What are your thoughts about spiritually inclusive language?

Bring many names, beautiful and good,
celebrate, in parable and story,
holiness in glory, living, loving God.
Hail and hosanna! Bring many names!

Strong mother God, working night and day,
planning all the wonders of creation,
setting each equation, genius at play:
Hail and hosanna, strong mother God!

Warm father God, hugging every child,
feeling all the strains of human living,
caring and forgiving till we're reconciled:
Hail and hosanna, warm father God!

Old, aching God, grey with endless care,
calmly piercing evil's new disguises,
glad of good surprises, wiser than despair:
Hail and hosanna, old aching God!

Young, growing God, eager, on the move,
saying no to falsehood and unkindness,
crying out for justice, giving all you have:
Hail and hosanna, young, growing God!

Great, living God, never fully known,
joyful darkness far beyond our seeing,
closer yet than breathing, everlasting home:
Hail and hosanna, great, living God!

Words: Brian Wren
#268 in Voices United

RevJamesMurray: That is a beautiful hymn, and personally, I would consider it to be spiritually inclusive. We sing it where I attend church now.

Would it meet Rev Vosper's critieria for "spiritually inclusive"? I am thinking probably not.

It would not accommodate a non-theistic or secular understanding very well, and we were told back in Chapter 6 that Gretta prefers to avoid using the word "god" altogether.

Oddly enough, considering my reaction to some of the rest of the book, I really love the toolbox.

Considering that there are probably as many ways of understanding the Divine in our churches as there are people within them, it seems to me that crafting a liturgy that espouses no one particular view of the Divine is a powerful way to honour the spiritual journey of both the individual and the community.

Here's an example: "We gather at this font to celebrate the Spirit of Life that connects us all and through which we come to love ourselves, one another and the whole of creation."

For me, the "Spirit of Life" is God, for others, maybe not. Either way, it would give each of us the space to connect to what is Holy for us.

The difficulty I have had with WWG is Vosper's overall view of progressive Christianity as the inevitable movement away from a theistic God. I 100% disagree with this premise. For me, it is equally possible (and I personally think more likely and more important) that people who embrace the "progressive"Christian journey may actually enter more deeply into God, rather than away from God.

But in the toolbox, she doesn't limit the worship experience to atheists; it has the possibility to be spiritually inclusive of people with a variety of different experiences of the Divine. I really like it.

RevJamesMurray: Since typing my response to your post, I have been thinking about the changes that were made to the music when I attended Rev Vosper's church. I worshipped there for five years, and decided to leave just over three years ago now.

The first hymn I remember being altered was "Christ the Lord Has Risen Today", which was changed to "Glorious Hope Is Risen Today". Gretta talked about this in the Globe and Mail article recently. West Hill has been making this change for a few years now.

Certain verses would often be omitted from hymns. For example, #415, God, We Praise You for the Morning was sung without the final two verses (which mention Christ).

During Advent of 04, I remember singing Go, Tell It on the Mountain. The final line of the refrain was altered from "...that Jesus Christ Is Born" to read "...the Greatest Gift Is Love."

Sometimes, we were invited to substitute the word "love" whenever we encountered "Lord" in a hymnbook selection.

Gretta talks about music selection later in the toolbox. I know that WHUC is using many of Scott Kearn's original pieces now, and making little use of Voices United.

"Although it is still difficult to find adequate music resources, theology you do not believe is no more acceptable merely because it is set to music. Begin by choosing hymns that need only one or two verses taken out of them; then get creative." (Page 333)

Gretta mentioned her objections to More Voices earlier in WWG.

Diana: You wrote: { For me, the "Spirit of Life" is God, for others, maybe not. Either way, it would give each of us the space to connect to what is Holy for us. }

Very true. I have said on some other threads that I would be happier now at WHUC than I was during the time of the theological shift. I can remember telling Gretta that I felt okay about hymns being rewritten when it was done completely. It was the omission of verses and the altering of words that really bothered me.

You make a good point, and some of the original congregation at WHUC look at things much as you suggest. Others have departed, of course.

I have been happy to join a congregation which uses Voices United every Sunday. I feel nourished by the "God talk" many progressives find objectionable, and I am glad to have opportunities to engage with scripture.

The worship style at WHUC has become virtually indistinguishable from Unitarian Universalism, I would say. The UU's congregations do exactly what Gretta is proposing. They offer spiritual gatherings which can accommodate any number of theistic or non-theistic points of view.

RevJamesMurray I like your hymn but like mine a bit better
"How blessed is the man whose walk is not
in evil counsel which the wicked plot
Who does not stand, where sin it's pleasures offer
And will not take his seat among the scoffers
But his delight is in God's covenant law
By night and day he ponders it with awe.

I doubt if Greta Vosper would approve. ;-)

Hi Paradox3: We just got Gretta Vosper's "With or Without God" in our church library, and I was the first to take it out. I've only read Chapter 1 so far, and the beginning of Chapter 2, but I already see some flaws in her logic.

She says we need to discard old paradigms when new ones come along, and speaks of it as an evolution. But evolution does not work that way.

In evolution, past paradigms get filed away. In our DNA are those DNA of the first single-celled organism, and of our entire plant and animal past. Evolution has done that quite wisely, because future chaotic upheavals might well make it necessary for past paradigms to be re-visited, dusted off and used. Although the fight/flight response of our mammalian past, and the pain/pleasure motivation of our reptilian past, may seem outdated and no longer necessary, there may come a time of great despair when we need them.

Newtonian Physics did not invalidate Aristotolian Logic; the Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Complementarity, Uncertainty and Relativity did not invalidate Newtonian Physiscs. Likewise, the paradigm to come will not invalidate those. To discard them would be foolish. According to the very latest paradigm, utlimate truth will always be beyond our grasp, and we will simply have to rely on what worked best for us in the past. Then some of those old paradigms may come in handy.

And I can't understand her pre-occupation with language. Language will always be metaphorical, and although we use different metaphors now, there is no need to cleanse past language according to our present day metaphorical preferences and make it politically correct. Some Communist and Fascist regimes have done that, including the Nazi regime that I was born into. This is too Orwellian for me.

Paradox - I have really mixed feelings about altering hymns.

On one hand, changing some words that have become theologically objectionable over time allows us to still have access to the power and beauty of the rest of the words and tune.

On the other hand, changing a hymn too much - like taking God references right out of a hymn which was written out of someone's faith response to God - doesn't seem right to me. At some point, I think we need to honour the faith of the songwriter and not change the overall message of the song.

I think that the Toolbox is one of the most important parts of this book. In the sturdy group of which I have been a part, we have been looking at books by Harpur, Spong, Borg and discussed the work of many other "progressive" authors. We have found much in these studies that speak to us. For those of us who were dissatisfied with what the traditional church was providing, it has been a breath of fresh air to encounter these liberal and progressive ideas. These authors speak to some of the disaffected voices within the church, and to those outside the church who Spong calls "The Church Alumni Association"

To those of us who are excited about the findings of modern scholarship, and who find the ideas of people like Borg and Spong compelling, there has been, up to now, one major thing missing. The comment I hear very often is that these progressive authors are all very good at deconstructing traditional Christianity, but not terribly good at describing what to put in its place. For instance, when Spong discards the idea of a theistic God, or if we give up the concept of an interventionist God, or even the view of God as an external being, then the question comes up "How do I pray and to whom?". Spong says that this is the most common question that he is asked whenever he speaks. And I am not satisfied that he always give an answer that satisfies the questioner.

What Gretta has tried to do is to finally provide some answers to those who wonder what a progressive religious gathering would look like.. How would they pray? What would their sacraments look like. How would they handle scripture, prayers, hymns and liturgy within an active congregation?. This "toolbox" has given us some insight into what might work in a progressive congregational setting.

Gretta is quite clear that this is a work in process, and that these ideas will evolve and will need to be adapted to fit the communal life and understanding of different progressive congregations. She is also clear that these resources may be meaningful only for "the most progressive Christian paradigm" currently available.

But she has provided a good starting point, and whether you entirely agree with the rest of the book or not, this is a good beginning and a working example for those of us who were looking for answers and for models, and for whom attending West Hill is not an option. It will not be everyone's cup of tea, but for others it will not only provide an example, but will give some insight into the process that was involved in getting there.

The most progressive spiritual paradigm might well be relativism: the paradigm that negates all paradigms. What then?

I've now read chapters one and two and realized that, so far, Gretta has not acknowledged mysticism and mystical experience as the source of religion. She talked about the political machinations that made experiential and idealistic religion doctrinal, but she did not discuss the original mystcial experiences that were and are at the root of all spirituality. She appears to be an idealistic and rational Christian who has no experience with mysticism and uses only rational explanations for spirituality. She, like many ultra-liberal and ultra-progressive Christians, seems to delegate mysticism to the lunatic fringe. But I'll keep on reading. Maybe she'll lift mysticism to ist rightful place later in the book.

Ideals can't be absolutely valid; the ideal always necessitates its anti ideal. To me, deep spirituality is beyond the ideal and anti ideal, in non-duality, or synthesis. This is also the level of the latest paradigm of no paradigm, which I mentioned above. Then there is only the feeling of synthesis, of Cosmic Unity and at-one-ment, and we think and act directly from that feeling, the feeling of Unitive Love. Gretta is, of course, in favour of Unitive Love, but she intellectualizes it as an ideal rather than encouraging the direct mystical experience of Cosmic Unity and Unitive Love.

In Cosmic Unity,

Arminius

Just a technical point - Tillich's Ground of Being is not non theistic but a theistic revision and if she said this it is another illustration of not being deep theologically.

I am always bothered with phrases like spirit of life - it really ignores the deep problem of what we mean by God - it does not philosophically deal with the theistic issue - Here I am with our atheists friends - if it is just another way of speaking of God without being honest about that is what we mean.

Spirt of life has no ontological meaning - it can be pure projection and if it is why not be honest that there is no reference to the poetic image but actually is a worship of me---- a friend sums up the book - "it is all about me".

Now the question is, what does it mean to be within the christian trajectory and the primary doctrine that grounds that tradition is some theistic claim - other doctrines like virgin birth are secondary - One does not have to buy a supernaturalists perspective but has to worked out some theistic concept.

Now if one wants to be non theistic there are many other traditions to be part of and have something to give to us - for example buddhism when it is honored for its trajectory can expand the christian trajectory - the important point is one is theistic and the other isn't - it is more intellectually honest to make such distinctions. To honor what the symbol system actually refers to.

Arminius your points are so true - my problem with the book is that it is not rigorous enough, nor does it actually deal with the intellectual issues - it has no philosophical substance.

Paradox3,

Hi,

You wrote:

What are your thoughts about spiritually inclusive language?

Does the reverend Vosper define what she means by the term?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Vosper says that spiritually inclusive language can "can touch people whose world-views are decidedly anthropomorphically theistic (say that three times fast) , just plain theistic such as God, Holy One, non-thesitic such as Tillich's ground of all being (which Pan claims is actually theistic after all) or even secular (love, beauty, truth).

Meredith?

Hi,

Is this supposed to hit all targets all at the same time?

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn,

I have not been able to find any definition of "spiritually inclusive" in WWG, other than the paragraph Meredith cited above.

You asked: { Is this supposed to hit all targets all at the same time? }

Confusing, isn't it? Rev Vosper talks about creating religious gatherings which are accessible to theists, non-theists, and secular folk.

On the other hand, she is clearly talking about "non-theistic settings" in her toolbox.

For me, this does not really add up. Am I the only Christian with a theistic perspective who misses the "God talk" in such a worship setting?

Panentheism said, " Here I am with our atheists friends - if it is just another way of speaking of God without being honest about that is what we mean.
___________________________________________
Hi, Panentheism! The thing is, for me as well as for many people with whom I've spoken, we really don't know exactly what we mean when we talk about God. Each one of us imagines God somewhat differently, always knowing that what we are imagining is ultimate Mystery - beyond our definition

Some of my Christian friends speak of God as a "feeling", some speak of God as a sense of inner peace or calm, others speak of God as a Father, a supernatural being......but we all know that just as much as each of our experiences are true and holy, none of them can possibly encapsulate this Something that we name God. God is More, so we can never fully "know" God.

So, if I was to hear "Spirit of Life" in worship, that would open up a door for me, for my imagining, and could possibly do the same for others. For me, it's a darn sight more empowering than Lord Almighty or Father.

And I don't think it's a matter of worshipping ourselves, rather, it's a matter of realizing that we cannot define God, we can only experience God, and the nature of that experience is shaped by the lens through which each of us experiences reality. We are not trying, I don't think, to create God in our own image, but rather trying to keep in mind that any way we image God in our own minds will in some way miss the mark, and so we attempt to keep our imaginings open-ended enough for new experiences of the Divine, without pre-conceived definitions of what that experience should entail for either ourselves or others.

That doesn't mean it's not worth exploring more deeply. I have and will continue to study and explore concepts of God, and try to deepen my understanding and experience of God. But as far as worship on Sunday morning goes, "Spirit of Life" would work just fine for me.

Pages 320 "“ 326

The next section of the toolbox begins to address the worship service, which Gretta calls the religious gathering. On page 321, she quotes religious humanist William Murry:

""¦religious humanism finds great value in human beings coming together in religious community to deepen their understanding, support and strengthen their values, celebrate life's passages, and work together for a better world."

Gretta encourages leaders of religious gatherings to be creative and write their own material, if possible. She notes that shifting to progressive style worship is more easily done if the leader is able to start from scratch. In this case, a more democratic approach can be utilized, and the community can create its own unique style.

"A frequent accusation aimed at the progressive movement is that without the biblical story, as the metaphoric and symbolic matrix through which we seek to explain and understand our lives, all is dust "“ dry, intellectual and lacking in spiritual beauty. Everything that you can do to prove that belief incorrect will be helpful. If you can't, you can't. But if you can, you must." (Page 323)

Symbol and metaphor are still needed in non-theistic religious gatherings, but many of the traditional symbols are no longer relevant. Symbols help us engage concepts such as life and forgiveness and courage.

Many people require particular symbols to feel spiritually connected. These individuals have "extrinsic religiosity". Other individuals who have "intrinsic religiosity" won't need symbols, although symbols can still be interesting, engaging, and helpful.

"In order to assist those who have an extrinsic religiosity make the shift from a traditional spirituality to a progressive one, it may be helpful to allow as many symbols to remain as theologically acceptable." (Page 325) For example, candles used in baptism may refer to the "light" of a life committed to love. This will start to mitigate the connection with the Holy Spirit or Jesus as the Light of the World.

"If, however, the symbolic meaning is anathema to the new understandings the community holds, its removal may be absolutely necessary, despite the emotional and spiritual significance it holds for many individuals. If this is the case, the elimination of the symbol from the religious community must be done with appropriate care, and if appropriate, ritual." (Page 326)

Gretta hopes that the symbol of the cross will become obsolete over time.

Liturgical garb has to stop.

Diane I agree that for some spirit of life can mean some transcendence - however it depends on a prior understanding that there is a transcendent reality which the term God refers to - Now many people have a sense of transcendence because of their experience in the relgious community. My point is that we have not done the hard work of providing a model of God that expresses our experience of God as a reality beyond our projections. When we do we find an experience of worship.

Worship depends on experience but that feeling is always communicated through language systems - God experience is always mediated thus the model used makes a difference. I agree that the supernatural theism does not communicate for most of us - and since we have failed to offer a new image people will prefer language like spirit of life - but that has to be deconstructed and always and only makes sense when we begin in God language or what we substitute for it.

I find that when people understand process theology and panentheism they find an image that helps in their worship. God can be used as a symbol of transcendence.

The other point of spirit of life is it is an empty symbol to which we attach meaning and thus it can work in religious communities and for secular people who think transcendence is projection and thus we are talking about human perfection which is only and fully a human project - it is what we do and as humanity gets better we are more in touch with the perfect human - this is another form of progress which denies that we screw up and suggest that when we find the right technique we will perfect humanity. This is the danger of utopian visions that suggest utopia is the spirit of life as if it is unambiguous.

What do we mean by the spirit of life? when it is removed from its liturgical context - school spirit - spirit of community - artistic spirit - self creative spirit. I have no problem with a humanistic read of spirit of life but it is, in the end, our projection. It is not religiously satisfying - why worship? using a empty symbol.

All I am saying is when a term can mean anything we want it to mean, it means nothing - there is no ontological reference. In the end it denies we can experience God as a reality beyond our projections - as the ground of being in Tillich's term - or in mine the really real - the metaphysical and ontological reality that is in itself and in the world - Transcendence as real.

It is also true all our abstractions are limited but they must point us beyond the abstraction to a truth about reality - God works in the world and is God.

John,

It wasn't clear but I think Vosper's intention would be for the language to include all at the same time all the time.

Diana: You wrote: { I have and will continue to study and explore concepts of God, and try to deepen my understanding and experience of God. But as far as worship on Sunday morning goes, "Spirit of Life" would work just fine for me. }

Spirit of Life works for me, too. I am reminded of that wonderful hymn by Carol McDade:

Spirit of life, come unto me.
Sing in my heart, all the stirrings of compassion.
Blow in the wind, rise in the sea,
move in the hand, giving life the shape of justice.
Roots hold me close, winds set me free,
Spirit of Life, come to me, come to me.

It bothers me, however, to have all references to God removed from the worship service. I know that some traditional Christians at WHUC are okay with this, and will argue in favour of "spiritually inclusive language".

For myself, I would not seek a spiritual leader who believes that "god" is equivalent to "life-enhancing values". In such an environment, I found myself unable to "deepen my understanding and experience of God". But this was a very personal reaction - - I am not suggesting that I speak for anyone else.

Meredith,

Hi,

You wrote:

It wasn't clear but I think Vosper's intention would be for the language to include all at the same time all the time.

Hmmmm.

Would that be like trying to speak German, Cantonese and Gaelic all at the same time?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Panentheism: Thank you for your many thoughtful posts on these threads. I think that you keep hitting the nail on the head with your comments about projectionism vs believing in the reality of God.

While Gretta writes in her book about language which includes theistic, non-theistic and secular views, it is clear that she wishes to create "non-theistic religious gatherings."

I find this to be in contrast to Unitarian Universalism. The UU's offer an inclusive environment which accommodates a wide range of perspectives, but do not declare themselves "non-theistic". Or in favour of any particular point of view.

I believe it is safe to say that "non-theism" is the predominant and official viewpoint at West Hill. Certainly, Rev Vosper talks about "we at West Hill" quite extensively in RL.

IWonder: You wrote upthread: { The comment I hear very often is that these progressive authors are all very good at deconstructing traditional Christianity, but not terribly good at describing what to put in its place. }

Very true, especially where Spong is concerned. The toolbox provides many concrete examples of how this might be done. Of course, the Unitarian Universalists demonstrate a worship style which is much the same. (Sorry to keep bringing out this particular soapbox.)

Arminius: Welcome to the WWG threads.

You wrote: { We just got Gretta Vosper's "With or Without God" in our church library, and I was the first to take it out. I've only read Chapter 1 so far, and the beginning of Chapter 2, but I already see some flaws in her logic. }

Moi aussi :)

In this situation, Vosper is not the only one for whom to be gender inclusive in one's language is to not use male pronouns for God , and to be spiritually inclusive is to not use the term God to speak of the divine. To me this replaces one set of exclusive terms with another set. If we are to speak of the divine to all people in a way they can hear, and not just speak to one politically correct pure group, we will need many names for God/the spirit/Jesus to capture the fullness of the holy which we have experienced.

"Page 325) For example, candles used in baptism may refer to the "light" of a life committed to love. This will start to mitigate the connection with the Holy Spirit or Jesus as the Light of the World."
BAPTISM!?!?! You can have baptism??? And worry about the symbolism of the candle, but have one of the most symbolic Christian rituals, a Christian sacrament, and pretend it's not Christian? What the .........I must have missed a meeting or a class or something. How could you have--? I'm speechless.

Hello Weeze,

Later on in the toolbox, there are 5 pages devoted to baptism. Here is the first paragraph of that section:

"Baptism, as a sacrament (an efficacious act intended to engage God's participation in an event), requires particular words and actions in order to validate the effect. As something sacramental, however, that acknowledges and celebrates the pre-existence of the sacred within the child, such prescribed words and actions are no longer necessary. It may be, as with so many other terms, that the word baptism will need to be replaced in order to clarify the shift in purpose. Calling it a Celebration of Baptism instead of the Sacrament of Baptism is a good first step." (Page 338)

This section of the toolbox was a confusing read for me.

Gretta provides two baptismal formulae. The first, which may be helpful when making a shift within a congregation, is somewhat Trinitarian in form:

I baptize you in the name of Love,
its beginning and its end,
its purpose and its power,
its commitment and its challenge.

The second is suggested if being Trinitarian is not important:

I baptize you in the name of
Life who created you,
Wisdom who knew you first,
Hope by whom you shall be sustained,
Delight in whom I pray you to live,
And I baptize you in the name of Love.
May you live every day in its embrace.

Well that's just dumb. Why do it at all? Why even call it baptism? Why not have a naming ceremony and be done with it? If you want to throw out the words and symbols that don't mean anything, you should replace those with something that DOES have some meaning...
It sounds like the script for a science fiction movie that is showing an imagined culture, sort of like our own, so we recognize when a religious ritual is happening, but it's a foreign religion. Really reminds me of something from the space channel, or Planet of the Apes. Sort of similar rituals to Christianity, but definitely not Christianity.

weeze,

Hi,

You wrote:

Well that's just dumb.

I agree with you. I think it is dumb as well.

You asked:

Why do it at all?

I suspect that simply dispensing with the sacrament would be too much of a headache. It is to tough to kill off in one blow.

I suspect that this process is to bring about its death by a thousand little wounds.

I could be wrong.

This doesn't strike me as a move to become relevant so much as it does an abdication of Christian identity.

But then I wear a Genevan gown so I'm not going along on this road willingly.

Grace and peace to you.

John

We had a professor at Queen's Theological College who taught us how to do a baptism without mentioning God, in any way whatsoever. There was no Trinitarian structure or formula at all. This 'baptism' also did not ask for questions of commitment from the parents. It was a liturgy he had designed when parents were unwilling to answer the first baptismal question "Do you believe in God?"
Gretta Vosper and I went to Queen's around the same time. I was a year ahead of her. Some students had a problem with the professor's take on baptism, others did not.

RevJames: Yes, once we get into the practice of replacing one set of names with another set that is more politically correct, then our new set will again be erased and replaced by another when the standards for political correctness change.

That's what Winston Smith, the hero of Orwell's "Ninteen Eighty-Four," did. He worked for the "Ministry of Truth," and constantly revised truth to the latest standard of political correctness.

We should explore the meanings of metaphors rather than change them to standards of political correctness. In metaphorical language, it is not the words that matter, but the meaning behind the words.

From the toolbox section on communion, there is an explanation of baptism which might be a little clearer than the baptism section itself:

It is understood to be "the declaration of commitment to the spiritual journey or quest by an adult, or on behalf of a child ... It is a commitment fo live with an awareness of one's spiritual nature, values, worth and connectedness to the rest of humanity and creation. Such an understanding of baptism leads easily to the celebration of communion as a symbol of recommitment to and nourishment for that journey." (Page 345)

I would say that this explanation represents a reductionistic approach to both sacraments. It is fine as far as it goes, but the meanings are much deeper in the Christian tradition.

Hi Panentheism! Thanks for that explanatory post; I think I'm beginning to get what you're saying.

You are saying, I think, (and I agree) that foundational to the Christian journey is the absolute reality of God, which, although imaged differently by different folks, is also believed to be transcendent, immanent and relational, by pretty much everyone within the Christian trajectory.

But, what if we are gathering with people who are nontheistic and yet wish to celebrate the communal spiritual journey? What if, say, we were to share a service of "worship", for lack of a better word, with nontheistic Buddhists? How then would we pray? Would it not be appropriate then to use terms such as Spirit of Life, which I, as a Christian (of sorts) would imagine as a relational presence, while my Buddhist friend would imagine it as ultimate reality? The term would still have an ontological meaning for each of us (if I'm even using that word right....that's a new one for me!), even though the meanings would be different.

As a Christian, I, too, would not seek out a congregation led by a person who believed that God was a mere projection of our human values. However, in the context of the kind of worship practiced by, say, Unitarians, or multifaith gatherings, which attempt to leave room for different realities and understandings to be explored and celebrated, is Spirit of LIfe really a meaningless term, or is it an invitation to celebrate different imaginings of the sacred? I'm still a little confused! ( Or more than a little, maybe) =)

Paradox....I think you're really helping me to pinpoint my mixed feelings about this book.

You said, "It bothers me, however, to have all references to God removed from the worship service. I know that some traditional Christians at WHUC are okay with this, and will argue in favour of "spiritually inclusive language".
___________________________________________________
I completely understand that. Personally, I would be ok wtih spiritually inclusive language, because I always think of "God" as being so far beyond language that I can connect to a whole bunch of different theistic and nontheistic images. What I find I can't connect to is the pretty much exclusive use of "Lord", and God as "he" that are used FAR more often than any other terms at my church, so that I find I am always having to juggle things in my mind to try to image God as something other than the supernatural being in the sky.
________________________

And then you said, "For myself, I would not seek a spiritual leader who believes that "god" is equivalent to "life-enhancing values".
______________________________________
And I thought, YES!!! The sense I have gotten throughout the book is not that GV is open to varying ways of imaging the sacred, but rather that she has a particular interpretation of what is sacred, which is inherently more progressive and therefore better than theistic understandings of the sacred. I didn't get a sense of openess in the book; I got a sense of - this is new, this is better and this is what we should all be moving towards. (rightly or wrongly - that's how it came across to me, anyway).

And while I would be comfortable with language that was representative of authentic spiritual inclusivity, on the other hand if I sensed that the assumption underlying the choice of language was that, in reality "God" is no more than life enhancing values, then I would feel very disconnected indeed. It is not the choice of language so much as it is the rational for the choice of language that would affect me, if that makes any sense.

For the Christian church a paradigm shift 'always means both continuity and change, both faithfulness to the past and boldness to engage the future, both constancy and contingency, both tradition and transformation.'

(David Bosch, Transforming Mission, 1991 , Orbis Books)

Hi Diana:

You wrote: { What I find I can't connect to is the pretty much exclusive use of "Lord", and God as "he" that are used FAR more often than any other terms at my church, so that I find I am always having to juggle things in my mind to try to image God as something other than the supernatural being in the sky. }

At the church I attend now, we refer to God as God most of the time. We still pray to "Our Father who art in heaven", but seldom use the word Lord. Occasionally Mother God is used in other prayers, but it is usually just God. I don't think I have ever heard King of the Universe :)

We do not use "he" or "him" for God, and just repeat "God" (or "God's") if we need it in a sentence. It makes the language a little awkward at first, but I find that everyone has generally adopted this way of speaking. So we have a language of God's own for God, you might say.

Hi Folks

Here we are, nearing the end of this on-line book study, having gone through the Foreword and all 7 chapters of the book, and are now working on the final section, the Toolbox. I commend Paradox3 for her perseverence in the difficult task of working day after day for more than seven weeks to keep us going in this systematic study. I have been a member of Wonder Café for about a year now, and this is the most impressive project I have seen so far. So kudos to Paradox3!

I have, in general, applauded the book, partly for its content, but also for the courage of the author in presenting what were bound to be very unpopular ideas ( in the Christian world, at least). She is very clearly speaking to a specific (and apparently very small) segment of the church community. I am sure that she expected criticism, and she certainly got it! I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing with Gretta, or at least saying "I see it differently", provided that they have read the book.

However I do find it rather annoying when people make pompous pronouncements criticizing Gretta's ideas, but then in the next breath say that they haven't read the book yet. Their criticism might easily be based on a misunderstanding of someone else's interpretation of a small portion of text taken out of context. After all, this is exactly what we criticize when isolated Biblel verses are taken out of context.

When someone actually reads the book (as several of you have), they at least have an opportunity to see how Gretta has tried to build up a case and supported it with background material before she gets to that one "hot button" statement that might trigger a reaction because of its "shock value". If, after that, people still honestly disagree with her, then that is absolutely fine, and is the kind of give and take that Wonder Café is all about.

The other thing that I find somewhat disheartening is when people dismiss the book and attack Gretta without at least recognizing that this book has arisen out of her honest, difficult, and courageous search, and that the book reaches out to many people who are on the fringes, or have left the church. Many of these fringe people see the book as a breath of fresh air, and as a welcoming invitation to join the discussion and perhaps give the church another chance.

I have to confess that I often feel very much outgunned on this particular forum discussion, and it would appear that I am very much in the minority in my support of what Gretta Vosper is trying to do with this book. It certainly would seem that the case I have tried to present has not convinced anyone. There are some strong voices on this forum that have the training and the experience with the intricate nuances of theology and the daunting (for me) vocabulary that goes with it. So I must admit that there are times when I simply have to bow out of the discussion because the ecclesiastical language makes my head spin!

I have spent all my life in the United Church. For most of the time I have found myself on the fringes theologically, with doubts and questions about the doctrine, liturgy and theology. I feel very lucky to belong to a church that allows me to express those doubts and questions without condemnation or expulsion. I am also proud of a church that has preached and practiced an inclusiveness that can even embrace the challenging ideas of Gretta Vosper and West Hill United Church.

If that kind of inclusiveness and openness and that kind of tolerance were not there, then I expect that I would no longer have a place in this eclectic community which I love so much.

So I will continue to honour and respect this valuable (in my opinion) work that Gretta has done in placing these ideas before us, and continue to recognize that they do have deep meaning for many good people.

IWonder: Good morning, and thank you for your kind words about the WWG threads. You have put considerable time and effort into the discussions, as well.

I am sorry to hear that you feel Gretta Vosper has been attacked on these threads. It seems to me that there has been very little criticism of her on a personal level. Certainly her ideas have been challenged

You wrote: { There are some strong voices on this forum that have the training and the experience with the intricate nuances of theology and the daunting (for me) vocabulary that goes with it. }

You are correct, we have had posts from some very knowledgeable clergy on these threads. The way I see it, IW, they have been doing exactly what Gretta recommends, i.e. sharing contemporary scholarship with us.

You seem quite frustrated with the comments made by folks who have not read the book. May I suggest that you opened the door to this back on the Foreword thread? One of your first posts was a summary of Spong's ideas for the benefit of those who had not yet read WWG. I can appreciate that you were attempting to get the conversation started at that point.

It was a good idea to move the conversation along by posting summaries section by section. It has been time-consuming for both of us, but I believe it has been worth the effort. Thank you for your tenacity in staying involved with the process.

Gretta Vosper's book presents her vision for what Progressive Christianity could look like. There are many other Progressive voices worth checking out.
Here's a short list:
Bruce Sanguin "The Emerging Church" Copper House 2008
Hal Taussig "A New Spiritual Home - Progressive Christianity at the Grassroots" Polebridge Press 2006
Why Liberal Churches are Growing, edited by Martin Percy T&T Clark 2006
Diana Butler Bass- Christianity for the rest of us - How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith. Harper San Francisco, 2006.
Marcus Borg - The Heart of Christianity
Brian McLaren - Everything must change , Thomas Nelson 2007
Reggie McNeil - The Present Future , Jossey-Bass 2003

One book which many of these people all refer to as crucial is
David Bosch "Transforming Mission" Orbis Books 1991

And for the sheer joy his vision of the faith offers,
Matthew Fox, "Original Blessing" 1983

iwonder wrote There are some strong voices on this forum that have the training and the experience with the intricate nuances of theology and the daunting (for me) vocabulary that goes with it. So I must admit that there are times when I simply have to bow out of the discussion because the ecclesiastical language makes my head spin!

I am sorry if I contributed to any head spinning, I hope there was no pea soup also involved. Part of the challenge of any new theological idea is to find out what the consequences of those ideas are. Does it provide a sufficient explanation of our tradition, our experience, does it stand up to reasoned questioning. Personal subjective feelings are not always sufficient reasons for us all to make a change.

I think it would be safe to say that all of the clergy who have participated in this discussion are in their own ways part of the progressive movement. Each has a unique hermeneutical lens ( the way they examine scripture, doctrine, experience) We all agree there needs to be changes. While I disagree with many of Vosper's theses, I am glad it is starting a widespread discussion of what kind of progressive Christian church do we want to be? And that is a question which can only be answered by a local congregation and its members.

It is important to note that some of us have actually discussed this book with several people, both lay and clergy and they are all those who have been dissatisfied with orthodox views, have been at the cutting edge of scholarship and reconstruction ( actually doing constructive theology) and to a person have found the book light. One progressive even said that she ( in her theology) has gone beyond essential agreement.

What this means for us is that there is a basic problem with the thesis of the book. We all want a more vivid theological expression. However, one can wander off the trajectory and in so doing no longer be connected to the trajectory. That is ok but intellectual honesty ought to suggest that is what one has done.

In one sense the book does capture the vivid construction going on within the christian trajectory but its conclusion is move it out of that route of religious understanding. Yet like many in the UCC it wants to have its cake and eat it even if it is a radically different cake.

The books understanding of baptism et al suggests the disconnect. It is fine to reject the sacraments but to continue as if one has not done this is the hight of intellectual dishonesty. This is why one can admire the Unitarians or other groups that reject the trajectory because they know who they are and what they hold. The Unitarians may offer room for individual understandings but there is also a lively debate on the meaning of religious language. One time I preached in the Unitarian church the comment was made that they heard the term God more than every had in a life time of worshipping. The other result was some young people who loved their background but found the panentheistic view more helpful and left to join the UCC so God language could be done.

As others point out paradigm change holds that the truth of the past has to be included in the new construction. Constructive theology does not reject the past understandings but tries to find what questions they answered so we can construct answers the new context demands... tradition is there just as new understanding are created to be part of the tradition. We build in constructive theology out of the material we have- tradition and new understandings to create a new building, which is open to new construction.

As a science friend said - a good model allows new information to slide in - that is what is a paradigm change is about.

quote "But, what if we are gathering with people who are non-theistic and yet wish to celebrate the communal spiritual journey? What if, say, we were to share a service of "worship", for lack of a better word, with non-theistic Buddhists? How then would we pray? Would it not be appropriate then to use terms such as Spirit of Life, which I, as a Christian (of sorts) would imagine as a relational presence, while my Buddhist friend would imagine it as ultimate reality? The term would still have an ontological meaning for each of us (if I'm even using that word right....that's a new one for me!), even though the meanings would be different."

you used the word ontological correctly and that is the issue - it is a different ontology at work - for the buddhist ( I am being simplistic here) there is no ultimate reality but nothingness.

Having actually been in Buddhist monastery for some time I know we are talking about different realities and the 'spirit of life" is not one that would connect us. For buddhist it would be heard as negative - that to which we are attached - and attachment is the problem in enlightenment.

One of the problems of interfaith events is that we are actually talking about radically different understandings and what we share is the affirmation that religion matters, and actions matter but language is specific to each group and there is no common sharing of symbols. To honor another symbol system is to understand what the symbol refers to. For some there is no transcendence so 'spirit of life' does not connect.

This does not mean we should not have such conversations but the conversations can transform my viewpoint - add to my trajectory by honoring the other, to know they are different and see the world differently. When that happens our perspective is widened.

In the hymn book spirit of life means God because it is sung in a Christian context - yet it could mean something different if sung in another context.

The spirit of life could be running over others - that is the spirit of our age - spirit of life - is one that uses others for ones self interest. Note how context shapes understanding.

Paradox3 wrote: "You seem quite frustrated with the comments made by folks who have not read the book. May I suggest that you opened the door to this back on the Foreword thread? One of your first posts was a summary of Spong's ideas for the benefit of those who had not yet read WWG. I can appreciate that you were attempting to get the conversation started at that point.

Exactly! I got an early copy of the book through Chapters by pre-ordering, and I finished my first reading a few days later. The first thread on WWG was started by atheisto based on a Globe and Mail article. By April 5th I recognized (from comments on WC) that a majority of those who had the book on order had not received their copy yet, or were waiting for their library to get it, so I made it clear that these opening comments on the Foreward thread were intended to "give those who haven't been able to get the book yet, something to chew on and assist the discussion."

At that time most of the WC comments were being based on the Globe and Mail review and a United Church Observer review, both of which what were generally considered to be poorly written. At that time, it was my hope that soon everyone who was going to contribute to the study would do so it based on reading the book, not on reading someone else's reviews of the book.

IWonder,

Hi,

You wrote:

The other thing that I find somewhat disheartening is when people dismiss the book and attack Gretta.

Can you please illustrate where you have seen the reverend Vosper attacked.

I have read criticism of her ideas which I think is fair game for anyone who puts their ideas out to be considered.

There have been a few who have attacked what they perceive to be character flaws. Those attacks have been rare on the WWG threads started by Paradox3.

There has also been on a few of the WWG threads an opportunity to engage the author directly with respect to issues and ideas within this particular work.

I expect that your anger is directed, in this particular thread at any rate, at Weeze and myself and that because we have used the word dumb with respect to the reverend Vosper's treatment of Baptism.

I stand by my comments and I am not ashamed that I have voiced my suspicions with regard to my comments on what I think her ultimate goals are with respect to that particular doctrine.

I am prepared, using the material that has been quoted directly from the book introduced in the last few threads, to build up the case for the trajectory I see that will ultimately dismantle baptism within the reverend Vosper's expression of progressivism.

In critiquing that trajectory I have not attacked the reverend Vosper's character. Her ideas certainly. Her character not at all.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi John

I apologize if I came across as angry in my recent posts. I think I can temper that down a bit and say that I am occasionally annoyed and sometimes disheartened by the reaction to the book. You are certainly justified in calling me on that. When we try to convey our feelings using words on a forum like this, there is always room for misunderstanding. Sometimes the poor choice of a word or phrase can trigger a misunderstanding or a reaction which is misdirected.

I do not have any problem with legitimate criticism of Ms. Vosper's ideas, when it comes from a careful reading of the book and her supporting rationale on which these ideas are based. From my previous post you might note that I do react to criticism that is not based on reading the book. Even when people react to direct quotes from the book there is the always a danger that these quotes have been selected out of context, with the possibility of bias. As I suggested in a previous post, that can be very similar to what you and others have rightly decried with respect to Bible passages taken out of context to prove a point.

If you have been following along, you will know I have participated in all of the threads in this book study. It may very well be that my discomfort with some of the criticism of the book arises because I seem to be one of its few defenders. To use an automobile metaphor, when one person (me!) is driving in one direction and most other people are driving in the other direction, it might be a sign that I am on a one way street, traveling in the wrong direction!

As I said previously, when it comes to detailed and complex theological discussions, I am just a reasonably educated lay person, trained in engineering and science, unable to match arguments with the clergy and their extensive theological training. When I see words like "hermeneutics", "exegesis" or "ontology" I just go "gulp", and like most ordinary pew sitters, quickly abandon the discussion. I am not sure how Gretta Vosper would fare in a no-holds-barred theological discussion with the "big guns" on Wonder Café. I suspect she would hold her own, but unfortunately I cannot speak for her, I can only convey my own personal perspective.

My personal feeling, supported by discussions with others close to me, is that it is an important book in the environment of progressive thought. Whether it can face up to an intense theological onslaught or not, I am not qualified to say. There certainly seems to be a prevailing opinion on this forum that it does lie outside the mainstream of current progressive thinking. But I think that it is always useful to the progress of any new ideas in a time of change to have someone pushing the edge of the envelope - perhaps Gretta Vosper is playing that role

Does this book give encouragement, hope and comfort to some people who are sitting in their "uncomfortable pews" (as Pierre Berton might phrase it)? Yes, I believe that it does. If it makes church and community possible for those on or outside the fringe, then I applaud it and I value it.

Iwonder your points are very important and my problem is there are far better works that address the needs you suggest - the book does not stand up when tested by those who have sympathy and desire to construct ( for a lack of a better word) 'progressive' christianity. The book works for some and it really does construct a religious viewpoint that arises out of the christian trajectory but actually leaves it behind. This well and good for those who want to take that journey but many of us claim, who have examined the ideas closely, they just are not rigorous enough and are sloppy.

When I examine from a sociological point of view it stands within the projectionist school of thought and has much in common with others who in Belah's analysis want to create their own religious system - and as such will find followers and support and is within the history of creative thinkers - there have been many like this and each of them have their place, and in a way reform the institution and at the same time begin a new alternative tradition - which may have legs and may not.

It is an example of sociology of religion - and habits of the heart ( an important study of modern relgious expressions by Bellah) has outlined the many responses to what Taylor calls the secular age. It is the sense of the some dim memory of the sacred that seems to still be in our sense of searching but it gives no sense of God. It falls within those other human experiences that have some sense of the more of life, like a rock concert does for some, or art for others, or music - but becomes and end in itself.

iwonder, respectfully, I wolud say if you wanted people to reply who had read the book, this should have been stipulated at the beginning of the discussion. My public library still is not carrying it. So, from the discussion on these threads and the overview by Paradox and yourself many of us responded.

I think it is a better forum to express our concerns, our dreams and our doubts, here on the threads than a minister preaching from the pulpit a few Sundays ago( I was told) about the heresy of the book.

Rev Vopner must be commended for having the courage to write the book but at the same time she must be prepared to answer the questions and the critisims that stem from it.

I thank you and Paradox for the great work you have done in summarizing for us .And if the book pushes us a little further in our faith journey ( whether we agree or disagree), it is a journey I was glad to be on.