bump for discussion

paradox3, I had to google TAWAGFAT because I didn't know what it meant. For those that don't know, the following link is from the Globe and Mail and talks about Ms Vospers book: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1989832/posts

I'm looking foward to your blog on this. I believe that the will of the human soul is more powerful than any doctrine or religion. The times are changing and it's sooo good to see.

Hi Neo,

Thanks for your interest.

For anyone else who might not know, TAWOGFAT = The Authoritative Word of God For All Time. Gretta argues against this concept, of course.

WWG is definitely worth a read. It is a controversial book which has many of us talking about our faith. This can only be positive, whether we agree with Gretta or not :)

I can see why it would be so controversial, as we become more liberal and expansive in our awareness (of the concepts of what humanity is and where we stand in relationship to God), there is, at the same time, groups of individuals who are becoming more fanatical (and dangerous) in their own personal idealism and interpretations of the truth.

The question arises whether Christ would be home in the Churches if He walked among us today. I feel that in order for the Church to survive in this century a healthy portion of humble pie is in order.

P3 - with respect I have to bring up a point you made about Gretta Vosper getting us talking about our faith. We made the same pronouncement when Bill Phipps said he didn't believe that Jesus was the son of God a decade ago and I wonder when all this talking will cease to be helpful for us if it ever really was in the first place.

If you look through the posts here and that statement only seems to be applied to a certain type of theology and generally an approach that says the faith you have is misguided or incorrect. The complaint is always that we have the wrong ideas or the wrong belief not that we aren't living more faithfully or walking closer to God. The emphasis is always on correct thinking rather than faithful living.

Kind of ironic because friend blackbelt often tells us that we have the wrong beliefs too although we don't give him much in the way of kudos for getting us talking about our faith.

Meredith,

Thanks for your comments. I would like to think about them and get back to you.

I am pondering what we teach our patients about thoughts, feelings and behaviour (in mental health practice), and wondering how it might be applied to faith.

From the Readers' Group threads, I know that you are one of the readers of WWG here on wondercafe. Do you have any comments re: my ideas about the four themes of the book?

Hi paradox3: I'm already working on a presention on CHAPTER ONE of "The emerging Church" by Bruce Senguin for our congregational book discussion group, and will post it here on wondercafe on or before Aug.15th.

As for Gretta Vosper's "With or Without God," I'm not sure whether Gretta left the realm of the spiritual or not. There is nothing wrong with non-spiritual, secular humanism, but, as a non-spiritual secular humanist, she should not be a United Church minister.

If she really is a non-spiritual secular humanist, then she is welcome to attend UC services, but not celebrate them as an ordained minister of the Church. I'd urge her to either resign her UCC minister status or come out clearly for spirituality.

Whether or not we use the name "God" is just a matter of semantics. I'd accept Spiritual Universe, or just Universe, Self-Creative or Self-Generative Universe, Cosmic Spirit, Great Spirit, The Great Self-Generative Spirit (as in the Gospel of Judas), etc., as adequate substitutes for "God," as long as it entails a belief in or an intuitive feeling of a spiritual dimension to our existence. Believing in a material universe devoid of spirit is leaving the realm of the spiritual entirely. This, in my opinion. is no is not accepable for a minister of the United Church.

Arminius,

Hi!

I will wondermail you about our plans for the readers' group. I am looking forward to discussing Emerging Church here on wondercafe.

Just to respond to your comments about WWG --

On page 16 of WWG, Gretta describes a "spiritual dimension" to human beings, within which we know and celebrate relationships, explore meaning, develop our value systems and explore love. In a RL sermon a few years ago, she described this as the "divine", and said that it is also what makes us most human.

So this doesn't really sound like secular humanism to me, although it might be called religious humanism.

Gretta goes on to say that the spiritual dimension causes us to explore what is utterly beyond description. She articulates her view of Spirit as follows:

"The peace and passion that alternately soothe and animate me may be described as gifts or challenges from a being or force remote from myself, but they are complex responses to my awareness of my inner needs and those of the community, whose needs transcend my own. Is that the working of the Spirit? Of spirit? I feel it takes place within my spirit, but whether it comes from somewhere else, I cannot say. I just don't know."

When we get into Bruce Sanguin's book, we will read about another Progressive Christian's point of view. I have not finished the book yet, but I am enjoying it so far.

TTYS ... Paradox3

Meredith,

Here on wondercafe, I have shared that I am a former member of Gretta Vosper's congregation, and I have discussed why I disagree with many of her ideas. At some length, I might add, heehee.

How ironic that I have been challenged now for saying something positive about her book :)

I agree with you up to a point. If all we ever do is talk endlessly about our faith, and not pay any attention to living it out, then we are missing the mark, somehow. It reminds me of that folk tale where the animals chase each other around and around the tree untill they turn into butter.

On the other hand, Meredith, for many of us lay folks, learning how to talk about matters of the spirit is an important part of our faith journey. I am grateful to Gretta that she has prodded me into thinking more deeply about my faith, and talking about it publicly.

It seems to me that within our United Church congregations, we could do with a little more talking. Some of the authors writing about church renewal, including Bruce Sanguin, are saying that we need to define more clearly what our individual congregations stand for. Won't that call for even more talking?

Just my thoughts, Meredith, early on a Sunday morning....P3

Bruce Sanguin, are saying that we need to define more clearly what our individual congregations stand for. Won't that call for even more talking

- Yes for the past several years there has been a trend where churches are doing exactly that. Talking, defining and writing mission statements (many of which sound pretty much the same). In fact a group of people in the church I'm currently serving did a similar thing and spent many hours defining mission and strategizing and mandating.

Problem is now that all the talking is over there hasn't been too much in the way of action which is the hard part. Yes I believe that reflection is important, goals and mandates are important but the action is too and that's the hard part of the piece. Sanguin says that we need to define more clearly what our congregations stand for and I'm guessing that fundamenally we should be standing for the same things. My question is how are congregations responding or living out what they stand for and will he be talking about that?

I have no disagreement with the 4 themes that you have named in WOWG and you could build a solid summary around them.

As you know I feel the only value of WWG is illustrates the problem with both liberal and conservative positions - It is a good example of how a 'liberal' is an absolutes in theology - takes the de-constructive position and makes it the 'truth'.

Of course there is a big problem in "god-talk" but it does not offer a third way that takes us beyond the word of god as the bible is truth - it ends in religion as projection and relativism that really ends in nihilism even-though it attempts to give ethical grounding.

A far better book is C Keller's On the Mystery - Discerning Divinity in Process - it deals with all the issues we face and offers credible, relevant accessible answer to thoughtful questions that must be asked - it is for the vast company of people who have given up on the church and still care ( as John Cobb says) You will end up with a revitalized faith and nourished in you search.

Whether or not we use the name "God" is just a matter of semantics. ' This is true -however semantics does mean a world view and some non theistic worldviews are just that - they reject any sense of divinity or mystery that is more than human projection - it is here that the author does really become a secular humanist and there is within that tradition some good but it is not spiritual or religious in nature.

In the end I found the book to be disappointing and do not recommend it.

Hi paradox3: So Gretta IS spiritual. I'm genuinely happy for her!

In her book, she talks about being a "wounded female," and that her mother was one also. I wonder whether her book isn't just one big howl of outrage against the anti-female bias, misogyny, and patriarchy that, sadly, still exists in Christianity and, to a lesser extent, within the United Church. Perhaps she perceives this pro-male/anti-female bias as so endemic that one can't get rid of it unless one throws out the "male" Jesus baby (and "His Father") together with the obviously dirty bath water.

While I don't entirely agree with her, her complaints are legitimate and need to be addressed by the Church. One of the obvious goals of the emerging Church is genuine gender equality. Perhaps it takes extremists like Gretta to shake the rest of us out of our complacency and into dynamic, creative and transformative action.

But the process of creative transformation takes time. Personal transformation sometimes happens in "a swoon, an instant," as Walt Whitman wrote, but societal or institutional transformation takes longer. People like Gretta have to learn to be more patient. Perhaps she ran out of patience, and her anger got the better of her. Anyway, she needed to be heard, and has been heard. She should be well pleased with that, and will, perhaps, mellow out a bit. I look forward to her next book.

"Problem is now that all the talking is over there hasn't been too much in the way of action which is the hard part" from Meredith.

Yes, easy to talk - hard to act.

12 or so years ago the National Children's and Young Teens Task Group met for 2 years amd pinponted so many of the problems that we are experiencing to day. We talked, we strategized, we wrote a resource "Honouring A Place For All".

The talking ended, the greater church did not pick up the strategies and the Resource was filed away. I think that apathy is killing us.

Yes, Pan, I entirely agree with you. It appears that Gretta regards spirituality as a human-made construct, not as something that is omnipresent in the universe. Her spirituality appears to be spiritually secular humanism, but not "spiritual" in the sense that most of us understand spirituality.

But, as I said in my above reply ro paradox3, perhaps her book was a howl of outrage. The cause for her anger cartainly is legitimate, and should be--and is being!--addressed.

Yes it is an howl of outrage - but sometimes there needs to be some reconstruction and the book is lacking of how that has been going on for a long time -yes there are problems with the church and that is a theme that has taken much of our energy, some of us, a long time ago, began the reconstructive agenda witness Diane Butler Bass book and Bruce S for another - there is within the process and faith community much work that has been done and continues to be done in the constructive mode - why suggest Keller as a better guide or saving paradise as a crucial book on the theme of reconstruction..

Arminius

Just a silly question perhaps but do you know if other religions
i.e. Buddhist,Hindu etc. spend as much time talking, arguing,
bickering about their beliefs and biblical or holy book interpretations as
the Christians at large do?

Last Sunday I visited Toronto's magnificent new Hindu temple
opened here last fall. There were a lot of people there with
some chanting going on in the smaller rooms.
Overall, the place was one of serenity, peacefulness, very restful.
Everyone seemed very soft spoken if they spoke at all.
Silence was observed in the main big meditation room
of course.
I felt the silence was authentic.
In a Christian church or atmosphere sometimes
it can feel as if when silence is imposed its like a penalty.
The Christians have this tremendous need
to talk....and talk...and talk.....!!!!
Sometimes I think a religion that's so difficult to understand
can't be half true.
Pity the new Christians introduced to the fold.
OMG...they don't sleep for weeks afterwards they're so
busy trying to figure out what the bible is saying.
Poor souls.... walking around with great big headaches!

Here's our new Hindu temple website.
Its Baps, a breakaway Hindu sect 250 yrs. ago I understand.
The virtual tour is really something!

http://www.swaminarayan.org/globalnetwork/america/toronto.htm

Virtual tour of meditation room - move your mouse around

http://www.swaminarayan.org/globalnetwork/america/torontoVR.htm

Panentheism:

You wrote: { Some non theistic worldviews are just that - they reject any sense of divinity or mystery that is more than human projection. }

Yes, I agree with you completely. It is clear to me that Rev Vosper ascribes to a non-theistic worldview. You said on one of the other threads that we actually dishonour her thesis if we try to read something else into WWG. A very good point!

She argues that her model of non-theistic gatherings is radically inclusive, and that it can accommodate a variety of understandings of God. This may be true for some individuals with more traditional Christian faith, but it is not necessarily true for all of us.

You also said on another thread that if the "vosperian" progressive push too hard for their idea of inclusivity, they are starting to engage in imperialism of a different sort. Another good point! Speaking for myself, I have no wish to distill my faith to a set of "humanly constructed life enhancing values".

It bothers me quite a bit that WWG argues for its model as the way of the future, but I have no quarrel with it as an option under the United Church umbrella.

I hope I have paraphrased your comments from some of the other threads about WWG accurately, Pan.

Panentheism,

Oops, forgot this!

Could you comment re: the four themes I mentioned in my opening post? Think it is a reasonable way to look at WWG? I know you have read and considered it carefully, so I would like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks...P3

paradox 3 and Arminius

Hindu Temple post

Sorry, off topic.
I'll move it to a thread of its own.
Please respond there. Thanks!

paradox3 and pan: It is new to me that there is a secular humanist "spiritual" movement out there that regards spirituality as a man-made construct, yet still calls itself "spiritual."

This, to me, is secular humanism. Although secular humanism is very laudable, and I have nothing against it, it is not spirituality. Gretta Vosper should promptly resign her ministry.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere. If we don't believe in or at least feel a spiritual dimension to our being, then we aren't spiritual. Although everyone, including the non-spiritual, should be unconditionally welcome to attend United Church services, the minimum requirement for a minister of the Church should be spirituality.

Yes your four points do give one sense of the book - mine would be

What is wrong and how this view of the bible is wrong - but I have now narrowed the meaning of tradition to that which I reject.

How our liberal revisions missed the point of the death of God but there is only deconstruction - ignore other attempts to reconstruct.

Religion as projection

how to be spiritual without being religious thus creation of a non spiritual inclusive community that has some memory of the tradition but has left it behind for the better way of speaking of church which is not church... Inclusive as imperialism

Yes you got my criticism well and this above is more a sarcastic view of the book.

Panentheism,

Thanks for your response.

I have been working on my blog/ article about WWG, and I have finished the first two sections now. There is a draft of the first part over on Social, but I have changed it up a little already. I am thinking now about what Gretta calls "a new entity", which is her vision for the church's future.

This takes in her ideas about being radically ethical and radically inclusive. I am starting to feel there is some contradiction in the book about the church of the future. She offers us her ideas for doing church differently, and speaks quite passionately about what church has to offer. Yet in her conclusion, she talks about possibly facing a future without church.

It almost seems as if Gretta has a utopian vision that church will usher in a more ethical secular society, and do away with itself. I could be completely wrong about this - - I will take another look at WWG. This angle did not come out at all on the readers group threads.

Panentheism,

Re: Religion as projection

In psychological terms, projection means perceiving that others have thoughts and feelings which actually belong to oneself. Are you using the term in the same way?

When it comes to God, does it mean we have taken our "best selves" or our "highest selves" and projected that onto God? I know some people talk about god as a representation of our highest ideals, and so on.

Can you help me out with this one? You have mentioned a philosopher who talked about religion as projection. Started with F... ha ha. I forget his name :)

ludwig feuerbach is the philosopher's name.

Yes the idea of projection is what you have suggested - it is the idea that we create reality--- there is really no ontological reality and the extreme result of projection is solipsism - in one sense, though, the idea is, value is human shaped only and can be passed on by institutions like he church or philosophical ideas. There is no ontological reality that suggests value thus god is human creation and our projection of our best selves. yes it is utopian - we are getting better, wiser, and more humane - human nature is reformed by our own energy and ideas, thus we are in charge of evolution - of what it means to be human.

Of course there is some truth to this but the danger is utopian ideals ( there are both religous and secular utopianism - like Marxism)- we have progressed and thus wiser than the past. There is no health in tradition and thus we must shape others in our image which is the image of humanity in what say is full ethical reality.

In most cases projection is coupled with extreme relativism - each group has value and there is no way to judge others - if a person claims this to be good then it is good because they have claimed it to be good - the outcome of the extreme relativism is nihilism.

The role of such communities like the church in projection is to pass on and to correct false consciousness -the loci of values though is not tradition but what we say is true.

Of course we must see all our values as relativistic but without relativism them. This means truth is a process but there is still some transcendent truth but we never can capture it - abstractions are just that, never the truth itself - thus phrases like the will of God cannot be used, it is our hunch that is in response to the aim or lure of God and we have shaped the value out of that transcendent value of beauty - we always get partial views thus humble about truth claims but that allows us to have critical views about other truth claims - it is not extreme relativism.

Panentheism - - Thanks very much for your post.

Meredith - - You wrote:

{ Problem is now that all the talking is over there hasn't been too much in the way of action which is the hard part. Yes I believe that reflection is important, goals and mandates are important but the action is too and that's the hard part of the piece. Sanguin says that we need to define more clearly what our congregations stand for and I'm guessing that fundamenally we should be standing for the same things. My question is how are congregations responding or living out what they stand for and will he be talking about that? }

Yes, I think that he will. I am very much looking forward to engaging with Sanguin's ideas, but I understand your caution about more talking, talking, talking, talking ....

This spring, I attended two workshops about congregational identity - - with Janet Cawley and Anthony Robinson. They offered models for addressing the "Who are we?" question. Robinson in particular emphasized that mission statements (and so on) are of limited use. He said that they have been imported into churches from the business world, and really don't serve us very well.

Like yourself, I have seen planning initiatives that end up going nowhere, and they are very frustrating. I agree with you, the time for action does come, and sometimes it is the hard part.