Was Rev B. Phipps being censored, yes or no?

Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC

Posted by Mike Jones on December 10, 1997 at 21:23:48:

I caught a brief mention of a recent action by Ottawa presbytery concerning Bill
Phipps and a scheduled appearence on a CBC town hall. The details have been
sketchy so far and I was wondering if anybody had any more info on what exactly
happened and why.

Posted by David Ewart on December 11, 1997 at 16:42:02:

In Reply to: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC posted
by Mike Jones on December 10, 1997 at 21:23:48:

Re: The story posted in the On-Line News here, and the reported fax from the
publicist.

....The Moderator would not be bound ....

Somehwre in this story there is a fine line between receiving sound advice about the
actual state of the world and what would be an err-on-the-side-of-discretion
valourous response, and one that would be giving in to bullying.

I can recall the great freedom I gained sometime in my early adulthood when I
realized that just because my Mother told me to do something was not a suffificent
reason for not doing it.

Would someone please tell Bill to do the right thing! (IE the right thing for the
church's well-fare.)

Posted by Mike Jones on December 11, 1997 at 21:09:29:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by David Ewart on December 11, 1997 at 16:42:02:

: Would someone please tell Bill to do the right thing! (IE the right thing for the
church's well-fare.)

And in your opinion the right thing would be ... ?

Posted by Allan Baker on December 12, 1997 at 11:21:44:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Mike Jones on December 11, 1997 at 21:09:29:

: : Would someone please tell Bill to do the right thing! (IE the right thing for the
church's well-fare.)

: And in your opinion the right thing would be ... ?

Is it a question of telling Bill Phipps what "the right thing" is, OR is it asking Ottawa
Presbytery what their standards are for unconditional love and acceptance?

Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 12, 1997 at 17:53:59:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Allan Baker on December 12, 1997 at 11:21:44:

: : And in your opinion the right thing would be ... ?

: Is it a question of telling Bill Phipps what "the right thing" is, OR is it asking
Ottawa Presbytery what their standards are for unconditional love and acceptance?

ROFLOL (roll on floor laughing out loud)... I don't even know what to say to this
one, but will come up with something anyway.

Are you suggesting that simply asking [not forcing or demanding] someone to
refrain from an action we thought was unadvisable is not loving? I can't help but
find that funny. Besides, the vote was 119 to 1 and I saw plenty of people who
agree with the Moderator's statements there. They thought his coming was
unadvisable as well.

Oh, by the way, have you thought to ask for Saskatchewan Conference's standard
for unconditional love and acceptance? You recall that they wouldn't allow some of
the Renewal groups space at their conference meeting?

Mark (who is NOT a member of any renewal group but will be accused of it
anyway for his statement.... and I'm still laughing too, that was funny!)

Posted by george Hermanson on December 12, 1997 at 18:16:03:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Mark Fearnall on December 12, 1997 at 17:53:59:

:
: : : And in your opinion the right thing would be ... ?

: : Is it a question of telling Bill Phipps what "the right thing" is, OR is it asking
Ottawa Presbytery what their standards are for unconditional love and acceptance?

: ROFLOL (roll on floor laughing out loud)... I don't even know what to say to this
one, but will come up with something anyway.

: Are you suggesting that simply asking [not forcing or demanding] someone to
refrain from an action we thought was unadvisable is not loving? I can't help but
find that funny. Besides, the vote was 119 to 1 and I saw plenty of people who
agree with the Moderator's statements there. They thought his coming was
unadvisable as well.

: Oh, by the way, have you thought to ask for Saskatchewan Conference's standard
for unconditional love and acceptance? You recall that they wouldn't allow some of
the Renewal groups space at their conference meeting?

: Mark (who is NOT a member of any renewal group but will be accused of it
anyway for his statement.... and I'm still laughing too, that was funny!)

Just because sask conference blew it on the so called renewal groups doesn't mean
that Ottawa Presbytery should be stupid, which I beleive was the bad advise they
gave to Bill.. David. E. is correct.... this weeks Macleans has an well done article
and we come off looking good, as does bill. What an time to be in public and we
blew it ... shame ... shame on Ottawa it makes me embarrassed to be UCC, we can
stand the public conversation, if we can't than we have nothing to say.

Posted by United Online on December 10, 1997 at 23:08:24:

In Reply to: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC posted
by Mike Jones on December 10, 1997 at 21:23:48:

: I was wondering if anybody had any more info on what exactly happened and
why.

Mike - read United Online News. The story is contained in there thanks to a couple
of Ottawa reporters - errr - ministers --

Posted by David Shearman on December 13, 1997 at 11:25:06:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by United Online on December 10, 1997 at 23:08:24:

: : I was wondering if anybody had any more info on what exactly happened and
why.

: Mike - read United Online News. The story is contained in there thanks to a
couple of Ottawa reporters - errr - ministers --

What I find fascinating about the Ottawa visit situation is that the Moderator also
offered to come to Bay of Quinte Conference to discuss his views (don't forget that
Renfrew Presbytery is in BQ).

His offer was declined by the Conference Executive because they did not feel they
could organize a visit on such short notice. It was *not* because they were
rejecting the Moderator. This according to a member of BQ Conference Executive.
Yet there were no waves in BQ over the declining of the offer.

Posted by George Hermanson on December 16, 1997 at 17:48:07:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by David Shearman on December 13, 1997 at 11:25:06:

: : : I was wondering if anybody had any more info on what exactly happened and
why.

: : Mike - read United Online News. The story is contained in there thanks to a
couple of Ottawa reporters - errr - ministers --

: What I find fascinating about the Ottawa visit situation is that the Moderator also
offered to come to Bay of Quinte Conference to discuss his views (don't forget that
Renfrew Presbytery is in BQ).

: His offer was declined by the Conference Executive because they did not feel they
could organize a visit on such short notice. It was *not* because they were
rejecting the Moderator. This according to a member of BQ Conference Executive.
Yet there were no waves in BQ over the declining of the offer.

David i may not have been clear, or missed the point... Ottawa Presbytery
censored Phipps, prevented him from going on a cbc tv noonhour programme..
That is why it is wrong... the censhorship... what do you mean about renfrew
presbytery? and the red herring that you mentioned of b of q?

Posted by David Shearman on December 18, 1997 at 10:02:33:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by George Hermanson on December 16, 1997 at 17:48:07:

: : What I find fascinating about the Ottawa visit situation is that the Moderator also
offered to come to Bay of Quinte Conference to discuss his views (don't forget that
Renfrew Presbytery is in BQ).

: : His offer was declined by the Conference Executive because they did not feel
they could organize a visit on such short notice. It was *not* because they were
rejecting the Moderator. This according to a member of BQ Conference Executive.
Yet there were no waves in BQ over the declining of the offer.

: David i may not have been clear, or missed the point... Ottawa Presbytery
censhored Phipps, prevented him from goin on a cbc tv noonhour programme..
That is why it is wron... the censhorship... what do you mean about renfrew
presbytery? and the red herring that you mentioned of b of q?

George, I understand that Ottawapresbytery concurred with the moderator's
decision not to come to Ottawa to speak. That's not censorship. It's common sense
on the part of the moderator (for once).

The moderator offered to visit Bay of Qyuinte Conference and Renfrew
Presbytery, where there have been much anger over the moderator's remarks.

BQ Conference Executive declined the offer, as they were not able to properly
organize the visit. The moderaotr listend to the advice. There was no difficulty with
that.

It's also helpful to remember that while the moderaotr is moderator to the whole
church, she/he should take the advice of the church. Sounds like Mr. Phipps is
starting to do that. censorship has nothing to do with this. Common sense and the
ability to listen, has.

If the moderator had spoken in Ottawa, then I would seriously question his good
judgement. And would not be the least bit upset if Ottawa Presbytery got really
wound over his lack of regard for the church... I would,, too.

Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 17, 1997 at 12:34:15:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by George Hermanson on December 16, 1997 at 17:48:07:

George, I was there, Ottawa Presbytery DID NOT censor Phipps, and we did not
PREVENT him from doing anything. Do you know what you are talking about?

Mark.

Posted by Jayne Little on December 17, 1997 at 13:46:03:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Mark Fearnall on December 17, 1997 at 12:34:15:

I copy the following article from the web pages of this site as a note of clarification
to this line.
Mark & George....are you both referring to this?
If the article is correct and I have no way of verifying it at this time...maybe
Richard could..then I would suggest that George does seem to be "correct". Mark, i
wonder if you are referring to some other event which you attended?

December 10 1997 - Ottawa Presbytery Urges Moderator To Stay Away
A CBC (CBOT) Town Hall Meeting was scheduled for Monday December 15th at
a Unitarian Church in Ottawa featuring the Moderator Bill Phipps. Phipps withdrew
from this appearance after a conference call this weekend with the Chair of Ottawa
Presbytery, who was reported as saying that the time and venue would be unhelpful
to the churches of the Ottawa region.

Phipps was told that if he did appear on the Town Hall Meeting show that Ottawa
Presbytery would make it known in every pulpit that he was acting against the
advice of the Presbytery Executive.

On Tuesday, December 9th, the United Church Publicist faxed the Ottawa
Presbytery office, saying that the moderator could not be bound by any presbytery
decision, and that he was being urged by the CBC to carry through on the town hall
event.

At a Meeting of the entire Presbytery later that night a motion was passed (with
only one dissenting vote) urging the Moderator to stand by his wise decision to stay
away from the Town Hall Meeting. Members of Presbytery were encouraged to
send faxes, emails and phone calls to head office to reinforce this motion.

Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 17, 1997 at 15:55:04:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Jayne Little on December 17, 1997 at 13:46:03:

: I copy the following article from the web pages of this site as a note of clarification
to this line.
: Mark & George....are you both referring to this?
: If the article is correct and I have no way of verifying it at this time...maybe
Richard could..then I would suggest that George does seem to be "correct". Mark, i
wonder if you are referring to some other event which you attended?

I retract half :-) of my previous post. After reconsidering I can see why one could
use the word prevent in referring to our actions. I still maintain, however, that in no
sense of the word could we have been said to censor the Moderator.

My apologies to George as well.

Posted by George Hermanson on December 17, 1997 at 18:11:05:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Mark Fearnall on December 17, 1997 at 15:55:04:

: I retract half :-) of my previous post. After reconsidering I can see why one could
use the word prevent in referring to our actions. I still maintain, however, that in no
sense of the word could we have been said to censor the Moderator.

: My apologies to George as well.

: Mark.

Thanks Mark... you are right that intent by some was not to censor Bill... you may
have had pastoral concerns in mind... but out of the advise not proceed Bill did not
do the cbc event... the net result is to censor... but as I said that may have not been
on the mind of some.

Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 17, 1997 at 15:45:22:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Jayne Little on December 17, 1997 at 13:46:03:

We refer to the same event. Jayne, you can suggest all you like, but I am at a lost
to see how we go from a request by a Presbytery, to "censoring" and "preventing".
A pretty big leap!

Posted by Jayne Little on December 17, 1997 at 18:48:10:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Mark Fearnall on December 17, 1997 at 15:45:22:

Mark,

The following quote from the article points me in the direction of censorship from
the direction of advice. If the quoted statement was made to me, I would take it as
a threat...I have no way of knowing how anyone else would take it. It doesn't seem
that Presbytery was suggesting alternatives but then again, we all know the press is
not always complete in its coverage.
Now, if you are advising that the article is incorrect...great...let's get it corrected as
it is posted on this website.

*** the following is a quote from the article...
Phipps was told that if he did appear on the Town Hall Meeting show that Ottawa
Presbytery would make it known in every pulpit that he was acting against the
advice of the Presbytery Executive

**** end of quote...

Posted by Dave Ellis on December 18, 1997 at 10:52:44:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Jayne Little on December 17, 1997 at 18:48:10:

: *** the following is a quote from the article...
: Phipps was told that if he did appear on the Town Hall Meeting show that Ottawa
Presbytery would make it known in every pulpit that he was acting against the
advice of the Presbytery Executive

: **** end of quote...

: Regards,
: jayne

Jayne

Doesn't sound like censorship to me either. Sounds like the Presbytery is being
pastoral to its membership. The moderator was free to go ahead and speak - but if
it turned into another media-event - the people would know that their immediate
care givers had advised against it.

sted by Jayne Little on December 18, 1997 at 13:37:30:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Dave Ellis on December 18, 1997 at 10:52:44:

Well, I would not consider it pastoral...but then again, I was not party to the
conversations...to me pastoral would have been arranging some sort of a mediation
circle ... maybe a sampling of participants and Rev. Phipps...just a thought..

I know I am jaded by encounters with presbytery to-date as a member of the UCC.
Though I have not had much involvement with presbytery at work, those I have
had were very disappointing and frustrating. They seemed more concerned about
the "procedures" and the "process", then the goal. Also, Procedures and processes
were in a book, not a beginning point, which should change with time. I know it is
unfair to take the situation of one presbytery and even a few events within one
presbytery and apply it to all other's, so I will bow to those who are in the know
regarding the event in question.

I offer the above to show my bias against presbytery. I am aware of it.

It was suggested I get involved in presbytery at one point...to be honest, I was so
turned off by the magnitude of adapting to or understanding the "old-school"
procedures/tasks/people, that I felt my energy was best used elsewhere. IMHO,
presbytery would be best left to die and be replaced by conference initiatives....but
then again...i am by no means the expert... for now, I just stay clear of the game...

Posted by David Shearman on December 19, 1997 at 06:06:15:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Jayne Little on December 18, 1997 at 13:37:30:

:
: Well, I would not consider it pastoral...but then again, I was not party to the
conversations...to me pastoral would have been arranging some sort of a mediation
circle ... maybe a sampling of participants and Rev. Phipps...just a thought..

That's an interesting idea. The public speeches of the moderator don't show that to
be an option, so far. Perhaps, in time.

: I know I am jaded by encounters with presbytery to-date as a member of the
UCC. Though I have not had much involvement with presbytery at work, those I
have had were very disappointing and frustrating. They seemed more concerned
about the "procedures" and the "process", then the goal. Also, Procedures and
processes were in a book, not a beginning point, which should change with time. I
know it is unfair to take the situation of one presbytery and even a few events
within one presbytery and apply it to all other's, so I will bow to those who are in
the know regarding the event in question.

The "proceedures" and "process" are often designed to protect us from ourselves.
In my conference, we have been sued on several occasions because we did not
follow the proceedures outlined in the Manual. And having been sued, I can assure
you it's not a process I would recommend to anyone.

: I offer the above to show my bias against presbytery. I am aware of it.

: It was suggested I get involved in presbytery at one point...to be honest, I was so
turned off by the magnitude of adapting to or understanding the "old-school"
procedures/tasks/people, that I felt my energy was best used elsewhere. IMHO,
presbytery would be best left to die and be replaced by conference initiatives....but
then again...i am by no means the expert... for now, I just stay clear of the game...

Then there are some of us who would prefer to see the conference die (except for
the power to ordain) and let all the work be done closer to the local church through
the presbytery.

Just remember that any UCCAN church body is not "them".. because "them" is
US. It's made up of folks like you and me. . Scary, eh?

Posted by Dave Ellis on December 18, 1997 at 19:44:27:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Jayne Little on December 18, 1997 at 13:37:30:

Doesn't read like your staying clear of the judgement game re: Presbyteries.

Last I heard the church as we know it is dying.
The old bureaucratic head office is on its way out because M&S donations are
drying up as the folks who support it(M&S) pass away.

They want to invigorate Presbyteries - give them some resources give them some
power - give them some teeth -
so they can be a friend to pastoral charges ( maybe combine some too.)

I understand that you wouldn't consider it pastoral to make the decision they did.
I suppose what is pastoral to some isn't for others and that's why were in this
disucssion about the Moderators remarks
I don't figure he comforted the many who've recently lost loved ones who believe
in heaven - and thats just the tip of the iceberg as to what some people are upset
about. But if its all about liberation and justice - well, even then people disagree.

Posted by Mike Jones on December 18, 1997 at 16:43:38:

In Reply to: Re: Ottawa Presbytery Action regarding Bill Phipps and the CBC
posted by Jayne Little on December 18, 1997 at 13:37:30:

to me pastoral would have been arranging some sort of a mediation circle ... maybe
a sampling of participants and Rev. Phipps...just a thought..

There are probably a number of options Ottawa Presbytery could have considered
in dealing with the CBC's planned town hall meeting. As someone mentioned earlier
they could have found an alternative spot, or even left the decision up to Bill. I
think the purposed location of this town hall meeting was a concern to many. It's
hard to know what's going through people's minds at a meeting like that. My guess
would be that when the vote was taken each delegate had their own reasons for
voting the way they did. I am surprised at the level of agreement reflected in the
vote. I would also be interested in knowing something about the conversations that
went on at that meeting. .

I would hunch that you aren't alone in your frustrations about presbytery. It's pretty
bad when the highlight of a presbytery meeting is going for jars after adjournment.

There are proposals being considered concerning alternative ways of overseeing the
workings of te UCC. I prefer the one that merges presbyteries and (Yawn!)
conference (the book displays are great but ...) into districts.