCC Café / Re: Share some daily Humor
« on: March 19, 2013, 02:38:34 PM »
On Ash Wednesday, I went to the library to get a book on Mardi Gras in New Orleans.
"Unfortunately," said the librarian, "you can't borrow it. It's already Lent."
"Unfortunately," said the librarian, "you can't borrow it. It's already Lent."
14
UCC Café / Re: Prayer Request
« on: March 19, 2013, 01:17:59 AM »
What I've heard (though only anecdotally) is that there are associations/conferences that require a call before an ecclesiastical council is scheduled, but allowed profiles to be circulated, and associations/conferences that require approval for ordination before a profile can be circulated,
I heard about situations where a setting wanted to call an individual but could not because the setting's association/conference would not allow the profile to be circulated yet, and the person's home association/conference would not do the EC yet for lack of a call.
But I have not read anything official about this, only heard anecdotes.
I heard about situations where a setting wanted to call an individual but could not because the setting's association/conference would not allow the profile to be circulated yet, and the person's home association/conference would not do the EC yet for lack of a call.
But I have not read anything official about this, only heard anecdotes.
15
UCC Café / Re: Prayer Request
« on: March 18, 2013, 10:13:05 PM »Just curious.
Is this a normal protocol now?
When I served on our COM, you would seem properly prepared to be allowed to prep & circulate your profile with the ecclesiastical council expected to grant approval "pending a call".
But, times & procedures change & vary from Association to Association.
Steven,
I know the answer because my son is about to graduate from seminary. You are correct, when I was ordained it was possible to circulate a profile as an in care seminary student within six months of graduating. The rules have changed. Now a person has to be approved for ordination pending call before being allowed to circulate a profile.
This morning I was notified that, later during the same meeting where I was approved for ecclesiastical council, they changed the policy so they will allow me to circulate upon being approved for ecclesiastical council. This morning our associate conference minister gave Cleveland his blessing, so to speak.
Of course, other associations may not allow me to circulate the profile there until I am approved for ordination. So goes congregational polity!