The Rev. Vosper Again

[Waterfall]

Agreed that the UCCanada would be dying with or without Rev. Vosper in the pulpit.

That's up to God to say.

 

[Jaebius]

That's up to God to say.

Ultimately. I agree.

I was sharing my opinion Waterfall, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The fact is, though, that the UCCanada is dying. Do you imagine that one Minister is to blame for that?

 

[Waterfall]

Ultimately. I agree.

I was sharing my opinion Waterfall, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The fact is, though, that the UCCanada is dying. Do you imagine that one Minister is to blame for that?

I never said that. I said I believe that Gretta doesn't belong in a Christian pulpit. As far as the UCC dying, it may be diminishing but it is still the largest protestant church in Canada.

 

[Jaebius]

As far as the UCC dying, it may be diminishing but it is still the largest protestant church in Canada.

The largest protestant denomination, agreed. It is dying though, and it's doing so cannot be laid only at the feet of Rev. Vosper nor any other single person.

 

[Waterfall]

The largest protestant denomination, agreed. It is dying though, and it's doing so cannot be laid only at the feet of Rev. Vosper nor any other single person.

What makes a church a "dying church"? It's size decreasing? Listening to people around here it sounds like there are some pretty active and effective churches in the UCC still going pretty strong.

 

[Jaebius]

What makes a church a "dying church"?

Depends on how the word "dying" is being used.

It's size decreasing?

That's chiefly how I'm using the word when I describe the denomination the United Church of Canada.

Listening to people around here it sounds like there are some pretty active and effective churches in the UCC still going pretty strong.

There are.

 

[Neo]

I don't think the church itself will ever die. But what will pass away are the outdated doctrines that the churches dogmatically cling on to. The same goes for mosques, temples and synagogues. It's our points of view that'll change.

The religions of the future will see a reuniting of science and faith.

 

[Mendalla]

I don't think the church itself will ever die. But what will pass away are the outdated doctrines that the churches dogmatically cling on to. The same goes for mosques, temples and synagogues. It's our our points of view that'll change.

The religions of the future will see a reuniting of science and faith.

Maybe on both. I think what we'll see is the end of big, institutional churches and a move to smaller "fellowships" (as we call them in UU'ism). It's not so much that doctrines will die as the institutions built around them will restructure to function better in a secular society. Changes in doctrine may happen in that process, but not necessarily.

And that's in the West. In countries where religion still dominates (Muslim countries, developing countries where Christianity remains strong), that won't happen until a similar shift in faith and churchgoing patterns happens.

 

[Jaebius]

Maybe on both. I think what we'll see is the end of big, institutional churches and a move to smaller "fellowships" (as we call them in UU'ism). It's not so much that doctrines will die as the institutions built around them will restructure to function better in a secular society. Changes in doctrine may happen in that process, but not necessarily.

Actually, right now in the West, it's the megachurches that are taking over. Some experiments have been tried in doing church on a small scale, true, but for the most part people are increasingly choosing big churches that they drive to over smaller-scale neighborhood churches. I'm not saying that that's a good thing - in my experience, mission is done best by small-midsized churches.

 

[revjohn]

Actually, right now in the West, it's the megachurches that are taking over.

You have figures to back that claim up?

Otherwise I am calling baloney.

 

[Mendalla]

Actually, right now in the West, it's the megachurches that are taking over. Some experiments have been tried in doing church on a small scale, true, but for the most part people are increasingly choosing big churches that they drive to over smaller-scale neighborhood churches. I'm not saying that that's a good thing - in my experience, mission is done best by small-midsized churches.

You have figures to back that claim up?

Otherwise I am calling baloney.

I would like to see the percentage of church goers who actually go to "megachurches". I also wonder how you define "megachurch". Has someone actually pinned it down precisely enough that you could actually do a study to get that percentage? "Big church with lots of members" is not precise enough and what is "mega" in the GTA, where populations tend to be high, could be different from what is "mega" in London or K-W.

 

[Neo]

Maybe on both. I think what we'll see is the end of big, institutional churches and a move to smaller "fellowships" (as we call them in UU'ism). It's not so much that doctrines will die as the institutions built around them will restructure to function better in a secular society. Changes in doctrine may happen in that process, but not necessarily.

And that's in the West. In countries where religion still dominates (Muslim countries, developing countries where Christianity remains strong), that won't happen until a similar shift in faith and churchgoing patterns happens.

But the institutions that surround the doctrines will restructure and reassess their role in society because the doctrines themselves, (some, not all) will change. And this as a result of some great revelation. Doctrines like that of the current concept of "hell", with all it's "eternal damnation for disproportionate crimes", will, without a shadow of a doubt I believe, prove to be totally unrealistic and unrepresentative of a God of Love. These are the kinds of doctrines that people in the west find hard to accept. A new concept of exactly what and where hell is has to be found, because the currently theology on the subject would be laughable if it wasn't taken so seriously by so many of our churches.

 

[Mendalla]

But the institutions that surround the doctrines will restructure and reassess their role in society because the doctrines themselves, (some, not all) will change. And this as a result of some great revelation. Doctrines like that of the current concept of "hell", with all it's "eternal damnation for disproportionate crimes", will, without a shadow of a doubt I believe, prove to be totally unrealistic and unrepresentative of a God of Love. These are the kinds of doctrines that people in the west find hard to accept. A new concept of exactly what and where hell is has to be found, because the currently theology on the subject would be laughable if it wasn't taken so seriously by so many of our churches.

People believed in punishment in the afterlife long before there was a Christianity. I see no reason to believe it will die, even if the Christian version of it goes away. After, Muslims believe in Hell and they aren't fading right now. I think you are making the incorrect assumption that hatred is tied to religious doctrine. It is not. It is a human failing found everywhere and, if anything, the doctrines reflectthat failing as much as they actually promote it. We have even had the spectacle of Buddhists persecuting Muslims in Myanmar/Burma and Buddism is the last religion many would expect to see it crop up. As long as people continue to make other people the "other" and seek to separate themselves from that "other", doctrines like this cannot die. I would love to believe that one day, humans will all embrace something like the UU first principle (respect for the inherent worth and dignity of EVERY person). History tells me I would be a fool to believe it.

Since we cannot, in the foreseeable future, see an end to hatred and "othering", we who do not embrace these ideas need to find ways to mitigate and minimize their effects. To pursue a foolish, idealistic notion that we can actually get rid of them and neglect to deal with the suffering already caused by them would simply cause more harm, not solve anything.

 

[Waterfall]

I have no idea if the mega churches are taking over, probably balony as revjohn says, and while I prefer a smaller church I have noticed that the very large churches offer numerous things to do throughout the week. Often 3 options every night of the week. Women's groups, teen groups, prayer groups, counselling, sports, men's groups, bible studies, addiction help, divorce groups, food banks, activities for young people, etc.....It seems to be beneficial to reinforce and support one's spirituality.

 

[Jaebius]

You have figures to back that claim up?

Otherwise I am calling baloney.

It's something that's been mentioned by professors in seminary numerous times John. I imagine that's changed since the days when you were in sem. If I can find the time maybe I can dig up some numbers for you.

 

[paradox3]

Some, possibly many, could have "sensed" that their minister had lost faith, despite the "acting out" through their service on Sunday. Their church may have become "dead" in the community with no usefulness other than a shallow Sunday service. So rather than remove the minister, many within that congregation may have chosen to remove themselves and go to another denomination. You may be right, maybe there are many "Grettas" in the pulpits that have corrupted the main stream church as a whole. It might explain some of the decline in membership and the increase in numbers for the evangelicals.

If you are referring to Gretta's congregation at WHUC you are correct in saying that many chose to remove themselves.

But I can only name a couple of individuals who switched denominations. Most of us settled into other United Church of Canada congregations.

And there are some who stopped attending West Hill but did not go anywhere else.

 

[Jaebius]

It's something that's been mentioned by professors in seminary numerous times John. I imagine that's changed since the days when you were in sem. If I can find the time maybe I can dig up some numbers for you.

Here's an interesting article... http://www.preachitteachit.org/articles/detail/why-megachurches-keep-growing/

 

[Neo]

People believed in punishment in the afterlife long before there was a Christianity. I see no reason to believe it will die, even if the Christian version of it goes away. After, Muslims believe in Hell and they aren't fading right now. I think you are making the incorrect assumption that hatred is tied to religious doctrine. It is not. It is a human failing found everywhere and, if anything, the doctrines reflectthat failing as much as they actually promote it. We have even had the spectacle of Buddhists persecuting Muslims in Myanmar/Burma and Buddism is the last religion many would expect to see it crop up. As long as people continue to make other people the "other" and seek to separate themselves from that "other", doctrines like this cannot die. I would love to believe that one day, humans will all embrace something like the UU first principle (respect for the inherent worth and dignity of EVERY person). History tells me I would be a fool to believe it.

Since we cannot, in the foreseeable future, see an end to hatred and "othering", we who do not embrace these ideas need to find ways to mitigate and minimize their effects. To pursue a foolish, idealistic notion that we can actually get rid of them and neglect to deal with the suffering already caused by them would simply cause more harm, not solve anything.

No, I don't believe it will go away altogether but I do see it being viewed in a different light, a much more clearer and less self centred light. And this couldn't be more true than it will be for the Christian version hell, the one where God judges the souls of all unrepentant sinners into an everlasting infernal of fire. The idea that God, for a single life of indiscretion, would forever cast that soul into a hell of eternal torment says to me that something was lost in the translation.

***

You said "As long as people continue to make other people the "other" and seek to separate themselves from that "other", doctrines like this cannot die". I couldn't agree with your more.

 

[chansen]

You and I are at opposite ends on this issue. I do not believe that an atheist belongs in the pulpit of a Christian church. You do.

I don't care if people believe of not. That's not not my criteria for anything. I like that really devout believers lead other churches, because what they say is hilarious. I kinda like the UCCan and I think they would profit from a diverse leadership and being seen as the church in Canada that doesn't require literal belief in God and Jesus to belong or lead. Move in on the UU's turf, as it were, because they have lousy market penetration. Instead, some want to move in on the turf of the Presbyterians and other churches, who are pretty much in every town that has a United Church.

I also believe young people, as they get older, will be returning to faith at an alarming rate in the future.

Every age demographic is currently experiencing a downturn in religiosity in Canada, but things could change. Certainly, they will level off. What religious people need to do is out-breed atheists. You're not convincing many people at all, but if you pump out babies at an alarming rate and tell them God exists before they can think for themselves, you're in with a chance.

 

[Jaebius]

I don't care if people believe of not. That's not not my criteria for anything. I like that really devout believers lead other churches, because what they say is hilarious. I kinda like the UCCan and I think they would profit from a diverse leadership and being seen as the church in Canada that doesn't require literal belief in God and Jesus to belong or lead. Move in on the UU's turf, as it were, because they have lousy market penetration. Instead, some want to move in on the turf of the Presbyterians and other churches, who are pretty much in every town that has a United Church.


Every age demographic is currently experiencing a downturn in religiosity in Canada, but things could change. Certainly, they will level off. What religious people need to do is out-breed atheists. You're not convincing many people at all, but if you pump out babies at an alarming rate and tell them God exists before they can think for themselves, you're in with a chance.

Interesting chansen. So you would have a number of non-Christians in pulpits in the United Church of Canada. You do understand that the United Church is a denomination within the Church universal which is considered by Christians to be the body of Christ the head of which is Christ... right?