Thread: Atheists in the United Church of Canada Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030079

---

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
Atheist minister fights to remain in the pulpit

Just how far should any church bend over to allow different or non-existent views of God?

In the case in question, the person has been around for years. Her views are well-known. Should she remain in the pulpit? Her denomination is considering removing her.

This may be purgatorial. In that case, would the closest pitchfork move it?
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
If she had any backbone she'd leave.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I reckon she's saying what a lot of others are thinking.
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Probably quite normal and healthy to think God is non existent. I shouln't have thought there's much harm in believing She and He is around about loving the bones of us now and again.
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
I give much more weight to a pastor's ability to help people on their journeys to love god and show compassion to their fellow humans than to a pastor's private loyalty to a denomination's stated belief set. Sometimes the latter can get in the way of the former.

sabine
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Couldn't get the link, but if she is an atheist in a plain unequivocal there-is-literally-no-God sense, or anywhere near it, and she's not prepared to keep that to herself, she shouldn't be in the Christian ministry- especially if she's drawing a stipend. Attending church, sure- that's up to her and I'm comfortable with people belonging without believing. But if she really is an atheist, for once I agree with Mr Cheesy- if she had any backbone she'd go.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I suppose it depends on what you think the role of ordained clergy in the UCC is. If it's to counsel parishioners, preach on the Bible, and perform the sacraments (if they have sacraments), are those things that an atheist cannot do? Why?
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 


You could have just asked for the actual details, instead of falling for a CBC windup.

Gretta Vosper is a windup merchant of the first order. Per the usual procedure for such matters, the United Church ignored her for years, in the hopes she would get bored and quit. If she quit talking, that would be good, if she quit the ministry, so much the better.

Alas, it was not to be. She is addicted to fame and attention. She has been trying to goad the Church for years to charge her. Her downfall was that she failed to gather enough supporters at her current congregation in Toronto, which was known for being quite middle-of-the-road and not given to radicals like her. Some of her parishioners lodged a complaint about her beliefs with Toronto Conference, who were finally goaded into action.

United Church of Canada ministers have to affirm that they are in "essential agreement" with the Articles of Faith in the Basis of Union, and in Gretta Vosper's case she is so far from them it isn't funny.

Why she hasn't resigned before now is some everyone in the United Church of Canada wants to know.

Thus the United Church of Canada will have its first heresy trial ever. Not that we wanted to do this, we don't want to give Gretta Vosper just what she wants, even more fame.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I've listened a bit to the interview in Pete's link and I found nothing she said very shocking.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
This is assuredly not Hellish, and I'm reasonably certain it's not Eccles-fodder.

Going up.

DT
HH
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I suppose it depends on what you think the role of ordained clergy in the UCC is. If it's to counsel parishioners, preach on the Bible, and perform the sacraments (if they have sacraments), are those things that an atheist cannot do? Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've listened a bit to the interview in Pete's link and I found nothing she said very shocking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
MT, there are UCCan churches a few hours drive from where you live. Do I really have to spell this out for you?

---

That's not helpful. Why would mousethief be expected to know something about a different denomination in a different country? The same charge could be levelled against you, if you were unaware of the dynamics of the LCMS

Anyway, there is a simple reason why Gretta hasn't resigned: $$$. She has said so herself in an interview: there isn't an equivalent atheist organization to pay her. Hurray for integrity.

I think she should resign. The UCC is an inclusive church. GV just chose to focus on the "inclusive" part rather than the "church" part.
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 

quote:

---

That's not helpful. Why would mousethief be expected to know something about a different denomination in a different country? The same charge could be levelled against you, if you were unaware of the dynamics of the LCMS

---

quote:

---

I have a super liberal friend like that who couldn't comprehend why I would think that Bernie Sanders wasn't electable as POTUS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
One point I noted in the interview was that she was specific that she didn't believe in a "theistic" god. Maybe she's a deist. That still doesn't make her much of a fit for a Christian denomination.

I had to chuckle at her assertion that she thought fifty percent of people in the church believe as she believes. I think that is a classic case of surrounding yourself with like-minded thinkers. I have a super liberal friend like that who couldn't comprehend why I would think that Bernie Sanders wasn't electable as POTUS.

---

quote:

---

That she impresses journalists is a commentary on that profession.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And different parties in the congregation disagreeing with each other. That's only being going on since forever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I reckon she's saying what a lot of others are thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Protestant Church of the Netherlands are our cousins, theologically speaking. But I doubt Gretta Vosper will remain in her post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I am somewhat confused that her congregation, as a whole, appears to support her (at least on the website).

---

quote:

---

"Every pastoral relationship in the United Church of Canada will be affected by this ruling," Vosper said. "Now a court of the church can intervene in that relationship -- and terminate it."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Protestant Church of the Netherlands are our cousins, theologically speaking. But I doubt Gretta Vosper will remain in her post.

---

Why do you think the Protestant Church of the Netherlands might have accepted the ministry of an atheist minister whereas the United Church of Canada cannot? Might it be, as I suggested, more a matter of the personalities and contexts involved rather than of the theological positions held?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
...
From her own congregation's website. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knopwood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I am somewhat confused that her congregation, as a whole, appears to support her (at least on the website).

---

Per Lyda*Rose, driving off roughly two thirds of your congregation is pretty much guaranteed to leave you with a remnant who rate you highly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

That's not helpful. Why would mousethief be expected to know something about a different denomination in a different country? The same charge could be levelled against you, if you were unaware of the dynamics of the LCMS

---

Just as a point of fact, but I'm pretty sure the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has churces in Canada as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I suppose it depends on what you think the role of ordained clergy in the UCC is. If it's to counsel parishioners, preach on the Bible, and perform the sacraments (if they have sacraments), are those things that an atheist cannot do? Why?

---

MT, there are UCCan churches a few hours drive from where you live. Do I really have to spell this out for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
]I'm aware of the LCC churches (Lutheran Church--Canada) and we have a close relationship, but I'm not sure it's in any way so close that we could claim any congregation as "LCMS."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The United Church of Canada is not yet at the point where the "historic and public role" of clergy is more important than what they believe. The UCCan places a very high value on the Word part of Word & Sacrament. [...]

The UCCan is also a Methodist Church, and I dare say she would not be accepted in the Kirk, the United Reformed Church or the Methodist Church of Great Britain, our parents across the pond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I suppose it depends on what you think the role of ordained clergy in the UCC is. If it's to counsel parishioners, preach on the Bible, and perform the sacraments (if they have sacraments), are those things that an atheist cannot do? Why?

---

MT, there are UCCan churches a few hours drive from where you live. Do I really have to spell this out for you?

---

Yes. There are probably people from Myanmar within a few hours drive from me, but that doesn't make me knowledgeable about their beliefs and practices either. Is this a conversation? We could forgo all back-and-forth, and every time somebody says they don't know something we can say "Fucking google it you asshole." Then we wouldn't have to engage with each other at all. But it wouldn't be much of a discussion site. Would it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Really, you just asked whether a Presbyterian or Methodist church has sacraments. How do you think that sounds?

---

quote:

---

We must not be afraid to set boundaries of belief and practice. It is loving and kind to our congregations, which need good shepherds who teach the word of truth not time-servers looking for a cosy living – or even wolves. Care is needed when doing that of course. We mustn’t be too restrictive. But atheist priests is several steps too far. Everyone can see that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I am somewhat confused that her congregation, as a whole, appears to support her (at least on the website). I am also quite surprised by the fact she has been at that charge for nearly 20 years. It has been my understanding that most ministries in the United Church are time limited. Perhaps I am wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

More importantly, though, leaving aside philosophy and the words we choose, what about the possibility that you might fall out of love with God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This isn't the first case. Infamously, twenty-two years ago Anthony Freeman had his Church of England licence revoked and was sacked after writing God in Us: The Case for Christian Humanism. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynnk:
How can an atheist person be a minister in a christian church?How can a congregation accept an atheist as a teacher and leader? I have just read 48 posts discussing this.Why hasn't the congregation left if the pastor won't?My limited experience with atheists is that they are not just non believers, but quite antagonistic toward Christians.Surely time in church learning about and worshiping God is to precious to waste it on a minister who doesn't even believe in God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Believing that God does or doesn't exist, might just be a question of words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For the average congregant, you can turn up and go through the motions even if you're having a patch when you're not "feeling it", and the routine will get you through.

For the priest, that's much more difficult, which makes it a bigger challenge when being a priest is also how that person supports his or her family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

That's not helpful. Why would mousethief be expected to know something about a different denomination in a different country? The same charge could be levelled against you, if you were unaware of the dynamics of the LCMS

---

Just as a point of fact, but I'm pretty sure the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has churces in Canada as well.

---

I'm aware of the LCC churches (Lutheran Church--Canada) and we have a close relationship, but I'm not sure it's in any way so close that we could claim any congregation as "LCMS." If there is one (and I know there are anomalous situations in a scant handful of places around the world), it's likely to be only one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For the average congregant, you can turn up and go through the motions even if you're having a patch when you're not "feeling it", and the routine will get you through.

For the priest, that's much more difficult, which makes it a bigger challenge when being a priest is also how that person supports his or her family.

---

The world is full of- OK, not quite full of, but it's not very uncommon to encounter- clergy and former clergy who earn their living in other ways (teaching, social work, and so on). If her beliefs mattered that much to her, and she was good enough to do anything else at all, she'd be looking for another job. If she's not any good enough to do anything else at all she's almost certainly not any good at being a cleric either, regardless of what she believes about God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And, frankly, off the top of my head I couldn't tell you if any particular Presbyterian body has sacraments, or ordinances. Again, I am not intimately familiar with the workings of that particular denominational family.

---

At your service.

FWIW, and to the extent it may shed light on the UCCan situation, all Presbyterian bodies (recognizing the possibility of some small, very quirky aberration) will recognize two sacraments—baptism and the Lord's Supper/communion/Eucharist. (Historically, confirmation, marriage and ordination were sometimes referred to as ordinances, but I rarely hear that now.) Most if not all Reformed or Presbyterian have some version of the idea that the church is found wherever the Gospel is rightly proclaimed and the sacraments are rightly administered. (Some would add wherever discipline/order is rightly maintained.)

The primary duties of a minister of Word and Sacrament are, as the title suggests, proclamation or preaching, and administration of the sacraments. Other things such as pastoral care, counseling or the like are important but not unique to the ministry. Anyone conceivably could do them. But ordinarily only a minister preaches, and except in certain limited circumstances (in some but not all Presbyterian bodies) only a minister may administer the sacraments.

Thus, what a minister believes (or doesn't believe) has a great deal of significance to preaching. We would not say that lack of a certain belief, or of any belief, on the part of the minister invalidates a sacrament. But we would say that it could affect a proper understanding of the sacrament in a congregation. As a result, there has always been some degree of assent to certain doctrines as a condition to ordination and continued ministry, with oversight of that assent belonging to a body above the congregation.

[ 03. April 2016, 19:32: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
....I imagine that the UCC has a similar arrangement so if Ms Vosper could find a teaching or social work or bureaucratic job, without endangering her retirement.

And, of course, Uber seems to be doing well in Toronto right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Believing that God does or doesn't exist, might just be a question of words. Plenty of people think God is beyond normal categories, including existence. Some the think it's important to leave the question of God's existence open. Ernst Bloch wrote that 'only an atheist can be a good Christian' and vice versa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps right MT, though I'm reminded of various talks over time, when someone asks: "do you know God (or Jesus)?". To which I think one of the few sane answers is "it is unlikely that I believe as you do". (Notwithstanding that persons asking such questions are usually actually wanting to tell, not ask.)

---

Hard to tell. If all they want to do is tell, not listen, then the answer would have to be, "Yeah. Oh look at the time!"
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I'm reminded of one of my favorite scenes from the old "One Day At A Time" sitcom, from the '70s.

Teen-aged Julie has become a born-again Christian, and is in a rather effervescent/annoying stage. She even stops a nun, and sincerely asks if she knows Jesus. The nun is shocked.

IIRC, Ann, Julie's mom, has a talk with Julie, who quiets down and works more on just living her faith.

 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Not as a metaphor. As reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
The language is difficult. What you see as meaningful enough to be a foundational belief, others may see as a distinction so close to meaninglessness as to make the 'existence of God' a mere shibboleth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
I give much more weight to a pastor's ability to help people on their journeys to love god and show compassion to their fellow humans than to a pastor's private loyalty to a denomination's stated belief set. Sometimes the latter can get in the way of the former.

sabine

---

quote:

---

help people on their journeys to love god

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Just to be clear, it appears Gretta Vosper is on her last legs:
From her own congregation's website.

---

quote:

---

mousethief: If "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are so close as to be meaningless, then words are worthless and we might as well go back to the trees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...

The primary duties of a minister of Word and Sacrament are, as the title suggests, proclamation or preaching, and administration of the sacraments. Other things such as pastoral care, counseling or the like are important but not unique to the ministry. Anyone conceivably could do them. But ordinarily only a minister preaches, and except in certain limited circumstances (in some but not all Presbyterian bodies) only a minister may administer the sacraments.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

mousethief: If "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are so close as to be meaningless, then words are worthless and we might as well go back to the trees.

---

But what does "God exists" mean? Clearly, God doesn't exist in the same way as, say, a table exists.

---

quote:

---

mousethief: Having a hard time seeing why this is relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

mousethief: If "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are so close as to be meaningless, then words are worthless and we might as well go back to the trees.

---

But what does "God exists" mean? Clearly, God doesn't exist in the same way as, say, a table exists.

---

Having a hard time seeing why this is relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Believing that God does or doesn't exist, might just be a question of words.

---

Indeed - God does not 'exist'. God 'is existence.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
... Vosper & Spong are peas in a pod; careerists who have no idea what the hell they'd do if they lost their clergy jobs.* And provocateurism keeps those speaking engagements rolling in, doesn't it just?

*Yes, I'm aware that Spong is now retired. And presumably drawing a pension for pissing inside the big tent, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Well, we have established that Vosper is the uCCan's Donald Trump, in a way.

---

quote:

---

mousethief: If "God" and "not God" [...] aren't distinguishable [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

mousethief: If "God" and "not God" [...] aren't distinguishable [...]

---

This is much better than "God exists" vs "God doesn't exist". To me, "God or not God" is a relational question, not a logical one, and can be answered without knowing what "God exists" means.

---

Good, that was what I was trying to do.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

mousethief: Good, that was what I was trying to do.

---

• letting the organisation down.
  not getting the beers in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Vosper & Spong are peas in a pod; careerists who have no idea what the hell they'd do if they lost their clergy jobs.* And provocateurism keeps those speaking engagements rolling in, doesn't it just?

*Yes, I'm aware that Spong is now retired. And presumably drawing a pension for pissing inside the big tent, too.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure it's clear that not believing in God means that you can't believe in "Jesus Christ and him crucified"...

---

But then in what sense could you be be called Christian?

A man lived and died so will I as will you.

There are many religions so if you don't believe in JC his death and resurrection pick another but what will it gain you if you lose you're soul?

Without the resurrection death is just death and without meaning or at best no more meaning than the death of any random thing and yes I still miss my dog.
That being the end and total of it's meaning a fading memory of joy and loss.

Just aim to enjoy what you have it's all your getting.

I'm signing off now, words for words sake to polish our "smarts" tend to irritate me, all the more so as I get older.


aamcle
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Interesting that someone could become a Christian because of Spong, seeing as Spong isn't a Christian.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mt--

Maybe he was something for them to bounce off, like in a pinball game?

AIUI, in sailing there's something called "tacking", where (due to currents, weather, etc.) you sometimes have to go the wrong way to wind up in the right place. So if you want to go W but there are interfering conditions, you might have to go E, then do a lot of zigzagging. (Sailors, please don't laugh too hard in my face! )

I often do similarly, on my own winding path.
 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mt--

Thanks. I did wonder about the degrees of it, but I figured that simple E and W would make for a cleaner example.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure that's what was meant but we'll wait for Demas to say for sure.

---

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.

---

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.)
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
I find the thread is (originally centered on one minister of a small congregation in Canada).

---

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.

---

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".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The issue of theologies being taught in seminaries but not from pulpits is one I find very interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Interesting that someone could become a Christian because of Spong, seeing as Spong isn't a Christian.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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:

---

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?)

---

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.

---

 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
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."
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
To which a reply might be, "And I see evolution working through you, taking you down a dead end!"

 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

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!"

---

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."

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
all the Christian stuff, in forgiveness and love and hope and the new way of being human.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

Belief in forgiveness, especially towards those who have mistreated you, that is quite something.

---

quote:

---

Let me ask about some bigger beliefs. [..]
I think these are pretty standard Christian beliefs, but are they beliefs that or beliefs in?

---

quote:

---

Do they depend on also believing that God exists?

---

quote:

---

Do they make any difference to how you live and think?

---

quote:

---

Are they easier or harder beliefs than theism?

---

quote:

---

Are they about the nature of the world? About facts?

---

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. ...

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

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. ...

---

Pessimistic I may be, but I can't see any reason why one can believe any of that in a vacuum. Believing that all these things would be good, that the world would be a nicer place if people were like that, is fine, obvious in a way, except that alas is not how people are. Without Christ, what reason is there for believing that those things are ever going to happen, that the world will not be the same grubby place tomorrow that it was yesterday? And what reason is there why I should not just make the best of it by fair means or foul, and probably foul?

I quite simply do not believe that well-meaningness and benevolent aspirations on their own are a sufficient foundation for anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
If God doesn't have hands, what does it mean to say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father? Who thinks God has hands?

I don't think God has hands, but I'm very happy to say that
Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.

What sort of belief is this? Does it make sense if I don't think God has hands? If I don't think of God as a being that exists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
A congregation that aspired just to have a community life, that was a gathering solely of those who belonged, but did not believe, would truly be building its house on sand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graven Image:
While I believe strongly that the character of the priest does not effect the validity of the communion and God alone makes God's blessing valid, this women needs to gracefully step away from ministry. She is representing her church badly to the community, and play acting her role as a Christian leader. Her vocation is a lie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Is it God's goal to make us Christians, or make us whole?

---

That should mean the same thing.
 

---

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
so many words! I got three quarters of the way down page two. I'd add my bit, but it's already been said many times.

Let's hope my post doesn't fall foul of the ship theologians. I used to be a theologian, but now thinking hurts my brain. Yes, I'm a belieber.

Sack that priest, by the way, let her make her money selling her books at street markets.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Pertinent quote. Am watching the episode of "Bones" where they're quarantined in the lab over Christmas, and discussing religion. Zach says something like "I'm a rational empiricist, right down the line--unless you ask my mother. Then I'm Lutheran."


 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
I'm uncomfortable with the notion of "metaphor". It seems too often devolve into literalism by proxy- the idea seems to float around that once we crack the metaphorical code we then know the literal truth the metaphor is pointing to and no longer need the metaphor. We understand what the parable means so we can speak directly.

But we can't.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
There is no compelling reason why people would choose love, forgiveness, kindness and hope except for the example of the one who acts only by invitation, by inspiration, and appeal.

---

quote:

---

Christianity is not based on 'tough titty, you've got to love or you'll pay for it'. It's an impossible dream lived despite its futility. And lived beyond its futility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
There is no compelling reason why people would choose love, forgiveness, kindness and hope except for the example of the one who acts only by invitation, by inspiration, and appeal.

---

But if they are saying he never existed, or that they don't believe the core part of what he said and did, then for them, he is not an example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
But if they are saying he never existed, or that they don't believe the core part of what he said and did, then for them, he is not an example.

---

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope' are any more than a delusion, a pious aspiration, not suitable for the 'real world', unless it's true.

If God does not exist, believing in 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope' are, as I said earlier, building your house on sand.

---

quote:

---

Not only that. The 'real world' becomes not his kingdom. If you say there is nothing else, the material, Dawkins, Marxist-Leninist sort of world, does become the real world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
But if they are saying he never existed, or that they don't believe the core part of what he said and did, then for them, he is not an example.

---

Not necessarily. Sometimes, fictional people can have quite an impact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Interpretation, yes, and also selection. But all we have to go on is the written record we have. Going beyond that is fan fic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
If God doesn't have hands, what does it mean to say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father? Who thinks God has hands?

I don't think God has hands, but I'm very happy to say that
Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.

What sort of belief is this? Does it make sense if I don't think God has hands? If I don't think of God as a being that exists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
If God doesn't have hands, what does it mean to say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father? Who thinks God has hands?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
It is faith all the way down, faith which can also be expressed as belief in, but which is not the same as belief that.

---

quote:

---

My faith is that we find in Christ that our good and our neighbours' coincide.

---

quote:

---

Dafyd: Let us deconstruct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Or not, acording to someone on here who says that she did't say that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Dafyd: Let us deconstruct.

---

Your post is a good example of why it's probably not a good idea to deconstruct belief-in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Dafyd: Let us deconstruct.

---

Your post is a good example of why it's probably not a good idea to deconstruct belief-in.

---

I wasn't deconstructing belief-in. I was deconstructing the opposition between belief-in and belief-that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

Jasons, of course, come and go, exist and stop existing. God isn't like that. It makes no sense to think that God might stop existing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

Much more typical of Christianity are beliefs such as that the poor are blessed, that you have to lose your life to find it, that sinners are leading the way into the kingdom, that I should love God and my neighbour as myself.

I've expressed all those with 'thats', but they are beliefs that entail action and commitment. They are things to believe in, not opinions to hold, ways of living, not examples of right thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I wasn't deconstructing belief-in. I was deconstructing the opposition between belief-in and belief-that.

---

Slide a knife for me here.

---

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope' are any more than a delusion, a pious aspiration, not suitable for the 'real world', unless it's true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I wasn't deconstructing belief-in. I was deconstructing the opposition between belief-in and belief-that.

---

Slide a knife for me here.

---

I believe in Christianity.

Someone else might believe in Christianity vs Islam. As far as they're concerned Christianity is only good if Islam is also evil.

(Does that analogy help? I can come back when more awake and less busy.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope' are any more than a delusion, a pious aspiration, not suitable for the 'real world', unless it's true.

---

I'm with Enoch on this one. I might re-arrange it a little and think that whatever solvent of the mind one applies such that belief in God goes all gooey and smears away into nothing, also does a great job of removing the tough stains of belief in 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope'.

Unless one is rather choosy about where one applies the rag. But that's a religious man's trick, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
... I think we are asked to choose love and trust that it is not a vague and fluffy approach for the soft headed, but The Way. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't know that belief-in vs. belief-than is a case of "you must hate one to love the other." It's more a matter of where one is applied versus the other. Which can't be known without knowing where each is applied. If they are meant to be mutually exclusive, defining one automatically defines the other.

---

quote:

---

Leorning Cniht: As regards "belief-in" vs "belief-that", I tend to try to avoid belief-in statements, except an generalities, because they're too woolly, nebulous, and open to interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

I don't think we are to get our heads round conceptual beliefs (about God, authority, sin, etc.) that also happen to entail a commitment to love. I think we are asked to choose love and trust that it is not a vague and fluffy approach for the soft headed, but The Way. And there is no guarantee. And to someone who says, 'Nah. I'd rather go on thinking the worst of everyone,' there is really nothing to say, no argument to offer.

---

quote:

---

Leorning Cniht: Belief in forgiveness" is a nebulous statement without clear meaning. Is what you're trying to say here different from "it is desirable and admirable for people to forgive those who mistreat them"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I also think that love, kindness and forgiveness are far from the 'fluffy gooey' path. They are the hardest, toughest path there is. As Jesus found.

---

quote:

---

shamwari: I am still trying to get my head around this. What on earth does it mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
... I don't think we'll ever manage to understand God through meaningful sentences. ...

---

quote:

---

Enoch: I find other human beings difficult enough to understand.

---

quote:

---

Personally I would say that love is inherently normative

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Dafyd posted

Not unless I believe that the one who does not exist because the source of all existence will bring them life out of death.


I am still trying to get my head around this. What on earth does it mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Jesus seemed to have no difficulty in talking about God without resorting to circumlocution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Jesus seemed to have no difficulty in talking about God without resorting to circumlocution.

---

I don't think I would describe Jesus' language in John's Gospel as talking with no difficulty without circumlocution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Yes.

But that's assuming John is quoting verbatim. Many would doubt this.

---

quote:

---

Fr Weber: If you so believe, then it doesn't matter a damn bit what "most scholars" think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
None of the apostles and evangelists were following Jesus around with a tape recorder. It's very likely that the words of Jesus as written in the Gospels are filtered through inexact human memory.

But so what? Either you believe that the Holy Spirit ensures that the Gospels essentially transmit the teaching and works of Christ to us, or you don't. If you so believe, then it doesn't matter a damn bit what "most scholars" think. If you don't, then why bother with the Christian religion anyway?

---

quote:

---

“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." (John 14:25-26)

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: I would say rather that ONE of the ways we understand God is through language, which is maybe why Jesus is referred to as the "Word."

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: which is maybe why Jesus is referred to as the "Word."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I would say rather that ONE of the ways we understand God is through language, which is maybe why Jesus is referred to as the "Word."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Maybe. Another interpretation could be "you won't be able to understand Me through language, here is My Son".

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: Understand, grasp, grope after in the fog--it's a choice of metaphor, really. It would be a foolish person who thought we were able to comprehend anything more of God than he gave to us!

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: Re the language thing--it sounds a bit odd to say "this avenue of comprehension won't work, so I'm going to give you a different (?) avenue and call it by the name of the first one."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I would say rather that ONE of the ways we understand God is through language, which is maybe why Jesus is referred to as the "Word."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Leorning Cniht: Belief in forgiveness" is a nebulous statement without clear meaning. Is what you're trying to say here different from "it is desirable and admirable for people to forgive those who mistreat them"?

---

To me, there is a world of difference between these statement "I believe in forgiveness" and the one you mentioned here.

---

quote:

---

Leorning Cniht: OK - so what is the difference? What does the statement "I believe in forgiveness" mean to you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I would say rather that ONE of the ways we understand God is through language, which is maybe why Jesus is referred to as the "Word."

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: It seems odd to me to single out language as a way we cannot understand God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
"Rev. Vosper is a self-described atheist who believes in a metaphorical god instead of the traditional theistic vision of god."

In this case, what´s the difference between this atheist minister and the typical episcopalian/ELCA lutheran leadership? She has had this belief for years (since her ordination), but only after she started to describe herself openly as "atheist" the problem started. But it´s clear that the theology teached in most mailine denominations is atheist too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
"Rev. Vosper is a self-described atheist who believes in a metaphorical god instead of the traditional theistic vision of god."

In this case, what´s the difference between this atheist minister and the typical episcopalian/ELCA lutheran leadership? She has had this belief for years (since her ordination), but only after she started to describe herself openly as "atheist" the problem started. But it´s clear that the theology teached in most mailine denominations is atheist too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
"Rev. Vosper is a self-described atheist who believes in a metaphorical god instead of the traditional theistic vision of god."

In this case, what´s the difference between this atheist minister and the typical episcopalian/ELCA lutheran leadership? She has had this belief for years (since her ordination), but only after she started to describe herself openly as "atheist" the problem started. But it´s clear that the theology teached in most mailine denominations is atheist too.

---

Is it really as bad as that? Or is that rhetoric?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I just thought I'd post a link to this article in the Guardian.

What intrigues me is that at one point in the article we're told that in 2008 the minister's removal of the Lord's Prayer reduced the congregation from 120 to 40 people, but then someone says that after 2013 her church bucked the wider trend of decline. This information is confusing, because we don't know the average size of UCC congregations.

Secondly, other than the salary and the pension it's still not clear why this lady wishes to remain with the UCC. Why not transfer to the Unitarians, or set up a branch of the atheist fellowship? Maybe it's just easier to fish from a big pool than a small one. According to the Ship, there are English conservative evangelicals who stay in the CofE for pretty well the same reason. Very interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
There is a psychological benefit for thinking that you are the innovative minority in an organization who is pressuring people to change. After all, who wouldn't want to consider oneself as the enlightened radical, challenging the organization to shed its backward thinking?

If of course, you join an organization that thinks exactly the same way you do, you lose that unique identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
....I also think there is a psychological benefit for thinking that you are the innovative minority in an organization who is pressuring people to change. After all, who wouldn't want to consider oneself as the enlightened radical, challenging the organization to shed its backward thinking?

If of course, you join an organization that thinks exactly the same way you do, you lose that unique identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
....I also think there is a psychological benefit for thinking that you are the innovative minority in an organization who is pressuring people to change. After all, who wouldn't want to consider oneself as the enlightened radical, challenging the organization to shed its backward thinking?

If of course, you join an organization that thinks exactly the same way you do, you lose that unique identity.

---

Quick- find me some people marching so that I can be out of step with them!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
but then how would you stand out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Jesus seemed to have no difficulty in talking about God without resorting to circumlocution.

---

I don't think I would describe Jesus' language in John's Gospel as talking with no difficulty without circumlocution.

---

Then again, most scholars don't regard the words attributed to Jesus in the 4th gospel to be his actual words - more a meditation by the evangelist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
but then how would you stand out?

---

I guess by being the one who got everyone else to change their thinking?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
but then how would you stand out?

---

I guess by being the one who got everyone else to change their thinking?

---

But you'd just merge into the mass then. You'd have to find something else to seek attention about (as indeed some people of this kind do).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
... The fact she now has a bunch of followers has enabled her to proffer her leadership-for-change at an altogether higher - or louder - level ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
... The fact she now has a bunch of followers has enabled her to proffer her leadership-for-change at an altogether higher - or louder - level ....

---

I don't get the impression there's very many of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, maybe not in her immediate vicnity, but she's being discussed by people all over the world(this thread being just one example), and has certainly come to the attention of the highest officials in her own denomination.

This could create the impression, illusory or otherwise, that she is a Very Big Deal, right at the centre of paradigm-shifting theological controversies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I wonder if the publicity she's generated is less an attempt to change the UCC than to bump up her visibility before she leaves (or is forced to leave) her job?

Publicity is everything these days. Thanks to her situation being broadcast around the world she's no doubt made contacts with plenty of other well-known ex-theist pastors, advocates of atheistic ministries, anti-theist intellectuals, and the media. I imagine that opportunities have already opened up to her which would've been beyond reach if she'd just left the UCC quietly and looked for another job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
... John Shelby Spong could be cited as an example of a controversial cleric who springboarded into a high-profile media career. Bishop Jenkins of Durham, not so much. I doubt the latter name is known today much outside of Anglican circles.

---

quote:

---

I'd agree with that I think. Bp. Spong's media career didn't really cross the Atlantic. (Though I seem to remember he did get a certain following in Australia). Outside church circles, you'll struggle to find any recognition of his name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I wonder if the publicity she's generated is less an attempt to change the UCC than to bump up her visibility before she leaves (or is forced to leave) her job?

Publicity is everything these days. Thanks to her situation being broadcast around the world she's no doubt made contacts with plenty of other well-known ex-theist pastors, advocates of atheistic ministries, anti-theist intellectuals, and the media. I imagine that opportunities have already opened up to her which would've been beyond reach if she'd just left the UCC quietly and looked for another job.

---

Well, I doubt that too many people consciously sit down and say to themselves "Bwahaha, I'm gonna whip up some fabricated controversy just to showboat my way into a better career in the aftermath!!"

But, yes, if you take positions that are at odds with your well-known parent organization, it's gonna get you some publicity, and probably put you in contact with people who can help advance your career in other areas. Whether this was the main reason for her taking the positions she did is another question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
... John Shelby Spong could be cited as an example of a controversial cleric who springboarded into a high-profile media career. Bishop Jenkins of Durham, not so much. I doubt the latter name is known today much outside of Anglican circles.

---

Although he's a name from the past, the former Bishop of Durham is still quite well known here. Outside church circles, in some of which he might be cited as a bogeyman, John Shelby Spong is not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
... John Shelby Spong could be cited as an example of a controversial cleric who springboarded into a high-profile media career. Bishop Jenkins of Durham, not so much. I doubt the latter name is known today much outside of Anglican circles.

---

Although he's a name from the past, the former Bishop of Durham is still quite well known here. Outside church circles, in some of which he might be cited as a bogeyman, John Shelby Spong is not.

---

They are very different. Jenkins is orthodox, Spong no longer even believes in God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

I have UCC friends who honestly believe that no one in church believes the things they are saying, that everyone is just going through the motions because its the right thing to do. And these are hardworking, sincere members of their UCC congregation, heavily involved in the worship, the administration and the social work (food banks, housing etc.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Yeah, but that sounds very much like an insider joke.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: This makes the church sound like little more than a social club for do-gooders!

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: Good works not trivial, but because they're considered to be normative for churches and other community groups, they're not enough to make Christian churches stand out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Yeah, but that sounds very much like an insider joke.

---

Would readers of Private Eye more hip to the goings-on in international Anglicanism than your average British person would be?

My assumption would have been that Private Eye is aimed at Brits with at least a basic interest in current events, and that if someone was being satirized in its pages, we could assume that his name had also appeared a few times in the mainstream media outlets.

Or would the writers of Private Eye just be doing it to amuse themselves, reader-awareness be damned? A lot of the stuff published by National Lampoon in the 1970s fit that category, like for example this send-up of anti-semitism, which I'm sure went over the heads of lots of their readers.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: By standing out I meant being distinctive. Churches need to be distinctive and visible in some way or else how will the gospel be made known?

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: they simply want to be good

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: caring people who run food banks and raise money for charity, etc.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: That's fine

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: but one wonders why they need to be attached to the church to do this.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: TBH, though, aren't there other organisations who could do it better?

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: Why muddle up your kindness with confusing, churchy mumbo jumbo if you don't have to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Yeah, but that sounds very much like an insider joke.

---

Would readers of Private Eye more hip to the goings-on in international Anglicanism than your average British person would be?

My assumption would have been that Private Eye is aimed at Brits with at least a basic interest in current events, and that if someone was being satirized in its pages, we could assume that his name had also appeared a few times in the mainstream media outlets.

Or would the writers of Private Eye just be doing it to amuse themselves, reader-awareness be damned? A lot of the stuff published by National Lampoon in the 1970s fit that category, like for example this send-up of anti-semitism, which I'm sure went over the heads of lots of their readers.

---

Private Eye is more or less a club- its editor has described it as such- and indeed one with a slightly churchy tinge. Pretty safe, I think to assume that twenty years ago a lot of its readers would be sufficently familiar with Bp Spong, at least at second hand, to recognise the name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
FWIW, her "employer" is the congregation she pastors, and it doesn't seem to be bothered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
... John Shelby Spong could be cited as an example of a controversial cleric who springboarded into a high-profile media career. Bishop Jenkins of Durham, not so much. I doubt the latter name is known today much outside of Anglican circles.

---

Although he's a name from the past, the former Bishop of Durham is still quite well known here. Outside church circles, in some of which he might be cited as a bogeyman, John Shelby Spong is not.

---

They are very different. Jenkins is orthodox, Spong no longer even believes in God.

---

He (Jack Spong) certainly isn't a theist, but he does seem to believe in a sort of higher-order effect of what (for want of a better phrase here) I would call creation, which he calls God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And if anyone uses the word 'defrocked' I will lose it. It is crass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

And if anyone uses the word 'defrocked' I will lose it. It is crass. The term is "placed involuntarily on the Discontinued Service List".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Stupidly, I thought most of us were somewhere on the continuum between total credulity and total scepticism. Why do people insist on making a continuum into a binary? I'm thinking I won't buy the inevitable book, watch the miniseries or movie. And I can't imagine the musical just now.

---

The United Church of Canada, indeed all of Christianity, is various shades of blue. The color blue is a continuum of sorts. Greta Vosper is orange. Orange is not a shade of blue.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 


Can't believe I am doing this.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The United Church of Canada, indeed all of Christianity, is various shades of blue. The color blue is a continuum of sorts. Greta Vosper is orange. Orange is not a shade of blue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
"Blue' = a colour associated by context with being conservative/traditional, sad or cool/reserved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, probably good that it wasn't a comment about shades of grey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

Mind you, I'm comfortable with my spirituality, cognitive dissonances and all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
But you still described some colours as blue and other things orange. There might be a few patches inbetween where one can't tell, but that doesn't mean one can't state that a particular colour is orange and not blue.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Boogie:
Now imagine that you were her. You love the job and the congregation and they love you.

You'd leave everything? Your home, your life, the people you love to minister to?

Why?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by hatless:
True. We can name certain colours, at least for those in a certain culture and using a certain language. Some languages don't distinguish between blue and green. Newton apparently decided there ought to be seven colours in the spectrum and gave us, at one end, blue, indigo, violet; which I don't think works very securely. If you got ten people to choose samples of those three, I think there would be poor agreement.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by hatless:
I just checked our samples for the front room walls and 'fickle pickle' a sort of olive, and 'purple unicorn' a mauve are hues which I couldn't confidently place in relation to orange or blue.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by hatless:
If blue is the truth and orange is lies

---

quote:

---

originally posted by hatless:
though neither would look right with our curtains.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

Mind you, I'm comfortable with my spirituality, cognitive dissonances and all.

---

Lucky you.

Now imagine that you were her. You love the job and the congregation and they love you.

You'd leave everything? Your home, your life, the people you love to minister to?

Why?

She's not pretending anything to anyone. Some people (I'm one of them) simply can't compartmentalise their lives. WYSIWYG.

I don't see that as a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

Now imagine that you were her. You love the job and the congregation and they love you.

---

quote:

---

You'd leave everything? Your home, your life, the people you love to minister to?

---

quote:

---

Some people (I'm one of them) simply can't compartmentalise their lives. WYSIWYG.

I don't see that as a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What God? Greta Vosper is an atheist. If the mission of the Church is to serve God and there is no God then we have a problem. And, no, the church shouldn't alter its core doctrines so that anybody who wants to be a minister can be a minister. Such an institution would have nothing to say except what it was told to say. Why would such an institution exist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I read some of the articles in the Canadian press about her today. The made several points. First was that she is in a tiny minority of ministers in the UCC. There was a survey, not completely systematic but pretty good. Her atheism and being a UCC minister is essentially a one-off = her.

The second point is that she failed to get beyond the interventionist god who does miracles and the god present but not interventionist. The called it "panentheism" and it seemed to suggest that many UCC ministers are into some form of this or in the direction of, though not fully defined in my mind after reading. I realized that some of my thinking about God is in this direction, and also, that I am probably guilty of more sophistication of understanding, even if vague, than her binary thinking. And she has formal theological training.

The third point seems to be that she has been cruising and requests - via her actions - for the very thing to which she now objects. She has wanted to be some sort of martyr. Writing things that can only be seen as directly provoking those who deal with doctrinal things.

The final point is that the church she's minister of once had 150 parishioners. 100 have left. I think she's successfully destroyed it.

I don't get her martyr wish. At all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Churches aren't just companies with particular aims. There are many denominations, but each one claims to be sufficient, perhaps comprehensive. There should be no outside to a church. A company where I don't fit can direct me to a different one, or a business start-up course, but a church ought to be able to contain me, if I wish to be contained.

---

I'm not sure about this 'sufficient, perhaps comprehensive' claim.

Theologically conservative denominations only claim to be so for those who willingly share their theology.

More moderate denominations may claim to include everyone, but they too have preferred kinds of public theological expression, which usually means they try to avoid theological extremes.

And all kinds of denominations and congregations have a constituency limited by virtue of their cultural and social positioning. The CofE, a state church, offers different worship styles and theological perspectives in different congregations.
 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I think Vosper's problem is that she went to doubt to dogmatism in her unbelief.

She claims that there are plenty of people who believe the same way she does. She might have a point, because that people have doubts, and there are people who may be honest and say that there are parts of the faith that they interpret as metaphorical rather than literal.

But it's the difference in saying the Virgin birth can be understood metaphorically and saying the Virgin Birth is as of no use whatsoever. The latter puts one outside of the Christian tradition.

I suspect that there is a continuum between believing everything in one's Tradition literally and one in which one is unsure if one believes in anything of that Tradition. However what unites them both is that Tradition is understood as worth discussing, worth reacting to, worth debating. Vosper it seems, no longer has use, at all, for the Christian Tradition.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
SPK has answered the question for me mostly. But I would note she also wrote the Moderator of the UCC about it. Which seems rather a narcisstic martyrish thing to do ! Silly at the very least.

The panentheism was used to describe a sizable group!of UCC ministers. I hadn't understood and still don't, much of what that is. Though I identified with some of what I read. I confess my ignorance.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Everybody thinks the Moderator is like the United Church's Pope.

Including the clergy. Must be the "Right Rev." thing (they are the only UC ministers who use something other than "Rev.")

The Moderator gets to chair General Council and then go around and look good. A Moderator doesn't even have the power to change the lunchroom location at Church House.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I never said that. I didn't think the Moderator was any form of elite. I just thought it put this minister even more so in the public eye. Is that so terribly wrong?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I would tend to assume that writing to any public figure (powerful or not) holding an official position in a church is equivalent to asking for that person's attention, yes. And only a fool would not realize that a public officeholder's attention often results in... publicity. Which has its costs in a case like hers.

If she did indeed do so, then, I would do her the courtesy of assuming she intended any resulting publicity. And would not be surprised at the results thereof.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Early in the thread, I posted links to Greta's own writing about her beliefs and situation, and info from her church's site. Might be worth another look, IMHO, just for balance.

These are direct links to my posts, which have the links I mentioned: from page 1 , page 2, and page 3.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
... And I think I would be happy to say that the institution of the church is worthless and no one should ever serve it. The church exists only for the purpose and reign of God. (Whatever God is.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
But it's the difference in saying the Virgin birth can be understood metaphorically and saying the Virgin Birth is as of no use whatsoever. The latter puts one outside of the Christian tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The panentheism was used to describe a sizable group!of UCC ministers. I hadn't understood and still don't, much of what that is. Though I identified with some of what I read. I confess my ignorance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The United Church prayed fervently that she would simply resign and move on, but she didn't.

---

Prayer moves mountains?



 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Another example of panentheism might be the New Testament verse about God "in whom we live, and move, and have our being".

That's a pregnancy image, though I've yet to hear it preached as such. Anyway, the baby-to-be and its entire world are inside its mother--but the mother is more than that.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The United Church prayed fervently that she would simply resign and move on, but she didn't.

---

Prayer moves mountains?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0