I had a problem regarding this question as standing alone.  I had to go back and reread question six.  As I understand it (and I may still be wrong), is the question is asking is it possible to keep the UCC together as one church, considering how divergent some of our views are? 

/
I remember the changes of the 60s. I was a young mother then, involved in the Sunday School when the new curriculum came out. I loved it. I loved the little verse about 'little drops of water, little grains of sand, make a mighty ocean and a pleasant land', and the wonder box where we displayed sea shells and maple seeds and other wonders of nature and talked about the wonders of God's world.

/
And I remember a few people were horrified. Some left the church. Some stayed and persuaded their congregation to use David C. Cook curriculum. And some started reading more, studying more, discussing more - and benefiting from the variety of ideas within the UCC.

/
Is it possible to continue with these divergent beliefs? I hope so.

David C Cook   omg is it still around?

Crazyheart - David C Cook - I hope not.  I was speaking of the time back in the 1960s when the New Curriculum was introduced and some churches were desperately looking for anything but  (ABC - anything but the (new) curriculum).   There was the divide - it continues to this day.  New curriculum - for or against.  New hymns to replace the old blue Hymnary.  Inclusive language.  Women as ministers, elders, chairs of boards.  The Issue (gay clergy; gay marriage).  Affirming congregations.  When I was a child, you could drive through the countryside and recognize which churches had been Methodist and which had been Presbyterian.  In some cases church union tore communities and families apart.  Now you can visit two city UCC's a few blocks apart and sense an entirely different way of looking at God and the world.  The question seems to be, can we continue to both call ourselves The United Church, or should we admit to being different and separate and go our different ways?

I was once told that the extremes on both ends of any issue help to keep things in balance.  Animals rights activists vs. medical research.  Vegetarians vs. meat eaters.  Anti-fracking vs. the need for jobs (in the poorest province in the country).  Fundalmentalists vs. atheists.   Right wing vs. left wing.   Traditionalist congregations vs. progressive.  I'd hate to see either leave the UCC.

Are they talking about the remote possibility of uniting the traditionalist with the progressive wing within the UCC, or an honourable split between the two?

I'll have to go back to Question Six to find out.

"Let the United Church move forward into discourse with others," was Gretta closing remark in the Question Six thread. So the above Observer question to Gretta: "...do you think that's even remotely possible?" must refer to the discourse with other Christians, or Christian denominations, or other people in general? I'm not sure, and don't really know what to comment.

I think discourse with others is always possible, unless the "others" (whoever they may be) refuse to discuss.

Hi seeler:

Of course, it takes both extremes, and eveything in between, to make up a full spectrum. If you remove the extremes, then the factions somewhat less exteme will be the new extreme, and will be removed in their turn. In the end, you have nothing but the middle, and who knows where or what the middle is once the extremes have been removed?

We talk about maintaining a balance. But it takes the extremes to establish a balance! A midpoint alone cannot exist! In other words, it takes all kinds to make up a whole spectrum, and the liberal end of the spectrum necessitates the conservative end and everything in between.

Gretta and her West Hill congregation appear to be at the liberal extreme of the UCCan spectrum. Let's keep them there, they fulfill a vital function.

The trouble with this question, or answer maybe, is that it won't solve anything. Once we allow ourselves to decide that someone can be too right or too left, then there will always be a defining and disposable edge. We could decide that West Hill is too atheistic, so they split. Then whoever the next most atheistic congregation is becomes "too much". By splitting we end up with edges in the middle as well. I don't find either extreme appealing, but by splitting into fundamental vs atheist, each member and each congregation would have to choose a side instead of allowing a beautiful continuum of thought. Other denominations have split so many times the differences are nearly impossible to see but they cling to them. It's our acceptance of diversity that makes us, well, united.

A very good point, OneVoice (Hello, I'm not sure I've seen you around before). How many times can you split before you're splitting hairs at a very fine level? It is better to embrace the diversity and work how to live and live in that diversity.

Unfortunately, that is sometimes easier said than done. Humans aren't always comfortable with having to accept diversity in their lives or their churches. We UUs have enshrined diversity in our principles in a variety of ways and yet I've seen conflicts happen over who does and does not belong in our pews and pulpits.

Mendalla

 Welcome to the WC ONeVoice. TO a certain extent I agree with you but I think it is inevitable that at some time the UCCan will have a split of some sort. It happened with the Anglican church of Canada and I think it will happen also with the UCCan. Certain churches within the Anglican church chose to separate over the issue of gay marriage. Maybe the UCCan will have a split over the God, Jesus divinity thing. I believe more than a few would have left the UCCan church I attended if the gay marriage vote would have been in favour of it rather than opposed. This was a vote for the congregation to approve or disapprove the minister to preside over the marriage of same sex individuals in that particular church. They voted to not allow it.

So much for being he progressive denomination....

Hi All,

I appreciate the difficulty of separating this question from the dialogue which proceeded it.

I felt confident that those participating in the discussion to date had also read the whole interview and would be able to keep up with where the conversation had been.

So, what we have here is the Reverend Vosper being skeptical about the Church's ability (to say nothing of its willingness) to drop God as we currently use God and focus only on our behaviours.

At any rate the Reverend Vosper implies that there is a difference between her congregation and where it is at and The United Church of Canada and where it is at.  Enough difference that the two are separate entities.

Further, it seems fair to state that the Reverend denBok presumes that there are other clergy and other laity who think pretty much the same way that she does.  And the rest of The United Church is not only resistant but holding her and others who think like her back.

Here the Reverend denBok is making explicit what historically happens when there is a critical mass of difference in any organization of people leaning one way and other people leaning the other way.

With a difference of opinion this defined schism occurs.  Apparently, this time, for some reason it did not.  It still may at some future point.  I am aware of no overt discussions of schism at this point in time.

I was interested in the Reverend denBok's qualifier of honourably to split.

The Reverend Vosper appears to understand the Reverend denBok's point and what's more she does not appear to balk at the qualifier attached to splitting.

Which takes the converation into a more concentrated space.

What would an honourable split look like and who is obligated to act honourably?

While this exchange more clearly defines the line in the sand and who stands on each side it does not provide much by way of how we are going to erase the line or whether there is any will to see the line erased.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I think there have been similar lines in the sand throughout the history of the church. Sometimes they were erased, at other times they became deep rifts that led to a sometimes honourable and sometimes dishonourable split.

Who is obligated to act honourably when it comes to a split?

Both sides, I think. A "velvet divorce" comes about when both sides wear "velvet gloves."

In my opinion, these splits come about when the church becomes too much of a political organization and cares too little about the unitive consciousness which is, or ought to be, at the core of spirituality.

To erase the line in the sand before it becomes an insurmountable rift would require a return to this spiritual core.

I don't know about a split in the 60s, but a lot of people left. My parents did around the late 60s. But why so many splits? Why not work on finding common ground. There's a lot that Gretta holds in common with even traditional ministers. Jesus doesn't leave the church because she is part of it- because certainly two or more still gather in his name. And new perspectives don't need to be seen as a threat unless they are causing harm. I would feel more threatened by a literalist fundementalist preacher who refers to themselves as staunchly "Christian" with rigid prejudices, than Gretta who calls herself atheist. I'm sure most UCC preachers feel they have more in common with Gretta, than with, say, Franklin Graham, right? The United Church is a good "bridging" church. It's got that going for it. Naturally, with bridges, most people are trying to get to one end or the other- people don't tend to stick around on the bridge. You aren't likely to see huge numbers of people on the bridge. But some of us do like it there better- because that's where we meet people from both sides. I feel more at home on the bridge. I don't fully see things the same way as either Vosper or denBok and that's okay. I think ministers should be open about how they come to be in essential agreement about certain parts of the Essential Agreement so that congregants know where they stand- and it may be that the essential agreement isn't so essential the way it's drafted- and I think there needs to be a variety of worship styles offered until the older set moves on so there will be something there for the younger set, however few and whatever that looks like- but I think it's probably okay to remain a bridging church- teaching about the old while moving into the new- and not keep splitting. Enough splitting.