To:       Members of the Council, Glen Ridge Congregational Church

From:   Special Committee on O&A

Date:    January 22, 2008

HISTORY

At its meeting of September 19, 2007, the Church Council appointed a special committee on O&A consisting of Bob Hayes, Marty Watson and Jim Watson.  The Committee’s charge was to  review the statement drafted by the Council in 2006, which we will refer to as Statement 1, and the statement drafted by members of the congregation in spring 2007, which we will call Statement 2. Each of the Statements is annexed to this report as an exhibit. We were further directed to review the responses to Statements 1 and 2 collected by the Council’s O&A committee; to interview the members of the Council’s O&A Committee to interview the thought leaders of the church who have been actively involved in the ongoing O&A discussions; and to report to the Council with recommended next steps.  A copy of the Council’s minutes concerning the committee is annexed to this report as an exhibit.

The members of this committee met jointly or individually with 22 members of the congregation and reviewed the written comments of 13 members of the congregation. 

We asked three questions of the people with whom we spoke:

1. In your opinion, what were the history and the purpose of the two Statements?

2. What is the current status of the discussion of O&A in our Church, why is it that way and where is the discussion going?

3. What are the next steps we should take?

We found that the three questions provided a framework within which people could freely discuss their understanding and positions and further discuss what they believed to be the concerns of the congregation as a whole. We took as our model, the Claremont Dialogues, in which each of us had participated, in that we attempted to listen supportively but without judgment. Our job was to listen, not to argue or convince.

HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF STATEMENTS 1 AND 2

It was clear from the initial comments about Statements 1 and 2 that there were differing perceptions in peoples’ understanding and thinking about the statements. Some thought that Statement 1 was meant to replace the Covenant. Others thought that adoption of Statement 1 would bring closure to the O&A discussion and we would not have to talk about open and affirming again. Many understood the statement to be an attempt to describe where we are as a congregation or an attempt to reach a consensus among the various positions held by members of the congregation.

The survey which elicited responses to Statement 1 did not unify the thinking about either O&A or the statement.  Some members of the congregation believed that the survey results indicated a desire to continue discussing the issues raised in Statement 1 in order to see if the congregation could reach consensus on a new statement. Others believed that the survey reflected the desire of the congregation to agree that we are open, to end the discussion and to move on without further discussion.  A few members found the survey to avoid the issue of O&A completely and suggested that the need to rely on a survey reflected a lack of leadership in the congregation.

Statement 2 was developed during a process that was meant to encourage a continuation of the discussion on O&A.  The original drafters of the statement saw it as a means of re-starting the discussion by defining what the entire congregation can agree on and moving to what would be necessary to reach consensus on the issues in dispute. The statement was favorably viewed by many who read it in the church bulletin. It is instructive that many people found that they could agree with both statements, although some felt that Statement 2 was too wordy to be recited in church, several suggested changes  and at least one person suggested that it read like an equal opportunity employer statement.  The drafters themselves did not see the statement as being final but were hopeful that it would lead to further conversation.

CURRENT STATUS OF O&A DISCUSSION

As a result of our interviews and reviews, we found that there is almost universal agreement with respect to two propositions.

The first proposition is that almost everyone in our congregation agrees with and accepts the Covenant as it is and believes that it accurately reflects what we believe and what we aspire to. Only one person was in favor of changing or modifying the Covenant in any way.  Having said that, some believe that some version of Statement 2 or another statement created through the same small meeting process as Statement 2, would be helpful in defining how we, as a congregation, would affirm all of those to whom we are open.

The second conclusion is that everyone in our church agrees with and supports the proposition that each of us, and our church, must be open to all people who seek to worship God through Jesus Christ, including people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered.

After these two areas of agreement, we found there were areas of confusion and of disagreement, most of which seem to be predicated on a lack of mutual understanding.

There is no consistent understanding as to what it means to be Open and Affirming or what is required of those who seek to be so.

Everyone agreed that we want to be open but need to work harder at implementing programs to encourage openness. Some had difficulty understanding why this one issue was being treated as so important in light of our many other concerns. A number of people were concerned that we are being asked to focus on one group of people while ignoring the many other groups that are powerless or excluded to which we should also strive to be open. Some believe that specifically focusing on one group as deserving of special attention could cause others who are as equally deserving to feel or be excluded. Several people commented that we as a congregation have difficulty welcoming any one who is new or different. At least one person pointed out, for example, that the Church is still not entirely handicapped accessible.

There was much confusion over the definition of “affirming” and many complaints about the lack of clarity surrounding the use of the term. Some believe that this is a concept that is being imposed on the Church by the UCC. Others blame the UCC for not being clear about what must be done to be “affirming”. Some felt that the concept of affirming was an attempt by the UCC to impose   a political agenda or to require  our congregation to be “politically correct”. Others faulted the UCC for not providing more guidance.  For many, the critical issue in understanding “affirming” was whether or not to be affirming required that the congregation support same sex marriage.  This was a theological issue, not a legal issue. All acknowledged that they were aware of the legal concepts of civil union and domestic partnership.  They were still concerned about what role marriage plays in our religion and whether “affirming” would change what is  required of the church, particularly of its ministers, with respect to that role.

Unfortunately, there is a lack of communication across what people perceive as a division in the congregation. An important aspect of the purported unwillingness of a large portion of the congregation to continue talking is that some feel that they risk being labeled if they do not support one position or another. There is a concern that the people who are most vocal and knowledgeable  in their support  of O&A are not listening to or not  open to those who are not as knowledgeable or concerned.  Some believe that there has been a lack of confidentiality about certain discussions or that, conversely, views were being attributed to people who did not necessarily hold them.  There is a distinct feeling that some members of the congregation are dismissive of the views of other members and that there is a lack of civility and respect. Many members of the congregation  believe that the emphasis on O&A over other issues is a means of expressing displeasure with one or both of our clergy and some people are against continuing the conversation because of such beliefs.

There is also a feeling that the leaders of the congregation have not completely met their obligation to lead. There is not a consensus as to what leadership is in this context, but some indicated that they expected the clergy to tell them more about what to do and had difficulty understanding the issues without that direction. Others found the recent sermons by the clergy to be helpful in refocusing their attention on the need of the congregation to remember that it is a family in Christ  and, like a family, must find a way to work its way through disagreements.

 Some people take the Council to task for sidestepping what they perceived as its responsibility to lead, in part by failing to follow up on its commitment at the 2007 Annual Meeting to report back to the congregation which was seen as an  attempt to sweep the matter under the rug.

What we found most impressive is the repeatedly stated desire for reconciliation. The members of the congregation want to be supportive both of those who agree with them and those who do not agree with them. It is interesting, in this context, that everyone who participated was supportive of the Claremont dialogues. The small groups were also beneficial to those who participated in them.

NEXT STEPS

For many who spoke with us, even those who say they do not want to continue the dialogue, the first step must be to restore civility and respect to the process.  To them, any position with respect to O&A cannot be a litmus test about individuals or the congregation as a whole. If they are to continue in the dialogue, they need the discussions to take place in an atmosphere where all are welcome and respected. As we noted above, many mentioned the Claremont dialogues.  Some felt the small groups were effective, but some felt they were pressured in those meetings and chose to avoid later ones.

There was little support for an immediate vote, either on a statement or on “checking the box”, that is, listing our congregation as being O&A on the website of the UCC.  There is a sense that a vote at this point would be counterproductive and even more divisive. Some did suggest voting to “check the box” or just going ahead to “check the box” without defining what the congregation understands to be meant by declaring to be open and affirming but leaving it to be worked out as issues arise. There was at least one suggestion that the congregation vote to be open and affirming with the specific understanding that the vote would not be a commitment to supporting the resolution of the  25^th General Synod in support of equal marriage rights for all. Some of those who agreed that a vote was not necessary or advisable at this point nonetheless believe that we have to move toward a vote at some reasonable point in the future.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Council requested our input concerning next steps. 

The members of the committee believe that there must be an effort to insure that the congregation understands what Open and Affirming means, what the issues are and what the process is. We believe the congregation must be offered the opportunity to have additional dialogue, in various forums and under various circumstances, about O&A and that the two statements and the discussion of same sex marriage are valid and necessary starting points for these dialogues.

Our first recommendation is that the Council must publish its recommendations, whatever they are, in writing. They must be communicated to the congregation through all of the means of communication currently at the Council’s disposal, including letters to the Congregation, discussion at special meetings, publication in the newsletter and on the Web site, statements from the pulpit and reports at the annual meeting. In addition, there must be a commitment by the Council to  follow through,  to submit status reports and updates. The Council should request suggestions and publish and discuss those suggestions publicly.

 The Council should distribute this report to the congregation prior to the annual meeting and must review at that meeting the current status of the O&A discussion and commit, at least generally, to the steps it will take going forward.

One of the most important steps that can be taken by the leaders of the Church and members of the Council is to become involved in UCC activities both at the Association and Conference level, both to understand better the nuance in the positions being proposed by the UCC and to demonstrate to the congregation that the larger UCC is not forcing this Church to commit to any one position.

The committee recommends that a tool be developed to take a read on the current knowledge, beliefs and understanding of the congregation in order to focus the ongoing discussions and dialogues. That tool could be a simple as the answers to five questions, to all of which the respondent can answer yes, no or I don’t know. Our suggested questions are as follows:

1.      Do you believe that you know what it means for our church to be affirming in the context of Open and Affirming?

2.      Whether or not you believe you know what it means to be affirming in the context of Open and Affirming, are you willing now to declare   you and this church   to be Open and Affirming?

3.      Do you believe that our religion and theology permit same sex couples to marry?

4.      Would it be useful to you to have the Church publish a statement, in addition to our Covenant, that clarifies the Church’s position with respect to persons who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered?

5.      Do you, as a member of this congregation, believe that you can be affirming of a member of the congregation who does not support your position for or against this Church becoming O&A?

The Council, and those who advocate for or against O&A must commit to creating and maintaining modes of discussion where all who participate can feel safe and respected.  These modes must include Claremont dialogues on specific questions including same sex marriage but other issues as well, small group meetings, second hour programs and discussions after worship, at-home dinners, and other programs, both educational and inspirational.

The committee noted that only one gay person has come forward to talk to us about this process. It was most instructive to us to hear, first hand, from someone who does not feel completely accepted in our church despite participation in our worship and ministries and to hear what adoption of O&A would mean to that person and to others like them.  While many of those with whom we spoke know and even love people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, there has been little effort to put a human face on this issue. For many, this is an intellectual exercise, not an opportunity to explore and better understand our spirituality and relation with God through our relation with others. The committee firmly believes that members of our congregation need to met and speak with persons and couples for whom a declaration of open and affirming would be an acknowledgement that their personal struggles and spirituality are as important and real as are ours.  

The members of the committee believe that all in our congregation want to be an inclusive, open church, but we recognize that not all agree as to how that is accomplished or what it means. We cannot get ahead of our growth of understanding without risking damaging divisions in our congregation. We recognize that many are not ready to decide or to choose how we will define ourselves to each other and to the larger community in Christ but we realize that we must continue to talk and worship together and to acknowledge that this is a difficult problem that has a place on the table of this church.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Hayes

Marty Watson,

Jim Watson.

A prayer by Rheinhold Niebuhr

"We pray, O Lord, for your church, that it may be healed of its divisions by your grace; that it may teach your word with courage to a sinful world, and may mediate with true charity your love and mercy to all people.  Strengthen every ministry of reconciliation therein with your spirit.  Grant that it may be a true community of grace in which the pride of race or nation is humbled, where the strong and mighty are brought to judgment, and the meek and lowly are lifted up.  Make it more faithful to its Lord, and more instant to meet the needs of all people.  Amen."

Statement #1, January 12, 2007

Draft statement
"We perceive that there is an agreement within the congregation that the current church covenant expresses fully our openness to all persons and our goal to remain an open congregation.  When in our covenant we promise "to be a welcoming and caring home community where all persons may find their faith" and "to treat all people with respect, compassion and dignity" the church states clearly a welcome to all persons.  We know of no human category - race, gender, age, physical disability, sexual orientation or any other sorting by which humans divide themselves from one another - that is exempted by our covenant.  We have a history of being a church that is open to everyone, and we believe the membership has no intention or desire to become more restrictive or less welcoming of all people.  In light of this, the Covenant Review Committee and Council do not recommend a change to our covenant's language.

At this point, we perceive no unanimity on a singular definition for the "affirming" part of Open and Affirming.  There are numerous views as to what "affirming" means in the United Church of Christ and within the congregation.  For some of us this diversity of opinion is a good thing, something about which we need to keep talking and learning.  Perhaps there will never be nor should only be one view.  For the present, it appears the best course is to agree to disagree.  We also believe that the congregation wants to remain a non-sectarian, community church that embraces a wide variety of opinions about the "non-essentials" of the faith.  We have a history of including people from many different religious, moral, and social backgrounds and viewpoints.  The big question is can we disagree with one another while keeping the door open to all?  Can we have different opinions about an issue like this and still pray and gather together?

All of us expect members of this church to treat everyone with "compassion, respect and dignity."  If we treat others the way we want to be treated ourselves - Jesus' Golden Rule - ours will indeed be an open and welcoming church "where all persons may find their faith."

Statement #2 - June, 2007

"As a diverse body of believers seeking to live in the light and truth of God in Christ, we affirm that every person has worth as a special and unique creation made in God's image and we welcome all to worship in our church.

In doing so, we strive to come together in a spirit of love and openness to welcome all people regardless of age, economic status, ethnicity, gender, mental and physical ability, sexual orientation, nationality, race, and religious background to participate fully in all aspects of our church's life and ministry.

As a congregation, we will continue our efforts to comprehend and appreciate more fully our different abilities, talents and gifts.  As Christians, we offer our love, support and care to one another as we continue our faith journeys together."

COVENANT

 of

 The Glen Ridge Congregational Church

We covenant with God and one another to be the church of Jesus Christ, loving God and our neighbors.

With God's help:

• We shall come together to glorify and worship God, proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ and celebrate God's presence among us;

• We shall teach ourselves and our children the faith of the church and shall together follow in the ways of Christ;

• We shall share our beliefs by word and example and be a welcoming and caring home community where all persons may find their faith;

• We shall grow spiritually, nurture and strengthen each other, share our joys and concerns and treat each other and all people with respect, compassion, and dignity;        

• We shall go where God calls us to offer faith and encouragement, extending a helping hand to all God’s people;

• We shall participate in the ministries and mission of the United  Church of Christ;

Relying on the power of God's Holy Spirit, we go forth to live and serve as Christians.