" No, because the game has morphed into baseball"

Is this the new "ethnic cleansing"?  Contrary ideologies, penetrating the sanctity of Christs church?

Churches should evolve, not morph.

LMAO at "ethnic cleansing". What hyperbole.

Ethnicity: The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

Ethnic cleansing: The forced elimination of an identifiable group by mass murder or other violent means.

There are many ways this can happen. (eg. Immigration can also force one to lose ethnic identification. Eventual assimilation.)

Hi waterfall,

I agree with chansen.  The allegation of "ethnic cleansing" is way over the top.

Ethnic cleansing = genocide.  It is deliberate violence with extinction of the other in mind.  Using the term inappropriately demeans and diminishes where it actually applies.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Wiki disagrees with you, BUT okay. Think of a metaphorical "Silent Ethnic Cleansing".

:)

Ethnic cleansing as performed by ninjas?

Man, you really won't let this go.

The point I was trying to make is that by accepting atheism into the church it allows for the possibility of more atheistic ministers. Then what happens when they outnumber those ministers that do believe? Suddenly you have a whole definition of what and who's message you are proclaiming. Overtime this changes the "church" away from some parts of Christs intended message and may become forgotton.

More credibility?

Yes, a denomination of rampaging atheists spreading a message of good-Jesus love and tolerance without the hateful bits or the actual literal belief component would be horrible. Won't somebody please think of the children?!?

This interview is getting ridiculous.

"The all-inclusive church is mythology," says Connie.

Of course the all-inclusive church is mythology, but not "mythology" as a "non truth." It is "mythology" as a "profound truth!" As a big part of Jesus' teachings, which became legendary and mythological and are now part of the main body of Christian mythology and teachings.

To me, Jesus was unconditionally inclusive, and this inclusiveness is, or ought to be, at the core of Christian teachings. It is profound mythology indeed!!!

Hi waterfall,

It is true that wikipedia distinguishes between Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide.

It is not on par with someone stating that a hockey game has suddenly become a baseball game.

It certainly does not even come close to describing the discussion at hand or events initiating that discussion.

The comparisson is so over the top that it does not profit the discussion in any way, shape or form.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Waterfall, in case you're not understanding what John is saying, even though you both appear to be on the same side of this issue, let me put John's post in a more accessible format:

Alrighty then, I will bow out. Point taken. You're right.

I am going to Rehab and getting help.

There is general rule when discussing anything online: Do not compare anything to the holocaust, genocide, or ethnic cleansing, unless you're actually talking about the holocaust, genocide, or ethnic cleansing. It's a simple rule. Failure to heed it just makes you look extreme.

I find both to be funny.  They believe they "feel" excluded. They are ridiculed. They live in fear of others in the church. They have suffered 

Not only are they claiming "victim status" They are both belittling the experiences of those who are excluded, threatened, and attacked by the church. 

Another rule, of course, is that if it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions. I think that's Rule 34. Google Rule 34 at your own peril.

I admire a lot of clergy. Howevr I have notcice a pattern that a significant number  think the church is about there experiences. About what happens to them. That theology is a matter for there concern.  IT likely not the cause of the problem, but a symptom.

Hi Rev John --perhapps you could explain this.

denBok: No, I don’t think that it has. I know lots of ministers at the other end of the spectrum, who are very Christ-focused and also focused on social justice, who live in fear of some bully from Presbytery or a search committee declaring them a fundamentalist and excluding them from the main life of the church.

__________________________________

Airclean -- Is this minister saying to be found as a believeing  fundamentalist in the U.C.C  . You would be kicked out?  God Bless --airclean33

[

Yes, a denomination of rampaging atheists spreading a message of good-Jesus love and tolerance without the hateful bits or the actual literal belief component would be horrible. Won't somebody please think of the children?!?

[/quote]Hi Chansen now you do have me Laughing.Atheists teaching CHRIST LOVE. Please Chansen give me an Idea how that would sound.

Is there nothing you're not capable of misstating to suit your own purposes?

Ummmm....Gretta. That's kinda my point.

Hi airclean33,

No.  That is not what the Reverend denBok is saying.

She is saying that being labelled a fundamentalist will push you to the edges of the Church and make it easier for others to abuse you.  The reality though is not that the whole church is looking for folk to abuse.  Where polarities exist some folk do not hesitate to abuse.

We have actually discussed this before in the Church Life forum.  Particularly the following thread:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/where-presbytery-meets

Grace and peace to you.

John

I could read a moral story from the bible and teach it to my daughter, without claiming the story actually happened.

My understanding is that Rev. Vosper borrows lessons from the bible, among other sources, without actually teaching that the bible is inerrant, or that the events actually happened. Just like you can learn a lot about morality by studying Shakespeare. There are moral parts to the bible, and once you remove the shackles of having to take the stories as real or at least the existence of God as real, then you can focus on the good parts without being hypocritical.

A lot of Christian ministers also teach that the stories didn't actually happen- teach it as metaphor- the focus on teaching is not whether or not they happened but what meaning can be discerned from them. This is true of Judaism, and even of what we can understand of the stories about how Jesus himself taught- through parables. When he says, "Once upon a time there was a vineyard owner...." the point is not to focus on believing in the existance of the vineyard owner in the story and whether or not the events surrounding that vineyard owner really happened, but in the point being made in the telling of the story. Same applies with the whole Bible, I believe- as we stand back and take it in. There are many people like me who would not call themselves atheists because of that, though.

I'm confident you could redefine the word to make it work for yourself.

Cheap shot. Explain further.

Going back to the OIbserver interview, I was trying to remeber a term that Hans Kung uses to explain some of the problems that Catholic clergy have.(including there intellectual giants and leaders)  I think it also applies to Vosper and many clergy in the UCC. like those clergy that denbok knows and references.  

ecclesiastical neurosis.

I am not saying that having such is indicative of flawed belief, or being wrong or right, but that there is a suffering that happens within our leadership, because  they are looking for religious answers, where they may be none. Or where the religious answers conflcit with answers based on other factors.

Cognitive dissonance

Also, kind of like labeling someone a heretic. Once thus labelled, and given that reputation- instead of just someone with unique ideas- nothing they say will be taken seriously. Good bullying tactic.

My conclusion thus far about the conflict being presented in this interview is:

If Gretta's objective is to teach about life and love- leave her alone and let her do it. If her objective is to end any consideration of any concept of God from the church- then her objective is not about life and love because too many people equate that with God and always will in some way. Because you can't force people to believe in less than what they've experienced to be true. But you can always love.

If denBok's objective is to also teach about life and love, and chooses to use religious language to do so- leave her alone and let her do it. If her objective is to stand up for the language more so than the concepts- therein lies a problem also, if they objective has more to do with restricting language than teaching thr concepts. Because you can't force someone to believe in more than they've experienced to be true. But you can always love.

Hi Kimmio:

It seems that Jesus with his unique ideas, teaching and preaching was quite unorthodox for the Jews of his day. Some of the orthodox Jews might well have labelled him a "heretic."

And what are we doing now? Worshiping Jesus but labelling our present day unorthodox teachers as "heretics?"

So Kimmio- Can you tell me when Jesus walked on the water with Peter. Was that a story . Or did it happen?

I don't know. Probably not. Someone may have seen an apparition/ hallucination of him walking on water. That's not the point. It's...not...the...point. The lesson is not about believing that he or anyone else can walk on water. However, for them, if they did see Jesus I am sure the manifestation of their imaginings projected into their visual reality must've felt real- for them. I wouldn't discount that. But the point is that he is alive, in his stories, he transcends time and is always "with" people, through the storm, and brings calm. That, they could believe in. That, was real and lasting- that we can believe in. There's a point deeper than what's literal in all the stories.

.

I don't know about Airclean, but in my case, no. Absolutely nothing.

( That is a purposeful misstatement)

(I lied. I am the virtual font of Truth, believe me.)

How is it abusing someone if people do not want to go to their place? I only ask you beacuse the Denbok in the article nevr defined what they consider a bully to be, and how they opertae in Presberty.

There is a difference betwen not being popular and not being invited over to others people homes, and what a bully does. How can we know if bullying or abuse is going on if it is nevr defined. How can we know if it is someone being over sensitive to not being popular?

Well, I was a doubting Thomas at one time, airclean. What I learned from that is you don't need to see 'miracles' to believe that love is real, or to believe that life is a blessing, even in the tough storms. Love's always there. Just don't lose hope in it. Yeah, God told me that- you could say that. Life taught me that. There's no distinguishing between the two, for me, now. What I also learned is, if you wait to see evidence of miracles you might find out you're ignoring the love that's within and around you the whole time.

I'm not the only one to make the observation that you have continually changed meanings to suit yourself. Should I have brought it up now? No, I'm sorry, I should not have. Do you do that? Oh yeah.

Mendalla brought up his point the other day, and I explained why I didn't feel I was redefining anything. That said, words are redefined all the time. Ask Shakespeare. He's "boss". He's a "dude". ;) sorry, mind the "cannon fodder". ;) you "dig"?

Words normally evolve over the course of generations. With you, their definitions change like a mood ring.

Example?

Hi Alex,

That is not the abuse identified in the thread referenced,

As outlined in the thread referenced the bully begins with a statement.  Lays down a veneer of rationalization for that statement (typically that veneer is justice) and leads Presbytery under the guise of justice into a travesty of justice.

The whole story is documented in that thread and the minutes of the Presbytery which screwed up royally.  What is rare, not unique, is that saner heads actually did prevail.  The digging work required for a just decision was actually done.  And in the case referenced in the thread most of the digging work was done by the congregation aggrieved.  Those who were victim to the injustice actually stood up and said that they had been treated unjustly and how.

Even at the executive level when motions were being passed using UCCAN sacred cows and actively challenged in doing so the bulk of the executive continued to bulldoze ahead.

All of that injustice was Presbytery abusing its power.

All who participated in that abuse proved that on this occasion they deserve the label of bully.

I have fought similar abuses here in Erie Presbytery in the past three years.  The attempt of some to use presbytery and the power of presbytery as a whip.

If you wish to trivilaize those abuses that is your perogative.  They exist and they are real.

In the thread referenced I very clearly define the bullying.  You may not agree with the definition which is fair.  When Presbytery goes beyond its legal bounds to the point of censure that is abuse.

That is a valid question.

Someone being over sensitive is most likely attributing motive which does not exist or can be proven to exist.  For example.  Congregation A invites Presbytery B to use their space for a meeting.  On the day of Presbytery B cancels because of the threat of bad weather.  Congregation A feels slighted and attributes the cancellation to motives other than weather.

What weather was called for?  What does the forecast say?  How likely is it that the forecast is right?  How often does Presbytery actually cancel meetings at the last minute?  Has there been any objection to Presbytery B meeting in Congregation A's space?

The various answers to those questions help us to determine if Congregation A is being oversensitive.

When somebody stands up three months prior to that meeting and says, I will not attend for X reason" and Presbytery immediately takes action upon X reason without determining whether or not X reason is actually valid.  Is called on the injustice of that and corrects with further injustice.  There is no oversensitivity.

If Presbytery, upon recieving the invitation to attend declines and that appears to be the norm then you simply are not popular for some reason.  It might actually have more to do with architecture and accessibility issues more than differences of opinion.  If the reason is never explained there is potential for oversensitivity to develop.

In the thread referenced and the documentation attached to it.  Presbytery, particularly the executive needed to back away from their knee-jerk decision making and the influence of bias when presented with actual facts.  The apology offered by the Chair indicates that they finally became aware of just how short of loving and just they became and how willing they were to punish a congregation they found themselves in disagreement with.

To say that such abuse is only a one way thing would be equally unjust.  All of us have prejudices and all of us will act upon them unless we pay particularly close attention to everything that is going on.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi All,

I'm a sporty type and I'm not digging the metaphor.  It works well enough I suppose.

I'm guessing that the Reverend Vosper is not a sporty type.  This would be a very dramatic morph and nothing she has suggested represents a morph of this magnitude.  She may have been closer to the mark if she went from hockey to lacrosse or ice hockey to field hockey.  Possibly even hockey to football.

Up to this point she has been pushing for a language/belief change.

Here she seems to think the entire mechanics of the game has changed.  That isn't, I think, going to help her advance her argument any.

The Reverend denBok still thinks that hockey is being played.  Though hockey and baseball are not on the same axis.  One is not more of X and the other less of X.  Hockey and baseball are an apples to oranges comparison. 

As one who during my discernment process was labelled a fundamentalist (interestingly not to my face but in conversation had during which I was not present) this is a label which, in the United Church of Canada is rarely used accurately as a designation for beliefs held.

It is most commonly used as a pejorative and reflects how I feel about X.

Because it is a term that is used ignorantly it is a word which will isolate.

I have heard many stories from many colleagues which indicate that holding a more conservative theological opinion leads to grief. 

I haven't experienced such theological grief personally (or maybe I have and I'm to stun to notice).  People just sort of boggle that I am happily Calvinist.  When push comes to shove I am also prone to shove back.  So maybe I'm the kind of target bullies shy away from.

I have seen it happen. 

While I was not ridiculed at theological college I was teased.  For the most part it was in good humour and as I was permitted to tease in return all was fair.  My class during my time would not immediately nod in agreement whenever I raised a point.  They would, at the very least consider it and I would do the same in return.  We disagreed and did so respectfully.

I do remember listening to a junior classmate complain bitterly because one of her theological papers was rejected by the Professor because her only reference was a medium in San Francisco who channelled the Apostle Paul to get the straight goods on what he meant in one of his epistles.

If I had voiced my opinion it likely would have amounted to ridicule.  I hope the professor was a tad more diplomatic.

Quite frankly I don't know of any theological college attached to the United Church of Canada which skews towards right of centre.  How far left of centre one can actually go probably depends on how academic you can manage to be while doing so.

Depends on how we are defining inclusive I guess.  The Church, because it is populated by humans is all encompassingly human and every human frailty is, at times, embraced and run with by the Church and that is not a universally good thing because humans can be quite petty.

Prejudice continues to exist in the Church and when you manage to get a mob of like-minded folk together the only think keeping it from getting ugly is the self-discipline of those like-minded folk.

And that ugliness flows both ways.

It would not surprise me to hear that both Reverends have stories of being bullied in the past nor would it surprise me to hear that in unguarded moments they have been party to it.

Grace and peace to you.

John