The Rev. Vosper Again

[revsdd]

Simply taking courses, though, isn't enough to give one Christian beliefs. The UCCanada might still have an atheist in one of its pulpits. As for the church, whyever should they be given the building they meet in for free? Let them buy it or rent it if they want to carry on as a non-UCCanada organization.

And what I said (geez, you people have trouble reading) is that I'd make her take a directed course of study and then be re-interviewed. And apparently you don't understand the phrase "for a nominal fee."

 

[chansen]

And what I said (geez, you people have trouble reading) is that I'd make her take a directed course of study and then be re-interviewed. And apparently you don't understand the phrase "for a nominal fee."

To be fair, she isn't being reviewed because she is deficient in United Church doctrine, history or polity. They aren't reviewing her for that.

Agreed. If they ask her to take courses, they are simply delaying the inevitable. Perhaps it will help her in handling her relations with the rest of the church, but it is unlikely it will lead to a moment of revelation where she "returns to God".

We know it won't. Most of them probably know it as well. Some on the committee probably don't actually believe. They may want to at least keep up appearances that it might.

 

[Jaebius]

And what I said (geez, you people have trouble reading) is that I'd make her take a directed course of study and then be re-interviewed. And apparently you don't understand the phrase "for a nominal fee."

What you suggested Steven is that she be made to take courses on, "United Church doctrine, United Church history, United Church polity" Thing is, even if a person is taught so that they have a good grasp on those things, they might still not be a believer in Christ. People can understand the doctrines without holding them to be true. There are Muslims who have an excellent grasp of Christian theology, and yet don't believe it.

As for the "nominal fee," yes, I noticed that you said that regarding the congregation renting the building.

However, you also commented that the congregation might just be allowed to take the building. The way I took that, you meant the congregation gets to keep the building, no payment made. Perhaps you actually meant buy the building?

 

[Mendalla]

If she decided to go to the UUs, that would be quite the shot in the arm for them.

IF. She wasn't the most respectful towards us at times in the past and will have to, ironically, probably have to take courses in UU history, polity, etc. The GTA is a bit UU saturated, too, but if she did a plant with her West Hill folks as the core, I imagine she would do okay. The one thing she might need to work on is, again, showing respect for those who disagree with her including (yes, they do exist) theist and Christian UUs she encounters. We are congregational and encourage diversity. If she pisses off a significant proportion of a UU congregation, it won't split or if it does, it won't necessarily be in her favour. She'll either be canned or have to leave under a cloud and there's no presbytery or conference to appeal to. I've seen it happen (sadly, I was on the minister's side in that case).

 

[chansen]

IF. She wasn't the most respectful towards us at times in the past and will have to, ironically, probably have to take courses in UU history, polity, etc. The GTA is a bit UU saturated, too, but if she did a plant with her West Hill folks as the core, I imagine she would do okay. The one thing she might need to work on is, again, showing respect for those who disagree with her including (yes, they do exist) theist and Christian UUs she encounters. We are congregational and encourage diversity. If she pisses off a significant proportion of a UU congregation, it won't split or if it does, it won't necessarily be in her favour. She'll either be canned or have to leave under a cloud and there's no presbytery or conference to appeal to. I've seen it happen (sadly, I was on the minister's side in that case).

I don't think she is the rabble-rouser malcontent who shouts down those who disagree with her, that she is portrayed as being in UCCan circles. She promotes non-belief. In the UU's, that's not the irritant that it is in the UCCan.

 

[chansen]

Gretta's Twitter feed suggests no decision until perhaps September. Man, you guys can drag things out.

 

[revsdd]

What you suggested Steven is that she be made to take courses on, "United Church doctrine, United Church history, United Church polity" Thing is, even if a person is taught so that they have a good grasp on those things, they might still not be a believer in Christ. People can understand the doctrines without holding them to be true. There are Muslims who have an excellent grasp of Christian theology, and yet don't believe it.

As for the "nominal fee," yes, I noticed that you said that regarding the congregation renting the building.

However, you also commented that the congregation might just be allowed to take the building. The way I took that, you meant the congregation gets to keep the building, no payment made. Perhaps you actually meant buy the building?

To be clear - my reference to "a nominal fee" was meant in both cases. IE, sell for a nominal fee or rent for a nominal fee.

As to courses - I don't have time at the moment. I will explain my thinking on that later in the day.

 

[revsdd]

I don't think she is the rabble-rouser malcontent who shouts down those who disagree with her, that she is portrayed as being in UCCan circles. She promotes non-belief. In the UU's, that's not the irritant that it is in the UCCan.

Uh - that's because the UU isn't the UCCan.

 

[Mendalla]

To be clear - my reference to "a nominal fee" was meant in both cases. IE, sell for a nominal fee or rent for a nominal fee.

Define "nominal". If it is anything less than FMV, then churches that had to pay FMV or higher to buy or rent space in her presbytery (and we are talking GTA so I'm sure FMV isn't "nominal" as I understand the term) should blow a gasket.

 

[chansen]

Well, what are they paying in rent right now? Let them pay that.

 

[Jaebius]

Well, what are they paying in rent right now? Let them pay that.

Do they rent right now? As I understand it, the UCCanada owns UCCanada church buildings.

 

[chansen]

Uh - that's because the UU isn't the UCCan.

Right. That's what I'm saying. In the UUs, she doesn't need to "irritate the church into the 21st century".

In healthy organizations, you need people who don't just follow. You need other points of view. The United Church now has Cruxifusion. You guys need Gretta, and preferably an organization around Gretta that promotes nonbelief within the church, in the same way that Cruxifusion promotes belief. Call it "Cruxifiction".

 

[chansen]

Do they rent right now? As I understand it, the UCCanada owns UCCanada church buildings.

So the UCCan bought the land and building and planted a church back during the time of terrible church architecture in the 60s and 70s? Who paid for it?

 

[Mendalla]

I don't think she is the rabble-rouser malcontent who shouts down those who disagree with her, that she is portrayed as being in UCCan circles. She promotes non-belief. In the UU's, that's not the irritant that it is in the UCCan.

True, but we also do not "promote non-belief"; we are a church that believes that each member should be free to find their own path. We promote a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning" and belief in some form of God is (or should be) allowed, just not promoted or enforced any more than any other belief.

We have two principles that come into play here:

Respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

This means that many UU congregations are diverse theologically and rightly expect that all religious views will be accepted (not just tolerated). In such an environment, the minister is best to land on neutral ground theologically, focussing on shared values (as she tends to do, to be fair) and allowing diverse theological voices to be heard through lay-led or guest-led services if she doesn't speak to them herself. For instance, if a theist (of some stripe, not necessarily Christian) UU wants to do a service on their understanding of God and how it informs their UU'ism, it should be allowed regardless of the minister's beliefs.

My question to Gretta, were she to become a UU, is whether that would be the case in her ministry. Would a Christian or other theist UU (e.g. our UU pagans) feel welcome and accepted in her church or would they find themselves feeling marginalized by her effort to sideline spirituality in favour of "shared values"? Would she promote a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning" or "non-belief"? If she was really trying to be a UU, it would be the former.

 

[Mendalla]

Do they rent right now? As I understand it, the UCCanada owns UCCanada church buildings.

So the UCCan bought the land and building and planted a church back during the time of terrible church architecture in the 60s and 70s? Who paid for it?

UCCan churches do not rent their church from the UCCan. The property is held in trust for their use by (IIRC) Presbytery and the congregation pays the costs of upkeep (putting up a building, utilities, fixing what is broken, insurance, etc.) but not any kind of rent. In fact, they can (probably with presbytery's permission) rent out space in the building to others. My family church hosted (and I think still does) a co-op day care.

 

[chansen]

My question to Gretta, were she to become a UU, is whether that would be the case in her ministry. Would a Christian or other theist UU (e.g. our UU pagans) feel welcome and accepted in her church or would they find themselves feeling marginalized by her effort to sideline spirituality in favour of "shared values"? Would she promote a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning" or "non-belief"? If was really a UU, it would be the former.

I don't know. It's a good question.

Clearly, pulling in one direction - toward belief - is seen as a good thing in UCCan circles. I think they should be honest with themselves and recognize that non-belief is a growing segment of their identity, and instead of kicking them out, have them represented and advocated for as well.

The UUs are about the search, and all paths are seen as viable. If the UCCan can have groups that advocate for one path, but a significant number of them choose another path, the miniority should be able to advocate for that path. That's the healthy thing to allow, given that you've gone this far down the road where you already have a significant population of nonbelievers.

 

[chansen]

UCCan churches do not rent their church from the UCCan. The property is held in trust for their use by (IIRC) Presbytery and the congregation pays the costs of upkeep (putting up a building, utilities, fixing what is broken, insurance, etc.) but not any kind of rent. In fact, they can (probably with presbytery's permission) rent out space in the building to others. My family church hosted (and I think still does) a co-op day care.

Right, but who bought the place? Who paid for the land and construction?

 

[Mendalla]

Right, but who bought the place? Who paid for the land and construction?

The congregation, AFAIK, pays for the construction of the building. Someone else more familiar with UCCan polity will have to enlighten us on how the land purchase and trust works (@GordW? @revsdd?)

 

[Mendalla]

That's the healthy thing to allow, given that you've gone this far down the road where you already have a significant population of nonbelievers.

Actually, in my fellowship, the problem was not believers pushing out non-believers but quite the opposite. We lost a very good member because the humanists decided she didn't belong (that almost cost them me as well once I learned what happened). I got away with a lot because my agnosticism straddled the line enough that my penchant for quoting the Bible and using words like "God" didn't offend anyone enough, I guess.

 

[chansen]

There is always going to be a tug-o-war over beliefs. Acknowledge it. You can't pretend it doesn't exist. You can insist that everyone believe, but they've let that go for so long, that now non-belief is a thing in the UCCan. They seem accepting of that, even among clergy, so long as you remain in the closet and don't promote non-belief. So they want the members, but they don't want the reputation of accepting non-belief.

What I'm saying is, allow them to be themselves within the framework of the UCCan. If you want to do something similar to "Affirming" with those churches that are more accepting of non-believers, make that distinction. But they've let this go far too long to kill it now, without some major pain as a result.

What the UCCan will have to put up with as a result, is mockery from other denominations. That's nothing new - they already think you're going to hell in a handbasket. The other thing is that Cruxifusion will have a bird. I doubt they want competition. But if they're afraid of non-belief, how persuasive can they possibly be? Do they really need a closed system where no one is allowed to advocate for another path?