Ah, the 'different world views'

Drat. Every time I think I can muster a 'world view' The world changes.

I think I had somewhat of a  world view when I was 15; that would be in

1940...the world view changed 

In college

When I was drafted

When I got a job

When I got a better job

When I became a father

When I retired

When I 'discovered' Bishop Spong

Et Cetera

Yes.

It sounds to me like Rev. Vosper wants a Christianity without Christ. This, I would say, is no Christianity at all.

In my opinion, the lyrics of our traditional hymns are poetry. So is much of the Bible and other traditional Church language. To re-write traditional language when its literal meaning becomes politically incorrect seems foolish to me, as well as an offence to those who originally wrote it.

Maybe those men in Halifax had tears streaming down their faces because they saw traditional art violated? I would cry tears of despair over such folly.

What if the new lyrics become politically incorrect again? Will Gretta re-write them again? What's next? Re-writing Shakespeare?!!

Why not leave the old hymns as they are, and write the new ones in the language of our day and age? Many people do, and some of the newer hymns are as beautiful as the old ones. I sing them both with gusto.

In her book With or Without God, Gretta briefly mentions that she and her mother were "wounded females". Perhaps she is conducting a vendetta against the Church that she thinks has wounded her and her mother and other females? The misogyny of the traditional Church is, of course, a problem that needs to be addressed. But Gretta, in her over-eagerness to rid the Church of its misogyny, appears to be throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water.

Hi All,

I don't disagree with that notion.  If my child asks for an egg I don't offer them a serpent.  

I don't disagree with this notion either.  

And this is the bottom line right?  Different groups and different world views.  It isn't a competition, at least it wouldn't be in a perfect world, it would be co-operative.  And yet, when that co-operation doesn't extend to the whole should we ignore the differences and pretend that they don't exist or should we honour them?

There is ecumenical dialogue.  The combined efforts of different kinds of Christians for a common cause.

There is interfaith dialogue.  The combined efforts of different kinds of Religious beliefs for a common cause.

Do we need to wear the same label to do the same work?

When we refuse to wear a certain label do we belong to the same team?

Grace and peace to you.

John

In another thread it was suggested that a city gets the mayor it deserves.

Dare we extend that and say that a denomination gets the spiritual leaders it deserves.

Decades ago the UCCanada hoisted up a "big tent" philosophy. Suddenly it was okay if its leaders didn't believe the Gospel 100%. Okay if its leaders didn't believe in Jesus as the only way to God 100%. Began to doubt the Bible.

Gradually, over the years, those doubts became more and more commonplace, until the denomination began to honor them.

Behold the next step in your devolution - a minister who's an atheist! Should we really be so surprised. A slippery slope indeed.

What's next UCCanada?

What's next?

Hi Dcn Jae,

Seems appropriate.

Not true.  The Basis of Union didn't change.  The standards of 1925 were the same up until recently.  What has been happening, apparently, is that some were playing a game.  When asked if they were in essential agreement they lied.

Should discernment committees have caught that?

Yes they should have.

Why didn't they?  That is a really good question for which I have no ready answer.

Same fallacy addressed above.

Again, same fallacy as above.

It represents more of the same with respect to failure to discern.  I'm not sure it represents a devolution.

Should we be so surprised.  I think the surprise inside exists in two forms.  Some are surprised that this has happened and others are more surprised that folk were surprised.

I note that many of the Reverend Vosper's contemporaries have not turned out precisely as she has.  So it would appear that the Reverend Vosper represents a rather unique constellation of experiences.

Younger generations of clergy do not reflect the same place that the Reverend Vosper is nor do I think that she represents a large portion of the United Church population be it clergy or laity.

Is she representative of a trend?  Only if you draw the parametres really broadly.

Who knows for certain?

Whatever it is it will catch somebody off guard.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Not true.  The Basis of Union didn't change.  The standards of 1925 were the same up until recently.  What has been happening, apparently, is that some were playing a game.  When asked if they were in essential agreement they lied.

I know you are quoting RevJohn here Seeler - -  am I the only one who finds this disheartening?

/
I lost a whole post here. I'll try again.

/
RevJohn - I am very careful before I accuse someone of lying. In my opinion to lie means to intentionally deceive. I don't think that is what happened here.

/
Not everybody agrees on what 'essential agreement' means. Some people might think that a person has to be in almost complete agreement to use the phrase; others might leave quite a bit to interpretation. (ie does resurrection of the body have to mean a physical body, or could it be a spiritual body?)

/
Also people change their beliefs over a period of time. What they honestly claimed to believe ten or fifteen years ago might not be what they believe now. I hope it doesn't. I hope that they have grown and changed.

/
I might have my head in the sand but I think that, with a few exceptions, most UCC clergy and laity are still in essential agreement with the basis of union. I don't think that they lied.

Hi seeler,

As am I.  I haven't pointed the finger at anyone individual and said "You lied."

That said I have heard folk admit to lying when asked.

When you say yes when you really mean no that isn't an accident.

I'm not sure I know what you are identifying as "here."

While true that only means that there is wiggle room.  Yes and no answers do not provide wiggle room.  Yes means yes not almost or not quite.   When somebody says yes we do not immediately pounce on them to prove it by quoting article such and such.

There is some testing on that score.

I'm becoming one of the regular interviewers for my conference.  I am a designated sub which means I get everybody's files to study prior to the ordination interviews and I step in if there are any first-line interviewers who cannot be present.

My interview was 16 years ago I was grilled pretty thoroughly on essential agreement.

I agree.  That may very well be the case.  In that instance it becomes an integrity issue.  Knowing that there has been a change and knowing that essential agreement is part of the criteria if I can no longer say yes I should be doing something about it.  And hiding is not the something I should be doing.

I also hope that all clergy have had their faith mature during their ministry.  Change can be tolerated within limits I think.

If I gave you the impression that I thought most lied about being in essential agreement then I apologize.

I will not apologize for asserting that some have lied.

I do agree with you that most of our clergy and laity are in essential agreement with the Basis of Union which is why there has been no traction at removing doctrine.

Grace and peace to you.

John