There we are, the divisiveness of doctrinal belief.

 

On a personal basis, Connie would reach out to Gretta. On the basis of doctrinal belief, she could or would not.

 

I think it comes down to what I said before:

 

Do we, the United Church of Canada, want to be a doctrinal church where unquestioning belief in doctrine is the essential element of faith, and where deviation from the official doctrine, or a non-doctrinal stance, is not tolerated?

 

Or do we want to be a church were spiritual experience, and acting from the depth of that experience, is paramount. Where the moral teachings of Jesus are acknowledged and carried out as basic humanism, and were the traditional Christian stories are not regarded as historical facts but as mythology or legend.

 

Or do we strive for a compromise between the two. We have so far, but compromise is difficult when the doctrinal camp refuses to include the non-doctrinal camp.

 

What would Jesus do if he were around in our day and age? Would he endorse doctrinal spirituality, along with its divisiveness? Would he be in favour of humanistic action beyond doctrinal belief?

How should doctinal be defined? Are these the basic tenets of Jesus' teachings?

Doctrinal is accepting doctrines derived from much debate over hundreds of years long removed from the experience of the living Jesus (Apostle's Creed, Athanasian (sp?) creed, declarations by various church leaders Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran, Anabaptist, Coptic, etc.)  The Reform church has something like 120 statements of faith that members are expected to affirm.

Rev Vosper posted.--

Vosper: But that wouldn’t be based on personality. It would be based on doctrinal belief.

_____________________________

Airclean----Could it be Gretta wants to be let go ? A martyr of some kind?

 

Hi waterfall:

 

I agree with Jim Kenney's definition of doctrine—and I try to abide Jesus' teachings. Moral teachings are teachings, not doctrine. Moral teachings are not absolute statements of religious belief that need to be believed in unquestioningly or absolutely. Moral teachings are guidelines by wich we are to conduct ourselves.

 

 

I thought so. Jusf wanted fo clarify. Thankz fo bofh of you.

I'd have to agree with you here Airclean. Just as we can be attached to physical things (of the body) and mental ideologies (of the mind) so can we be attached to power (of the spirit).

Oops, bad wi-fi double post.

 

Jesus did not reject all of his Jewish doctrine, as far as I can see. Certainly he wanted to breathe new life into it. But even his greatest commandment re: loving God and loving your neighbour as yourself has its origin in ancient Judaism. 

 

Personally, I think doctrine is getting a bad rep. At its best, doctrine gives us a frame of reference to understand something bigger than ourselves. At worst, it hardens into rigid dogma but I don't think this is a given. 

 

 

 

This section of the interview is somewhat confusing to me. Why is Connie saying that such a movement (to kick Gretta out) would be based on personality?  I get that she feels we lack clear definitions in our denomination but I don't understand this comment at all. 

 

I agree with Gretta (ha ha, this doesn't happen often)  - - that it wouldn't be based on personality, it would be based on doctrinal belief.

 

I guess Connie is trying to say she would be compassionate to Gretta on a personal basis but she couldn't support Gretta's theological stance. This seems fair enough to me. 

 

 

Okay, I will. 

 

I would not be in favour of "kicking Gretta out". On the other hand if she were to resign from her pulpit I would respect that decision enormously. I have expressed this feeling to Gretta directly, by the way. Granted it was a long time ago but I haven't changed my mind. 

 

 

 

It goes both ways Arminius. The "non-doctrinal camp" isn't always too crazy about the "doctrinal" camp either. 

 

At any rate, doctrine vs non-doctrine strikes me as a bit simplistic because it is probably more of a continuum of belief that is at play here. Viewing the continuum as two polar opposites might even be a tad divisive. 

Hi Arminius,

 

 

I think that you are being unfair here.  I am not certain that it is deliberate or accidental.

 

Doctrine is defined as:

 

 

It isn't that the notion of holding doctrine is causing a problem here.  The Reverend Vopser and the Reverend denBok both hold to various doctrines.  Both are obviously teaching something.

 

The problem here is that there is a definite difference in the doctrines held.  The Reverend Vosper is no less doctrinal than is the Reverend denBok.  The difference is that they are advancing different doctrines.

 

The notion that one is a problem because they cling to a specific problem would be a fair criticism.  The idea that one believes in doctrine and the other doesn't is plain ignorance.

 

 

There is no non-doctrinal camp.  There are only camps that accept the stated doctrine or reject it.  And those rejecting it do so because they have other doctrine that they prefer.

 

 

Jesus taught.  Jesus taught about how we should love God and how we should love our neighbour.  That is doctrine.  So I don't think that Jesus would be anti-doctrine.  Would Jesus say that proper doctrine trumps love of God and love of neighbour.  No, I don't believe Jesus would say that.  In fact the many Sabbath controversies he was involved with suggest that he sees human need as having an ability to trump doctrine.

 

In matters of life and death doctrine be damned.

 

When it is not a matter of life and death doctrine should be part of the bonds which tie.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi All,

 

Is it getting warm in here or what?

 

 

For lack of a better word?  We do have a better word, one that is more accurate.  Why not use it?  A movement which seeks to avoid an impartial hearing and seeks to move directly to a punishment phase is a Kangaroo Court.

 

The polity (doctrine) of the United Church is that a formal hearing needs to be convened prior to any discipline being delivered.  If a movement sprung up wanting us to neither investigate or give the Reverend Vopser a fair hearing then it would be out of order.

 

 

In all fairness it doesn't matter why the movement springs up.  If it is out of order it is out of order.

 

If it makes a legitimate request it also doesn't matter whether it is a personality complaint or a doctrinal one.  A complaint made needs to be investigated in some fashion.

 

The recommendations of the formal hearing panel would then go to the appropriate body of oversight for ratification.

 

 

At this point in the conversation it is probably most accurate to say that the bulk of complaint directed against the Reverend Vosper is based on the doctrines she rejects and the doctrines she holds more so than how easy she is to get along with.

 

That doesn't mean that any group coming forward can only find fault in the doctrines she chooses to champion.

 

 

That is a tough place to find oneself in.  Been in it a few times myself recently.  Not particularly because of a clash in preferred doctrine.  I am currently at odds with a fellow Presbyter who has used his position in Presbytery to abuse congregations he disagrees with.  That conflict was doctrinal.  He abused the polity of the Church.  I invested a great deal of time and energy attempting to smooth that problem out.

 

I don't know how close we came to needing a 363 review (fitness for ministry review).  I was certainly working to avoid that happening (and it wouldn't have been called to investigate my fitness) since if I was called to speak to the issue my testimony would be very damning.

 

I have known this colleague for a while and up until this point my impression was that he would skate around protocols whenever it suited him.  Most of the time it seemed nit-picky and not worth making an issue of.

 

I now think much differently and will not afford the same latitude moving forward.

 

Is he an effective minister?  His congregation appears happy with him.  My impression of his work on the Presbytery level is that it is dangerous and damaging.

 

Is he in violation of Essential Agreement?  Not that I have noticed.

 

Would I recommend him for another ministry position.  No chance in hell.

 

Which is why I struggle.  He has far more power in Presbytery than he has demonstrated an ability to exercise responsibly.  The executive of Presbytery has changed so dramatically that those present for the eventual showdown which included the Executive Secretary of the Conference who became aware of the abusive action and was present when Presbytery finally corrected it are no longer present at the table when the executive gathers.  Will he try this kind of abuse again?  I'm convinced he will, if given the chance.

 

And yet, all I have is a one off event.  And it is not of sufficient weight to be enough to put him out of action for good.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

Yes, there is such a thing as "soft doctrine," which is not fixed for all times but changes as new insights arise. Soft doctrine, then, is part of a body of teachings rather than absolutely true dogma. I, personally, take soft doctrine metaphorically.

 

The backlash against doctrine probably is due to the rigid dogmatism of some Christian denominations.

 

 

 

 

I think I have preached that myself, more than once.

 

Hi John:

 

Actually, I agree with you. My opposition to doctrine really is an opposition to "hard doctrine," also known as dogma.

 

"Soft doctrine", as in "teachings", is quite all right with me.

 

That the Observer used "kicked out" and "for lack of a better word" says something. Not sure what that is unless I ask if they knew other words. I mean every member of the United Church of Canada, be they clergy or laity, is subject to discipline from the appropriate body. Excommunication exists, although it is the very last resort. We have censured members. We remove colleagues from the office of minister (like defrocking) and remove lay members from offices that they hold. The evidence presented one would hope would clearly warrant the action. Rev denBok says, "based on personality".Is it personality? It very well may be. Certainly Rev. Vosper has moved farther than many, but the doctrinal beliefs she is not in agreement with are those that other UCC clergy are not in agreement with either. Would it, as Rev deBok claims, be like the French Revolution? Is that because so many heads would roll based on "personality"? IS it doctrine? If it begins, either way, where does it end? Do we start pass-fails with Basis of Union? Do we kik out grumps? Do we say, "hey skipping this is ok, but this one is a biggie"?That appears to be a realistic question, where is the line one must not cross? Rev. Vosper brings it back to doctrinal belief and Rev. denBok says that on a doctrinal basis she could not reach out to, or is that meant to say she could not defend, Rev. Vosper?

 

As I read it, Rev. DenBok is saying that a move to "kick Gretta out" would be a move based on the person/personality (Gretta - Rev. Vosper). Who else might be affected, because they are in some way "similar to Gretta", is unclear (like "chopping off heads" with no "clear definitions" of who is like Gretta).

 

In contrast, a move to "kick atheists out" would not be based on the person (Gretta), but on belief/doctrine (atheism). In principle, such a move would affect any atheist serving as a UCCan minister.

 

So I understand Rev. denBok to be willing to defend Rev. Vosper (the person), but unwilling to defend Rev. Vosper's doctrines/beliefs (atheism - does she really claim to be an atheist?).

 

That's how I read the responses, but I could be quite wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

 

Yes, Gretta Vosper self-identifies as an atheist. 

You know, that's pretty damn impressive that she does. As a religious leader, she hasn't told anyone they aren't worthy, or snorted cocaine, or embezzled money, or sexually assaulted anyone. She has simply looked at the reasons for believing in God, and found them wanting. A lot of people are reaching the same conclusion. Unlike myself, she finds value in the bible, and in the church. I disagree with her there, but by treating it as a book of stories, she's at least doing what she can to neuter the bible's negative potential.