revjohn
The Observer's Beyond Belief Interview Question by Question--Question Six
Posted on: 11/08/2013 09:21
Hi All.
Fur starts to fly with this question and rather than simply respond to questions given by the Observer the Reverends begin to engage one another.
Which is fair. To a point.
Questions honestly asked need to be answered just as honestly.
You know the drill:
Observer: You come from very different places theologically. Can each of you justly call yourself a United Church minister?
denBok: I have no problem calling myself a United Church minister. But, Gretta, can I ask you a question?
Vosper: Yes, go ahead.
denBok: Okay, a respectful question. Do you refer to yourself as an atheist?
Vosper: I’ve been called an atheist for a very long time, and I have to accept the label. There are people in the congregation who are disturbed by this, but the understanding of an atheist as someone who does not believe in a theistic God is pretty easy. Yet I extend it to positing a supernatural realm in the universe. If you went with that definition across the board, a lot of people coming out of theological colleges and in pulpits in the United Church and Anglican Church and Catholic Church would also have to accept the label.
I would say that my deeply held beliefs and values have not transitioned me beyond what I believe the United Church is and the United Church I was raised in. I was a product of the New Curriculum. I never had an authoritative, judgmental God who overlooked everything I did. Jesus taught me to skate in my backyard. I had a relationship with him as a friend — that was how it came out in the curriculum.
denBok: I never had an authoritative, judgmental God either. When I read your books, I am struck by the realization that I don’t believe in the same God you don’t believe in.
Vosper: I know, but the reality is, that God is very strong and a very pervasive influence in politics and in a variety of things around the world, so we still need to address that God.
denBok: We do, but we address it by retelling the story. I think God is a major agent in that story, but not in an interventionist kind of way. What we need to do, beginning with our theological training, is teach people transformational spiritual practices and allow them to understand God in a different way than in Sunday school.
Vosper: We are now at the point where there’s no need for any kind of a chasm between the pulpit and the pew. Information is available in the pew in a way it has never been before. But I don’t think that reclaiming the language and explaining it all as metaphor is sufficient, because it just digs a moat around the church.
Living in right relationship with others, with the planet — that is what I have seen and distilled as the essence of the work of The United Church of Canada, and I’m very much engaged in that work.
denBok: Of course. But you don’t need church for any of that. The only thing church has to offer that other organizations don’t do better is the God thing.
Vosper: So let other denominations do it, and let The United Church of Canada — which is the only denomination on the planet that might ever actually say in its documents that the Bible is not the authoritative word of God for all time — move forward into discourse with others.
Thoughts?
Grace and peace to you.
John
Comments
SG
Posted on: 11/08/2013 09:44
Rev. Vosper addressed a request to speak to essential agreement, her role as a minister in the UCC, West Hill as a UCC church, and her beliefs related to God. She also spoke to accusations regarding building, salary and pension. She did not have to answer. I am glad she did. It allowed more than soundbites. There was no one facilitating/directing the conversation, there was no getting lost in it. It was just Gretta and a keyboard. She was the only editor. I am glad she hit "post". Reading the Observer questions through the lens that just read those words helps me. http://www.grettavosper.ca/
waterfall
Posted on: 11/08/2013 11:57
Thanks for the link SG, it helps to understand from Grettas perspective.
Still I get the impression that she uses the term "myth" to apply to God in a most literal sense of the meaning, which is.....non existence. When I think of myth I think of stories that may have changed over time but retain an essential truth. For me,God is the essential truth that we decorate with our experiences, spirituality and understandings. Some choose a fairly basic understanding and others are more elaborate and it is essential to speak through the many interpretations and find the common ground that all believers stand on. Rather than remove the foundation I believe it's better to build on it. If all she depends on to secure her foundational freedom of current "popular" or cultural thinking is money and good deeds, she may or may not succeed. All corporations take this risk and that is what she is creating although I believe she would be sincere in her efforts to avoid it. She seems to justify her position in the UCC by way of contributing financially to causes that she believe are worthy and knowing full well that she holds an ace card by leading an atheistic gathering that contributes enough to pay the bills.
Would I be allowed to bring my brains and my Christianity though her doors and still feel included?
Arminius
Posted on: 11/08/2013 12:36
Observer: You come from very different places theologically. Can each of you justly call yourself a United Church minister?
denBok: I have no problem calling myself a United Church minister. But, Gretta, can I ask you a question?
Vosper: Yes, go ahead.
denBok: Okay, a respectful question. Do you refer to yourself as an atheist?
Vosper: I’ve been called an atheist for a very long time, and I have to accept the label. There are people in the congregation who are disturbed by this, but the understanding of an atheist as someone who does not believe in a theistic God is pretty easy. Yet I extend it to positing a supernatural realm in the universe. If you went with that definition across the board, a lot of people coming out of theological colleges and in pulpits in the United Church and Anglican Church and Catholic Church would also have to accept the label.
I would say that my deeply held beliefs and values have not transitioned me beyond what I believe the United Church is and the United Church I was raised in. I was a product of the New Curriculum. I never had an authoritative, judgmental God who overlooked everything I did. Jesus taught me to skate in my backyard. I had a relationship with him as a friend — that was how it came out in the curriculum.
denBok: I never had an authoritative, judgmental God either. When I read your books, I am struck by the realization that I don’t believe in the same God you don’t believe in.
Vosper: I know, but the reality is, that God is very strong and a very pervasive influence in politics and in a variety of things around the world, so we still need to address that God.
denBok: We do, but we address it by retelling the story. I think God is a major agent in that story, but not in an interventionist kind of way. What we need to do, beginning with our theological training, is teach people transformational spiritual practices and allow them to understand God in a different way than in Sunday school.
Vosper: We are now at the point where there’s no need for any kind of a chasm between the pulpit and the pew. Information is available in the pew in a way it has never been before. But I don’t think that reclaiming the language and explaining it all as metaphor is sufficient, because it just digs a moat around the church.
Living in right relationship with others, with the planet — that is what I have seen and distilled as the essence of the work of The United Church of Canada, and I’m very much engaged in that work.
denBok: Of course. But you don’t need church for any of that. The only thing church has to offer that other organizations don’t do better is the God thing.
Vosper: So let other denominations do it, and let The United Church of Canada — which is the only denomination on the planet that might ever actually say in its documents that the Bible is not the authoritative word of God for all time — move forward into discourse with others.
Now, we finally have a dialogue.
Well, in the "New Curriculum" that Gretta talks about, the quest for facts is the realm of science, whereas the quest for meaning is the realm of religion and philosophy. And religion in particular searches not only for meaning but puts that meaning into action. Gretta describes this action as "living in the right relationship with others and the planet."
I agree with her so far, but I think we can retain our tradtional language and regard it as metaphorical. Even Gretta's new language is metaphorical, because explaining meaning is not a hard science. So why not retain the traditional metaphors, or some of the traditional metaphors—as metaphors!
In my opinion, without the traditional Christian stories and metaphors, a Christian Church is no longer "Christian" but a secular humanist organization. By abandoning all traditional Christian language, Gretta's congregation has crossed the threshold from being a Christian denomination to being a humanist denomination. However, if it were up to me, I'd keep West Hill United within the UCCan.
I myself have been tempted to cross the threshold from traditional Christianity to secular humanism. Not because I don't love our traditional Christian stories (I love them dearly!) but because these stories have been and still are presented as facts.
In my opinion, the problem with the Christian Church in general is that the ancient metaphors were literalized and regarded as facts, on par with scientific facts. Regarding literalized mythology as fact definitely belongs to a dark and distant past! There is no room for it in modern day Church!
chansen
Posted on: 11/08/2013 12:21
Oh, snap.
That was really well done. Thanks for posting that link, SG.
chansen
Posted on: 11/08/2013 12:24
Would I be allowed to bring my brains and my Christianity though her doors and still feel included?
As she points out, she doesn't preach to things she and you can not and do not know. I do not get the impression that her style would satisfy your need to hear more about things that almost certainly do not exist, but I also don't get the impression that you would be turned away for believing in them.
chansen
Posted on: 11/08/2013 12:31
Here's my favourite bit from Gretta's blog post:
I have already heard far too many clergy patronizingly tell me they, too, don’t believe in the god I don’t believe in while being unwilling to tell me “and their parishioners” what they mean when they use that word, and responsibly answering the ensuing questions. Neither have they been willing to admit that the reality of the god they don’t believe in manifests and supports all kinds of horrors around this world and that it continues to be fed by the liberal assent to belief that the Bible is TAWOGFAT. As the liberal mitigation of the power of that god abates with the decline of the mainline church, fundamentalist beliefs, often nurtured by an absence from church (“I don’t need to go to church to be a good Christian”) that has bred a frightening biblical and ethical ignorance over generations, will only grow in strength and that is something I fear; you should, too.
Apparently, the long acronym stands for "The Authoritative Word Of God For All Time."
That dangerous ignorance and willingness to take the bible literally is even on display at Wondercafe daily - it's not just a problem in relatively uneducated parts of the world or the Bible Belt.
crazyheart
Posted on: 11/08/2013 13:12
In the group, there is another thread where they suggest that the United Church Crest has been changed(photoshopped) by Grettas Church to put in the Atheist Symbol. I couldn't tell because I didn't know what the Atheist symbol was DKS or Rev Gord couldprobably help us here.
chansen
Posted on: 11/08/2013 13:27
In the group, there is another thread where they suggest that the United Church Crest has been changed(photoshopped) by Grettas Church to put in the Atheist Symbol. I couldn't tell because I didn't know what the Atheist symbol was DKS or Rev Gord couldprobably help us here.
Wouldn't that be more my job?!?
I don't even see the crest on the http://www.westhill.net/ site.
revjohn
Posted on: 11/08/2013 13:53
Hi Crazyheart,
The United Church crest that appears in the Reverend Vosper's respons to Evan Smith has been editted.
The Alpha and Omega which occupy the black quadrant has been removed and a stylized A identified elsewhere as the Atheist A has been inserted in its place.
If you let your cursor hover over the image you are rewarded with a label which reads, "An Atheist version of the United Church crest."
Grace and peace to you.
John
chansen
Posted on: 11/08/2013 14:02
Yep, here it is:
That's awful. Really, truly awful. It's not even anti-aliased. Reminds me of this:
Also, I don't agree with editing the crest to suit one's views. That's wrong.
waterfall
Posted on: 11/08/2013 14:34
Funny, I thought they'd "shop" it over the picture of the Bible.
chansen
Posted on: 11/08/2013 14:56
Funny, I thought they'd "shop" it over the picture of the Bible.
From: http://united-church.ca/history/crest
Nope, they got it right. My understanding is that Gretta still refers to the bible, just not to an "eternal living God".
dreamerman
Posted on: 11/08/2013 19:28
In the group, there is another thread where they suggest that the United Church Crest has been changed(photoshopped) by Grettas Church to put in the Atheist Symbol. I couldn't tell because I didn't know what the Atheist symbol was DKS or Rev Gord couldprobably help us here.
crazyheart
Posted on: 11/08/2013 19:44
Oviously,dreamerman, there isn't a universal symbol,
chansen
Posted on: 11/08/2013 19:52
Atheist organizations are relatively small. How do you organize people around what they don't believe? They literally have nothing in common. I don't belong to any organization.
The most common symbols I've seen are the scarlett 'A' and the script 'A' used in the West Hill logo. The FSM is just a protest symbol - a fun joke. Same with the Darwin fish. Clever, but never meant as a symbol for all atheists. They're just emblems to put on your car to get a few laughs.
revjohn
Posted on: 11/09/2013 13:10
Hi All.
Observer: You come from very different places theologically. Can each of you justly call yourself a United Church minister?
Just noting that the question is easily answered with a "yes" or a "no." Probably should have thought to ask, "How do you justify . . ."
At any rate the quetion asked is the question asked.
denBok: I have no problem calling myself a United Church minister.
Not quite an appropriate answer to the question asked. Which was, "Can you justly . . . " not " are you akay with calling yourself . . ."
denBok: Okay, a respectful question. Do you refer to yourself as an atheist?
Poor form. This is probably more appropriate after the question has been answered by the Reverend Vosper and only then if you think it is still valid.
Anyhoo . . .
Vosper: I’ve been called an atheist for a very long time, and I have to accept the label.
Not if you don't believe it fits you don't.
There are people in the congregation who are disturbed by this, but the understanding of an atheist as someone who does not believe in a theistic God is pretty easy.
Ummmmm where does the qualification come from? Is this a legitimate definition of atheism (that it does not believe in a theisitic God as opposed to a non-theistic God) or is it an untested invention of a definition?
Yet I extend it to positing a supernatural realm in the universe. If you went with that definition across the board, a lot of people coming out of theological colleges and in pulpits in the United Church and Anglican Church and Catholic Church would also have to accept the label.
I'm not sure I follow the argument being made here. If we allowed for this new definition of Atheism to stand there would simply be more people who could be labelled Atheists? Granted, this is true, just as if I define the term American as anyone living in the Americas all Canadians suddenly become Americans. If I accept that definition can I run for President?
And what if the definition is rejected what then?
I would say that my deeply held beliefs and values have not transitioned me beyond what I believe the United Church is and the United Church I was raised in. I was a product of the New Curriculum. I never had an authoritative, judgmental God who overlooked everything I did. Jesus taught me to skate in my backyard. I had a relationship with him as a friend — that was how it came out in the curriculum.
And yet the Reverend Vopser is not the only minister subjected to the New Curriculum.
I'm guessing, since I am younger I was exposed to what was described as the new curriculum. So I also never had an authoritatian, judgmental God who overlooked everything. either. Jesus did not teach me to skate and our relationship, so far as I can tell, is friendly.
So what am I missing?
denBok: Of course. But you don’t need church for any of that. The only thing church has to offer that other organizations don’t do better is the God thing.
Anyone want to challenge this notion? I don't see much that can be argued against.
Vosper: So let other denominations do it, and let The United Church of Canada — which is the only denomination on the planet that might ever actually say in its documents that the Bible is not the authoritative word of God for all time — move forward into discourse with others.
This presumes we are not actually having a discourse with others. It is, all things considered, an ignorant statement. The United Church of Canada is involved in a great deal of discourse with others.
Also if we accept the notion that Church offers God and we are now not going to offer God then we cease to be a Church.
At any rate The Reverend denBok derailed the question and we miss the opportunity to hear The Reverend Vosper justify her position as a United Church minister. Mind you The Reverend denBok didn't justify herself either.
The question is effectively ignored by both.
Grace and peace to you.
John