Chapter 5 bump

Paradox, I can't be open to the possiblity that there is no God at all.

I can certainly be open to other people who feel that way, but for me to explore the "what ifs" around God's existence would be a waste of my time and energy, because my concept of God is foundational to me. As long as I am strengthened by it, and allow others to have opposite views with an open heart and mind, why on earth should I have to explore something that makes no sense to me?

I'm lost again, I'm afraid. I thought this book would resonate with me far more than it has.

nope, no way for an indented list, doesn't take Tabs and removes repetitive spaces, oh well, all good.

I agree Diana. There is so much that I don't agree with that the whole Vosperian theory falls flat. But I guess different strokes...........

Just one other question that keeps niggling. With these ideas how can she be an United Church Minister?

Hi Paradox3

Once again thanks for the huge volume of work and time you are putting in as moderator of this study. I don't know how you do it, but thank you.

I want to make some comments on the first part of Chapter 5, with respect to the biblical discussion you opened.

THis chapter reminds me about one of the problems I have had with the Bible from my earliest days as a member of the United Church ( in the late 1930's). I was raised with the idea that the Bible was the holiest of all books, and it was the foundational document of Christianity. There was just never any doubt that Christianity was the "superior" religion and that the Bible was the word of God, to be treated with worshipful reverence.

This attitude was passed on to me by my mother, my Sunday School teachers, and my ministers. I did not feel "brainwashed" or indoctrinated, it was just a natural thing, about which there was no question in my young mind. Nobody taught me how or why the Bible was written, or about the world view of the writers, or the historical milieu which influenced the content. To me, it just seemed like one continuous book, written as the word of God. No one ever taught me that "the canon" arose 16 centuries ago out of controversy, where different streams of Christianity were represented by different books, some of which were retained and some of which ("the losing side") were discarded, and systematically destroyed.

As I entered my teens and started to ask questions, I was symbolically patted on the head by my teachers and clergy, with assurances that "God works in mysterious ways", and sometimes it was hard to understand the Bible without a lot of religious training (which they had and I didn't). But when I started to read some "crazy" things in the Old Testament which made no sense to my rebellious and thinking young mind; and when God was portrayed in some very "nasty" ways, I pestered my church leaders and so they came up with some new answers for me.

I was told that the people of the Old Testament did not fully understand what God was like, and as the Bible books evolved over time, the concept of God changed, from an angry, punishing God to a loving God. They emphasized that it was not that God changed, it was just that people's CONCEPT of God changed. They finally confided in me that it wasn't until the New Testament was written, that Jesus fully described what God is like. Now I understand that what I was taught was nonsense, by today's standards, but I was not alone among people of that era. Remember, the NEW Curriculum was still more than 20 years away. Can any one else relate to the experience I described?

It is terribly hard to escape that kind of upbringing, and no matter how much biblical scholarship we read or how much we rationally understand the way in which the Bible evolved, there is still a core of almost irrational, worshipful reverence of the Bible as God's holy book. For people with that kind of background, it is hard to cope with someone critical of the Bible and to look at it rationally and unemotionally.

Reading Gretta's remarks through the lense of someone who has been part of the Christian Church for a lifetime, and who has experienced that kind of church background, can be very difficult. But if I can set aside the indoctrination of a lifetime, by well meaning church leaders, I find that there is a lot of truth in her analysis.

I was particularly struck by her statement on page 221 that "If we think carefully about it, we see that we have been bringing our own moral perspectives to the Bible and assessing it with our progressively broader and increasingly more informed knowledge of humanity, the world, and life...".

I used to think that this was only a fault of ultra-conservatives, who would grab a verse out of Leviticus to support an anti-GLTB stance, but ignore the same book which sanctioned stoning children to death for talking back to their father. But then I realized that Gretta is right in that I selectively look at the biblical verses that support love, compassion and justice and ignore what I call "the bad stuff". So I do not have any trouble with her idea of lessening the exclusivity of the Bible with respect to what she calls the "privileged book of divine wisdom".

There can be great meaning found in the Bible, but there can also be deep meaning found in other literature. It took me a long time to escape my lifelong conditioning that saw Christianity as the superior religion and thus the Bible as the superior divine book. If I had been brought up in Judaism, I am sure that I would have felt that the Hebrew Scriptures were my divine book, and if I were raised as Muslim I am certain that I would have felt the same of the Koran.

I think that Gretta is merely saying that it is time for Christianity to break out of its tribal boundaries and its tacitly assumed privileged position with God, and recognize that the source of wisdom and spiritual strength cannot be limited to one book which is deemed to be superior or more holy than all others.

IWonder: You wrote: { I think that Gretta is merely saying that it is time for Christianity to break out of its tribal boundaries and its tacitly assumed privileged position with God }

I think that Gretta is saying a great deal more than this, IWonder :)

I'm all for exploring concepts of God - it's one of my greatest joys in life. I simply ask that we do so with an open mind and when reading the Bible, allow the texts to speak to us without belittling them and refusing to consider the possibility that they do have something quite profound to say to us.

Vosper's interpretation of the 2nd creation story (and just about everything else but will stick with this one) was very different than mine and in should be no surprise that her concept of God is vastly different than mine.

She wrote:

"We learn that God is passive-aggressive, placing a tree in the garden that has delicious fruit on it and telling them not to ear it, behaviour fitting a kindergarten child. we learn, too, that he is not all-knowing as we thought, losing track of Adam and Eve shortly after creating them and wandering the garden calling for them. and then, of course, we learn that he is a bully, forcing them to leave paradise because they fell for his little temptation scheme." (With Or Without God, p.226)

I find her reading of scripture literal at best and at worst it's her impression of what the text says rather than what the text actually says. For example, God asks Adam and Eve "where are you" in the text and if you read that literally than yes you could assume that God isn't all-knowing. I would suggest that God didn't ask the question in order to literally find out where they were but rather to get them to talk about why they were hiding from God. I base this rationale on the response that Adam gives to God. He doesn't say "we're over here behind the trees" but rather says "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." A literal reading of "where are you" doesn't make sense at all actually.

She also chooses to read into the text in order to make her point -she claims that God is passive- aggressive by putting a delicious fruit in the garden and telling them not to eat of it. No one in the text speaks about the fruit being delicious - the temptation the serpent offers is not that they will enjoy the fruit but, by eating it, they will be like God. Desiring to be like God is a much more profound motivation than wanting to eat a piece of fruit and I don't understand why Vosper would choose to cheapen it in that way.

As for her concept of God as a bully. I'm not sure what your experience of bullies are, but someone who tells me that I have to leave their home because I broke the rules (that they were very clear about) and then gives me the means and opportunity to live somewhere else, is not being unfair, unjust or abusive to me. If anything they are doing more than fairness demands.

It seems to me that she is not looking for a consistent concept of God but rather a simple one which doesn't have much meaning in a complicated and complex world. If Vosper doesn't believe in God and is unwilling to encounter the complexity of the God described in the Bible then I have difficulty understanding the concepts of God she encourages us to be open to. I can easily envision a God as small as myself but the Biblical texts challenge me to see a God who thinks differently, acts differently and who is motivated differently than I am.

Hi Paradox3

I would like now to comment on pages 226 to 230 where Gretta talks about the concept of God. She starts with a very humorous, tongue in cheek, section which lists many of the inconsistencies in the biblical portrayal of God through the Old and New Testaments. She makes specific reference to Psalm 139 which starts off by portraying a loving God, an omnipresent God that is present to us wherever we go, and then as a murdering God who the psalmist asks to "kill the wicked". This psalm has always been a favourite of mine because of its beautiful poetry, but I guess I selectively stopped reading before verse 19!

She then challenges us to think for ourselves and not fall back on preconceived notions of God. She says that the Bible writers had all kinds of different perceptions about what God is like, but ultimately it boils down to our personal experience, and that experience can be very subjective. As you quoted upthread, she simply says that "In order to explore the concept of God, we need to open ourselves to all kinds of possibilities, such as God being light or there being no God at all. We need to take note of the ways we have been conditioned to experience God and then, when we're having some sort of spiritual experience, be wary of the easy explanations."

On page 229 she also suggests that the church over the years has set itself up as the "keeper" of "who God is" and used its authority and doctrines to validate or deny different experiences of what we think might be holy: "Whatever god is, it is not described by the church's doctrines."

Finally, you wrote: "Rev Vosper rejects the idea of God as a being.

In this, she is not out of line with many liberal and progressive thinkers, both past and present. Paul Tillich popularized the phrase "Ground of Being" to describe God. He was also comfortable with the term "Ultimate Concern". Current authors like Borg and Spong also argue against the concept of God as a being, particularly a supernatural being. I know as I came to my own spirituality through my explorations in science, I was drawn to the concept of "ultimate reality" rather than a divine being.

However, I do have a confession to make: I sometimes find the idea (not the image) of some kind of "beingness" useful during prayer or meditation. I guess it is hard to totally escape one's early conditioning.

Meredith wrote: "Vosper's interpretation of the 2nd creation story (and just about everything else but will stick with this one) was very different than mine

Hey Meredith, I think you might have taken her interpretation of the Adam and Eve story a bit too seriously! I took it to be a deliberately humorous caricature of the story. It reminded me of the caricatures of ministers you often see in British cinematic comedies.

She describes the God of the story as a bumbling male who tires easily, who wanders around the garden looking for these two folks he has created! I chuckled the most when she said that "creation took place from the least evolved thing to the most evolved thing and women were created last" The language she uses in this section is definitely light-hearted and colloquial rather than scholarly.

That's the way I took it anyway. I know it is easy to take issue with some of the ideas presented in the book, and that is fair game. But has anyone else noticed the light hearted humour that fills the book? (Or am I just getting punchy due to too many late nights!)

But, IWonder, if imaging God as some sort of "beingness" is helpful to you in prayer & meditation, why do you feel it necessary to move beyond it in those settings?

Obviously your understanding of God is open to being challenged and evolving, which is great, but don't you think that all your different ways of imaging God bring something of value to your spiritual life?

And just to respond to your next post, I got a similar impression to Meredith. When someone is attempting to completely deconstruct and reconstruct a system of faith, quite honestly, I'm not entirely sure light-heartedness is called for. Rather than being lightly humorous, the tone I sensed was mockery.

One more post before bed....in regard to finding "easy" answers to spiritual experiences......people I have met who have had a profound spiritual experience would not describe any aspect of it as "easy". Typically, they struggle for years with what the experience was, and what it might mean.

Depending on one's paradigm, attributing spiritual experiences to brain function is also a pretty easy answer, IMO. It depends on whether you perceive the brain as a conduit for the Divine, or all experiences as products of the brain.....I think the jury is still out on this, so the materialistic perspective is maybe just a little too easy.....

Diana wrote: "But, IWonder, if imaging God as some sort of "beingness" is helpful to you in prayer & meditation, why do you feel it necessary to move beyond it in those settings?

Obviously your understanding of God is open to being challenged and evolving, which is great, but don't you think that all your different ways of imaging God bring something of value to your spiritual life?"

Just to answer your first of three quick posts: You are very perceptive Diana. You have highlighted the dilemma I face, and I think I share with many. As my understanding of that which we call "god" is constantly evolving, there is a tension with some of the "old ways" which I am unable to avoid. The only way to avoid it would be to give up the search, and it is a search for personal truth, which is not easy. And to give up the search would involve a total failure of (my) personal integrity.

So I hold these thoughts and images of ultimate reality and ground of being in constant tension with these useful metaphors which make prayer and meditation easier. I can make it sound more noble by calling it "creative tension", but in truth, the struggle is real.

You are right in suggesting that these different ways of imaging god do in fact help me spiritually. I do recognize their metaphorical nature, and I find I am constantly striving to delve more deeply into the truths underlying the metaphors. The depths that I am trying to plumb are probably ultimately unknowable, but the journey is fabulous and I wouldn't change it for the world!

Does that make any sense to you? I think I am starting to flirt with incoherence as it is 1:00 am in this part of the country, and it has been a long and exhausting day!

One last thing Diana. I like your answers. You seem to always think things through very well, your advice is good and your manner caring. Too bad you live so far away!

Bedtime now!

IWonder, Meredith and Diana:

Thanks for your observations. I had another look at Gretta's retelling of the creation story after reading your comments. I think that she is attempting to be humorous, but it falls flat for me.

Canadian style progressive christians have been called "neo-literalists" in a paper by Rebecca King, and Vosper's account of the creation story is a good example of this. Her interpretation is literal and simplistic, and consequently she dismisses the story entirely.

This could be considered "All or Nothing" thinking, as illustrated on page 222:

"We will continue, we must continue, to discern our way toward ethical living quite apart from the Bible as we have learned to do. The Bible can no longer assist us in that endeavour."

The progressives (as they call themselves) speak about creating communities of faith which are "values-based, spirit-filled and dogma-free."

Much of WWG is an argument for the ultimacy of life enhancing values, creating a "belief system" of a different sort. I agree that the progressives are dogma-free, but I would argue that they possess doctrine.

Although Gretta suggests in this chapter it could be a matter of brain chemistry, the progressives do not necessarily rule out mystical experience. The divine is sometimes said to arise from living out the values, and from being in right relationship with each other and the earth.

Paradox3

Hi,

You wrote:

Much of WWG is an argument for the ultimacy of life enhancing values, creating a "belief system" of a different sort. I agree that the progressives are dogma-free, but I would argue that they possess doctrine.

I disagree with the notion that progressives are dogma free. I would agree that they have not formalized their doctrine. I believe that step will come shortly (in relative terms).

You provided a clue to that when you quoted the following passage:

"We will continue, we must continue, to discern our way toward ethical living quite apart from the Bible as we have learned to do. The Bible can no longer assist us in that endeavour."

We are being told how we "must" begin to think.

How is that not dogma?

Grace and peace to you.

John

yes, this is one of the very good things about this group, one is reminded ...

Meredith wrote, "Vosper's interpretation of the 2nd creation story (and just about everything else but will stick with this one) was very different than mine ... I find her reading of scripture literal at best ..."

I noticed this too, more-or-less fresh from some of Frye's discussions of Genesis, I hung up momentarily about where Meredith did

Gretta tries to make a virtue of being 'literal', but also recommends explicit announcement of bible stories as metaphor in services and so forth, there seems to be some confusion for her here, maybe it is partly a function of what I would call 'rhetorical inertia', enthusiasm, happens to all of us at times

as well, she has her mind made up on some issues which may really have more shades of gray in them (for me at least)

she is no Frye, that's for sure, but the exercise can still be a good one, winnowing you could call it

RevJohn: your comments leave me wondering how useful it is to consider Gretta dogmatic at this point? of course there is something to it, some of what she is putting out is ideology rather than experience and we all know how dogmatic the ideologues can be :-)

be well.

Iwonder said:

"Hey Meredith, I think you might have taken her interpretation of the Adam and Eve story a bit too seriously! I took it to be a deliberately humorous caricature of the story. It reminded me of the caricatures of ministers you often see in British cinematic comedies."

- I certainly considered that possibility but after reading it through a few more times don't share your confidence that it is meant to be taken lightly. I did get the impression that she was trying to be clever but the fact is other skeptics have written similar things (A book entitled "Biblical Nonsense" comes to mind) and their concepts of God were also extremely negative and based on a literal and superficial reading of the text.

- Say for the sake of argument that she is trying to be funny - Am I supposed to take the whole book as a joke? Mocking is not lighthearted humour. Caricatures are by nature exaggerations so if Vosper is basing theology on exaggerations I have to wonder how seriously should we take what she says?

You also asked:

"But has anyone else noticed the light hearted humour that fills the book? (Or am I just getting punchy due to too many late nights!)"

- There are times when I could appreciate and relate to instances of humor in this book. I found some of the descriptions of her seminary experience amusing and apt.

DavidLeeWilson,

Hi,

You wrote:

RevJohn: your comments leave me wondering how useful it is to consider Gretta dogmatic at this point?

Depends on how one feels about dogma I guess.

Generally dogma indicates that there is a form of closure happening within a thought system. It indicates that there are beliefs that are held to be so self-evident that they are above challenge.

One of the warning signs that challenge is not going to be tolerated is the use of the absolute. Particularly telling is the word "must" as it is a word designed to convey that something is not optional.

Grace and peace to you.

John

On the weekend i read an interview with her. She stated that she had these issues about not believing in Jesus and god during her education and before her ordination but she went through with it anyway.

SO, what does that say about someones ethics. she educated herself, found she didn't agree with the theology she was agreeing to uphold and yet continued along anyway.

Pretty dishonest to herself, her various congregations, her fellow UCC ministers.

Seh talks about how her congregation couldn't understand the bible. Perhaps that is becuase as someone who didn't ever believe it she wasn't particularily good at helping others hear the Word.

RevJohn,

I am not sure if it would be classified as dogma or doctrine, but Rev Vosper provides a belief statement in chapter 7.

"We who move beyond the traditional boundaries of Christianity are often thought of as not believing in anything. But beyond the beliefs that have divided us for milennia are beliefs that challenge us to hallow all that life is." (page 313)

"The following words were written in an attempt to defend the work that was unfolding in the congregation I serve at a time when that work was being challenged by others in the church." (page 313)

A few pages of beliefs follow, and conclude the book.

When the readers' group studies chapter 7, it will be interesting to compare this statement to the Unitarian Universalist principles. I suspect we will find that Vosper is more "dogmatic" than the UU's.

I am always interested to read about the "work" that progressives are doing. It sounds like evangelism of a different sort, I would say.

lastpointe: You wrote: { On the weekend i read an interview with her. She stated that she had these issues about not believing in Jesus and god during her education and before her ordination but she went through with it anyway. }

Would you be able to provide us with a reference or a link to this interview? I would be interested in reading about it.

Thanks so much for your very kind words, IWonder. You gave me a needed lift today! =)

Thanks Diana, I meant it and I am glad it was timely.

lastpointe wrote: "Pretty dishonest to herself, her various congregations, her fellow UCC ministers."

I tend to disagree with any implication that Gretta Vosper is being dishonest. Anyone can legitimately disagree with her ideas and conclusions, but to me she seems pretty honest in the way she arrived at these ideas and in the way she expresses them. In fact, from comments I have read from those who know her, there is very little inconsistency between her publicly stated convictions and what she shares privately. As has been pointed out in other WC threads, this is not always the case among the clergy.

Admittedly, I do not know her intimately, but I have met her and listened to her a few times and I got just the opposite impression. She seems to me to be a woman of great integrity who has followed her faith journey with intense honesty and fidelity. I can personally identify with some of the steps she has taken on her faith journey. She has shared the experience of many who are filled with doubts and questions.

Almost everyone has doubts and questions about their faith. There are several different ways to cope with this. You can simple push these doubts aside and accept the answers provided by the leaders of your church. This is certainly the easier path, and does not challenge the status quo. Or you can ask questions, read books, try to pin down the religious leaders, and even question the answers, doctrines and creeds provided by your church. But this sometimes can get very uncomfortable and frightening, leading to conflict with what your church tells you, or to the loss of many of the cherished ideas which you may have been taught in Sunday School. So it is sometimes easier to back off and decide to just live with the contradictions and the tension that goes with it.

In my opinion the difficult path is the one described by Bishop Spong when he quotes the motto of his theological seminary "Seek the Truth, Come Whence It May, Cost What It Will." It is hard to follow your own path to truth, with integrity, no matter where it leads you and no matter what it costs. From what I have heard her say when describing her faith journey, Gretta has followed the difficult path. It is not a path which is easy or comfortable. It is a path which has led her into places where perhaps she really did not want to go, but it seems to me that she is seeing it through with integrity and courage.

amen iwonder,

talking about "the Elephant in the Room," she says:
"When all is said and done, I might look back and wish that my mother had passed on to me her silver tea service rather than her penchant for saying what needs to be said. But truch be told, there is a lot more need for that irrepressible honesty these days than there is for silver tea services." (p49)

and if we put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is talking about the Elephant ... well, it's not an easy spot is it? we may realize that even given integrity and courage there is probably an element of nervousness too eh?

be well.

PS - I just noticed that my post is marked 5:56 am, not really! it was 6:56 here, early ok, but not THAT early :-)

IWonder: You wrote: { From what I have heard her say when describing her faith journey, Gretta has followed the difficult path. It is not a path which is easy or comfortable. }

Hmmm... You are probably correct - - I have no reason to doubt this.

The same could be said about my own faith journey, of course. There was nothing "easy or comfortable" about finding myself at odds with the dominant viewpoint at WHUC. Walking away from a community of faith where I had established roots meant following a very "difficult path".

No one would expect otherwise, would they?

Here is a summary of pages 230 - 233:

Gretta presents some of Lloyd Geering's ideas in this section. In his book, Christianity without God, he explores the development of our "theistic" God, a god with "being-ness".

He makes the point that "non-theism" not only grows out of the Christian tradition, but is the only logical next step for the church to take.

William of Ockham, with his "razor" in the thirteenth century, is considered to have a place of esteem in the transition of Christianity from theism to non-theism. He required leaving God out of anything if an alternate explanation could be found.

Comments on this section are welcome. At the end of the chapter 4 thread, a few posts were made about theism and panentheism, and about the nature of God.

Paradox3 wrote: "The same could be said about my own faith journey, of course. There was nothing "easy or comfortable" about finding myself at odds with the dominant viewpoint at WHUC. Walking away from a community of faith where I had established roots meant following a very 'difficult path'".

Absolutely Paradox3! As far as I am concerned, I have nothing but admiration for any person who tackles their faith journey with integrity, honesty, and courage. As I said upthread, there are many folks (probably most) who have honest doubt about faith questions and who find themselves at odds with church doctrine, or what church leaders are telling them I suspect this applies to most people who post on Wonder Café.

There are times when one feels the need to question the status quo, and to try to influence others to see the logic of their own faith position, and to work for change while still respecting the views and faith journey of others. From all you have told us on this forum, you have done that with integrity.

And there are times when you need to move on, acknowledging that your needs are not being fully met within the faith community that you are attending. You have also done this and found a faith home which is more congruent with your needs.

What I admire about you, and people like you, is that you have treated your former community with respect and you have acknowledged that their views are honestly and sincerely held. You have honoured their faith journey, and respected that their path was also honestly chosen.

This is why I truly believe that the motto I quoted from Bishop Spong's Theological Seminary ("Seek the Truth, Come Whence It May, Cost What It Will.") is so important. To me, honesty it is one of the most noble virtues of humanity (after love, compassion and seeking justice). I find the following words of Shakespeare equally compelling "This above all: to thine own self be true"[Hamlet Act 1, scene 3].

In my own life I have coped with honest doubt for most of my 70 years. The search for answers has often led me down paths which were very uncomfortable and which I wish I did not have to travel. Did I find all the answers? No! Did I find many more questions? Yes! Has the search been worth it? Yes, the journey has been wonderful!

Thanks, Paradox3, to you, and yes, to Gretta, and all the other honest seekers who face life's deep questions with personal honesty and integrity, cost what it will.

Lastpointe:

Hi,

You wrote:

SO, what does that say about someones ethics. she educated herself, found she didn't agree with the theology she was agreeing to uphold and yet continued along anyway.

I don't know what it says. I know that a lot of clergy in training wrestle theologically. For some it is the first real fight of their lives of this kind. It is also important to remember how the United Church uses doctrine.

Rather than doctrine being a fence which hems Christian thought in it is like a tether that keeps Christian's connected. With a fence there are obviously limits. With the tether the limits are less obvious and are only felt when one runs far enough away from whatever it is that the tether is anchored to.

Part of the process towards ordination/commissioning is the dicernment of the whole. Presbytery Education and Students and the Conference Interview Board have a hand in the final decision.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the Reverend Vosper lied to each of these groups the allegation of dishonesty is not one that can be rightly laid at her feet.

You wrote:

Pretty dishonest to herself, her various congregations, her fellow UCC ministers.

Again, I quibble with the labelling of dishonest. If the struggle has yet to be resolved it is difficult to say which is winning. At most, I think it might have been unfair for her to continue through the process if she was unsure about what she believed. Others were there to advocate for her and if they felt that she was able to handle it then that is the way things would have progressed.

The only thing dishonest with respect to her treatment of colleagues is the continuation of the stereotype that we are withholding crucial information from congregational members. I think that EZed, myself and others have addressed that issue sufficiently. I don't think that means that fabrication is going to die.

Everytime I arrive at a congregation either to provide ministry or in the capacity of pastoral oversight I hear the same calibre of lies about Presbytery. All we want is to tell people what to do and get them to give us their money. Some people are comfortable believing in lies and no number of facts to the contrary will convince them that their lies are lies.

It is a given that as a clergy person there are some who cannot help but think that I am trying to keep them away from the truth.

That is off-set by the startling number of people who believe that just because I am clergy I must fart sunshine.

For some I can do no good and for others nothing I do is anything but good. I thank God daily that neither opinion is the majority one.

You wrote:

Seh talks about how her congregation couldn't understand the bible. Perhaps that is becuase as someone who didn't ever believe it she wasn't particularily good at helping others hear the Word.

It is unfair to lay this burden completely on the Reverend Vosper's shoulders. The issue of Biblical Illiteracy stems primarily from the fact that the Bible is rarely read outside of a worship service or congregational Bible study. That is congregations and families failing themselves seriously.

I beg and plead with my congregations to read it more frequently. I don't think that actually accomplishes much. I know we can talk about Bible and interpretation for hours and hours and hours and yet, that is not everyone's cup of tea.

I don't agree with the Reverend Vosper's premise and I have shared my criticism of some points that she attempts to make. That is part of the conversation, that is not setting policy for individual congregations or a whole denomination.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Pages 234 "“ 239 are summarized now for your review.

It will be very important not to create new dogma as we seek alternatives to God as a "being". "What exists between two people" and "everything that is good in the world" are offered as two possible concepts of God. "Breath" or "love" could substitute for the word "God".

Gretta suggests embracing "the being-ness of our own divinity". This will mean seeing and celebrating each creative, life-affirming experience as holy.

The whole idea of Jesus being the son of God no longer makes much sense. "With the help of scholars and authors who make academic research accessible, we will have set before us a very human Jesus, a man of emotions, wisdom and desires." (Pg. 238)

Gretta argues that it is important to understand Jesus in context, and to see him as he has been represented by a variety of voices. He offers some examples of living justly and compassionately, but "there is no more import in the stories of Jesus than there is in any of the stories we see being lived out around us." (Pg. 239)

Let's continue on with pages 239 "“ 243, and see how Gretta challenges the "idealized picture of Jesus we've held for so long."

Jesus wrote nothing down that we know of, and written records of him came many years later. No other historical record contains anything about his miraculous works or resurrection.

"What was written is compromised by many instances of miraculous deeds, done for select people or situations." (a direct quote, because I don't understand what it means)

He had no intention of starting a new religion, or new version of Judaism. He was emphasizing certain aspects of his Jewish faith. His teachings about love and forgiveness are found in the Hebrew Scriptures and other religions, which predate him.

Some of his beliefs, such as hell, divorce and eternal punishment are unhelpful. He did not attempt to change any oppressive forces, but taught people to acquiesce by "turning the other cheek".

If he were humble and sincere, he would not want us worshipping him. However, he might be pleased we agreed with some of his teaching.

He is portrayed as an idealized figure with no brokenness or imperfection. Ideas we would now consider to be wrong include banishment to hell, damning the fig tree, and deriding his followers.

Many claims made by Jesus are unsupportable and exclusive. E.g. "I am the way, and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." (John 11:25)

Claims about him in the New Testament present a highly exclusive way of salvation. E.g. "The elect will go to heaven." (2 Peter 1:10-11)

Jesus' moral teaching is not outstanding. It would have blended in with that of other spiritual leaders, and may have been superseded in some cases.

Hi Paradox3

You moved a bit too fast for me here. Before we move on to pages 239 to 243 I would like to discuss something Gretta says on page 235 which might lead to controversy and misunderstanding. She says: "I'm going to try to stop using the word "˜god' altogether", and then states her reasons for this apparently outrageous idea.

Before anybody gets too upset about it, it is important to note that she says that it is the word "God" that is the problem for her, not necessarily the overall concept. In fact she goes on to list 101 substitute words and expressions that might be used to describe aspects and qualities of "that word" [see page 236]. To some extent this reminds me of the Islamic tradition which says that there are 99 names for God (sometimes known as the 99 attributes of God)..

It seems to me that the word "God" is a loaded word, that can conjure up a profusion of images, descriptions and theological explanations, none of which are satisfactory to everyone. None of the ways we conceive of God are logically or scientifically provable (although some are disprovable).

The Bible is full of descriptions of, and assumptions about God as the writers tried to put into words their personal experience of God. God has been described, defined and categorized by theologians as long as humankind has walked the earth. Our theories about God are sometimes put into boxes called theism, deism, pantheism, panentheism and so on. The church has tried to define and contain God within its doctrines and creeds since the early days of Christianity.

I think that in the final analysis, our individual concept of God is an inherently personal thing. You may subscribe to a particular "school" of thought or a particular creedal or doctrinal position, but the bottom line is that all attempts to describe what God is (or isn't) have only one thing in common - they are incomplete and will remain so. When any of us claims to have finally discovered "the truth" about God. It is a sure sign that we haven't.

Perhaps we can learn from the Hebrew tradition, where even the name of God is considered so holy, that it is blasphemous just to write it. Hence in the Hebrew Scriptures, they used the letters "JHWH" to represent "Jahweh" or "Jehovah", rather than taking the risk of writing God's real name. In modern Jewish writing it is not unusual to see the name of God written as "g-d"

The reluctance to use the name "God" did not originate with Gretta. In 1963, Bishop John Robinson in his preface to "Honest to God" said "I can at least understand what those mean who urge that we should do well to give up using the word 'God' for a generation, so impregnated has it become with a way of thinking we may have to discard..."

There are those who would say that Gretta's "god" is merely a projection of the best of human qualities. If that is true, then so be it, but has not that always been true? Has God not always, through the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, been such a projection? Mind you, some God images are more credible than others (although I am sure atheisto would say that none of them are!). Most liberals and progressives have discarded images of God as a kind of santa in the sky to whom you write letters when you want something.

In conclusion, I can see her point in suggesting that we discard the word. It is a word which conjures up a variety of different meanings and images for the people who use it. As soon as the word is spoken it triggers innumerable emotional and intellectual responses and often can be a barrier to communications until definitions are shared.

I can understand and honour Gretta's reasons for wanting to discard the word "God" (although I confess I will continue to use it myself, but perhaps more carefully). I would personally prefer to focus less on creeds and doctrines and belief statements about God, and rather, concentrate on the acting out of common human values like love, compassion and justice.

"There are those who would say that Gretta's "god" is merely a projection of the best of human qualities. If that is true, then so be it, but has not that always been true? Has God not always, through the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, been such a projection? Mind you, some God images are more credible than others (although I am sure atheisto would say that none of them are!). Most liberals and progressives have discarded images of God as a kind of santa in the sky to whom you write letters when you want something."

The Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament both point to a God that is very real, not mere projection. I believe God has an existence outside of human consciousness, so I reject a projectionist view of God. Were I to be led to an understanding that God is simply a creation of my mind, I would probably, like Vosper, reject the idea of God as useless, or useful only as a security blanket.
It is a false dichotomy that God is either a theistic sky-dwelling supernatural man or a figment of the human imagination, with no room for thought in between. This seems to be the major flaw in Vosper's arguments against the use of God in the Christian church.

IWonder: Thank you for your kind words upthread, and for respecting my decision to depart from West Hill.

You wrote: { Before anybody gets too upset about it, it is important to note that she says that it is the word "God" that is the problem for her, not necessarily the overall concept.}

True enough. But on the other hand, I would say that she is not necessarily in favour of the overall concept, either.

Remember when Gretta said that in order to explore the concept of God, we need to be open to the possibility of God being light or there being no God at all? For the life of me, I cannot read this as anything but a declaration of agnosticism.

You wrote: { In fact she goes on to list 101 substitute words and expressions that might be used to describe aspects and qualities of "that word" [see page 236]. To some extent this reminds me of the Islamic tradition which says that there are 99 names for God (sometimes known as the 99 attributes of God)..}

Sorry, I disagree with you here. She is not describing "aspects and qualities of God", she is giving us "101 ways to say that word." On page 246, she talks about how we have often projected human characteristics onto God.

This may seem like a picky point, but I have heard Rev Vosper discuss "life-enhancing values" many times in real life. To paraphrase her, "We at West Hill uphold these values and name them worthy. In the past, these values were attributed to God."

I am in agreement with the writer in the Vancouver Sun who described her theology as a "default to ethics."

Nighthawk: Thanks for your observations.

You wrote: { The Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament both point to a God that is very real, not mere projection. I believe God has an existence outside of human consciousness, so I reject a projectionist view of God. ]

Amen to that.

IWonder: You wrote: { I would personally prefer to focus less on creeds and doctrines and belief statements about God, and rather, concentrate on the acting out of common human values like love, compassion and justice. }

A worthy endeavour, IWonder :) I am acquainted with Christians at all points of the theological spectrum who would agree with you.

The "vosperian" progressives have belief statements of their own, of course. I see some folly in their claim that they are based on values rather than beliefs. Beliefs and values go hand in hand, I would say.

Paradox3 wrote: "IWonder: Thank you for your kind words upthread, and for respecting my decision to depart from West Hill."

You are welcome! I think it is very important to honour the faith journey of all people. We are all looking for answers that give meaning to life. My only hope is that the search is an honest one. I sense that yours is, and very much so.

The hard part about this journey is that it often leads us into unknown territory, or into places of discomfort. And, as I have personally found, there are many times when the path we are walking is covered with mist and we cannot see where it leads. This is where one's integrity and courage are challenged, and this is where it might seem easier to give up and discontinue the search.

I have occasionally looked around me at my dear and loving friends in my congregation who are comfortable with the ultra-conservative theology they were taught in Sunday school, and said to myself (or even out loud), "It would be so much easier to have such a simple faith as do these wonderful people. "

As they would put it, they have "given their lives to Jesus" and they are filled with love and compassion for all people. The light of their love shines forth as they do their work of caring and fighting for justice in both the local community and the world. And yet, for me to give up and abandon my life search, would be to deny who I am.

I know there are many others out there who share this journey. We may share different ideas, we may follow different theological or ideological routes. Some of us call ourselves United Church, some do not. Some of us call ourselves Jews, or Moslems or Buddhists,.and some of us call ourselves atheists or agnostics. But as the "New Creed" of the United Church implies, we know that we are not alone.

So as we plod forward together into the unknown, with as much honesty and personal integrity as we can muster, it is good, and comforting to know that there are many who walk beside us, sharing this journey, the search for meaning.

So let us continue this discussion together!

Hi,

the interview i read was in the Saturday Globe. I am sorry but I have already lost it to my recycling pick up so I can't find it again.

Rev John. Thanks for your input to the ordination process.

I agree that my use of the word dishonest is not correct. I guess what i was referring to is the fact that when you are ordained you are stating your beliefs in the tenets of the UCC. Certainly the creeds that we as a church uphold i would assume.

So , although i understand that the process of theological education is to raise questions and challenge the student it seems contrary to logic ( better than dishonest?) to stand before family , friends, God and state your beliefs when in fact she states she didn't have those beliefs.

I agree that in general we don't read the bible enough. For myself it is because I get so much more out of it when I have more knowledge. ANd my knowledge of Jewish civilization 200 years ago, let alone in the old testament days, is very limited. Alone, i am using a very limited literal reading which is unsatisfactory.

One thing I do however, maybe an idea for your congregation, is I read the scriptures after the service. I find that gives me scripture to pray about for the week and i then have some background history to go with it.

IWonder: You wrote: { The light of their love shines forth as they do their work of caring and fighting for justice in both the local community and the world. }

Aren't these conservative Christians doing just what you advocated earlier? Concentrating on the acting out of love, compassion and justice? Maybe they look at us and think we are missing the point with all our talking and intellectualizing about faith :)

Lastpointe,

Hi,

You wrote:

I agree that my use of the word dishonest is not correct. I guess what i was referring to is the fact that when you are ordained you are stating your beliefs in the tenets of the UCC. Certainly the creeds that we as a church uphold i would assume.

Not actually.

To be ordained one must be in essential agreement with the doctrine and polity of The United Church of Canada which includes using the doctrine of the United Church as a common foundation for further theological endeavour.

One also has to agree to abide by the authority of Presbytery.

One also has to agree to keep the peace within the Pastoral Charge.

All of the above is subject to interpretation as to what is meant exactly.

While in process one can demonstrate essential agreement and one can demonstrate a tendancy to abide by the decisions to Presbytery one may even get an opportunity to demonstrate and ability to keep the peace.

Post-ordination/commissioning examination of those vows will not happen unless something becomes seriously amiss or questions are raised.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Paradox3 wrote: "Aren't these conservative Christians doing just what you advocated earlier? Concentrating on the acting out of love, compassion and justice? Maybe they look at us and think we are missing the point with all our talking and intellectualizing about faith."

Maybe they do look at us that way, but we can't escape who we are. For me, the journey into wonder, the asking of questions, the search for my own true path is a journey I must take. Others may laugh or shake their heads, but they need to do what they need to do, and I need to do what I need to do. :)

Hey IWonder! It's good to see you again. I am enjoying co-hosting these threads with you.

Before we move on to the final sections of chapter 5, do you have any comments about pages 239 - 243? It is the section in which Rev Vosper outlines her objections to the "idealized picture we've held so long" of Jesus.

15 pages remain in Chapter 5. I will probably summarize them as one section. The final two chapters are relatively short, and then we will have the appendix (toolbox) to do. I am also thinking to revisit Spong's foreword when the chapters are completed.

A lot of the idealized or stereotypical images Vosper mentions in her book come from a bad stereotype of fundamentalist religion. It does not reflect where the UCC or even many conservative evangelicals have been for more than 40 years. She tends to ridicule all points of view except her own. And many of her characterizations do not stand up to reasoned examination.

"He did not attempt to change any oppressive forces, but taught people to acquiesce by "turning the other cheek". "
____________________________________
Paradox, is that a direct quote? (I still can't find where I put the book.....gad, I'm disorganized!). How on EARTH could she write that Jesus did not stand up to oppressive forces? He was apparently considered so dangerous by those oppressive forces that they executed him.

There are interpretations of 'turning your other cheek' which would refute her interpretation as well, plus, there's the ransacking of the temple, pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious establishment while empowering the poor and marginalized classes by teachingt hem that they, too, were beloved children of God......seems like trying to change oppressive forces to me!

This one sentence really makes me realize yet again how the words of the Bible are open to just about any interpretations we bring to them.....this particular interpretation of Jesus as a doormat is just incredible to me.

Diana: Here is the direct quote, from page 242:

"He is not recorded as having attempted to change any oppressive forces, but taught people rather to acquiesce ("turn the other cheek") - - a stance that is fine to a point but not at all helpful in ending slavery, racism, patriarchal hierarchy, and so on."

It's a good thing Martin Luther King Jr. didn't believe that.

Thanks, paradox. =)