Hello Everybody,

 

Getting worn out?

 

I'm surprised nobody had any comments for the tables being turned.

 

Anyway,

 

 

Interesting framing.  More doctrinal than Presbytery wants her to be.  It should never be about what Presbytery "wants."  It should be about what the polity allows.  Presbytery has oversight, Presbytery doesn't set the limits.

 

 

I don't find that a very convincing response.  I would hope that we know whether we would do something or not.  Suggests that there is, at the very least, some doubt in the Reverend Vosper's mind about whether she would be supportive of the Reverend denBok's right to believe as she wishes.

 

 

I find this an interesting answer also.  I'm immediately struck by the scale of abuse that the Reverend denBok would need to commit before the Reverend Vosper began to oppose.

 

It needs to be societal.

 

What if the problem is congregational?  Suppose individuals started to leave the Reverend denBok's congregation because it was no longer a supportive place for them?

 

 

Again the possibility exists that the Reverend denBok may actually go that far even if the probability is remote.

 

Whether that comment is fair or not I think it reflects a stereotype that those who are more theologically conservative must also be more doctrinal (popularly viewed as negative) and more prone to restrict the freedoms of others.  Such sentiment has been freely expressed in these threads.

 

What I note as consistent between the Reverend denBok and the Reverend Vosper is that they each have limits.  Places where folk can stay and operate freely and lines once crosse which will lead to opposition.

 

Yet only the Reverend denBok has been challenged on that.  Funny how bias works.
 

 

And likely they have if not directly shoulder to shoulder at least in concert with one another.  We know from reading the Reverend Vopser's material elsewhere that she voted against expanding the doctrine section of the Basis of Union.  What if the Reverend denBok also voted against that remit?  They may have come at the issue from different perspectives  the fact remains that they may well have both agreed that the best answer to the remit was no.

 

That is working together enough for the United Church.

 

As far as the vote goes both wound up on the losing side the question moving forward is always what next?

 

Because I don't believe that they will agree on what next should look like.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

/
Rev John wrote:

I find this an interesting answer also.  I'm immediately struck by the scale of abuse that the Reverend denBok would need to commit before the Reverend Vosper began to oppose.

 

It needs to be societal.

 

What if the problem is congregational?  Suppose individuals started to leave the Reverend denBok's congregation because it was no longer a supportive place for them?

 

/

Suppose individuals started to leave ... because it was no longer a supportive place for them? This happens all the time in this city and I imagine throughout Canada - at least when there is another church within driving distance.

It often happens when there is a change in pastoral relations. An old, much-loved minister retires. People who were considering leaving for years decide that this is the time. A new minister comes. He has new ideas. He changes things. Modern music - traditional theology. Young families come but many of the congregation leave. The more liberal church on the other side of town benefits as people who no longer feel comfortable in their old church switch (the Presbyterians and Anglicans also pick up some). Eventually the charismatic minister moves on, taking part of the congregation with him. The new, more moderate minister attracts some of the old faithful back. And so it goes. A church puts up a rainbow flag. New people come. And others feel uncomfortable and leave. It happens. At what point do we decide what is detrimental to the congregation, and to the UCC. At what point do we remain supportive of the minister and/or the congregation?

 

Reflect when ready.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

[/quote] I would like to know what it means to be more doctrinal. Does that suggest that someone could be preaching damnation and hell-fire? Does that mean the minister would be inserting "He" every now and again when referring to God? I think if there was a minister preaching hell-fire and damnation in a UCCan congregation it wouldn't get the same press coverage. Although I could be wrong. 

Ok folks, we allow ministers in the UCC to refuse me membership. We allow clergy to say and teach that LGBTQ folks are going to hell. We allow them to teach people think their kids are sick or "of Satan". We allow them to partner with "therpists" who will "cre them". We do so in the light of science, in the light of suicides.... and I do not think anyone has decided to take that on in the past 25 years. How bad does it have to get?

Hi SG are you speaking of things that were happening 25 years ago but are also happening today in the UCCan? Are you aware of it happening in any UCCan congregation in the 21st century? I guess it is possible.

Maybe my questions were too difficult.