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
Chansen what you dont understand is the gospel. Seriously, try reading the Sermon on the Mount and tell me what service club sets the bar so high. What Jesus asks is almost offensive to a non believer. Church should challenge you, not just make you feel great about yourself.
 
revsdd said:
In United Church polity, the minister doesn't "allow" or "choose" people to lead committees, teams or anything else, so your question is moot.
Click to expand...
In point of fact, the Nominations committee is one committee that the Ministry Personnel are NOT to be on (though I think they should be part of the process, especially for key leaders). Not just not automatically on but not on at all.
 
GordW said:
In point of fact, the Nominations committee is one committee that the Ministry Personnel are NOT to be on (though I think they should be part of the process, especially for key leaders). Not just not automatically on but not on at all.
Click to expand...
Is this something that has changed in the last few years?
 
Waterfall said:
Chansen what you dont understand is the gospel. Seriously, try reading the Sermon on the Mount and tell me what service club sets the bar so high. What Jesus asks is almost offensive to a non believer. Church should challenge you, not just make you feel great about yourself.
Click to expand...

Are such spiritual challenges like mental conflicts in essence?
 
Do such essences have odour?

Or just zero level of dour-ness ... to amuse those beyond us as heavenly hosts (dearly departed)?
 
paradox3 said:
Is this something that has changed in the last few years?
Click to expand...
After the 2009 GC meeting as I recall. Because I remember phoning the Executive Secretary to inquire if the language meant the Nom Cttee was one the minister was not on ex officio (as the Minister is generally assumed to be on ALL committees) or if it meant that the minster was not to be on the committee at all.

Of course that could have been changed since then and I am wrong...
 
Ask yourself why, then, it is important that the minister hold theistic beliefs, while they can lead an entire congregation without them. Does this make sense to us?
 
The Nominating Committee is mentioned along with the Ministry & Personnel Committee as well as Joint Search Committee and Joint Needs Assessment Committees as committees the minister CANNOT be a member of. Having said that, I've generally been asked my opinion about potential office holders at nomination time, but I have no formal vote and asking my opinion is a courtesy rather than a requirement.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Ask yourself why, then, it is important that the minister hold theistic beliefs, while they can lead an entire congregation without them. Does this make sense to us?
Click to expand...
Theoretically, as has been noted, the members of the congregation have had to make a profession of faith, so there shouldn't be an entire congregation of non-believers, although the new membership remit could change that if it passes.

As for it making sense - it does indeed, if one subscribes to the theory that leaders should be held to higher standards.
 
And therein is part of the rub. Implies that theistic is a higher standard than non-theistic. Valuing dogma over values.
 
Like it or not, belief in God is a core value of the church. If you find even just simple belief in God to be too dogmatic, then that is a problem. Until the church changes its statement of doctrine, however, the problem is yours and not mine. But neither Gretta nor anyone else has ever had the desire to try to use the accepted means of changing the church's statement of doctrine to allow for their perspective. If the church does change its statement of doctrine to reflect that then the problem becomes mine and not yours and I have to question my place in it. In fact, in that case I likely have to say that I have no place in it.
 
See, I think that the Holy Mystery of the Song of Faith can encompass both of our belief systems. It's when you look at the underpinnings, the previous, and still existant, faith documents, that my position is untenable, really. But, see, when I was confirmed at 13, I did have Trinitarian theistic beliefs.
 
revsdd said:
Like it or not, belief in God is a core value of the church. If you find even just simple belief in God to be too dogmatic, then that is a problem. Until the church changes its statement of doctrine, however, the problem is yours and not mine. But neither Gretta nor anyone else has ever had the desire to try to use the accepted means of changing the church's statement of doctrine to allow for their perspective. If the church does change its statement of doctrine to reflect that then the problem becomes mine and not yours and I have to question my place in it. In fact, in that case I likely have to say that I have no place in it.
Click to expand...
Rev. Vosper has no hope of effecting any change through normal channels. What she could do was appeal to people directly. And she has supporters and she did gain converts within the church. She made sense to many people with he letter to the moderator about Charlie Hebdo.

When something is right but opposed by the bulk of the organization, it can't happen through official channels. She had no option but to promote what she believes in, or doesn't. And the opposition from within the church really showed how, in many ways, your church really isn't very different from other churches in how it fears disbelief.

But it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing. And that's how it's often portrayed.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Ask yourself why, then, it is important that the minister hold theistic beliefs, while they can lead an entire congregation without them. Does this make sense to us?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about West Hill or speaking hypothetically?

It is not accurate to describe WHUC as an entire congregation without theistic beliefs.
 
revsdd said:
Like it or not, belief in God is a core value of the church. If you find even just simple belief in God to be too dogmatic, then that is a problem. Until the church changes its statement of doctrine, however, the problem is yours and not mine. But neither Gretta nor anyone else has ever had the desire to try to use the accepted means of changing the church's statement of doctrine to allow for their perspective. If the church does change its statement of doctrine to reflect that then the problem becomes mine and not yours and I have to question my place in it. In fact, in that case I likely have to say that I have no place in it.
Click to expand...
I very much liked the way the moderator described the Vosper scenario as one of conflict between two core values in the United Church . . . belief in God and our desire to be an open and inclusive church.
 
chansen said:
Rev. Vosper has no hope of effecting any change through normal channels. What she could do was appeal to people directly. And she has supporters and she did gain converts within the church. She made sense to many people with he letter to the moderator about Charlie Hebdo.

When something is right but opposed by the bulk of the organization, it can't happen through official channels. She had no option but to promote what she believes in, or doesn't. And the opposition from within the church really showed how, in many ways, your church really isn't very different from other churches in how it fears disbelief.

But it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing. And that's how it's often portrayed.
Click to expand...
You keep insisting that we're afraid of disbelief. I have no fear of disbelief. But I want to belong to a church that clearly believes. It's why I belong to a church. If belief becomes optional then the church isn't a church. To want to be a member of the church without believing what the church believes is like saying I want to be on a baseball team but only if they let me invent a whole new position I can play because I don't like any of the 10 positions available - and expecting the whole league to accommodate you. A Christian church is a Christian church. How many times do we have to say that we're not the UUs. And I'm sorry that there aren't enough UU churches but the solution for UU oriented people isn't to hijack Christian churches. It's to do the hard work of starting their own fellowships.
 
I'm a skier and I've learned to coexist with snowboarders. This is not a joke. It's the same damn thing. What you share is greater than what divides you. And many of these people grew up United. That's their home.

You guys incubated a generation of questioning members, and now you don't like some of the answers they've arrived at. You are not a uniform church of believers. You are surrounded by people who would not feel out of place at West Hill. You *have* members who do not believe. You have a choice: Close doors or get creative.

I'm not that gullible. I know enough of you would rather watch the church burn than work out an arrangement with nonbelievers. But hey, dare to dream.
 
The other choice is to fill the churches with the marginalized and destiitute...whether they are believers or not...which is what the original. church looked liked. Today the church is filled with middle class white people who want to be served rather than serve. Unfortunately the churches can't pay their bills of their massive infrastructure if they seek out the poor and hungry to fill their churches. Jesus appeals more to the poor and they are more likely to believe than white rich people who don't relate to a message that asks them to share and serve. The churches have themselves become elitist.
@chansen, the. churches really dont need more cynics they need more people that understand the simple message of Jesus and its usually the down and out that get it because they are closer to the truth of the message. Ironically its the poor who will give more of their time and money than those who are. comfortable.
 
Last edited:
Waterfall said:
The other choice is to fill the churches with the marginalized and destiitute...whether they are believers or not...which is what the original. church looked liked.
Click to expand...
Emmanuel Howard Park United Church in the West end of Toronto has done this.

It attracts far less media attention than a certain congregation in the East end of Toronto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top