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
Is wondering who Gretta Vosper is due to individual denial, or community ignorance as a result of the effect of moral majority in that: "you don't really wish to know anything about that complex issue"?

Thus it is simply forgotten ...
 
Mendalla said:
You, by contrast, don't have a stake, even an emotional one. You don't really even understand UCCan polity or how it works, it's just another atheist-theist battle to you. Even if she won, you'd still stay outside the church so it's not like you're trying to make a church home for yourself. You're just trying to push your agenda on an organization without regard for its established principles or polity. I honestly wish you'd just walk away and let the UCCan deal with it in its way. If you really want a say in how the UCCan is run, join the f***'ing church. Otherwise, you're just an outside commenter with a whole shitload of opinions about something that ultimately has 0 impact on you personally. You're no better than Jae or Pontifex or others who hammer them for not being "real Christians". Yes, I just put you on a plane with Jae and Pontifex. Your faith may be different but your approach is similar.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I have a continued interest in how things are going in the United Church. This is for a number of reasons. First, my history of about eleven years of childhood in a United Church in Toronto, summers spent my entire life in United Churches in northern New Brunswick, and about three months spent in a United Church in northern Alberta. Second, I have close family members who are currently members of the United Church - including my mom, sister Susanna and her family, and a cousin of mine. Third, I'm generally interested in the Canadian (and world) church scene as both a Christian and a seminary student.

Now, as to your charge that I, Pontifex and others hammer those who are in the United Church "for not being 'real Christians.'" There are some who do this. I'll let Pontifex speak for himself. Personally, I absolutely believe that people in the United Church can be real/authentic/genuine Christians. I can't recall ever having said otherwise Mendalla. I was a real Christian during some of my times in the United Church, as was Yobo. I believe there are many more. If I said otherwise, I would be saying in a sense that salvation is based on works (the work of belonging elsewhere than in the UCCanada).
 
Jae said:
To be clear, I have a continued interest in how things are going in the United Church. This is for a number of reasons. First, my history of about eleven years of childhood in a United Church in Toronto, summers spent my entire life in United Churches in northern New Brunswick, and about three months spent in a United Church in northern Alberta. Second, I have close family members who are currently members of the United Church - including my mom, sister Susanna and her family, and a cousin of mine. Third, I'm generally interested in the Canadian (and world) church scene as both a Christian and a seminary student.

Now, as to your charge that I, Pontifex and others hammer those who are in the United Church "for not being 'real Christians.'" There are some who do this. I'll let Pontifex speak for himself. Personally, I absolutely believe that people in the United Church can be real/authentic/genuine Christians. I can't recall ever having said otherwise Mendalla. I was a real Christian during some of my times in the United Church, as was Yobo. I believe there are many more. If I said otherwise, I would be saying in a sense that salvation is based on works (the work of belonging elsewhere than in the UCCanada).
Click to expand...
Ummm ... I thought you were returning in June ... it's only February!
 
latest
 
Carolla said:
Apparently. And tomorrow is Groundhog Day ... sigh ...
Click to expand...

Doh! I forgot to stock up on Groundhog Day cards again.

We had a bit of a talk about the UCCanada in one of my school classes today. About how some people left the denomination over homosexual issues back in the 80s.

Since we were discussing the UCCanada, I thought about bringing up Rev. Vosper, but opted not to. Perhaps in a future class of the same course.
 
Jae said:
Doh! I forgot to stock up on Groundhog Day cards again.

We had a bit of a talk about the UCCanada in one of my school classes today. About how some people left the denomination over homosexual issues back in the 80s.

Since we were discussing the UCCanada, I thought about bringing up Rev. Vosper, but opted not to. Perhaps in a future class of the same course.
Click to expand...
ANd some people joined the denomination because of our approach to sexuality, at least in part. Admittedly they may not have been as numerous and were definitely not as noisy about it, but it happens. In an earlier generation a number of people moved to the UCCan because they wanted to get marred after being divorced...

In such a discussion as you mention Gretta would not be the topic to discuss, the UCCan approach to doctrine and the pros/cons of same would be the appropriate topic for discussion (principle not person)
 
"appropriate topic for discussion (principle not person)"

Then there is Exclusion Prin. where do excluded thoughts go as blackened spirits ...? In some tomes the conscience is said to be equivalent to fear ... thus the Eros 'n of curio Settee's ... non entities that can move one as alien!

Apologies for straying from the topical aria ...
 
There are many letters in the February Observer supporting Gretta and/ or criticising the church's process to date.

But one writer states:

"I visited Vosper's congregation last spring, expecting to be fully supportive of her. But what struck me, more than the terminology around God, was no wrestling with biblical texts, no indication of being seekers following the way of Jesus . . . I came away with the sense that she is a very good pastor, but the integrity of the United Church as a Christian community is at stake . . . "

How many Vosper supporters, I wonder, might come to the same conclusion as this writer if they took a closer look? Some of her supporters seem to have the mistaken idea she is a progressive Christian of the same ilk as Marcus Borg, etc.

Others seem to be on board with her and would be in favour of our denomination becoming more like the Unitarians. I have been saying for years that if I wished to be a Unitarian Universalist, I would join them.

We certainly seem to be at a crossroads here and I wish the issue would get resolved one way or the other. It is a difficult time for everyone awaiting a decision. I was talking to a couple of current WHUC members today and they are not finding this easy.
 
The great thing about not believing the texts are true is that you don't have to wrestle with them. A lot of the wrestling occurs because the texts plainly say stupid or hateful things at times, and the struggle is how to re-frame those words to conform to the loving God everyone wants for themselves. The reconciliation of the two has to be a struggle. If you don't believe, what are you supposed to wrestle with?

My understanding is that they explore other sources of inspiration. What they don't have to do, is explain away bad ideas. That's gotta be one of the refreshing things about her approach.
 
chansen said:
The great thing about not believing the texts are true is that you don't have to wrestle with them. A lot of the wrestling occurs because the texts plainly say stupid or hateful things at times, and the struggle is how to re-frame those words to conform to the loving God everyone wants for themselves. The reconciliation of the two has to be a struggle. If you don't believe, what are you supposed to wrestle with?

My understanding is that they explore other sources of inspiration. What they don't have to do, is explain away bad ideas. That's gotta be one of the refreshing things about her approach.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Could this be described (not defined) as an abstract of the eternal's Tory?

Could there be a' Moor to expound on the myth of mortal understanding being limited?

Kind 've a bounding, rippling field ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top