Liberal Christian denominations

[paradox3]

But where is a non-theistic person of faith supposed to go? This is a constant question for me. Should I just go? The denomination would be deprived of a "good little worker"...

Might need to unpack what you mean by "non-theistic person of faith". . . from what you have told us on other occasions you have a bit of a pantheist take on things. You are interested in the Jewish roots of Christianity, interested in scripture and interested in Jesus. Why would you feel you need to go anywhere? I know you support Gretta Vosper but I don't think you are where she is, theologically speaking.

Is your church congregation meeting your needs for worship, service and fellowship? This might be the most important question.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Vosper review finally happens. The impact on the denomination might not be as significant as Gretta is predicting. Time will tell.

 

[Luce NDs]

What surprizes me is the number of people quietly sitting in the benches that believe similarly about what is beyond mortal comprehension ... gnostic departure or justified denial?

Then there are those that get right pious about people denying that there could be people believing differently about what ... actually what we don't know ... tis an unknown ideal to learn ... alas extremely deep as the sea ... metaphorically the waters below? Doesn't go over the well ... have to be drawn up ... words are like that too!

Then the book says we are so wonderfully, miraculously, individually made in separate packages ... and haven't got it together yet! Later the matter flows and the essence takes off ... to join in domain beyond? Isn't that mystical?

 

[Luce NDs]

Like thespian ... it could all be an act given the nature of pseudopigraphics ... expressions of personality attributes that are more essence than physical ... like emotions and intelligence ... knowledge beyond us? Generates the concept of nun or "n" a pair of them forming a MU which is something else from the oriental aspect (said to be improper polity) but something causing separation ... perhaps because of the opioid receptor genes ... essences beyond our cognizance as built in? Then there is the opium wars ... separating China and English ... when it comes to the human pot ... c'est la pole we're in ...

Tis an unknown and unknowing state ... place of the unknown gods? Imagine us not knowing much! Is that an impression of naïveté given the command to know thyself? It appears not ... so it must be ... thus arguable!

 

[Mendalla]

Might need to unpack what you mean by "non-theistic person of faith". . . from what you have told us on other occasions you have a bit of a pantheist take on things. You are interested in the Jewish roots of Christianity, interested in scripture and interested in Jesus. Why would you feel you need to go anywhere? I know you support Gretta Vosper but I don't think you are where she is, theologically speaking.

My thought as well. Bette may not be orthodox in her thinking, but she is not actively criticizing those in the church who are or writing on the record letters to the moderator criticizing him for using language that is perfectly in keeping with the mission and doctrine of the church. That said, I was far less "heretical" than Bette and didn't have the Vosper situation going on when I decided it was no longer for me so given my case, she is probably within her rights to question her place in the church, even if she isn't likely to leave. After all, how welcome can she feel in a church when any minister who agrees with her publicly could face a review process?

 

[Jaebius]

My thought as well. Bette may not be orthodox in her thinking, but she is not actively criticizing those in the church who are or writing on the record letters to the moderator criticizing him for using language that is perfectly in keeping with the mission and doctrine of the church. That said, I was far less "heretical" than Bette and didn't have the Vosper situation going on when I decided it was no longer for me so given my case, she is probably within her rights to question her place in the church, even if she isn't likely to leave. After all, how welcome can she feel in a church when any minister who agrees with her publicly could face a review process?

I left the UCCanada way back when I was a low teen. My family had left and I just kind of lost interest. I was still absolutely a Christian though. People come to and go from churches for all sorts of reasons.

 

[revsdd]

It is sometimes said that the United Church of Canada is the most liberal or progressive Christian denomination in the world today.

The world is a big place.

Do you think this is true? Do we know?

Since the world is such a big place I'd say that we don't know.

I'd also (as have some others) pointed out the problem with defining "liberal" and "progressive" - or, for that matter, "conservative" or "evangelical" or even "fundamentalist," which is now applied far beyond its original theological convictions.

Within Canada, I'd say that the United Church is probably the least doctrinally rigid of the major Christians denominations.

 

[paradox3]

Within Canada, I'd say that the United Church is probably the least doctrinally rigid of the major Christians denominations.

Both a strength and a weakness of ours as we have discussed many times. Maybe one of these days we will resolve the question of the big tent and how wide we want it to be.

 

[chansen]

Might need to unpack what you mean by "non-theistic person of faith". . . from what you have told us on other occasions you have a bit of a pantheist take on things. You are interested in the Jewish roots of Christianity, interested in scripture and interested in Jesus. Why would you feel you need to go anywhere? I know you support Gretta Vosper but I don't think you are where she is, theologically speaking.

Is your church congregation meeting your needs for worship, service and fellowship? This might be the most important question.

Someone should ask West Hill that most important question.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Vosper review finally happens. The impact on the denomination might not be as significant as Gretta is predicting. Time will tell.

I'm betting this review will not happen until the fall. It will definitely be after the General Council. If it happens before the GC, the GC will become all about the fallout from the decision. And if it doesn't happen by November, it probably won't happen at all.

 

[paradox3]

Someone should ask West Hill that most important question.

Why? Don't we know the answer already?

And don't we know that up to two-thirds of the original congregation voted with their feet & left many years ago?

Things will get really interesting if these numbers get looked at in the review process.

 

[revsdd]

Is your church congregation meeting your needs for worship, service and fellowship? This might be the most important question.

But from a Christian denomination's perspective that isn't the most important question. There are a lot of ways a person can meet their needs for worship, service and fellowship, and many of them have nothing to do with Christianity. The most important question from the perspective of a Christian denomination is whether the way those needs are being met by any given congregation that claims to be a part of that denomination are consistent with what the congregation's denomination considers consistent with Christian faith.

 

[paradox3]

Agreed that there are different questions from the denomination's perspective.

 

[GiancarloZ]

Maybe one of these days we will resolve the question of the big tent and how wide we want it to be.

Is that a question for UCCan right now? How/when is it going to be discussed?

 

[chansen]

Why? Don't we know the answer already?

If you listen to West Hill people, the answer is "Yes." Nobody is asking, so they're providing the answer, unprompted.

And don't we know that up to two-thirds of the original congregation voted with their feet & left many years ago?

Yes, and most here agree that was a mistake made a long time ago. Are they in the process of making another one? That's the current question. I think they will avoid doing anything. I understand they are bound by rules to come to a decision, but I think that if the UCCan can be counted on to summon a miracle, it would be one that results in no decision at all.

Things will get really interesting if these numbers get looked at in the review process.

If the standard for DSL-D'ing a minister is they lost a lot of congregants, there should be a lot of nervous UCCan ministers right about now.

 

[chansen]

Is that a question for UCCan right now? How/when is it going to be discussed?

I think a lot of churches are asking that question. In the US, the United Methodists are deciding if their tent can house pro and anti-same-sex marriage positions. The UCCan handles this question by allowing it in the denomination, but individual congregations don't have to agree. The Methodists appear to think God will be pissed at the other side, no matter which other side you're talking about, and they will have no truck with it.

Some of the rumblings from the Methodists is the idea of some sort of looser association between the two sides. That's essentially what I suggested here a long time ago - that post-theistic churches could have an association with the United Church of Canada, but have a different name.

The thing is, Rev. Vosper uses the word "atheist", partly out of solidarity with people who have been treated poorly in the name of Christianity. I'm an atheist and anti-theist, and she does not represent my thinking. And the reaction to her self-identifying as an "atheist" has had a predictable effect. There is some reasonable opposition to her, but I more enjoy the ones who are mad as hell about the "atheist in a pulpit". Had Rev. Vosper just not believed in an interventionist God or a God who watches over us, these people would be silent. Use the "A" word, and they lose their minds. That lack of belief in an interventionist God or a God who watches over us is basically what "atheist" means, is an irony that is completely lost on them.

 

[Mendalla]

Is that a question for UCCan right now? How/when is it going to be discussed?

From what I can see sitting just outside the church, it is being discussed but in informal channels like this and their FB group. The church courts (as they call them) are up to their eyeballs in governance reform right now so a discussion on how broad their approach to doctrine and theology should be isn't really happening at the formal levels that I have seen. They did add additional statements to their doctrine a couple General Councils back, but the requirement for ministers to be in "essential agreement" with what are basically theistic statements of faith remains.

So it is a question and it is being discussed by at least some, but not in channels that will actually lead to any action. The Vosper case may have been the opening to such a discussion but, as chansen suggests (and he is an atheist with no UCCan affiliation or history, BTW), that process itself is dragging out and getting lost under the other conversations going on in the church. Which is too bad, because it's probably a conversation a lot of the mainstream and liberal denominations need to be having these days.

 

[BetteTheRed]

This conversation is sort of inspiring me to contact West Hill and see if anyone would like to make the trek up to B____ some Tuesday evening to talk to my Progressive/Emerging group.

 

[chansen]

Last I knew they were actively soliciting invitations to send their members to other congregations to talk. I think that's smart. It's easy to demonize "that group of atheists in Scarborough". Meeting them puts real names and faces to them. It humanizes them. Maybe there is more to these atheists after all.

 

[paradox3]

Last I knew they were actively soliciting invitations to send their members to other congregations to talk. I think that's smart. It's easy to demonize "that group of atheists in Scarborough". Meeting them puts real names and faces to them. It humanizes them. Maybe there is more to these atheists after all.

Rumor has it they are pleased with those "West Hill Wants To Talk" events and would be happy to book more of them. I know one person who has been to a few them & I run into her in the community from time to time.

 

[paradox3]

The governance reform work is daunting when you consider everything that still needs to happen. We could be in for massive organizational change and @Mendalla is correct to say we are up to our eyeballs with it.

 

[paradox3]

If the standard for DSL-D'ing a minister is they lost a lot of congregants, there should be a lot of nervous UCCan ministers right about now.

Declining membership is not the issue here.

But neither is WHUC is the first congregation to experience a split of this magnitude.

It may or may not be considered relevant in the review which is still pending.