United With God

[paradox3]

(I recognize that P3 was not amongst those, and I respect that, but if you're going to be all congregationalist, which we are, you've got to let Boards do what they feel they need to in order to direct their own congregation the best way they know how.)

As much as I disagree with Gretta I disagree with the actions of the Board at the time. Had they sought input from the congregation at large things could have played out very differently.

The large number of departures which eventually took place speaks to this.

And I would argue that we are not "all congregationalist" in the United Church. The revs around here have discussed their responsibility to the wider church many times.

 

[chansen]

I was being a bit flippant, because I really am sick and tired of chansen's argument to be blunt. It's obvious that he thinks I need to get out of the United Church, because I won't stay in a church that isn't explicitly Christian and I've said that.

Lots of skiers said similar things in the early 90s.

But I don't think you should leave. There is a difference between making room, and being shoved out. I'm suggesting you make room.

Many others (I suspect the large majority) would feel the same way. So as much as theists are accused of trying to drive atheists out, the same is true in reverse, because they know that the vast majority of Christians want to be in a Christian church and aren't interested in UU-lite. I'm also sick of the whole Greta/atheism thing. And, in fact, what I said actually does speak to chansen's point.

You guys are already Christianity-Lite. What I'm suggesting would not fundamentally change that. UU-Lite would be...I'm not even sure. But the analogy would be Diet Rice Cakes.

You won't get kicked out of the church if you switch from theism to atheism. We've already covered that. Nor do we prevent atheists (or sort-of atheists) from being in positions of leadership and presumably sharing and teaching what they believe. As we've already heard, Bette is in a position of leadership in her own congregation. However, to be a ski instructor at a ski club one must be a ski instructor who understands how to ski. To teach and model Christian faith in a Christian church (which is the purpose of ministry) one must be a Christian. To be a minister one must agree to do certain things. "Word, sacrament and pastoral care" as we've discussed - and Greta's competency and willingness to do all three is in question. So, could the ski instructor at chansen's ski club keep his/her job if he/she insisted on teaching people who wanted to learn to ski how to snowboard?

You're channeling Jae here: Women get to lead in the FEBCC. They just can't have some leadership jobs.

What your twist on the analogy insists (and why must my perfectly fine analogy be twisted into something that I'm not saying and does not happen?) is that some instructors go rogue and insist people convert to their way of thinking. Look back on this thread. Who is actually setting a bar where members need to believe something in particular and if they don't believe (or disbelieve it) they do not belong? I'd say it's Dave. Your analogy twist describes Dave.

 

[paradox3]

Who is actually setting a bar where members need to believe something in particular and if they don't believe (or disbelieve it) they do not belong? I'd say it's Dave. Your analogy twist describes Dave.

There already is a bar.

For clergy it is essential agreement and for lay members of the church it is a profession of faith (admittedly much less rigorous than essential agreement.)

We have many adherents in the United Church who have chosen not to take out full membership. I know you are not going to believe this but our adherents are not second class citizens.

Whether or not we are going to change the bar is what we are discussing here.

 

[Mendalla]

for lay members of the church it is a profession of faith (admittedly much less rigorous than essential agreement.)

As it should be. I see a point to minister's being held to a higher standard. As I understand it, though, the profession is not standardized across the UCCan and exactly what is used in a given congregation is up to the minister and board? I seem to recall that being said.

 

[Dave Henderson]

Triune God. Very important. Got it.

And please don't hijack my perfectly fine analogy, screw it up, then blame me. Ski clubs hire both ski and snowboard instructors. I don't know a single one that doesn't. Have a do-over if you'd like.

Hi Chansen, And when it's time for snowboard lessons, the snowboarders show up. When it's time for ski lessons, the skiers show up. If a snowboarder shows up at a ski lesson or vice versa, they will need to adhere to the discipline being offered. And if a snowboard instructor stands in front of a group of snowboarders and says, "I'm going to teach you about skiing," they should change the instructor, not force the snowboarders to learn skiing. But the point is moot. In the case of the United Church of Canada, there is a single faith community professing a single faith - Christianity. One can attend the Unitarian church and worship a set of principles, or one of the new OASIS communities, and have fellowship. But if one takes part in a United Church service, they should expect the worship of God.

 

[Dave Henderson]

See my avatar. The lion and the lamb co-exist.

Yes crazyheart, they co-exist under one faith.

 

[Mendalla]

One can attend the Unitarian church and worship a set of principles, or one of the new OASIS communities, and have fellowship. But if one takes part in a United Church service, they should expect the worship of God.

Funnily enough, I've been basically saying this on WC and WC2 for years. There are options for those who do not believe. If I were to return to the UCCan, I would not expect it to be like a UU service (though we can, and do, use God-talk from time to time) and would expect God in some form to be a part of it. If the UCCan became UU-like, there wouldn't be much point to my returning. I can get that in a UU church. If I was going to attend the UCCan, I'd expect a liberal/progressive Christian church.

Now, is it necessary that it be a triune God? Is there really no room for a unitarian (in the Christian sense of rejecting the doctrine of the trinity, not in the sense of the church I have been a part of over the last couple decades) theology in the UCCan? I spent my last several years in the UCCan seeing the Trinity as an image for God rather than literally what God was. God is mysterious and complex and the Trinity is really too simple to capture all of that mystery and complexity. It's a way for us to see God and God's action in the world but God is not really, literally three separate persons. I doubt I would see differently today if I was to start believing in God again.

 

[Luce NDs]

You are completely right!

My point is that we are not as inclusive a denomination as we often claim to be. I think folks sometimes look at the rainbow flag at one of our churches and assume it is a denominational thing. This is where the person who spoke to me about it was coming from.

Yep ... they wouldn't be welcomed as loss of virtue towards all creation!

 

[Luce NDs]

Are you assuming that being unwelcoming to LGBTQ is a theological stance?

It has appeared that way in the community I hang with to see what's wrong with them ...

 

[Luce NDs]

God an ideal ology towards encompassment, or elimination of the other by consumption?

Why lions have sheep around ... something to consume? Tis a hairy metaphor to swallow ...

 

[paradox3]

@Mendalla

The triune God, or Trinity as it is usually called, is interpreted metaphorically by most United Church people I know.

Gretta and her supporters are trying to tell us the conference interview committee expected her to take the triune God literally.

From what I have read they asked her for an explanation of her theological stance and she described it solely in terms of the values she upholds. When asked if she was in essential agreement with United Church doctrine she declined to answer. She stated she has moved "beyond" United Church doctrine and no longer identifies as a Christian.

For the life of me I don't understand why she even wants to remain the UCCan.

 

[Luce NDs]

Would the quat-Ural God allow a 4th input to come forth? Would that be Dan ... a hoard of po' demons ?

 

[Mendalla]

For the life of me I don't understand why she even wants to remain the UCCan.

Likewise. I'm not even as "atheistic" as her and I decided I no longer belonged. Just didn't feel right once I started being "non-Christian". Not sure why she is clinging to it so tightly.

 

[Luce NDs]

Likewise. I'm not even as "atheistic" as her and I decided I no longer belonged. Just didn't feel right once I started being "non-Christian". Not sure why she is clinging to it so tightly.

There are a lot more that are questioning the relationship ... sort of partisan or humble out of the vision of the higher-ups ... they even deal better with Allah Gory ... blood let on the Middle Easterners by astute westerners ... stoically up on supporting crusades against aliens ...

 

[paradox3]

@Mendalla

Gretta talks all the time about the unique and special community she has created at West Hill. No doubt she and her supporters find their community meaningful but don't most church members feel this way about their congregations?

As for the focus on shared values the Unitarian Universalists got there first.

Gretta does not even deny this. . . or at least she didn't when I spoke to her about it after I left WHUC.

 

[revsdd]

Funnily enough, I've been basically saying this on WC and WC2 for years. There are options for those who do not believe. If I were to return to the UCCan, I would not expect it to be like a UU service (though we can, and do, use God-talk from time to time) and would expect God in some form to be a part of it. If the UCCan became UU-like, there wouldn't be much point to my returning. I can get that in a UU church. If I was going to attend the UCCan, I'd expect a liberal/progressive Christian church.

Now, is it necessary that it be a triune God? Is there really no room for a unitarian (in the Christian sense of rejecting the doctrine of the trinity, not in the sense of the church I have been a part of over the last couple decades) theology in the UCCan? I spent my last several years in the UCCan seeing the Trinity as an image for God rather than literally what God was. God is mysterious and complex and the Trinity is really too simple to capture all of that mystery and complexity. It's a way for us to see God and God's action in the world but God is not really, literally three separate persons. I doubt I would see differently today if I was to start believing in God again.

Which is how I basically see the trinity functioning. It is not the be all and end all of that which is God. If nothing else it has too shaky a biblical foundation to be that. It is a part of understanding the mystery of God, which is far greater than we can understand fully. It is useful for what it points to about God: relationship, revelation, self-sufficiency.

 

[Luce NDs]

Can the hype pot in Nous connect the far ends of opposite and adjacent tuff? Two triangles do give us a dull square if adequately matched ...

Can one put a square in a round hole? What the brothers of Joseph did to ... the dream master? Awesome pits ...

 

[Seeler]

Some unbelievers won't accept any God-talk. Some will accept God-talk that is non-traditional and broad (e.g. lends itself to metaphorical, pan-, or panen- theistic interpretations). Some believers will only accept traditional God-talk. Some will accept God-talk that is non-traditional and broad (e.g. lends itself to metaphorical, pan-, or panen- theistic interpretations).

To be honest, I don't think you can create a church that will appeal to all on all sides of belief. Gretta's approach, for starters, clearly isn't it. Many believers, even progressive ones, reject it.

So, you probably have to hit a middle ground and accept that those on the extremes, the strong believers in supernatural theism and those atheists/agnostics who reject any kind of "God-talk", metaphorical or not, will leave for greener pastures.

For my part, the churches described above by you and Bette would be a decent fit for me, esp. the removal of atonement theology language from communion.

Sorry that I didn't get to this sooner before the conversation moved on, but I want to put in my 2 cents worth.

Some unbelievers won't accept any God-talk - I really can't seee these people sticking around a church for long unless, like Greta Vosper, they think they can change the very nature of being a church. There is going to be God-talk in a church. That's kind of basic to being a church.

Some will accept God-talk that is non-traditional and broad (e.g. lends itself to metaphorical, pan-, or panen- theistic interpretations). - I would probably most closely identify with this group. It's a wide group - some ideentify as atheistic but even they accept that there will be God-talk in the church. I think that many of the people in the congregation I call home are in this broad group.

Some believers will only accept traditional God-talk. - We have members like this in our congregation. We co-exist and often find a nice balance.
We don't seem to have many (any) vocal, 'back to the Bible' types in our congregaation (we do read the Bible at each Sunday service and have a Bible discussion group before worship). Other UCC congregations in the city probably have more who interpret the Bible literally and enjoy redemptive theology.

I think that I would feel quite at home in either Bette's or Paradox's congregations and they would certainly be welcome in mine.

Chansen, in my mind, sets up a strawman. I don't know very many people in my congregation who believe in a God that interveness in our day to day lives, or anyone who insists on a literal understanding of Jesus birth or resurrection. They probably feel more at home in one of the other UCC congregations in this city or in another denomination. In recent years we had a UCC minister try to lead his congregation in that direction. Some people left to enrich more open congregations, some stuck it out, and some were very supportive of his agenda. He drew a few new people in. But eventually he left to join the Baptists. Some went with him, but not as many as expected. That congregation is struggling now to reinvent itself.

For myself, I believe in God - that is I believe that God Is, and that God is benevolent. God loves. Because of my background and upbringing, I follow the Judo-Christian faith and consider the Bible as my scripture, although I read a wide variety of theeologians, poets, philosophers, scientists and dreamers. I respect the teaching and example of Jesus. Yes, I believe he was a real person and that others saw the Spirit of God in and through him. f am guided by that Spirit. Yes, I could say that I am in essential agreement with the trinity - but probably not the way Dave Henderson understands it.

I believe in one God. I don't get hung up on three or three hundred names for or discriptions of God. I don't get hung up on the concepts of heaven and hell either. I don't remember the last time I've heard a sermon preached on either - although I'v eheard many and preached a few on the kingdom of God or the realm of God among us.

And I trust that the UCC will be my home for the rest of my life. I hope that it, or something like it, will be there for my children and grandchildren.

 

[paradox3]

Chansen, in my mind, sets up a strawman. I don't know very many people in my congregation who believe in a God that interveness in our day to day lives, or anyone who insists on a literal understanding of Jesus birth or resurrection.

Vosper does much the same in regards to the view of God she rejects.

The rejection of this traditional supernatural understanding seems to resonate with many.

But Vosper really doesn't open the door to any of the alternate understandings of God which abound. She seeks to distill most of the Christian tradition down to values. Over the years I have perceived her to be a kind of post-Christian humanist. . . but not identical to a secular humanist.

Gretta herself has started to use the word "secular" recently. "Establishing secular community in church might have been too big a step" she said a few weeks ago on Ontario Today.

 

[crazyheart]

I think (not knowing Gretta or her congregation) but from what I have read, that she

likes the power. She likes to write the letter to the Moderator - it gave her power.

Her picture in the paper and articles around the globe admitting she says she is an atheist and

does not believe in God or prayer or in anything the United Church has also given her power.

But when power is stripped from someone, they are nothing.