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
The only UCCan connection to Oasis is that West Hill affiliated (I think this is the correct terminology) with Oasis last spring.
 
Lastpointe said:
Odd. That assumes that the United church is doomed to failure. To me, the ucc is stronger with the smaller group of membership

I see alot of millenials re engaging having found a need for something more.

Greta wasnt trying to save the ucc. She was trying to change us to her image
Click to expand...
Not nearly enough millenials engaging to save you. People looove to tell me about all the millenials, just like the Republican party pushes Latinos to the front of every photo op.
 
By your answer can one assumes you are attending service weekly in a ucc and have observed this?

If not are you notnjust spreading opinion and innuendo? Something like false news?

My particulat church has about 1/3 under 30's. Is it enough to sustain us? Debatable. This generation does not seem to be of the opinion that donations to churchs are as worth while. Older generations 10-15%. Current 5-15%. What hapoens next looks like less but time will tell

Church may reform. It will not disappear

Many believe life is more than just existing. You dont. Get that. Your loss
 
Anecdotes. Some individual churches have a healthy demographic distribution. It's common knowledge that most don't. The UCCan is old. You can jump up and down and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but you have a massive problem as a denomination and you aren't fooling anyone.

The UCCan is disappearing from some communities. You tried to be nice, sane, inclusive Christians. That's not working.

Maybe it's time to sell salvation. Maybe you have to move to the right and make faith non-negotiable, though you have no credibility with that lot, so I expect some difficulty. I thought a move to include non-theists was a potential growth opportunity. But the theists freaked at that possibility. People still talk as if Rev. Vosper needed to change the entire denomination. Did anyone suggest simply confirming the right of atheists to belong and have like-minded leaders? Why not enter into a dialogue to determine if there is common ground? My guess is you can't internally legitimize non-belief because that threatens belief. Pretty strong belief you have there if non-belief is that much of a threat.
 
Last edited:
Atheists have every right to belong to this denomination if they choose to. Atheist leaders are problematic based on the requirement for clergy to be in essential agreement with our doctrine.

But we have explained this several times already.

Not sure why you think believers are threatened by non-belief. Do you have any evidence to support this claim, @chansen ?
 
There's clearly a part of the UCCan that doesn't like it, but I don't know if it's the belief they don't like, or the visibility of it.
 
Gods of the earth are scary ... gods beyond earthy power are something else again ... something the gods of the earth despised and separated out with walls ... thus the concept of isolationism ... Maheinaim Transfer, or just trans-substance-ism as the light was made subtle and covered up in a story? In a flame the energy was released ... thus a beloved myth ... could be an abstract ...
 
paradox3 said:
Some do, yes.

Many others manage to disagree with Vosper without going apeshit.
Click to expand...

One should keep their kohr's elves in tagged state ...

Would this define a quantum state with transverse connections for dark communications with the sub con science ... steered visions below standard observations? As proper beefs from lessor regions ...
 
The stoic would tag this as weird, as out there as an un earthy god ... extensively stretched?

Happens when adequately bonked ... on the noodle ... bearing nut bars ... then bars be wee things ... in arch ach He' brewing ...
 
crazyheart said:
What happens to her pension?Does the United Church have any connection to

Oasis?
Click to expand...
No UCCan connection to Oasis afaik

AS has been pointed out many times Gretta's pension is Gretta's. If she ceases to be an active member of the plan then there are rules about how it has to be dealt with (can't be a payout, has to remain as a pension investment). We all agreed to that when we signed on. Technically the UCCan would not be paying her, the Pension Plan would be.

Interestingly, depending on language and interpretation, Gretta moing to Oasis could mean that effectively she DSL's herself. THere is now a Manual section which states that if a member of the Order of Ministry becomes a clergy person in another denomination (apart from overseas partners, and (I assume) apart from those churches with who we have mutual recognition agreements) the Presbytery is to make a recommendation to Conference that the person be placed on the DSL(Voluntary).
 
Might be hard to argue that Oasis is a denomination. But you raise an interesting question.
 
We know there are. No one really cares about atheist ministers, so long as they don't declare themselves. The UCCan has to have a bunch of them. The Clergy Project shows that. These are even atheist Baptist ministers who can't admit what they don't believe, because they (rightly) fear for their ability to provide for their families. If there are atheists in the most theologically rigid pulpits, there has to be atheists in your own.
 
Problem is, chansen, that I don't personally know where the edge is between theism, and non-theism or a-theism, and I'm not sure the UCCan knows where the edge is, either, although I suspect they think they do.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Problem is, chansen, that I don't personally know where the edge is between theism, and non-theism or a-theism, and I'm not sure the UCCan knows where the edge is, either, although I suspect they think they do.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think this is often made out to be more complicated than it really is. I believe we need to apply the standard of reasonableness.

Gretta told the conference interview committee that she no longer identifies as a Christian. She declined to answer whether or not she is in essential agreement with church doctrine.

I say this puts her beyond the Christian trajectory.

But when it comes to defining the edges of Christian faith you have a point. When does progressive Christianity slide into post Christianity? It may not be easy to define the exact point but there has to be such a point. And I think Gretta has moved beyond it.

Now whether or not we want to make room for post Christians in our denomination is another issue altogether.

Or so I see it.
 
I think that, thus far, the UCCan has tolerated post-Christianity quite well. I position myself firmly there, but I live within a supportive environment, as did Gretta until she and her congregation tried to float the whole boat a little farther out. Problem is, and I'm not sure you're seeing it, you want to keep me, and you probably want to keep Gretta, too, but you just don't know it yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top