|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Atheists in the United Church of Canada
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
It would be interesting to ask Vosper how she feels about her ordination vows. From what I read, UCC Ministers are asked to be in "essential agreement" with the standards of the faith.
I don't believe "essential agreement" can be defined broadly in such a way, that one could in a solipsistic manner, equate disagreement with agreement.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I am having a serious problem with the title of this thread. "Atheists in the United Church of Canada."
When I first saw the title I would assume that the majority of UCC members were atheists.
If not a majority, a significant plurality.
In truth, that there are probably a significant plurality in almost any denomination that has periods of doubt. After all, it is not doubt that the enemy of faith, but certitude, in my book. Heck, I have had my periods of doubt myself.
But, then I find the thread is (originally centered on one minister of a small congregation in Canada). Several tangents have sprouted off this.
I have now read several reports of this minister. My feeling, frankly, is mixed. I have problems with the judicial process. Primary problem is who is bringing charges? Does the person really have standing to make those charges? It would seem to me that if anyone would have status it would be the congregation where she ministers. Seems like most of the people in the congregation are satisfied with her. Which makes me wonder why?
I also found it interesting the UCC when it was formed never set up a process for judicial review. Was that because in the merger of three separate denominations they wanted to avoid having doctrinal disagreements?
I recently read a book "The Most Famous Man in America: The Story of Henry Ward Beecher." Beecher was one of the founding members of the modern Congregationalist movements in the United States. There were charges and counter charges between Congregationalists and Presbyterian synods and conferences over Beecher. His moral standards were loose, granted. (Let's just say he would have been forced to resign from the First Congregational Church of Brooklyn if he were there today) But the big bruhaha was over his doctrinal stances. Universalism also evolved during his time. Point is, there is really nothing new under the sun here.
But I digress.
I just wish the original poster had not painted the UCC with such a broad brush. Just because one minister is accused of being an atheist, does not mean all ministers in the UCC are atheists. Just because one congregation apparently has no problem with new age type teaching does not mean all other UCC congregations wouldn't.
I do pray there can be a peaceful resolution to this problem for the UCC.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Being a former sailor, I can say you're nearly right. You don't go E to go W. You might go NW then SW then NW then SW but making vaguely westish the whole time. (or NNW and SSW etc)
I'm not sure that's what was meant but we'll wait for Demas to say for sure.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Maybe someone who gives his life for his friend, believing that his life is all he has and death is his true end, maybe that person is showing more love than the saint who gives his life in sure and certain hope of the ressurection.
Might well be.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mt--
Thanks. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I did wonder about the degrees of it, but I figured that simple E and W would make for a cleaner example.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It would be interesting to ask Vosper how she feels about her ordination vows. From what I read, UCC Ministers are asked to be in "essential agreement" with the standards of the faith.
I don't believe "essential agreement" can be defined broadly in such a way, that one could in a solipsistic manner, equate disagreement with agreement.
Here's the "Essential Agreement" article from her own site. It's long. She deals with essential agreement, whether she's in it for the money, etc.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
1) "Essential Agreement" was a concession to the Congregationalists, the most broad-minded of our founding churches. It has never been fully defined, but atheism is definitely outside it. In practice, it means substantial.
2) There certainly is a judicial process, one covered by the Manual (the UCCan's Canon Law). It has been used in many cases of a more secular nature (clergy misdeeds not a theological nature), but never directly for a purely theological matter. To do otherwise would have torn us apart before we were out of the cradle.
3) Harping on the United Church is a very old Canadian tradition; it stems from the very, very heated debate around Church Union and the split it caused in the Presbyterian Church in Canada. The details of Church Union Eve are worthy of anything ever one in old Scotland. But that's another post.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I have to confess, I did two homiletics courses at Emmanuel College, the United Church of Canada's college in the Toronto School of Theology. I remember the professor tell us in the class on resurrection preaching, that we as preachers must preach bodily resurrection, because it showcases the power and glory of God. I must have had the most conservative United Church of Canada theologian in the country, Paul Scott Wilson as a professor.
The UCC is not uniformly liberal, as a denomination, they are at the progressive end, but they do have conservative congregations. Mainline congregations I notice, reflect their geography, rural and suburban churches tend to be moderate/conservative, while urban churches tend to be liberal.
This article I think describes the mainstream in terms of progressive Christianity:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtfulpastor/2016/03/17/ask-the-thoughtful-pastor-is-mainline-the-opposite-of-evangelical/
From the article:
Salvation: both personal and corporate, and lived out in the communities of law, politics, business, science and education.
Justice issues, particularly for the oppressed and marginalized, take center stage.
A respect for the Bible as core to their faith but limited by human authorship and interpreted through historical and cultural critiques.
Christ is central to Christian understanding, but God remains free to exercise all options in the redemption of humanity and creation.
Note that in this definition of liberal Christianity, God and Christ are still central. Perhaps we should distinguish "liberal" and "post-theistic".
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure that's what was meant but we'll wait for Demas to say for sure.
Shrug. I am coming from a viewpoint which is quite happy to recognise Jack Spong as a Christian, and those people I referred to also recognised him as a Christian, whether they still were theologically close to him or not.
There is a term Spong used in one of his books - 'believers in exile'. The analogy is to the Hebrews of Psalm 137 - how can we sing the song of the Lord in a foreign land?
Believers in exile are people who feel that they can no longer believe in the Christianity they are part of, that it is literally unbelievable given the new world they find themselves in. Yet they are not joyful atheists throwing off shackles of superstition or content post-Christian secularists happy with their lives. They are believers being carried off into exile.
How can we sing the song of the Lord in this new world we find ourselves in? And yet, may my right hand lose its skill and my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I forget you, O Jerusalem.
These are the people Spong is speaking to. And what he tells them is not new and original theology but what is taught in the seminaries but, mysteriously, not so much in the pulpits. He talks of non-theistic conceptions of God. He talks of non-literal post-Copernican readings of the scriptures. He talks about ways to be both Christian and gay.
He doesn't tell them that they should close their eyes and imagine they are still in Jerusalem. He doesn't tell them to abandon the Lord for the pagan idols surrounding them. He tells them that the old conceptions are gone but new conceptions are being born. He tells them that the Lord is not just a tribal god of a particular land but a universal God.
He tells them that God is with them even in the heavens and the depths of Sheol, that neither height nor depth nor anything in creation will be able to separate them from the love of God.
You don't need to be told these things, which means he is not talking to you.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But what does "God exists" mean? Clearly, God doesn't exist in the same way as, say, a table exists.
Oh, I don't know, I bump into him from time to time... And the bruises are very real.
I don't think the church makes enough of the idea of living within a creative tension between belief and unbelief. People who do this have a very positive role to offer the church, because they view faith from a very different angle than unquestioning believers. And have a lot to gain personally too, as they interpret the bible and listen to sermons in a deeper way because of it.
This idea of creative tension needs to be proclaimed by the church, not hidden away or tidied up. Maybe if priests are more honest about how they view their own belief, then they are in a better position to help others when they struggle with it.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Chorister: Oh, I don't know, I bump into him from time to time... And the bruises are very real.
(I keep hitting the little toe of my left foot into table legs. I'm sure that by now, this toe isn't exactly in the position where it should be.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
There are, perhaps, two questions here (as applicable to Bp Spong as to Ms Vosper). The first of which is the discussion on the meaning of terms such as theist and atheist-- and I still think that the opinions of both suffer from a lack of philosophical rigour in the use of language-- and this is an important discussion. They are right in that there is a disconnect between classical statements of Christology and what is thought and believed in the pew; the whys and what can be followed through. While disagreeing with them, I have some sympathy for this discussion.
The second question is the degree to which this can be done by teaching representatives of creedal churches. And this is where they both fall short. I do not question their personal integrity (although perhaps Bp. Spong suffers more from his ego, judging from his autobiography), but I think I can question their intellectual integrity in not following through on the logic of their positions. Ms Vosper is trying to prove a point by remaining in the pulpit, but I am beginning to wonder if she is not injuring her own development by using her energy to fight through her own case to make the UCC what it is not.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I find the thread is (originally centered on one minister of a small congregation in Canada).
Out of interest, I wonder how many people there are in the congregation. Is the denominational leadership worried about her driving people away?
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Believers in exile are people who feel that they can no longer believe in the Christianity they are part of, that it is literally unbelievable given the new world they find themselves in. Yet they are not joyful atheists throwing off shackles of superstition or content post-Christian secularists happy with their lives. They are believers being carried off into exile.
How can we sing the song of the Lord in this new world we find ourselves in? And yet, may my right hand lose its skill and my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I forget you, O Jerusalem.
These are the people Spong is speaking to. And what he tells them is not new and original theology but what is taught in the seminaries but, mysteriously, not so much in the pulpits.
The issue of theologies being taught in seminaries but not from pulpits is one I find very interesting.
If the seminaries themselves are teaching forms of analysis and reflection that routinely lead a portion of their students down non-theistic (or whatever you'd call it) avenues, then it's rather hypocritical of the church authorities that fund these same seminaries to baulk at the occasional outcome. Someone like the minister in question hasn't emerged out of nowhere!
From a pragmatic point if view, if there's a market for this sort of religion and if the UCC identifies as a broad church, then there could be a positive outcome in all of this. Perhaps Ms Vosper could be employed as a theologian in a seminary rather than as a minister of a church. Or she could help develop theological education for the laity of this 'new world'.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Note that in this definition of liberal Christianity, God and Christ are still central. Perhaps we should distinguish "liberal" and "post-theistic".
Yes, I agree. There is a lot of difference between Borg (say) and Spong on this.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The issue of theologies being taught in seminaries but not from pulpits is one I find very interesting.
Yes. After all, what John Robinson wrote in "Honest to God" and what David Jenkins said about Easter were both staple seminary fare. Equally Steve Chalke's comments about Atonement could have come straight out of NT Theology lectures at Spurgeon's College (trust me, I was there). But, because they were quoted in a 'public' context, all hell broke loose.
Are preachers frightened of suggesting positions which may not be 'orthodox' or of posing questions which - gasp actually make their listeners think? If so, how do they expect those listeners to grow to a mature faith?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Interesting that someone could become a Christian because of Spong, seeing as Spong isn't a Christian.
Exactly.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Interesting that someone could become a Christian because of Spong, seeing as Spong isn't a Christian.
Exactly.
Probably not a proper Christian, then.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan
I don't want to be accused (again) of seriously misrepresenting the clergy, so I must be careful what I say here.
In the contexts that I know about, there doesn't always seem to be a great deal of guidance for the clergy who might want to help their congregations reflect on these matters. They're not trained to share sensitive theological information and analytical methods. The basic fear, then, is that going down this route would undermine laypeople's faith and drive them out of the church.
By contrast, Demas and others suggest that lay explorations which might lead to a Robinson- or even a Spong-like faith could actually reinforce some worshippers' commitment to the Jesus story, and to the church. A number of clergy obviously suspect (with some justification, I admit) that this won't be a likely outcome in most cases.
A part of me feels that so many have left the church already, so what's left to fear? But in many cases uncertainty, decline and weakness don't seem to lead to great courage and risk taking, at either end of the theological spectrum. Not in the modern British context, anyway.
Of course, there are various examples of risk taking and courageous congregations and clergy here. But outside the favoured suburbs and metropolitan heartlands things are difficult.
[ 05. April 2016, 16:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Interesting that someone could become a Christian because of Spong, seeing as Spong isn't a Christian.
Exactly.
Would you judge my heresy as well? To be clear, Spong considers himself Christian. Which makes him different than Vosper. The one calls himself Christian, the other called herself atheist. Who are any of us to declare for another who and what they are? (There's some biblical advice about refraining from judgement isn't there?)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But what does "God exists" mean? Clearly, God doesn't exist in the same way as, say, a table exists.
Oh, I don't know, I bump into him from time to time... And the bruises are very real.
Quote file.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Interesting that someone could become a Christian because of Spong, seeing as Spong isn't a Christian.
Exactly.
Would you judge my heresy as well? To be clear, Spong considers himself Christian. Which makes him different than Vosper. The one calls himself Christian, the other called herself atheist. Who are any of us to declare for another who and what they are? (There's some biblical advice about refraining from judgement isn't there?)
I am perfectly willing to submit to judgment concerning my orthodoxy using the same criteria by which I judge that of others.
As far as Spong calling himself a Christian, that's nice. I could call myself a kangaroo, but that doesn't make me one.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
@Svitlana: I agree entirely. I still recall the occasion many years ago when I used the word "perhaps" (in regard of a trivial historical detail) in my Theological College's "sermon class". My assigned student critic said, "How can he convince his congregation if he's not sure of what he believes?" The lecturer who also critiqued me never mentioned this; when I took it up with him later he simply said, "He'll learn"!
I do think that preachers are trained (and expected) to "open the word" and "tell the truth", at least in more Evangelical circles. What I think they should be doing is lead their congregations on journeys of exploration and questioning. However, and as you suggest, many Christians find this very frightening.
I say this, by the way, as someone who sits precisely on the Evangelical/Liberal divide (ouch); and who thinks that Revd. Vosper's position appears untenable, whatever her congregation might say.
[ 05. April 2016, 17:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm not a gate keeper. I don't get to decide who is a Christian and who isn't. Neither would I want that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As far as Spong calling himself a Christian, that's nice. I could call myself a kangaroo, but that doesn't make me one.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It was inevitable that this thread finally arrive at the "who gets to decide what 'Christian' means?"
And the answer always trotted out is, "Anybody who decides they want to use that label of themselves."
Few other words admit to so loose a definition. Kangaroo, for example, does not.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I am perfectly willing to submit to judgment concerning my orthodoxy using the same criteria by which I judge that of others.
As far as Spong calling himself a Christian, that's nice. I could call myself a kangaroo, but that doesn't make me one.
It's not your orthodoxy, nor Spong's orthodoxy that is in discussion. Rather, that the man self-defines as Christian. I take it you would prefer he didn't and perhaps cast him into the outer darkness with the other kangaroos?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
@Svitlana: I agree entirely. I still recall the occasion many years ago when I used the word "perhaps" (in regard of a trivial historical detail) in my Theological College's "sermon class". My assigned student critic said, "How can he convince his congregation if he's not sure of what he believes?" The lecturer who also critiqued me never mentioned this; when I took it up with him later he simply said, "He'll learn"!
I do think that preachers are trained (and expected) to "open the word" and "tell the truth", at least in more Evangelical circles. What I think they should be doing is lead their congregations on journeys of exploration and questioning. However, and as you suggest, many Christians find this very frightening.
And why not. Don't we need to be frightened from time to time? Not by the preacher (although some can be frightening of themselves) but of the pictures they paint.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I am perfectly willing to submit to judgment concerning my orthodoxy using the same criteria by which I judge that of others.
As far as Spong calling himself a Christian, that's nice. I could call myself a kangaroo, but that doesn't make me one.
It's not your orthodoxy, nor Spong's orthodoxy that is in discussion. Rather, that the man self-defines as Christian. I take it you would prefer he didn't and perhaps cast him into the outer darkness with the other kangaroos?
Let me be explicit about this, since it seems to be giving you some difficulty.
You suggested that I was violating Jesus' warning about judging. The problem with that passage is that everyone knows the "Judge not, lest ye be judged" part, but then conveniently forgets to keep reading. What is clear to me in that passage is that we must be careful about our judgments, because the same criteria that we use to judge others can (and will) be applied to us. So far from a blanket condemnation of judgment per se, it is a warning that we not apply our judgments out of malice, and that we not give ourselves a pass for similar offenses. A man who regularly commits adultery is not in a position to judge another man's sexual irregularities, for example.
So it seems to me that my orthodoxy and Spong's are very much at issue here. I can think of no other reason why you might have referred to Mt 7:1 other than to suggest exactly such a comparison. Perhaps you will enlighten me on that point; it would certainly be refreshing to find that it was not simply the usual passive-aggressive rhetorical tactic it so often is.
Spong self-identifies as Christian while managing to weasel out of nearly every basic Christian doctrine. That's stretching the definition of Christian to a point where the word has hardly any meaning. To hell with that; if Christianity does not consist in, at minimum, the following :
1. Theism
2. The historicity of Jesus
3. The Incarnation
4. Salvation through faith in Jesus, and
5. Jesus as a role model
--then we need to come up with another word.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: It was inevitable that this thread finally arrive at the "who gets to decide what 'Christian' means?"
And the answer always trotted out is, "Anybody who decides they want to use that label of themselves."
FWIW, this wasn't my answer.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It was no prophet who said Spong self-identifies as a Christian, thereby implying that that makes him a Christian. Giving rose to my post, and many others.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
If Spong (or anyone else) finds even a positive moral teaching within the Christian story, and disavows all supernatural aspects, I will not reject them as Christian if they so identify themselves. I have limited knowledge of Spong's personal journey to get where to where he is, but I am unwilling to reject the idea that CS Lewis put forth in Screwtape, that there is a 'law of undulation' where things ebb and flow in our lives, including what we think, feel and believe. I am also put to mind the bishop who told that he thought some people need to be ordained so as to be saved.
The United Church minister seems entirely different to me. She has thrown Jesus out.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
When we arrive here I always remember that when I was young the word Christian was almost only ever used as an adjective. It was considered embarrassing to use it as a noun of actual people, especially of yourself. Very similar to saying 'I am unusually modest'. Probably not Christian to say of another that she or he was not a Christian.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
CS Lewis in Mere Christianity spends some time arguing against the then common practice of using 'Christian' to mean a good person. Instead, he suggests, the theological meaning should be primary. He and his successors were so successful in this project that today no one uses the word 'Christian' to mean 'good person'. Yay!
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I think an adequate response to a post-theistic theologian who rejects divine intervention might be:
"I see God working through you, to rescue the Church from an unthinking fundamentalism."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
To which a reply might be, "And I see evolution working through you, taking you down a dead end!"
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
To which a reply might be, "And I see evolution working through you, taking you down a dead end!"
To which a reply may be, "Evolution works on populations not individuals."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think an adequate response to a post-theistic theologian who rejects divine intervention might be:
"I see God working through you, to rescue the Church from an unthinking fundamentalism."
Hmmm. Perhaps the moderate segment of the Church benefits as individuals move from both types of extremism towards the middle, but is the Church 'rescued' from 'unthinking fundamentalism'?
My sense is that both extremes can also weaken the Church, which must potentially reduce the positive effects. Also, extreme liberalism is said to be one of the compelling forces behind the appeal of fundamentalism.
The problem for the moderate churches is that post-theistic theologies are mostly promoted from their own quarter (i.e. within their seminaries or by their salaried intellectuals). This gives the impression that they're willing to undermine their own institutional and theological cohesion. The 'unthinking fundamentalists' benefit by mostly existing in independent institutions, where it's easier for them to protect their own doctrinal positions from attack.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The 'unthinking fundamentalists' benefit by mostly existing in independent institutions, where it's easier for them to protect their own doctrinal positions from attack.
And of course when attacked from within, they "protect" their position through fission.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Whether or not Spong is a Christian, it is perfectly possible for non-Christians (or wobbly dodgy Christians) to speak and minister to others, influencing them towards Christianity or cause them to strengthen their faith. It does not all need to be done by Christians - God is bigger than that.
I can think of some good examples in my life where the above holds true, and I bet a straw poll of others on here would show the same.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The model they reject is that of a God who is a big being "out there" in heaven, who sits on his throne, listens to prayers, and randomly intervenes in creation, to punish, reward, and admonish human beings. We have to admit that much of Scripture and much of classical theology is presented this way.
I don't think Christian orthodoxy is like that at all. What about the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation?
Good post, Anglican Brat.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
it is perfectly possible for non-Christians (or wobbly dodgy Christians) to speak and minister to others, influencing them towards Christianity or cause them to strengthen their faith. It does not all need to be done by Christians - God is bigger than that.
My faith in God has certainly been strengthened by the love, care, generosity and loyalty shown me by non-Christians.
But then why bother with all this church palaver - prayers, hymns, scripture and creeds - if Christianity is just a matter of being nice?
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Apart from if you're actually a Rev and get a salary and membership of a pension fund, I still remain puzzled why be a 'liberal' non-theist 'sort of Christian' at all.
What does it offer? Why not stay in bed on a Sunday morning? Or read the paper over a leisurely breakfast? And if you want a community to belong to, why not join something that would actually be interesting, a sport you like, a choir, a hobby, stamp collecting perhaps or model making, the Ramblers or whatever? What point is there in belonging to a church that doesn't believe in Jesus Christ any more? How can one build a community of the faithful founded not on what we believe, but on what we don't?
Can anyone explain this to me?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
It's that tricky word believe again. Non-theist Christians still believe in all the Christian stuff, in forgiveness and love and hope and the new way of being human.
I'm sure there is stuff associated with Christianity that you don't believe. It's fairly obviously not an all or nothing thing.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
all the Christian stuff, in forgiveness and love and hope and the new way of being human.
That's not exclusively Christian. What's distinctively Christian is God made known in Jesus Christ crucified and risen.
For me "believe" means commitment to the community and continuous tradition and imaginative and symbolic understanding of the world of Christians.
And I totally agree with Enoch. Why bother?
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
it is perfectly possible for non-Christians (or wobbly dodgy Christians) to speak and minister to others, influencing them towards Christianity or cause them to strengthen their faith. It does not all need to be done by Christians - God is bigger than that.
My faith in God has certainly been strengthened by the love, care, generosity and loyalty shown me by non-Christians.
But then why bother with all this church palaver - prayers, hymns, scripture and creeds - if Christianity is just a matter of being nice?
This states it rather nicely I think. And highlights that there is Christianity as you describe it at one end of a continuum, with this progressively shading towards humanism at the other. It is very difficult to choose a precise point on the line between the two where we can say Christian on once side and not-Christian on the other. Spong seems to be hovering on the line to me, and the United Church minister on the humanist side. (I could be wrong to label that end humanist)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
no prophet's flag is set so...: And highlights that there is Christianity as you describe it at one end of a continuum, with this progressively shading towards humanism at the other.
The way you describe it implies that conservative Christianity is more Christian than liberal Christianity.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's that tricky word believe again. Non-theist Christians still believe in all the Christian stuff, in forgiveness and love and hope and the new way of being human.
"Believe in forgiveness" in what sense? Believe that forgiveness exists? Sure, but that's kind of boring - of course forgiveness exists, as does hatred and deckchairs.
Believe that love and forgiveness are attitudes to aspire to in your life? This is a good thing - it makes you a decent, loving, compassionate human being - but not an exclusively Christian thing.
Believe in "that Christian stuff" about love and forgiveness - that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for us, that your sins are forgiven through Christ, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind, and to love thy neighbour as thyself?
We've covered the neighbour, but how does the rest of what I would call fairly essential "Christian stuff" work in a non-theistic context?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Things don't have to be exclusively or distinctively Christian. I'm pleased not disturbed if I find my beliefs overlap with those of Hindus.
And, yes, belief that isn't the same as belief in. Belief that forgiveness exists is boring. Belief in forgiveness, especially towards those who have mistreated you, that is quite something.
Let me ask about some bigger beliefs. Do you believe that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father? Do you believe he has been given the name above all names? Do you believe the lamb that was slain sits upon the throne? Do you believe that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety nine righteous people who do not need to repent? That it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom?
I think these are pretty standard Christian beliefs, but are they beliefs that or beliefs in? Do they depend on also believing that God exists? Do they make any difference to how you live and think? Are they easier or harder beliefs than theism? Are they about the nature of the world? About facts?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Enoch
I think some people simply enjoy the community life of the church. Indeed, the concept of 'belonging before believing' is founded on the idea that people must become accustomed to and actually like church life before they come to faith. There must be some who belong but never quite make that leap to believing. Or others who give up on believing but quite like the community and sense of belonging, and so stick around.
Moreover, it can't always be easy to re-create the same kind of community in other settings (though perhaps political activism sometimes attracts a similar kind of demographic and earnest atmosphere...).
There are also the people who primarily appreciate the aesthetic side of church life - the choirs, poetic liturgies, the worship bands, etc.
To what extent all of these people would have a carefully worked out personal theology of Christian atheism/post-theism, etc., is another matter, though.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
