Paradox - thank you so much for beginning and continuing this thread. You have done just a marvelous job of summarizing the ideas in WWG, and keeping the discussion moving along. I particularly appreciate your personal replies to each of us. Thank you.

IWonder - I really appreciate your presence on these threads; it has been important for me to see that the ideas presented in WWG do resonate deeply with you. I know it's been frustrating and discouraging for you at times - thank you for persevering. Your openness has encouraged me to keep on exploring my own reactions to the book, which means exploring the parameters of my own faith, and how far I am willing to push those parameters. I know for sure I will definitely be visiting the Unitarian church in the next little while, as part and parcel of that spiritual exploration. So, thank you.

I've really enjoyed these threads and learned a lot from them,and I think I'm going to leave off here.....I've got coursework staring me in the face: "Intro. to Theology 511".....I'm going to learn what ontological means!! =)

IWonder,

Hi,

You wrote:

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.

Nobody here is above bias. Your claim of defense is not simply because you have read the book and others haven't, it is also part of your favourable bias towards the Reverend Vosper.

You are correct quotes can be taken out of context. That can be challenged and corrected. So far I have seen little of that challenge happening. Where it has happened was back a few chapters where the Reverend Vosper layed out the beliefs of Jesus and pointed to certain texts which she claims prove her point.

It was suggested by you that the interpretations were tongue in cheek. Others who have read the book are not so confident that is the case.

You wrote:

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.

It certainly could be. Show me where I have done that and I will retract appropriate statements.

You wrote:

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!

That would be up to you to decide for yourself.

One of the constant criticisms of clergy that has arisen in these threads is the myth that clergy do not engage current scholarship. It is true that I have not read the book. I do have snippets of it, far more than appeared in either of the reviews, and I have had a conversation with the author herself as well as had the opportunity to read her conversation with GUC who is also clergy. I have asked questions and received replies.

While it is true that the reverend Vosper is the horse's mouth with respect to this book we have also been subjected to the claim that scripture has been redacted and what has been passed down through the ages is not necessarily what Jesus wanted but what figures in the leadership wanted.

We may have better record keeping in the 21st Century but the process of redaction is already happening and while it is important to understand what the reverend Vosper is about it is just as important to understand what others are hearing her say that she is all about.

You wrote:

There certainly seems to be a prevailing opinion on this forum that it does lie outside the mainstream of current progressive thinking.

I don't even know if such a thing has been identified yet (mainstream current progressibe thought)

You wrote:

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.

And that is fair. To borrow from friend Panentheism, "all of life is robbery." Where the processes outlined in this book make church and community possible for those on the fringe it does not do so by widening the definition of church and community so much as it shifts it. Essentially it provides a swap. Those once on the fringe get to be in the mainstream and those once in the mainstream are now moved to the fringe.

Can such a strategy grow a church?

Sure. It prunes a lot of vitality away to do it but something will survive and flourish.

Does it dramatically change how the church operates?

I don't believe it does. There will still be margins they will simply be redefined.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Panentheism, Crazyheart and Diana

Thank you all for your recent generous and thoughtful comments. I am feeling kind of blue right (for personal reasons - not related to WWG discussions) so your encouragement has been very welcome. I appreciate the fact that we are all on a journey together. That journey may take us in different directions from time to time, but I sense that at its core there is a recognition that there is far more we have in common than there is that we disagree on.

There has always been a disagreement about what "Christian" means to different people (hence hundreds of different denominational expressions of Christianity). But at the heart of Christianity (sounds like a book title) there is the common thread of community, of love, compassion and a thirst for justice.

Hi John

Thanks for your thorough responses to my posts upthread. You always put a lot of thought into what you say and you are always very civil in your answers to me. We have had previous conversations about your typing speed compared to mine, so I will not have time to give you a detailed answer on what you have just said to me, but there is wisdom in your answers and I will ponder it.

As my comments upthread to Panentheism, Crazyheart and Diana indicate, I have some pressing issues on my mind right now, so I can't devote the kind of time that I would like to spend on WC.

IWonder wrote:

{ But at the heart of Christianity (sounds like a book title) there is the common thread of community, of love, compassion and a thirst for justice. }

True enough.

In logical terms, this statement is "necessary" but not "sufficient" to define Christianity. Redhead will be along soon if I am mistaken about this, I am sure :)

In the final pages of the toolbox, Gretta outlines her ideas for non-theistic religious gatherings. My summary of this section is quite short, as we have already addressed many of these ideas on this (our last!!!) thread.

Rev Vosper draws on her experience at WHUC, where many traditional "forms" of worship have been retained. The content is substantially different, but the emotional connection to the familiar format remains intact.

Centering occurs at the beginning of the service, with the lighting of the candles, a short reflective song, and an invitation which is always offered extemporaneously.

Prayers of confession and assurances of pardon have been eliminated.

Non-theistic prayer emphasizes that we are responsible for what we have implored God to do in the past. The words "May we ... " are used in lieu of "do this for me ... " or " make me do this ... "

Gretta no longer prays "In Jesus' name", as this phrase reflects the concepts of intercession, worth, and intervention. The phrase "As those born into light yet ever seeking it" is used in its place. Light is said to refer to the capacity for spiritual awareness.

It is important for the music selections to uphold the theology and the values of the community.

When it comes to readings, a variety of sources can be used. Gretta remarks:
"It is important to note that without the common story the Bible has previously provided, the struggle to identify with a tradition will be challenging. I highly recommmend a gently progressive change with gradual steps." (Page 335)

And here is Gretta's final paragraph, from page 356:

"Whether non-theistic gatherings can thrive and survive is anyone's guess. We are in the midst of a great experiment. I fervently believe that we need to see that experiment through to the end, giving our all to communities of "faith" that celebrate the communal nature of life and challenge us to engage in right relationship with self, others, and the planet. There is much that depends on the survival of love. If we transform church into a vessel in which love can be held, shared and offered to the world, then we will have been successful. And if we find along the way, that church is not necessary to the work of making love known and teaching one another ways in which it can be lived out radically, ethically, beautifully, then we will be able to let church go and face a world without it with confidence and grace."

Lastly, Scott Kearns' song, "The Light of Love" is offered.

Now, this Agape statement, I can live with.

Diana wrote: ".....I've got coursework staring me in the face: "Intro. to Theology 511".....I'm going to learn what ontological means!! "

EZ Answer: When your studies are complete, you will know why it is better to say, "...learn what ontology *is*..." and "...learn what epistemology *means*..."

Crazyheart: I have been thinking about your comment re: Agape, and wondering if you could explain it more fully. I am not quite getting the connection you are making between Agape and WWG.

RevJamesMurray: Thank you for the reading list, and the reminder that there are a variety of expressions of progressive Christianity.

Rev Vosper writes: { Whether non-theistic gatherings can thrive and survive is anyone's guess. We are in the midst of a great experiment. }

Does she mean that West Hill is a great experiment? Or are there other United Churches which offer non-theistic gatherings?

Crazyheart,

Hi,

You wrote:

Now, this Agape statement, I can live with.

Can you expand on what it is that you see in the statement that you affirm as life giving?

Grace and peace to you.

John

paradox3: I'm almost through with the book, and just skipped to the last chapter and the last paragraph of that chapter.

Although West Hill undoubtely is in the midst of a great experiment, I think Gretta means to say that we humans, as a species, are also in the midst of the great experiment of creating and re-creating faith communities, mainly because the staus quo no longer works for us, and we are looking for something better or new.

"There is much that depends on the survival of love." she writes. "If we transform church into a vessel in which love can be held, shared, and offered to the world, then we will have been successful."

Unfortunately, throughout the book, she says little about how to kindle that love, and how to make it stay. Women are supposed to be more intuitive than men, and I was disappointed that intuition and mysticism got such short thrift in her book. It is an intellectual book, but does not really offer any great new intellectual insights. Worst of all, it woefully neglects to mention intuition and mystcial experience as the source of the love she extolls.

I do, however, admire her and her book. She had the courage to speak out against destructive doctrines and excessive doctrinization within the Church. But the wording of our traditional liturgy, poetry, hymns and prose is not really to blame for the excessive doctrinization. We can't blame the narrative when someone twists the narrative into doctrine and abuses it for political purposes. But we certainly need to de-doctrinize the narrative, and re-establish for what it is: sacred poetry and prose with profound metaphorical meanings.

I still can not remove God or Jesus from the equation but " challenge us to engage in right relations with self, others and the planet". Is this not God's plan for us?

"church - a vessel in which love can be held, shared and offered to the world"

Sounds like Agape to me. Love God, love self, love neighbour.

So even though, I can't leave the GOd language behind this statement seems universal to Christian thinking.

Gretta writes: {Whether non-theistic gatherings can thrive and survive is anyone's guess.}

Will more communities of faith choose a non-theistic path like West Hill has done? Time will tell.

Gretta writes: {We are in the midst of a great experiment.}

Perhaps West Hill is the experiment, or perhaps Arminius is interpreting Rev Vosper correctly.

Gretta writes: {I fervently believe that we need to see that experiment through to the end, giving our all to communities of "faith" that celebrate the communal nature of life and challenge us to engage in right relationship with self, others, and the planet.}

This is a worthy endeavour. It could apply equally to secular humanism, of course.

Gretta writes: {There is much that depends on the survival of love.}

True enough.

Gretta writes: {If we transform church into a vessel in which love can be held, shared and offered to the world, then we will have been successful.}

Why do we need to become non-theists in order to accomplish this goal? Has Gretta assessed the extent to which churches function as such a vessel already?

Gretta writes: {And if we find along the way, that church is not necessary to the work of making love known and teaching one another ways in which it can be lived out radically, ethically, beautifully, then we will be able to let church go and face a world without it with confidence and grace.}

I expect that there will always be those who find church unnecessary, and those who find it more necessary than ever.

paradox3: I think we need faith communities more than ever.

We are a social species. We need the support of others, and need to support each other, to hold on to some kind of faith in God, the Divine, or whatever we choose to call IT.

For me, the name "God" still packs the biggest punch, but it is just a name, a name for the creative Source of the universe. For me, it is a self-creative universe, and we are inseparable parts of this divine universe. And to link ourselves with our creative source--or God--is our most divine activity, because then we'll act not only divinely but also creatively.

Gretta said as much, but she goes a bit overboard in her zeal to rid Christianity of doctrine. Although I don't agree with everything she writes, I find her book thought-provoking, and I certainly agree that Christian religion needs to rid itself of its damaging and self-destructive doctrinal baggage.

This being said, even non-doctrinal religions are in decline. Increasing secularization is a global phenomenon, and doctrines alone are not to blame for this lamentable trend.

Arminius said:

"Christian religion needs to rid itself of its damaging and self-destructive doctrinal baggage."

What would you consider to be damaging and self-destructive doctrinal baggage in the United Church that we should think about getting rid of?

"Worst of all, it woefully neglects to mention intuition and mystcial experience as the source of the love she extolls."

From what I remember in one of these threads, she places doubts on mysticism and spiritual experience by mentioning research that created spiritual feelings in study participants by stimulating parts of the brain.
Additionally, my mother saw her speak at a nearby church and recounted that Rev. Vosper had believed the source of love to be something inherent to humans - moral and ethical codes which are simply part of the evolution of our species; neither created by nor pointed to by any external spiritual element. This anecdote was before WoWG, so I don't know for sure if this has changed in the mean time.

Nighthawk said: { From what I remember in one of these threads, she places doubts on mysticism and spiritual experience by mentioning research that created spiritual feelings in study participants by stimulating parts of the brain. }

In the toolbox section addressing prayers of petition, intercession and thanksgiving, Rev Vosper writes:

"Prayer, as noted previously, is a significant spiritual discipline within many spiritual traditions. We count on "something" happening even if we can't explain what that "something" is. Any concrete evidence established by further study will likely disclose that there is no supernatural occurrence that assists or impedes the efficacy of prayer. Given the enormous strides taken in our scientific knowledge over the past century (strides that have unbalanced much of what we thought was "true") and the acceleration of scientific discovery we are now experiencing, it is possible that we will have definitive results in a very short time. Those of us for whom prayer is an important spiritual practice, unless we are prepared for its complete demystification, are going to be severely unsettled." (Page 349)

Nighthawk,

I doubt that this has changed since WoWG. In chapter 7, under the subtitle "we've evolved ourselves into vulnerability" she states ``there is another aspect to the harm we have done that, to my knowledge, has not been systematically explored. That is the question of how our progress has made it impossible for us to physically evolve`` (With or Without God p.287)...that we are veering catastrophically away from natural selection and have "stymied our ability to evolve physically in ways that will allow us to accommodate gradual changes experienced in the environment" (With or Without God p.287)

So if she believes that moral and ethical codes are part of evolution, and we've lost our natural ability to evolve....Well that doesn't sound too promising :)

But putting that aside for a moment, if moral and ethical codes are part of evolution wouldn't they be more universal and something that doesn't need to be taught?

RevJohn,

You wrote upthread: { In critiquing that trajectory I have not attacked the reverend Vosper's character. Her ideas certainly. Her character not at all. }

Over on the CCPC website, Rev Vosper posted a blog yesterday which refers to some of the online reaction to her book. She does not mention any websites by name, so I can't be certain if she is including Wondercafe in her comments. It doesn't really sound like she is, but she might be, of course.

There certainly is a difference between discussing Gretta's ideas and her character. Most of the discussion about her character has been quite positive on these threads. Many of us have commended Gretta for her honesty, for example.

RevJohn, I would like to say that I also see a difference between "critiquing" and "attacking" her ideas. Maybe there is a fine line, but I would hope that I have not crossed that line at any time.

Two different comments:

The words dogma and doctrine are important distinctions. Doctrine are abstractions and important for they are how we carry the past into the future. But as abstractions they only point beyond themselves and are mutable. But we cannot do away with doctrines for we examine what the book does it offers new doctrines.

Dogma is when doctrines have become immutable and what doctrine has pointed do has become the abstraction - we forget that is what doctrine is and have made the formulation the truth.

Doctrines is how we talk to one another and push one another. They are like models in science or other disciplines - they help us see and as models they are to be changed by mutual criticism, scholarship, and historical context - past and present.

The other comment is that the book offers a doctrine and as such can be examined as whether it is a new model and not at all based on past doctrines - that has left the the tradition by a radical restating. This is a question to be asked.

Another question to be asked is what is the metaphysics that ground the doctrine. I note in the issue of prayer the only offering is a supernatural read and it is rejected. And what emerges is a modernist read of experience - and the use of brain experiments suggest a reduction modernist view of sensationalist. It is all internal and the outside world is non relational - that is is atoms bumping into other atoms with no internal subjective. This is the modernist view of perception - we create the experience and there really is no possibility of relationality - that is there are intra and inter subjective causal reality.

Thus prayer is only efficacious as an internal reality - what it does to us. In another metaphysic prayer can be interactive because that is how the world is - it is intra and intersubjective - it effects that which is beyond and the beyond can effect us - it is web of experience and a feed back process- Bateson in the Ecology of the MInd gives a model of how this is. Information theory can also be helpful in understanding the dynamic of prayer - but this is metaphysics of energy rather than matter in motion and the books basic metaphysics is matter in motion. It is a classic illustration of the modern perspective of we are getting better and better - a form of secular progressivism which is not different in kind from the views of those actual believe in perfectibility - there is an utopian reality and with work we will get there. (I would encourage reading John Grays Black Mass and then reread with or without and to see the fault of utopianism in its secular form as the intellectual ground of the book.)

When one begins with modern metaphysics one can only end in a projectionist view of religion and the logical outcome is we perfect ourselves.

Paradox3 mentioned Gretta's blog, so some of you may want to read it. It probably won't change any minds about the book, but it might give some insight into the life of the author. It also contains an interesting anecdote about a Sri Lankan connection to the book.

You can access the blog at: http://progressivechristianity.ca/ccpc/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Pastor-Rohan-and-the-world-beyond-our-trivial-theologizing.html&Itemid=95

Meredith: I was thinking of "doctrine" not merely as a traditional framework of interpretation, but as a framework that has hardened into absolute truthfulness and validity, and is embraced by a particular religion, and defines it. More like dogma, the way Pan just defined the difference between doctrine and dogma (Thanks, Pan!) I would say that the United Church is almost entirely free of dogma, and this is one of the reasons I joined it.

If doctrine is seen as a mere framework of interpretation which, albeit traditionally adhered to by a particular faith group, is open to constant revision and evolution, then I don't see anything wrong with doctrine. When I said "damaging" and "self-destructive" I meant doctrine that has hardened into dogma.

Everyone has a framework of interpretation. If this is doctrine, then doctrine is necessary, and not necessarily damaging or self-destructive. What makes it potentially damaging or self-destructive is when doctrine hardens into dogma.

P3,

You said:

"I would like to say that I also see a difference between "critiquing" and "attacking" her ideas"

As someone who read her book I think I can say with confidence that she didn't pull any punches when it came to critiquing ideas many of which are ones that I agree with. By publishing her book she put her ideas out there for critique and I would think that as someone who calls for open-mindedness she would understand when the critique of her ideas is harsh.

Now that is not to say that some of the critique of her book isn't unfair. I'm sure that there is a lot that could be considered as such and when you look at reviews on Amazon,ocm for example you see some of that kind of criticism of many books. On her blog she mentions her thinking being compared to a fascist regime - that to me is unfair criticism. Calling her ideas "flawed" I don't see that as being unfair as long as the critic can demonstrate how it is flawed. Someone just saying it is flawed and nothing more is not offering either fair or helpful critique.

Panentheism,

Thank you for your many thoughtful and engaging posts on the WWG threads.

You wrote: { The other comment is that the book offers a doctrine and as such can be examined as whether it is a new model and not at all based on past doctrines - that has left the the tradition by a radical restating. This is a question to be asked. }

It is a very important question, I would say. I am somewhat uncomfortable with Gretta's theology being termed "progressive Christianity", because so much confusion has arisen about the various strands of P/C thought. Thankfully, more understanding is coming about in this regard.

After reading WWG carefully, I have come to the conclusion that "non-theistic gathering" is a more accurate term, and I applaud Gretta for lifting it up.

A little while ago, I started a discussion thread about living peacefully together under the United Church umbrella. If WHUC values its association with the United Church, it is fine with me. There are many different options for worship in our denomination, and I have found one which is a wonderful fit for my family.

But I still think your question is an important one. Hopefully it can be explored with no one resorting to calling the exploration a "heresy trial." I feel that talking about heresy trials can be quite inflammatory.

Thank you again for your valuable input on these threads.

Nighthawk: Yes, I remember that part where Gretta mentions that something like mystical experience can be induced by stimulating certain parts of the brain.

Modern psychology teaches that highly emotional or traumatic events can produce hallucinations called "idedic imagery." This reduces mystical experience to the level of psychosis.

We, Homo sapiens, evolved into a social species, and emotions of social cohesion necessarily evolved along with that. Thus, love, compassion--any kind of fellow feeling--can be explained as a byproduct of natural evolution: a mere biological instinct inherent in our species.

In mystical experience, however--at least as I experience and define it--we experience being as a synthesis; we experience being synthesis! We experience reality as it really is, in a unified state of syntheis, where all is one, and one is all. This experience of cosmic unity manifests itself on the human level as Unitive Love. This love goes far beyond the social instinct of love that has naturally evolved as a genetic trait in our species, and might well be termed "Spiritual Love."

Synthesis, as the basic state of the universe, is antithetical to analysis, and can be apprehended only when we refrain from analyzing and immerse ourselves in the cosmic synthesis. Experiencing the cosmic synthesis is the necessary counterpoint to undertaking cosmic analysis, especially so in our overly rational age.

And this is my major objection to Gretta's book: It is onesidedly analytical, and almost totally neglectful of the cosmic synthesis which, from my experience and thinking, is the ultimate cosmic Truth.

If the Principle of Complementarity is the underlying principle of the universe--and most modern thinkers agree that it is--then the cosmic analysis necessitates the cosmic synthsis, and the universe which we analyze must necessarily be in a state of synthesis. Analysis and synthesis complement each other, and are of essence to each other.

Paradox3

Hi,

You wrote:

Over on the CCPC website, Rev Vosper posted a blog yesterday which refers to some of the online reaction to her book. She does not mention any websites by name, so I can't be certain if she is including Wondercafe in her comments. It doesn't really sound like she is, but she might be, of course.

That would be fair. Although if you aren't going to give people credit for their work it amounts to "a friend of a friend of mine . . . " If you are going to take the time to point out people are being critical or attacking your character take the time to show that happening. Otherwise it strikes me as an appeal to sympathy.

You wrote:

I would like to say that I also see a difference between "critiquing" and "attacking" her ideas. Maybe there is a fine line, but I would hope that I have not crossed that line at any time.

I tend to agree with you. The fine line is often one of perspective. A little hero worship makes criticism feel like an ugly attack when the hero's shine is tarnished.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Meredith:

You wrote: { As someone who read her book I think I can say with confidence that she didn't pull any punches when it came to critiquing ideas many of which are ones that I agree with. }

Very true. I am reminded of a RL conversation with Rev Vosper in which she stated, "You are making the same argument as Marcus Borg." I felt quite dismissed, but I hasten to add that this was a matter of perception on my part.

You wrote: { By publishing her book she put her ideas out there for critique and I would think that as someone who calls for open-mindedness she would understand when the critique of her ideas is harsh. }

True enough. Especially when she has told us that she is extending the book as a "confrontation". (Page 316)

RevJamesMurray:

You wrote:

{ 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.}

I have been thinking about your comments, and wondering how congregations can start grappling with this question.

paradox3: I finished the book last night, and agree with RevJames' synopsis. The book certainly is though-provoking, and a good starting point for discussion. I'm off to church right now, and will return the book to our church library, in the hope that many of our members will read it, so that it may, along with books by Marcus Borg, Tom Harpur, and others on RevJames' list, become a starting point for discussing where we want to go as a progressive congregation, denomination, and as a broader, human and global, spiritual community.

Thank you, paradox3, for initiating this thought-provoking series of discussions on Gretta's book.

Arminius: You are most welcome, of course. I am glad you were able to get the book from your church library and join us for the discussion. Hosting these threads has been a wonderful experience, and I am most grateful to everyone who has posted their thoughts.

As the discussion winds up, I would like to offer a few words from a Jewish author. It would seem that we have been grappling with "the way we live" and "what we believe" for a long, long time.

{ One of the best-known stories in the Talmud tells of the non-Jew who approached the great sage Hillel and asked him, "Can you summarize all of Judaism for me while I stand on one foot?" Hillel answered, "What you don't like, don't do to others. That's it; the rest is commentary. Now go study the commentary."

... The essence of Judaism is creating holiness in the way we relate to the world and to the people in it. God cares more about how we treat the poor than how we treat the Torah, and He cares more for how relate to the rules of the Torah than how we relate to Him.

But Hillel also understood that Judaism is more than its essence, and this is why he told the questioning gentile not to be satisfied with a one-sentence summary, profound though it might be, but to go and study the rest. How we treat our neighbour may be a higher religious priority than how we treat the Torah, but no serious Jew will do one (either one) without the other. }

Harold Kushner, "To Life! A Celebration of Jewish Being and Thinking"

(Pages 302 - 303)

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.

P3 asked "I have been thinking about your comments, and wondering how congregations can start grappling with this question."

We can start by sharing what we know with others. Write a sermon. Write a book report for your congregation's newsletter or website.
Invite folks from your congregation/neighbourhood to read this/another book together. Discuss it.
Have people over for a beverage and ask them to discuss "what kind of a church do we want to be?" "What is the mission of our church?" What is God doing in our neighbourhood?"
Get some like minded folks together and pray for your neighbours/ your church / your community. Let others know your group is willing to pray for them. You'll be amazed who calls asking for prayers.
We can't do all things and be all things to all people. Jesus told us to go to the ends of the world to share his good news. Such a journey does start with one step off the curb and onto the street.

Hi there!!
My apologies for not logging in earlier. Had so wanted to reply to some of the comments but my login failed me over and again and I finally had to have my password reset. Arrrggghhh! with a punctuating thank you to the emerging spirit folks who fixed the problem for me!!

I want to thank you all for the consideration you have given this book. Yes, some of what you said hurt (but you should check out some of the other stuff!). I'd be lying if I said it didn't and, quite frankly, I'd not like myself very much if I was the kind of person who didn't care. Those of you in pastoral ministry know what it is like to have someone snark at the sermon on their way out the door--you simply aren't free to respond in that setting and so, unaddressed, it works at you and becomes the only feedback you remember for weeks. While this forum has provided me ample opportunity to respond, I regret that I simply haven't had the time to engage at the level you have (WH accepted a growth plan at its last Annual Meeting and that alone has significantly increased my pastoral responsibilities--I remain the only pastoral staff person at that very active, very vibrant congregation). I am utterly impressed with your willingness to engage at the depth and breadth that you have on the many different issues, challenges, and ideas presented in the book and the myriad spin-offs that were birthed throughout the discussion. I hope wondercafe has taken note and offers some sort of acknowledgement to the hours you have put into keeping this innovative UCC project alive!

It may, actually, have been a good thing that I wasn't around all the time. I don't participate in the book studies at West Hill (on other books, not mine) because "clergy" presence has been known to absolutely kill discussion. I expect the constant presence of the book's author may have had the same effect so I very much appreciate the many times you made me feel welcome when I did drop in.

Because I have not been able to participate fully, I am grateful to those who have attempted to present more of a first hand experience of West Hill, of my pastoral ministry, and of my spiritual perspectives--paradox3, Iwonder, and Cathi, particularly when it was not the popular position to be taking. As the church struggles with these very real issues, no matter what part of the circle we find ourselves arguing from, we will need to be intentional about speaking with respect and integrity and about challenging one another with respect when that does not happen. Practicing that in community is one of the many gifts the church has to offer and wondercafe has proven itself a worthy component of church providing, as it has, the opportunity to do just that.

A final word of gratitude to paradox3 for the work done in lifting up particular issues for discussion and keeping the group's attention on them. The discussion has been excellent, the critique valuable, and the energy inspiring. Without your initiative and ongoing attentiveness, it simply would not have happened.

The conversation is not finished. We all know that. I hope that wherever you each have the opportunity to continue it, you will find it rich and rewarding.
All the best,
gretta

Hi Gretta,

Thanks for stopping by, and for your comments.

You wrote: { A final word of gratitude to paradox3 for the work done in lifting up particular issues for discussion and keeping the group's attention on them. The discussion has been excellent, the critique valuable, and the energy inspiring. Without your initiative and ongoing attentiveness, it simply would not have happened. }

It has been my pleasure.

All the best to you...P3

Hi Gretta: So we finally heard from you. Great! Thanks, Gretta, for taking time away from your busy schedule and talking to us. It is not easy to stand up, write a necessary but controversial book, and take the flak.

________________________________

Let's all thank Gretta for her book! (Standing ovation!!! ;-)

_________________________________

West Hill church must be particularly blessed because two of its ministers became important voices within the Emerging Spirit movement. I am now reading Bruce Sanguin's "The emerging Church," and have read his "Darwin, Divinty. and The Dance of the Cosmos" before. His and Gretta's books, and Brian McLaren's more conservative "Everything Must Change," together with the works of Marcus Borg, Tom Harpur, Matthew Fox, Bishop Spong, and others, are the important emerging voices that need to be heard.

One last word about Gretta's book. It speaks of "The Female Wound," and appears to have been written from that viewpoint. We need not necessarily agree with everything she writes--and I don't thinks she expects us to--but the viewpoint of the female wounded by traditional Christianity needs to be seriously contemplated and duly respected and considered by everyone.

Last sat night I had supper with an old friend ( joined by others) and the conversation turned to with and without. He said I had said many of the points raised about the need of a radical reconstruction of the faith ( and said it in the seventies) but the question remained that while our agenda appeared to be the same, why is it we are so dissatisfied, and in fact, almost angry with the book. What is the disconnect? Holding the same agenda we take such radical different routes and the route we take actually calls into profound disagreement with the thesis of the book. That, in the end, the book is one large category mistake and contradictory in argument and thus actually ends in the rejection of religious experience as a real event, and thus calls into question any efficaciousness of religion as religion and actually ends in secular humanism.

We agreed that was fine and has it place but why call it religious? Why remain within the christian trajectory?

The book has good intentions and does have appeal but is intellectually unsatisfying. Yes, it would appeal to those who feel the church is dead, is wrong head - confirms those options - would appeal to those who have found both the conservative and liberal answers as lacking- and appeal to those who find no problem with the world view of narrow naturalism or social construction of reality in its reductionistic aspect to be big T truth. However, did it do its job of constructing an adequate theology to address the real issues it attempts to address? Our view was no.

Why? So I went back to re read the first chapter to identify our disagreement. It is because it so dependent on the metaphysics of our secular thinking. It uses ideas about divinity that ought to be rejected and then suggest that is the only model of God available - its debating partner is ontological supernaturalism and suggests this is the only definition of the divine reality.

The theological background we all work out of has reduced divine activity to what christians believe - The language of liberal, conservative and neo orthodox was devoid of meaning because it had no reference Part of the problem in modern theological theistic reflection is it accepted Kant understanding of sensationalist doctrine of perception. He suggested we have no direct experience of God because we do not have a sense organ for that experience All mystical is illusional experience and is reduced to some human or biological construct - it is evolutionary - it is carried by those mechanism ( Durkheim) created to suggest such an experience sacred is what religious people do, thus all is projection.

Gordon Kaufman suggests the idea of God is "construct imaginatively in the mind." Thus modern theologians have not been able to to do justice to God language. The primary christian doctrine affirms God as creating the world, acting providentially, savingly, and self- revealing it, as being experienced, and as being good, loving, wise, purposive, and concerned for justice.

Theologians like Tillich tried to redeem God language by moving the question to ground of being - but this is a god of no being - but is being itself, that is which all beings have in common - thus the idea of God as purposive is symbolic not literal nor even analogical. There are many like Donald Cupitt who suggests the word "God" refers to cluster of-ideas that we have formulated imaginatively and projection unto the universe.

In the end, though, such views are not religiously satisfying. It does end in action is more important than proper belief. In the end, though, action needs some justification. White action is necessary for well being and the common good that may not be a sufficient rationale for on going action.

In the history of action there has always been some world view to justify the action - like Marxism or socialism or capitalism - or enlightened self interest. These world views have a problem of been maintained and creating lasting communities of action... they tend, like dogmatic religious views, turn to some narrow ideology. And as such have limited generative appeal.

Thus the question is to have a religious view that has the necessary rationale for action but must also address the sufficient- the need is it worthy of worship?

Thus, in the end, we have found that its process theology does that both- gives a sufficient ground for action and for God language, , and makes intellectually possible religious experience as real. To do so is to begin with a different metaphysics, - that is, not matter in motion, which is the dominate metaphysics of modern theology. It is begin in the idea of relationality and process which creates the real and leaves room for interaction of the really real.

For me the lingering question is "Is there salvation in the Church?". If there isn't then the Church loses its raison d'etre.

Yes, Pan, I agree. Gretta's book appears to be in support of secular humanism.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with secular humanism. But is it worthy of worship? I think not.

The power and process that is driving the universe toward ever-increasing diversity, consciousness, beauty, and complexity, however, definitely is worthy of worship! I am in constant awe of IT, sing songs of praise to IT (even if they sound too much like "Praise the Lord" :-) and try my best to co-create and co-evolve the universe along with IT, in ITS spirit. But IT is so much greater than I can possibly imagine that I can't comprehend IT in ITS grand entirety. I do, however, feel inseparably united with IT, as if IT had created me, along with everything else, out of ITS own substance. We could refrain from calling IT God, but IT would still be the same by any other name, or by no name at all. The name is not real, but what the name stands for is. Really real, as you said.

Sometimes one has to exaggerate to make a point. I don't think Gretta's point was just an argument in favour of secular humanism, neither was it just the backlash of a woman gravely offended by patriarchal religion. Perhaps she did not quite know what point to make, and writing her first book helped her clear her mind (writing tends to do that) and in her second book she'll clarify her position and tell us exactly what she means to say. I admire her courage, though, and I admire her personally, and am looking forward to her second book.

RevJames: Yes, of course; the Church has to serve a useful purpose. To me, the purpose of the Church is, first of all, to unite us as a worship community, secondly, to unite us with our creative source, and, thirdly, to act as responsible co-evolvers and co-creators of the ultimate creator. If the Church doesn't do these, then it has indeed outlived its usefulness.

As the discussion on this thread has been winding down, I have revisited Spong's Foreword to WWG with some interest.

Spong welcomes Rev Vosper's efforts to challenge the boundaries of traditional Christianity, and he is certainly impressed with her ideas and her writing. But I am not sure if he completely understands her theology.

He writes: " Gretta Vosper writes to make the God she worships clear."

Does she?

She has told us that God is a human construct, and that "in the postmodern church, we're looking for what our small-g god - the humanly constructed set of life-enhancing values we strive to uphold - challenges us to do." (Page 282)

Spong writes: "Gretta calls for her readers and for the Christian Church to be open to the eternal God-experience that has been translated in radically different ways during our our walk throughout history."

Does she?

I would say that the upholding of values and the default to ethics is not necessarily an "eternal God-experience". I don't know many humanists who would use this language. However, I do not deny the spirituality inherent in religious or secular humanism.

Spong writes: "The members of her congregation know her, love her and trust her. They have indicated not just a willingness to walk with her, but also great joy in doing so."

Have they?

It should be clear enough by now that not all of us were willing to follow Gretta down the path. Earlier on these threads, I asked one of the active WHUC members how many families have left by now. Unfortunately, she did not reply to my question. In an April sermon (available on podcast), Gretta discussed WHUC as a community in transition.

Spong tells us: "This is a powerful book, a provocative book, a book that needs to be read and debated."

It is indeed, although it sounds like some of the critique has been difficult for Gretta. Thanks again to everyone who has joined me in the debate.

Yes, paradox3, agree. The book is unclear, contradictory, even. As I said, I hope Gretta writes a sequel and makes herself clear.

I am now reading Bruce Sanguin's "The Emerging Church." I am very taken by it, but then I am one of his fans. Perhaps we can discuss "The Emerging Church" next?

Hello All -

I see that you are now finished with the book and final chapter for discussion. Just dropping in to offer a word or two.

Paradox3: A few families have indeed left, not sure of the count, but the exciting thing is that with the launch of the book, many many new people have found West Hill. These folks are delightful and are finding it a home in which to journey and indeed walk with us as a congregation and with Gretta. WHUC is richer for the new people who have joined us. Yes, there was indeed transition happening in the congregation, as there is in any congregation anywhere ... with the exception of perhaps some very small congregations.

Gretta's "Dirty Laundry" sermon was well over-due, in my opinion only. I was proud of her and proud of the congregants who had and continue to have the courage to engage in dialogue. I think that everyone is entitled to find a congregation that is nurturing for their spirit and wish only blessing for those individuals and families that have left. West Hill has a tradition of being on the cutting edge, as I understand it, and hence this will indeed be painful for those who do not wish to continue past their particular level of comfort with their spiritual reality.

I have been in other congregations where the in-fighting, whispering, back-stabbing and parking lot chatter has caused more harm than the actual issues 'inside' the sanctuary. This too was part of the reality for some at West Hill. However, as Gretta mentioned, it is distressing when people leave, whisper, back-bite, and intentionally try to pull individuals away without conversation. This has been and will continue in some places to be the realities of "religion".

At no point did any family or individual who left, either bring forward to the Board or to the congregation a vote of non-confidence in the direction. Often, it was the very individuals (and family members) who sat on the Board at WH making the decisions about the direction who in turn have left. Others who lack integrity just whisper and gossip in the parking lot. This has been unfortunate. Even Jesus had Judas in his midst.

However, this does not negate what Spong said in his forward, since there are many many others - long time members, "medium-time" members and new members who do trust Gretta and want to walk with her on this journey. Yet, this isn't about Gretta - as a member of West Hill, it is about our individual journey, responsibility and living that out in community with one another ... Gretta provides guidance, and West Hill the place to gather - but ultimately, each person must decide for his/her self how radically ethical they wish to live in the world of matter and spirit.

Blessings

Sorry, but what is this 'dirty laundry' sermon you speak of? I feel almost dirty asking, but will it help us with our discussion here?

I, too, would be interested.

Excavator: "West Hill has a tradition of being on the cutting edge, as I understand it, and hence this will indeed be painful for those who do not wish to continue past their particular level of comfort with their spiritual reality.
_________________________________________________________
Excavator, with respect, just because a person does not find the particular theology offered at WHUC compatible with their faith does not mean he or she is afraid to travel beyond his or her spiritual comfort zone.

There are many people who are exploring their spiritual reality very deeply & are prepared to be challenged and to grow accordingly. Spiritual growth does not inevitably lead to the nontheistic, ethics-based theology espoused at WHUC. For many, spiritual growth leads every more deeply into a theistic God.

There are many cutting edges; not all of them lead away from God, and I hope that those who have left your church are not considered to be spiritually less evolved than those who have remained.

Diana -

Everyone is entitled to their spiritual journey and their own comfort level with that journey. No one is "lesser" because of it ... comfort level is a subjective thing, which each person needs to assess for his/her self. Some places and worship styles are uncomfortable for some people depending on their own spiritual comfort with a variety of issues - not just theistic or non-theistic understandings.

For others -
Paradox3 referenced Gretta's sermon in this thread in relation to people leaving West Hill, the transition and in reference to Spong's forward in Gretta's book. This sermon can be found on the West Hill web-site - with your choice of video feed (visual) or download it to a Pod cast. Many many members remain and are happy with the direction and walking this particular journey of faith with others in the congregation and with Gretta.

West Hill is growing and vibrant and everyone who has left is wished well and that each finds along their journey what is meaningful for them - spiritually and otherwise. This is the natural ebb and flow of many congregations ... and West Hill is a spiritually nurturing place for many, in a variety of ways.

Peace

I might add - the "dirty laundry" sermon is one of the most courageous I have ever witnessed, Gretta received a standing ovation from the congregation following it - and I would only wish other ministers were as full of integrity as she.

Best

The Dirty Laundry sermon:

http://warmplace.ca/?m=200804&paged=2

Also available on podcast - go to www.coolplace.net and click on iTunes

:-)

I agree with Excavator. I have been involved in churchy things for a long time and I have never seen such courage and integrity displayed by anyone in the pulpit.