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
Mendalla said:
Or you could believe that the texts are true, just not literally, completely, or exclusively so. Then you can engage with scripture as I and many UUs do; as a source, rather than THE source of spiritual wisdom. They are part of a vast library rather than being the whole library. The wrestling doesn't go away, but you are wrestling with which vision of the truth makes sense in light of your overall experience rather than how to reconcile your experience with a specific text that you are told is the sole truth. IOW, your experience matters and it is your engagement with the text and how it relates to what you've seen, heard, read, experienced elsewhere that determines how it informs your beliefs and values. Yes, it means there is no absolute, final answer to some of the "big questions" but it isn't purely relational either. The gathering of views and values, the recognition that the spiritual is about relationship and that some ideas contribute more positively to relationship than others, means that some ideas will be widely accepted as true. Things like "do not murder" or "love one another" may not be written on the soul of the universe or handed down from above, but they clearly speak strongly to human hearts.
Click to expand...

You can also try to understand the difference between "truth" (which is at least partially a philosophical concept) and "fact" (which is absolutely verifiable.) There are many, many "truths" which can't be proven. Pretty much everybody would agree that it's true that what happened at the Quebec City mosque was evil. Prove it. Empirically.

I would also say that many Christians - while seeing the Bible as foundational to our faith - are not closed to there being spiritual wisdom in other traditions.
 
revsdd said:
You can also try to understand the difference between "truth" (which is at least partially a philosophical concept) and "fact" (which is absolutely verifiable.)
Click to expand...

That is true and fits perfectly well with my answer even if I didn't say as much.

revsdd said:
I would also say that many Christians - while seeing the Bible as foundational to our faith - are not closed to there being spiritual wisdom in other traditions.
Click to expand...

Which is a good thing and I think the UCCan is particularly good at acknowledging this, at least IME.

There are those, however, who say it but then still insist The Bible is somehow more true or complete or in some other way superior to the others. I've heard it from Muslims and Bahais, too, with their insistence that other scriptures are true but theirs is the "final revelation" so I'm not singling Christians out. I'm not saying Christians should be like UUs and have multiple sources themselves, but there is no harm in saying yours is one source among many. You can have a primary source without having to knock down everyone else's sources or try to convert them to using yours. Again, I don't think the UCCan, or any of its members that I know, is guilty of this but I have heard it from mainstream Christians or more liberal evangelicals.
 
A more nuanced approach might have prevented the polarisation which took place within Gretta's congregation.

From the minutes of the January South East Presbytery meeting as discussed upthread:

"There are two groups who are in need of pastoral care. The current members of West Hill and former members who have left. Presbytery should offer pastoral care to the people affected."

Although Gretta's theology has become a national issue, these are the two groups most directly affected by her actions. Agreed however that the November 2017 review could have far-reaching implications.
 
Mrs.Anteater said:
Also in this months Observer:
http://www.ucobserver.org/columns/2017/02/conundrums/ Are post-theistic congregations any different than service clubs?.
Click to expand...

Given that UUism has been post-theistic since before the term was coined, the answer is, "Yes, they can be different from service clubs." You can still ask spiritual questions and celebrate spiritual values and ideas even if you don't have a fixed theology. The best UU congregations are definitely more than just service clubs so why would a place like West Hill be any different?
 
I think wrestling with your sacred text is absolutely a part of a faith journey. But I ONLY like the kind of work that Judaism does, where you happily put 3 people together, argue like hell, and come up with 4 opinions...
 
paradox3 said:
A more nuanced approach might have prevented the polarisation which took place within Gretta's congregation.

From the minutes of the January South East Presbytery meeting as discussed upthread:

"There are two groups who are in need of pastoral care. The current members of West Hill and former members who have left. Presbytery should offer pastoral care to the people affected."

Although Gretta's theology has become a national issue, these are the two groups most directly affected by her actions. Agreed however that the November 2017 review could have far-reaching implications.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense to me. January, of 2017? The people who needed pastoral care needed it a decade ago. It seems like putting the cart way ahead of the horse to suggest it now. It's like Presbytery just figured out that something happened at WHUC, despite the fact that, presumably, they get Board minutes, Annual Reports, etc.
 
paradox3 said:
Respectfully, BetteTheRed, I don't know how you can presume to know anything at all about the folks who left WHUC for theological reasons.

Who else (besides P3) is talking publicly about their experience anywhere?
Click to expand...

Imho, _everyone_ needs pastoral care. Including the pastors.
 
paradox3 said:
Respectfully, BetteTheRed, I don't know how you can presume to know anything at all about the folks who left WHUC for theological reasons.

Who else (besides P3) is talking publicly about their experience anywhere?
Click to expand...

No-one. But if the Presbytery didn't notice a decade ago that they had a congregation in transition of some sort, they're a poor excuse for a Presbytery, in my opinion. I'm serious. I know a lot of Presbytery reps of various sorts up here in Living Waters, and if there's trouble brewing in a congregation, they know.
 
I think that pretty much everybody at WC2 who has commented on either side of this issue does agree that Presbytery failed to act when they should have and made a major contribution to the mess that now exists, which will not have a happy ending, no matter how it ends. Unfortunately Presbyteries sometimes fail to do good and proper work. There's no way to avoid that, because they're made up of flawed human beings. Any body or group of individuals that replaces Presbytery will screw up on occasion. I'd guess that Living Waters Presbytery has screwed up on occasion, too.
 
revsdd said:
I think that pretty much everybody at WC2 who has commented on either side of this issue does agree that Presbytery failed to act when they should have and made a major contribution to the mess that now exists, which will not have a happy ending, no matter how it ends. Unfortunately Presbyteries sometimes fail to do good and proper work. There's no way to avoid that, because they're made up of flawed human beings. Any body or group of individuals that replaces Presbytery will screw up on occasion. I'd guess that Living Waters Presbytery has screwed up on occasion, too.
Click to expand...

Can you think of times when Presbyterian have done good and proper work? I know a couple of what I consider to be horror stories in which Presbyteries did awful things. And now this. Moving forward, the United Church should really consider moving to a congregational style of government.
 
revsdd said:
I think that pretty much everybody at WC2 who has commented on either side of this issue does agree that Presbytery failed to act when they should have and made a major contribution to the mess that now exists, which will not have a happy ending, no matter how it ends.
Click to expand...
There are two other bodies that failed to act when they should have. The Board at WHUC and the congregation itself. The whole fiasco is pretty much a three way responsibility as I see it.
 
Just to clarify, I don't mean the current congregation and Board at West Hill.

The time period when action needed to be taken was approximately 2005 - 2008.
 
Right. Many West Hill people felt marginalized and abandoned (there I go using "many" again - I'm expecting a new backlash for this one). Presbytery should have done something from everything I've heard.

I'm not sure how the answer is to marginalize.everyone whow stayed and subsequently joined. Two wrongs, etc.
 
Jae said:
Imho, _everyone_ needs pastoral care. Including the pastors.
Click to expand...

Afield unto it's own ... seldom felt ... as psyche things are not of this dimension ... in reality demented ... like Noah etics ... a mire thought to float towards understanding what's incarnate ... not there? Thus winds of chance ... subliminal pneumas ... the breath of humble gods?
 
Jae said:
Can you think of times when Presbyterian have done good and proper work? I know a couple of what I consider to be horror stories in which Presbyteries did awful things. And now this. Moving forward, the United Church should really consider moving to a congregational style of government.
Click to expand...
I can think of a lot of situations in which Presbyteries have done superb work. And I have known many colleagues in congregational polities who have been horribly treated by congregations and who have nowhere to turn for support because the nature of the polity doesn't facilitate even collegial relationships.
 
chansen said:
Right. Many West Hill people felt marginalized and abandoned (there I go using "many" again - I'm expecting a new backlash for this one). Presbytery should have done something from everything I've heard.

I'm not sure how the answer is to marginalize.everyone whow stayed and subsequently joined. Two wrongs, etc.
Click to expand...

No problem with using "many" here. It's accurate. It's when people appeal to the anonymous "many" or "most" as support for their position that I object. That's very similar to the "argumentum ad populum" that you often call evangelical Christians on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top