The Rev. Vosper Again

[paradox3]

I'm not that gullible. I know enough of you would rather watch the church burn than work out an arrangement with nonbelievers. But hey, dare to dream.

You are making an assumption that becoming more inclusive of non-believers will result in increased membership. How do you know this?

If you look to West Hill as an example, it lost two-thirds of its membership when it made the theological shift you are advocating. True enough it has been able to rebuild over the past decade but it still struggles financially and with volunteerism.

Gretta recently stated that the average age in her congregation is 60 and she is hopeful that more young folks will be drawn to Oasis.

 

[revsdd]

I'm a skier and I've learned to coexist with snowboarders. This is not a joke. It's the same damn thing.

It is not "the same damn thing." Skiers are skiers and snowboarders are snowboarders. They have some things in common - for some inexplicable reason they find sliding down hills on snow on cold days to be fun. But they are not the same thing. BMO Field hosts both Toronto FC and the Toronto Argonauts. But soccer is not football, and the players aren't interchangeable. The Air Canada Centre hosts both the Toronto Raptors and the Toronto Maple Leafs, but basketball is not hockey, and the players aren't interchangeable.

Your problem, chansen - it's an ironic one that you share with many people now in the church - is that you want to "save" the United Church. In your case because you think we're the "least crazy" of the churches (a paraphrase, but I think it accurately assesses your view.) You think that moving in Gretta's direction holds out a chance to do that. I think probably not. The church will not be saved by trying desperately to save itself. Being concerned with our own survival only makes us desperate rather than passionate. That's manifested by Gretta (and you) in the desperate idea that atheism should be an option. "Let's just open the field to everyone regardless of what they believe." It's manifested in many congregations by "cut the budget - cut the budget - cut the budget." Neither work. To continue with the sports analogy, the first assumes that a basketball team could make itself better by adding hockey players to its roster while the second assumes that the road to success is by dramatically cutting the payroll so that it's impossible to attract good players.

@Waterfall is on the right track. The future of the church is by reaching out to the marginalized and underprivileged and poor. By focusing on mission rather than buildings. On people's gifts rather than their money. That defies the world's idea of success - because in material terms buildings and money are security and the marginalized and underprivileged and poor have so little of that to offer. But what the church has to learn is that it's not about attracting more people who can offer something to us; it's about finding those who desperately need the church to offer something to them. And, unfortunately, that's going to be a long hard learning process, and the church is going to continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Of that I have no doubt. I've sometimes used the biblical story of the Exodus as an analogy. An entire generation had to die off before the people were able to get to the Promised Land, because that older generation was so fixated on things as they had been. Even though they were in slavery - damn, they had onions! We think we had it good when we were rich and powerful and had buildings bursting at the seams. All that made us do was lose sight of what we were about. And now we have an entire generation of churchgoers who can't imagine any other way of being the church. And embracing atheism isn't going to accomplish a thing.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Is there a difference between being accepted, and embraced? I don't want to be embraced, thank you, but I would like my presence, and my world view, to be accepted. Not celebrated, but respected as a belief system that is a logical consequence of this denomination's own ethos of acceptance of diversity and its own education system.

 

[Waterfall]

. I've sometimes used the biblical story of the Exodus as an analogy. An entire generation had to die off before the people were able to get to the Promised Land, because that older generation was so fixated on things as they had been. Even though they were in slavery - damn, they had onions! We think we had it good when we were rich and powerful and had buildings bursting at the seams. All that made us do was lose sight of what we were about. And now we have an entire generation of churchgoers who can't imagine any other way of being the church. And embracing atheism isn't going to accomplish a thing.

I like this analogy.

 

[paradox3]

Is there a difference between being accepted, and embraced? I don't want to be embraced, thank you, but I would like my presence, and my world view, to be accepted. Not celebrated, but respected as a belief system that is a logical consequence of this denomination's own ethos of acceptance of diversity and its own education system.

You have described your belief system to us in a few different ways, Bette. Sometimes you say you are an atheist, sometimes you say you are straddling panentheism, pantheism and atheism. Not too long ago you told us there is a lot of talk about Jesus in your circles.

You are a big supporter of Vosper but it seems to me you are not exactly where she is in her thinking. I believe Gretta has arrived at a post-Christian worldview and I am not sure you have. If Jesus is still important to you I would say you are not a post-Christian.

But aside from that, are you accepting of more traditional believers in your faith community? Or do you want your church to start using the language of secular humanism?

I agree that where Gretta has arrived in her theology is a logical consequence of her education and so on. But I would argue that there are other equally logical conclusions that can be reached.

 

[dreamerman]

Technically I guess I am still a member of a UCC congregation even though I haven't been to a service in over a year. The reason being is I don't believe in God but that is not the only reason. The music is not my thing. They still use a pipe organ. Sitting on those hard benches for almost an hour is also not for me. I am sure others feel the same way about the music and the hard benches but they believe in God and probably feel a sort of obligation to go. Actually if the church I use to attend did more for the marginalized and the poor I would probably go back despite the theology.

 

[chansen]

You are making an assumption that becoming more inclusive of non-believers will result in increased membership. How do you know this?

If you look to West Hill as an example, it lost two-thirds of its membership when it made the theological shift you are advocating. True enough it has been able to rebuild over the past decade but it still struggles financially and with volunteerism.

Gretta recently stated that the average age in her congregation is 60 and she is hopeful that more young folks will be drawn to Oasis.

And that makes her even more like you.

People are not believing like they used to. You aren't reversing that. You can try to work out an arrangement where post-theists have a place to go to engage in the things that matter to them.

 

[paradox3]

And that makes her even more like you.

People are not believing like they used to. You aren't reversing that. You can try to work out an arrangement where post-theists have a place to go to engage in the things that matter to them.

Yes we could. It is one direction the denomination could choose to take.

Whether or not it would be a successful strategy is another story.

It could possibly bring us some new members and it could also cost us many existing ones.

 

[chansen]

It is not "the same damn thing." Skiers are skiers and snowboarders are snowboarders. They have some things in common - for some inexplicable reason they find sliding down hills on snow on cold days to be fun. But they are not the same thing. BMO Field hosts both Toronto FC and the Toronto Argonauts. But soccer is not football, and the players aren't interchangeable. The Air Canada Centre hosts both the Toronto Raptors and the Toronto Maple Leafs, but basketball is not hockey, and the players aren't interchangeable.

It is the same thing because those groups have arrived at partnerships and arrangements that are mutually beneficial. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying the church has to ditch Jesus. I'm saying you could try to work something out.

Your problem, chansen - it's an ironic one that you share with many people now in the church - is that you want to "save" the United Church. In your case because you think we're the "least crazy" of the churches (a paraphrase, but I think it accurately assesses your view.) You think that moving in Gretta's direction holds out a chance to do that. I think probably not. The church will not be saved by trying desperately to save itself. Being concerned with our own survival only makes us desperate rather than passionate. That's manifested by Gretta (and you) in the desperate idea that atheism should be an option. "Let's just open the field to everyone regardless of what they believe." It's manifested in many congregations by "cut the budget - cut the budget - cut the budget." Neither work. To continue with the sports analogy, the first assumes that a basketball team could make itself better by adding hockey players to its roster while the second assumes that the road to success is by dramatically cutting the payroll so that it's impossible to attract good players.

@Waterfall is on the right track. The future of the church is by reaching out to the marginalized and underprivileged and poor. By focusing on mission rather than buildings. On people's gifts rather than their money. That defies the world's idea of success - because in material terms buildings and money are security and the marginalized and underprivileged and poor have so little of that to offer. But what the church has to learn is that it's not about attracting more people who can offer something to us; it's about finding those who desperately need the church to offer something to them. And, unfortunately, that's going to be a long hard learning process, and the church is going to continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Of that I have no doubt. I've sometimes used the biblical story of the Exodus as an analogy. An entire generation had to die off before the people were able to get to the Promised Land, because that older generation was so fixated on things as they had been. Even though they were in slavery - damn, they had onions! We think we had it good when we were rich and powerful and had buildings bursting at the seams. All that made us do was lose sight of what we were about. And now we have an entire generation of churchgoers who can't imagine any other way of being the church. And embracing atheism isn't going to accomplish a thing.

If that's the case, let's just tell everyone who does not believe that they are not welcome. That their views make them ineligible for membership.

But you won't do that, will you? Other churches will. If you want to be like other churches, then get to work making sure you are all believers.

You're not like other churches. You're better. But you're stuck in this rut of belief in the unbelievable being a requirement for leadership, just not membership. And that creates a second class of members.

 

[paradox3]

You're not like other churches. You're better. But you're stuck in this rut of belief in the unbelievable being a requirement for leadership, just not membership. And that creates a second class of members.

So you have been in a United Church community of faith and witnessed this first and second class division of members, have you?

 

[Waterfall]

Unbelievers are always welcome.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Jesus came to reveal the truth. He did not give equal hearing to every whim of every person. People came to him and were transformed. It is the responsibility of the church to continue in revealing the truth. Not become a wishy washy entity where anything goes. The church that has lost it's focus is already dead.

 

[chansen]

Yes we could. It is one direction the denomination could choose to take.

Whether or not it would be a successful strategy is another story.

It could possibly bring us some new members and it could also cost us many existing ones.

Ordaining gays did the same. Everything is a decision to be weighed.

Maybe I'm wrong. But from what I understand, you guys created this. You gave people latitude to come to their own conclusions, and now you don't like the conclusions they reached.

 

[chansen]

Unbelievers are always welcome.

How is that different from when Jae says women are welcome? You'll happily like my posts when I point out that hypocrisy.

 

[GordW]

And therein is part of the rub. Implies that theistic is a higher standard than non-theistic. Valuing dogma over values.

I disagree. The UCCan, by its statements of faith, proclaims the presence (and existence) of God. TO insist that those selected for membership in the order of ministry accept that premise is simply asking them to align themselves with the organization. Not a higher moral standard, a higher standard of agreement/dedication.

 

[GordW]

I very much liked the way the moderator described the Vosper scenario as one of conflict between two core values in the United Church . . . belief in God and our desire to be an open and inclusive church.

ALthough that second core value has become more of an idol than a value...

 

[paradox3]

And therein is part of the rub. Implies that theistic is a higher standard than non-theistic. Valuing dogma over values.

We discussed this business of belief vs. values at great length on the original WC particularly in the context of Gretta's first book. In my opinion it is a false dichotomy because in a life of faith the two are intertwined.

I also feel it is a big mistake to think that Gretta is free of dogma. Her very insistence that her style of worship is "theologically barrier-free" can itself be seen as a dogmatic statement.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Do you not agree that the language inside our Sunday services is a barrier to those who don't understand Christian metaphors and Christian liturgical conventions?

 

[paradox3]

Do you not agree that the language inside our Sunday services is a barrier to those who don't understand Christian metaphors and Christian liturgical conventions?

Yes, they can be but there are many congregations seeking to be more contemporary and understandable. Without resorting to the language of secular humanism.

 

[Lastpointe]

Perhaps it is for those new to the church. But it is part of the learning curve is it not?

I sat in our service once behind a young couple i did not know. It is our tradition to sing the Lords Prayer. I realised they did not know the words and quickly found it in the hymnbook and passed it over. A quick suggestion to the minister that we print the words or the hymn number solved that issue

And i think lots of things can work that way.

People new to the church , who didnt attend as children , may not know the routines. That doesnt mean the language and routines need to change. It means they need to be shown