The Rev. Vosper Again

[Mendalla]

Interesting chansen. So you would have a number of non-Christians in pulpits in the United Church of Canada. You do understand that the United Church is a denomination within the Church universal which is considered by Christians to be the body of Christ the head of which is Christ... right?

What @chansen is really suggesting is that the UCCan follow the road my Unitarian and Universalist forebears did and loosen the ties to that "church universal". In the case of the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America, the end result was Unitarian Universalism, which is quite explicitly not Christian (and, in fact, the AUA was already becoming fairly strongly humanist anyway).

 

[Jaebius]

What @chansen is really suggesting is that the UCCan follow the road my Unitarian and Universalist forebears did and loosen the ties to that "church universal". In the case of the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America, the end result was Unitarian Universalism, which is quite explicitly not Christian (and, in fact, the AUA was already becoming fairly strongly humanist anyway).

If you were the one suggesting that Mendalla, I would trust the sincerity of the suggestion. @chansen is an atheist suggesting how things should go in a Christian denomination and I feel he is just trying to make trouble.

 

[Mendalla]

If you were the one suggesting that Mendalla, I would trust the sincerity of the suggestion. @chansen is an atheist suggesting how things should go in a Christian denomination and I feel he is just trying to make trouble.

I'm not sure he's actually suggesting that, but that is what would happen if they went the route he is putting forward.

 

[chansen]

If you were the one suggesting that Mendalla, I would trust the sincerity of the suggestion. @chansen is an atheist suggesting how things should go in a Christian denomination and I feel he is just trying to make trouble.

No, you're just saying that because I'm pretty good at outing your troll attempts and so you want to make me look like one in retaliation. No one buys it because I actually mean what I write, and I think people can see that quite plainly.

Interesting chansen. So you would have a number of non-Christians in pulpits in the United Church of Canada. You do understand that the United Church is a denomination within the Church universal which is considered by Christians to be the body of Christ the head of which is Christ... right?

No, and I don't care about any body part of Christ or what you think it represents. I really just don't.

 

[revjohn]

I imagine that's changed since the days when you were in sem.

If that is true it is the first time in the history of the church that the trend was to larger.

Of course cities with populations in the millions and the ability to build places big enough are fairly new developments.

Presuming mega churches start at 1000 plus members in worship.

My home congregation pre-chairlift topped out at 969 persons for occupancy load in the sanctuary. I suspect prior to occupancy loads coming into being we were close to 1000. Junior choir was 150 and senior choir was 300 unless the choir to parishioner ratio was 1:1 1000 persons worshipping isn't a stretch.

Bigger than that and you'd be looking at our municipal arena to host everyone.

Given the expense involved for such structures I would doubt they are the new trend.

Add to that the the largest mega church in North America is Osteen's (weekly attendence of 43, 000+) and there seem to be factors at play.

 

[Waterfall]

43,000 plus, WOW,,,,I never realized that church was so big.

 

[Inukshuk]

The whole situation is polarizing, Chansen. Whatever the outcome of the review there will be unhappy people.

Maybe there is a way through this situation that will leave most of us satisfied? Being that hindsight is 20/20 - do you think that had the United Church offered Gretta Vosper a Christian/turn the other cheek response, immediately following her letter to the Moderator, that this mess would have continued to escalate?
The fact that the United Church 'left Gretta Vosper alone' for so long gives the perception that the call for review was made in retaliation. Maybe the Christian response would be to let her continue to minister at West Hill and give her another church as well.
Given the interfaith/intercultural relationships that the United Church seems to be working on, maybe there is wiggle room to rebrand West Hill as 'a partner' of the United Church of Canada. Using the Lund Principle "that churches should act together in all matters except those in which deep differences of conviction compel them to act separately."

 

[Mendalla]

Given the interfaith/intercultural relationships that the United Church seems to be working on, maybe there is wiggle room to rebrand West Hill as 'a partner' of the United Church of Canada. Using the Lund Principle "that churches should act together in all matters except those in which deep differences of conviction compel them to act separately."

That still, in essence, means asking her and them to leave the UCCan, though. One cannot be both part of a church and a partner since, by definition, a partner is an outside person or agency you have a relationship with.

 

[Inukshuk]

Ok - so call it 'an arm' of the UC or 'a companion' of the UC. Too many lines in the sand have been drawn. In today's chaotic times the mission has to be for the common good.

 

[chansen]

That still, in essence, means asking her and them to leave the UCCan, though. One cannot be both part of a church and a partner since, by definition, a partner is an outside person or agency you have a relationship with.

But the idea remains that you somehow keep her and the congregation under the UCCAN umbrella, while making some sort of distinction the Jesus believers can use to say she isn't a UCCan minister when other Christians tease them about her.

This isn't about the Charlie Hebdo letter. This is about optics. The Metropolitan United letter was definitely about optics. So, fix the optics.

 

[Jaebius]

But the idea remains that you somehow keep her and the congregation under the UCCAN umbrella, while making some sort of distinction the Jesus believers can use to say she isn't a UCCan minister when other Christians tease them about her.

This isn't about the Charlie Hebdo letter. This is about optics. The Metropolitan United letter was definitely about optics. So, fix the optics.

An atheist has no place as a leader in the body of Christ. None. Zero. Zippo. Nada.

 

[paradox3]

Maybe there is a way through this situation that will leave most of us satisfied? Being that hindsight is 20/20 - do you think that had the United Church offered Gretta Vosper a Christian/turn the other cheek response, immediately following her letter to the Moderator, that this mess would have continued to escalate?

I suspect that had the church ignored that particular letter to the moderator, Gretta would have done something further to provoke a response from the denomination.

As many have pointed out Gretta and her congregation were largely ignored for several years. Since she is seeking to reform the United Church from within she needs a certain amount of publicity to promote her views.

 

[Waterfall]

How many does she have in her congregation? Are they even a financially viable "church"?

 

[paradox3]

But the idea remains that you somehow keep her and the congregation under the UCCAN umbrella, while making some sort of distinction the Jesus believers can use to say she isn't a UCCan minister when other Christians tease them about her.

I would be pleased if we could somehow form a post-Christian arm of our denomination. Call it what it is and stop all this polarization.

Your idea is not without merit. Given United Church processes however, it is hard to imagine the idea taking hold.

 

[chansen]

I suspect that had the church ignored that particular letter to the moderator, Gretta would have done something further to provoke a response from the denomination.

As many have pointed out Gretta and her congregation were largely ignored for several years. Since she is seeking to reform the United Church from within she needs a certain amount of publicity to promote her views.

It wasn't a letter just to provoke. The moderator's letter was tone deaf and someone needed to say it. It could have provoked a conversation.

 

[chansen]

I would be pleased if we could somehow form a post-Christian arm of our denomination. Call it what it is and stop all this polarization.

Your idea is not without merit. Given United Church processes however, it is hard to imagine the idea taking hold.

It's hard to image the UCCan taking any initiative in a timely manner. They will squander this opportunity as well. But it is an opportunity.

 

[paradox3]

How many does she have in her congregation? Are they even a financially viable "church"?

I understand them to be more financially viable than some congregations but still having to work on their financial stability.

Numbers-wise I have heard there is an average attendance of 70 on Sunday mornings. With a total membership of around 220. I don't know whether or not this number includes those who drifted away without transferring their membership elsewhere.

 

[chansen]

An atheist has no place as a leader in the body of Christ. None. Zero. Zippo. Nada.

By your beliefs, her gender disqualifies her from the same position, so I think we can safely discount your opinion on this one.

 

[paradox3]

It wasn't a letter just to provoke. The moderator's letter was tone deaf and someone needed to say it. It could have provoked a conversation.

Have to disagree here. I thought the moderator's letter was a good one.

 

[paradox3]

It's hard to image the UCCan taking any initiative in a timely manner.

See? You have learned quite a bit from us here on WC and WC2.