United With God

[chansen]

Hi Chansen, I am not picking any particular moment. I believe in God as articulated through the Father/Mother, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I have always embraced God. I will always embrace God. As for having nothing particularly believable, that is your opinion and you have every right to espouse it.

If you haven't picked a particular moment yet, then pick ~10 years ago. paradox3 can give you a more specific time, perhaps to the day. That would have been perfect.

In lieu of your God permitting time travel, I think you're stuck. You can absolutely do what you suggest. I just think you're jerks for doing it now.

 

[paradox3]

I don't care if believers or nonbelievers disappear. If I were to wager, it would be that the entire UCCan will disappear within a couple of generations.

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to coexist. Except for the impression I get that believers are threatened.

Yes, I understand that you are arguing for the co-existence of belief and non-belief. But you still have not answered my question. Practically speaking, what would this look like?

Would all our congregations look like West Hill? Would they look like Unitarian Fellowships? Or maybe like something else?

Since you claim to have an answer for us I am interested to know how you would advise us to make it happen.

 

[Dave Henderson]

But Dave, a good chunk of your community does not believe. Not the way you want them to.

The cat is out of the bag. The horse has left the barn. And the kids ain't buyin' it, either.

You have nothing particularly believable. And you want to choose this moment to enforce belief. Your timing is atrocious.

Hi Chansen, Where do you get this "good chunk?" A comprehensive survey of believers has not been done. The United Church has done nothing to promote atheism. It's statements of faith declare belief in the triune God. Yet you magically come up with this "good chunk" who do not believe. The closest we have come to seeking consensus on belief in our church was when Reverend Richard Bott recently conducted a survey of United Church ministers. Here's what The Observer magazine reported: "Of the 1,353 ministry personnel who responded to the online survey, “almost 95 percent affirmed a belief in God, with a large number (almost 80 percent) affirming a belief in a supernatural, theistic God.” (The Observer Magazine September 2016) That there are even 5% of ministers in my church do not believe in God makes me very sad. Yet 95% expressed belief in God. While the methodology of the survey did not lend itself to a comprehensive, empirical result, it is being seen as a very accurate snapshot.

 

[paradox3]

Hi Chansen, Where do you get this "good chunk?"

I suspect he is taking Gretta Vosper's word for it. If he has another source of information I am sure he will let us know.

The Observer has done a few surveys of its readership over the years.

 

[paradox3]

You can absolutely do what you suggest. I just think you're jerks for doing it now.

You can do better than this in conversation . . .

Just saying.

 

[Mendalla]

Yes, I understand that you are arguing for the co-existence of belief and non-belief. But you still have not answered my question. Practically speaking, what would this look like?

Would all our congregations look like West Hill? Would they look like Unitarian Fellowships? Or maybe like something else?

Since you claim to have an answer for us I am interested to know how you would advise us to make it happen.

Some unbelievers won't accept any God-talk. Some will accept God-talk that is non-traditional and broad (e.g. lends itself to metaphorical, pan-, or panen- theistic interpretations). Some believers will only accept traditional God-talk. Some will accept God-talk that is non-traditional and broad (e.g. lends itself to metaphorical, pan-, or panen- theistic interpretations).

To be honest, I don't think you can create a church that will appeal to all on all sides of belief. Gretta's approach, for starters, clearly isn't it. Many believers, even progressive ones, reject it.

So, you probably have to hit a middle ground and accept that those on the extremes, the strong believers in supernatural theism and those atheists/agnostics who reject any kind of "God-talk", metaphorical or not, will leave for greener pastures.

For my part, the churches described above by you and Bette would be a decent fit for me, esp. the removal of atonement theology language from communion.

 

[paradox3]

If you haven't picked a particular moment yet, then pick ~10 years ago. paradox3 can give you a more specific time, perhaps to the day. That would have been perfect.

Um, no. Not if you are referring to the theological shift which took place at WHUC.

Gretta dates the start of the shift to a particular sermon she gave in the fall of 2001.

But it was a process over time and I think Gretta would acknowledge this.

 

[chansen]

You can do better than this in conversation . . .

Just saying.

I consider those words accurate. I think that making people feel like second class members is the sort of thing a jerk would do. I'd like to think there are better answers.

 

[chansen]

Hi Chansen, Where do you get this "good chunk?" A comprehensive survey of believers has not been done. The United Church has done nothing to promote atheism. It's statements of faith declare belief in the triune God. Yet you magically come up with this "good chunk" who do not believe. The closest we have come to seeking consensus on belief in our church was when Reverend Richard Bott recently conducted a survey of United Church ministers. Here's what The Observer magazine reported: "Of the 1,353 ministry personnel who responded to the online survey, “almost 95 percent affirmed a belief in God, with a large number (almost 80 percent) affirming a belief in a supernatural, theistic God.” (The Observer Magazine September 2016) That there are even 5% of ministers in my church do not believe in God makes me very sad. Yet 95% expressed belief in God. While the methodology of the survey did not lend itself to a comprehensive, empirical result, it is being seen as a very accurate snapshot.

Supposing Rev. Bott's survey is accurate at all, do the math. Over 20% of your ministers do not believe in a "supernatural, theistic God." 5% of ordained ministers not being on board with what you propose is troubling enough. We're looking at 20%+. And what about the membership? Think they are more or less theistic? I think it's safe to say they are less theistic, but to suggest they are any less than 20% of the total would be difficult to accept without better information.

You have a problem. Your proposed solution is pretty drastic. What's worse, you can't show how those non-theistic types are wrong. You just like to declare things and make people who don't agree with you uneasy. I think it should go the other way. I think people who just declare things on the back of zero evidence and insist everyone else should fall in line should be the uneasy ones.

 

[paradox3]

I consider those words accurate. I think that making people feel like second class members is the sort of thing a jerk would do. I'd like to think there are better answers.

And how would you demonstrate that anyone is being made to feel like a second class member? What evidence do you have for this claim?

 

[paradox3]

There are many nuanced understandings of God, @chansen.

The 5% who are not "on board" endorsed the notion of God as metaphor for values or what have you. What is best in the human condition or something similar, I don't remember the exact wording.

Gretta has recently acknowledged some of the semantic difficulties involved in discussing God. She has owned up to causing confusion with her use of the terms "non-theistic" and "non-traditional". She has also expressed surprise at some of the reactions she received to her use of these terms.

 

[chansen]

And how would you demonstrate that anyone is being made to feel like a second class member? What evidence do you have for this claim?

I openly suggest that defining a person who is allowed to be a member but who may never be allowed to experience a leader they can identify with as "second class", is based on more reason and evidence than a first century charismatic religious figure based on writings that came years after his supposed death to save us from something that no one has ever adequately described and to this day generates no substantial agreement.

 

[airclean33]

Some unbelievers won't accept any God-talk. Some will accept God-talk that is non-traditional and broad (e.g. lends itself to metaphorical, pan-, or panen- theistic interpretations). Some believers will only accept traditional God-talk. Some will accept God-talk that is non-traditional and broad (e.g. lends itself to metaphorical, pan-, or panen- theistic interpretations).

To be honest, I don't think you can create a church that will appeal to all on all sides of belief. Gretta's approach, for starters, clearly isn't it. Many believers, even progressive ones, reject it.

So, you probably have to hit a middle ground and accept that those on the extremes, the strong believers in supernatural theism and those atheists/agnostics who reject any kind of "God-talk", metaphorical or not, will leave for greener pastures.

For my part, the churches described above by you and Bette would be a decent fit for me, esp. the removal of atonement theology language from communion.

Airclean --Post
Hi Mandalla - The Church I believe in , was never meant for unbeliever's. But for Believers those who walk with Christ Jesus, they are Sisters an Brothers in Christ. There should be no reason for a none believe, not to come, and see what's happening . But I believe if they wish to join us and stay, they should accept Jesus as The Christ. We are a family under The LORD GOD. The Church is His House.

Reappearance of Biblical "Ger", Torah-Believing Non-Jew, Signals Coming Redemption

 

[airclean33]

Supposing Rev. Bott's survey is accurate at all, do the math. Over 20% of your ministers do not believe in a "supernatural, theistic God." 5% of ordained ministers not being on board with what you propose is troubling enough. We're looking at 20%+. And what about the membership? Think they are more or less theistic? I think it's safe to say they are less theistic, but to suggest they are any less than 20% of the total would be difficult to accept without better information.

You have a problem. Your proposed solution is pretty drastic. What's worse, you can't show how those non-theistic types are wrong. You just like to declare things and make people who don't agree with you uneasy. I think it should go the other way. I think people who just declare things on the back of zero evidence and insist everyone else should fall in line should be the uneasy ones.

--Airclean---Chansen We are claiming to be Christian, and can not accept those who do not .
We go by GODS word that states . We are not to be part of the world. What has a Christian to do with a none believe?

 

[chansen]

Here's another example of why you guys can't have nice things.

 

[BetteTheRed]

If that's the case, airclean, buzz off. What have you got to do with me?

 

[paradox3]

I openly suggest that defining a person who is allowed to be a member but who may never be allowed to experience a leader they can identify with as "second class", is based on more reason and evidence than a first century charismatic religious figure based on writings that came years after his supposed death to save us from something that no one has ever adequately described and to this day generates no substantial agreement.

Your suggestion, your idea. Where is the evidence that anyone in our denomination puts this "second class member" spin on anything?

 

[airclean33]

If that's the case, airclean, buzz off. What have you got to do with me?

Airclean--
Now if I Had an avatar like yours.
You could have said Flock OFF

 

[paradox3]

Still waiting to hear @chansen 's ideas re: how we can accommodate believers and non-believers in a way he would find acceptable.

 

[paradox3]

You have a problem. Your proposed solution is pretty drastic.

Which proposed solution is that? Asking folks to affirm their faith in God and their support for our existing faith statements?

This could change in the future but right now we are a faith-based organization. Like it or not.