The Rev. Vosper Again

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
BetteTheRed said:
That itself worries me. Seems to me that there's been a step towards 'control' that didn't exist in the UCCan prior to this decision.
Click to expand...
Control or seeking of clarification, depending where you find yourself in this controversy. I loved the Moderator's comment about our core values being in conflict. . . our wish to be an open, inclusive church and our belief in God.

It seems to me we need to resolve this conflict of core values somehow.

Gretta can lament all she likes about how adversarial and divisive the process has become. She herself set it in motion as evidenced by her own congregation's history.
 
BetteTheRed said:
A vote on what, Inukshuk? I would think that this whole process would make some ministers very nervous.
Click to expand...

"General Council 42 narrowly approved a motion to take no action on mandating a review of Section 11 of the Basis of Union, but the concern will still have to be dealt with by the Executive of the General Council.
The decision was made by a commission, a decision-making body, dealing with a proposal from Toronto Conference to instruct the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee “to undertake a broad based and theological review of the Basis of Union” section that deals with the questions asked of people as they are ordained or commissioned."
http://www.gc42.ca/news/take-no-action-basis-union-proposal

I think this entire issue needs wider discussion within the church.
 
Jae said:
Fencing the pulpit is important.
Click to expand...

If you are erecting a fence, that implies something harmful might get in. In the world of belief, something is only harmful if we define it as such or if we let it be so (this is quite apart from actual wolves, like sexual predators or abusive personalities, who do need to be kept out). Exposing those in the pews to a range of belief, to let them come to their own conclusions, is the highest form of religion IMHO. Sheltering them, fearing that such exposure might lead them to think new thoughts or want to pursue their spirituality in new ways, is patronizing and paternalistic. If you have to shield them, rather than convince them, to keep them on the path, then how strong is what you believe, really?
 
Inukshuk said:
"General Council 42 narrowly approved a motion to take no action on mandating a review of Section 11 of the Basis of Union, but the concern will still have to be dealt with by the Executive of the General Council.
The decision was made by a commission, a decision-making body, dealing with a proposal from Toronto Conference to instruct the Theology and Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee “to undertake a broad based and theological review of the Basis of Union” section that deals with the questions asked of people as they are ordained or commissioned."
http://www.gc42.ca/news/take-no-action-basis-union-proposal

I think this entire issue needs wider discussion within the church.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a timely one. But sometimes I just have to shake my head at this denomination. Remit 6 (expanding the doctrine section of the basis of union) was a very recent attempt to address United Church theology.
 
Mendalla said:
If you are erecting a fence, that implies something harmful might get in. In the world of belief, something is only harmful if we define it as such or if we let it be so (this is quite apart from actual wolves, like sexual predators or abusive personalities, who do need to be kept out). Exposing those in the pews to a range of belief, to let them come to their own conclusions, is the highest form of religion IMHO. Sheltering them, fearing that such exposure might lead them to think new thoughts or want to pursue their spirituality in new ways, is patronizing and paternalistic. If you have to shield them, rather than convince them, to keep them on the path, then how strong is what you believe, really?
Click to expand...

Respectfully Mendalla, I disagree. I see it as a pastor's job to feed her or his flock well. As such, only good, wholesome, nutritious foods should be fed. Those shepherds who feed otherwise should be kept out.
 
Jae said:
Respectfully Mendalla, I disagree. I see it as a pastor's job to feed her or his flock well. As such, only good, wholesome, nutritious foods should be fed. Those shepherds who feed otherwise should be kept out.
Click to expand...

So, no role to encourage thinking, teach them how to learn, learn from them as they learn from the pastor? Just spoon-feed them the doctrine? That may be the Baptist way but even in my day, it was not the UCCan way.
 
Those "strange teachings" may be not be in line with the doctrine and the dogma that "the Church" has denoted as truth.
 
Mendalla said:
To be fair, it depends on what teachings you find "strange". For me, teaching that we are all sinners and need to be saved to stay out of Hell is kind of strange. :whistle:
Click to expand...
This is one of those "control" doctrines that the Church uses to keep the people ignorant and afraid.
 
The teachings of Maitreya is not a "control" doctrine. While it is definitely "strange", compared to the orthodox teachings of the past, it just may turn out to be one of the biggest truths in our midst.
 
Hmmm... looks like Mendalla deleted his post on Maitreya. Yes, you're right Paradox, we are getting off topic.
 
I have been just reading posts in this thread and not contributing until recently. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with Gretta Vosper. I read something she wrote a few years ago, and quite liked some of what she had to say about moving beyond god language. I was curious when I heard her first being described as an atheist and wondered if that was a label put on her because of her unusual teachings. I saw her interviewed and heard her call herself an atheist. I now have mixed feelings. On the one hand, it is great that she has gotten us talking and thinking. That is part of the role of ministers and leaders. I also don't have a problem with someone rattling the chains of the church, and shaking things up. I do wonder how can she be a leader in a Christian organization if she is an atheist.
 
Inukshuk said:
I am wondering if the hearing will end with a vote at General Council 2018.
Click to expand...
nope.it is not appropriate (or feasible really) to have that large a body making the final determination on one individual so GC43 would not be voting on the disposition of Gretta's case. The hearing will be held, GCE will make the determination and any appeal will likely have to go to the civil courts (I think the Judicial Committee is now out of the picture, someone may correct me if I am wrong).

4 years ago we went through a process to determine what the United Church, as a corporate entity, believes. Since Union clergy have been required to be in essential agreement with what the corporate entity believes (though it is arguable there are now contradictions or within the doctrine). I can not see any rational person believing that the essential agreement place was only to be at ordination/commisssioning and that one could stop being in essential agreement, make it openly known that one is no longer in essential agreement and not expect to be called on that.

Could the ordination/commissioning vows be reworked? maybe. But they will still include belief in God. They will still ask if you feel called to the specific ministry (diaconal or ordained) and the tasks within that stream of ministry. Candidates will still be asked to wrestle with the docrtine of the church and determine, in community, if they are in essential agreement. And I do not think we will ever really define "essential"
 
Neo said:
Hmmm... looks like Mendalla deleted his post on Maitreya. Yes, you're right Paradox, we are getting off topic.
Click to expand...

I was hoping you hadn't noticed it, yet. Decided it was a bit offensive to you and your co-believers but I guess no more so than calling classical Christian atonement "strange".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neo
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top