This has been an interesting thread and I regret not being able to participate in it "“ with two young kids, a full time job, and many volunteer responsibilities, there have been challenges with me keeping up on everything being discussed. :-)

That said, I did want to add a couple of points and respond to a couple of issues that were brought up.

Back a couple of years ago, Gretta did a series of sermons based on the work of Meg Wheatley, and in particular, the book Turning to One Another. She said something then that has (obviously) lived with me ever since. She talked about how important it was to have conversations with each other about our hopes, dreams, ideas, and values. That we might have the best idea in the world, the idea that would solve the problems of countless people, or the idea which would bring health and vitality back to others, but, if we didn't tell anyone about it, it was as if the idea had never occurred. Just as important as the idea, is the need to be in dialogue about it.

So. As I said in another thread, this is her part of the conversation about about a possible future for the liberal church. Where it may go if those who support her ideas have the courage to bring them to life. I believe this book is her addition to the conversation that many have pointed out, including Gretta herself, began 50 years or more ago and that Panenentheism mentioned he has been discussing for 30 years. To my mind though, the fact that we need to bring up these ideas for a new generation (my generation, most of who have never set foot in a church except for a wedding) means that many in the world are still very much in need of the conversation. It means to me, anyway, that nothing much has changed from 50 years ago and that these ideas still need to be discussed, debated, and sure, to be challenged by some.

But even more so, she is offering one way for congregations to bridge the gap between the two sides of the corpus callosum, to use her metaphor. I have been to see Spong lecture many times and invariably there are questions the begin: "Okay, we know this now about the bible, about Jesus, that we experience god in a non-theistic way, where do I go from here? What do I do with this knowledge?" Gretta is offering one way. Granted, a radical way. But one I and many many others are thankful for.

I also wanted to also address Spong's forward. I was actually taken aback by the presumptuous intimation that Spong isn't aware of Gretta's ideas or the ideas espoused in her book. I obviously can't speak for either of them, but my personal knowledge of the issue would lead me to believe quite strongly otherwise. As she says in the dedication, he deserves all of the credit and none of the blame. He is one of those rare individuals who sees his own limits and cheers on and supports those who would dare to go further and travel dangerous waters.

Really, the conversation here has been very interesting and thought provoking, it's great to see people debating these ideas and engaging with them! I have to commend iWonder for his steadfastness "“ sorry I was not available to offer my perspective on these threads, my friend.

And carry on the conversation! Perhaps another book, like Arminius has suggested? Bruce Sanguin's a great guy with fascinating ideas . . .

Dandarii,

Hello again.

You wrote: { I also wanted to also address Spong's forward. I was actually taken aback by the presumptuous intimation that Spong isn't aware of Gretta's ideas or the ideas espoused in her book. }

Hmmm... that is not what I said, Dandarii. Of course he is aware of Gretta's ideas. My comment from upthread is as follows:

Paradox3: "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."

I gave two examples of where I perceive some inconsistency, i.e. where Spong's comments in the Foreword don't seem to match up with what Gretta writes later in the book.

Excavator,

Approximately 15 families have left WHUC for theological reasons, as far as I know. But my information is not necessarily up to date. There have been other transitions such as members moving out of province, and so on.

You are correct, many of the original congregation have embraced the theological shift, and many new folks have been attracted to West Hill. We who have chosen to leave hold a minority viewpoint. That is clear enough, but I felt Spong's comments in the foreword were somewhat misleading.

For the record, I spoke with the leadership at WHUC before deciding that I would leave the congregation. Gretta and I have had points of contact since that time, and I have enjoyed visiting West Hill on a few occasions.

Diana: Thank you for your comments - - I appreciate them very much.

Arminius: Another book study/ readers' group is a wonderful idea. Maybe in the fall?

This is my first experience with an internet forum, and hosting the discussion has been a fascinating adventure. It has been great to have the author join us on a few occasions, and I am glad she appreciates our efforts here on wondercafe.

Couldn't resist jumping back into the fray, Paradox! =)

I just watched the Dirty Laundry sermon. My goodness, she's an outstanding speaker, isn't she?

But I think she's awfully harsh with the rest of the church in saying that those who hold to the language of "God" and "Jesus" are building communities that are rigid and exclusive.

I had the great pleasure of hearing Bishop Michael Ingham speak on Sunday. He's the Anglican bishop who is trying to bring about same sex blessings in the face of almost universal opposition from his fellow bishops. He preached a sermon based on the parable of the mustard seed, and he managed to elaborate a theology that was so open, so radically inclusive and open to all that it brought tears to my eyes. And he did it, much as Marcus Borg does, through new understandings of the ancient stories.

Sunday morning services aside, I have never, in all my years as an Anglican and then United Church member, felt that I "had" to believe anything in order to belong. If I had felt that way at any time, I would have been out the door before you could say, "personal saviour".

I'm just not sure that I agree that the way to being radically inclusive is to do away with all the core concepts of Christianity - I am more moved by Borg's approach of saying - here's our ancient story - what meaning do we make of it for ourselves, here and now?

Hello Diana:

Yes, Rev Vosper is an outstanding speaker, and most of the time she delivers her sermons without any notes! Worship (which they are calling non-theistic gatherings) is done extremely well at West Hill. The music is wonderful, with many of Scott Kearns' original pieces being used.

Gretta is also an excellent small group facilitator, and I learned a great deal from her during my time at West Hill. When I arrived at WHUC, I had spent many years with a small, quite conservative congregation, and I was looking to shed some light on things.

In those days, WHUC was already praying to "Our Loving God" instead of "Our Father", a change introduced by Bruce Sanguin during his tenure. There was never a prayer of confession or assurance of pardon that I can remember, except at one funeral I attended.

The Scripture lesson concluded with the words, "This is the witness of God's people." It was like coming home to hear this, because I had never been convinced that the Bible was the literal "Word of God."

Over time, Gretta's sermons became more progressive. It was wonderful to hear about a non-interventionist God, and to start challenging attitudes of Christian imperialism. Gretta would often discuss the Bible readings in context, and would be able to make the ancient world "come alive" for us.

She is a gifted and creative worship leader.

The time came when our congregation affiliated with Jim Adams' organization, TCPC, and the eight point star model (the American 8 points) was posted in the narthex. Before too long, Gretta and a few WHUC members started to develop the Canadian Center for Progressive Christianity. It was launched in Nov 04, and it was an amazing evening.

So far, so good.

The trouble came for me when I attended a series of study groups with Gretta early in 05. Gretta explained where she was heading theologically, and outlined the distinctions between conservative (hard and soft), liberal, and progressive forms of christianity.

You can imagine my dismay when I realized that according to these distinctions, I was a liberal Christian. Not a progressive one at all. That was the beginning of my journey away from West Hill, and it took me a few months to make up my mind to leave.

Gretta told me at that time that being "progressive" means we keep on moving. Where are they going to move to next, I often wonder. What comes after becoming non-theistic and radically ethical? I suspect that the doctrine will become more well-established.

Diana, I liked what you offered about different cutting edges in the church. Rev Vosper's particular cutting edge did not suit me - - that is a good way for me to express my departure from her congregation.

It has been wonderful to learn more about different kinds of progressive thought here on wondercafe. I tend to agree with Panentheism and others, and see more promise in the process theology "cutting edge".

Thanks for your comments. You are helping me achieve more clarity of thought about this.

There is good and bad in Rev. Vosper's "Dirty Laundry" sermon. I do like that she upheld values of conversation, dialogue, sharing, and even debate in community. I dislike that so much time was spent disparaging those who had left without conversing with her. That part of the sermon felt more like a politely worded diatribe, less interested in conversation and community than in getting some rebuttals to those who had left and were badmouthing her. I'm not entirely convinced of the integrity of this, as they are obviously not present to hear the sermon, or defend themselves, so it seems that Rev. Vosper was doing much the same thing her detractors have been. My intention is not to defend those who have left and who are busy grousing about being "forced out".

Geez, and I thought I had it rough when I almost got fired for questioning the literalness of the Apostle's Creed (Jesus sitting on the right hand of God is a metaphor right, he's not actually sitting ON God's hand.)

I agree that there is a disconnect in Spong's forward and what the book does - the book leaves behind theism of any model. That is fine. But Spong seems not have read it this way. He seems to want more than a projectionistic view of religion. And the book is a well done view of projectionist view of religion.

It is important to not attack personally Gretta but at the same time when an idea is offered it must be taken seriously and debated.

In the end here is my view of the book. There are many passages I say this is true and then a but comes in- the but comes because the book is a classic example of what has been our western disenchantment. It assumes a no enchanted view of the world - its world view is a projection where religion is ONLY human creation and there is no transcendent reality - it is all human creativity.

This is crucial because difference for I can say two things - religious forms are humans shaped realties in RESPONSE to the divine aim - there is a connection but not one in the same. Yes religious constructs change and evolve - are paradigms and as paradigms have to include past insights in response to new issues, but the past is never left behind but included. A new paradigm is built on the old not a rejection of the insights of the past. Thus the job of theology is to affirm both humans creativity and the creativity of the divine aim.

You cannot do this out of the liberal trajectory nor can you do it out of classical supernaturalism. So one must begin the reconstruction from first causes.

Now the book's thesis does lead to a rejection of any enchanted view - any transcendence - and that is fine if that is the program. If falls within a whole way of studying religion and in the end calls into question the need for religious communities when humanity comes of age. If we are truly the creative authors of reality than we need no sacred icons or worship.

It is here that the debate should be focused - can one hold a religious view without a transcend reference? And if you cannot, then the job is how one can still affirm transcendence. Taylor's book the secular age lays this out clearly and gives an answer. It begins with the thesis that there is a transcendence that is not our projection and then we work out the language to show how this is - panentheism is one such project.

Gretta has a gift of language and has courage and one can honor her for that - however I think she has moved out of the christian trajectory - and there is no condemnation for that - people do and find it no longer helpful - but let us name it for what it is - and she has charisma and people find a home there - but it is a particular and idiosyncratic view. While idiosyncratic it does share the perspective of secular humanism that sees religion as helpful but has no reference but being helpful to human evolution into a more full human - a more humane reality.

"and I would only wish other ministers were as full of integrity as she."

- You make it sound as though most ministers are shady and underhanded. While I'm not sure what it means to be "full of" integrity I do know ministers who live their lives with integrity and I respect them for it.

Meredith,

Hi,

You wrote:

You make it sound as though most ministers are shady and underhanded.

See that is what comes from not sharing modern scholarship!

I'd say more but I have to twirl my mustache and tie Nell to the railroad tracks.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Diane:
You said:
Sunday morning services aside, I have never, in all my years as an Anglican and then United Church member, felt that I "had" to believe anything in order to belong. If I had felt that way at any time, I would have been out the door before you could say, "personal saviour".

This is the point, in part, of progressive Christianity. However, not having to believe in any one thing - such as personal saviour, Jesus as redeemer, God in the sky or intervening in our lives - is often not addressed in worship. How can it be, when the Lord's Prayer / Disciple's Prayer, Creeds etc are still recited. Part of Progressiveness, if I can call it that, - and it's only 1 way - is that: If you don't believe it, don't say it / sing it (or be compelled to). Myth and Metaphor are great, and wonderful tools when you know that they are myth and metaphor ... however, this understanding is only a recent development. The issue of 'belonging' is when a congregation continues to use metaphors that make no sense to the current generation and who reject church. Yes, the evangelicals and some congregations do have active youth programs - but generally in mainline - this is not the case.

Congregations lament the lack of new members, youth, children ... yet, they don't get the message - the message from the generation is that Church and the Message being delivered is irrelevant to them and their world. With scholarship out there and many courses being offered to help explain things once in the domain of the Church, "mainline" people feel duped (I hear this in community and in academia).

Yes, the LP is "tradition" - and it can in fact be twisted into all sorts of metaphors - but I am not comfortable petition a God in Heaven, whose Kingdom will come on earth as it is in Heaven ... What's that really? Do people really need to recite this to 'belong' - if they don't believe it, should it be said?

The roots of this prayer belong to John the Baptist and not Jesus and have been changed over the centuries ... The mentality behind the petitioning which it conveys, in its own time, was for the End of Days - for God to intervene and bring about the End of Days / History as it was known on earth (their world) at the time - to transform the world through, most often, destructive means. Reciting this prayer just doesn't work for me. Yet, people will say this is a founding tenant of 'belonging' ... but this doesn't mean I don't pray, I just never say this one.

When people, even in this tread, suggest that Gretta or "progressives" leave the United Church - become Unitarians, Humanists etc., it is saying something about who gets to "belong" officially and who doesn't - exclusivistic. So, therefore, I guess I'm suggesting that most Christians, in order to "rightly be called that" are told - overtly or covertly that they need to believe "something" in order to belong.

History shows us that there have always been Christians to point to other Christians and say "You are not Christian because you do not believe in ..."
And there will always be Christians defending their rights not to ascribe to certain "beliefs" ... hence the enormous diversity of early Christianities ...

Dandrill:
Thanks for your post - helps clarify things ... West Hill and Gretta's offering in her book. "One way" for congregations - not "The way".

Others:
Yes, I too have known ministers who have integrity and appreciate them - AND most do not say what they really think from the pulpit, because they need the job and have mortgages or other commitments, like the rest of us ... I've heard more ministers say "I'll say ------ when I retire" ... People in the pews have often held back their ministers and this is ashame.

revjohn- I know you base a lot of your theology on Calvin, but I am sure you are also conversant with modern scholarship. I think it would be interesting for this discussion to hear how you share/integrate modern insights while honouring the tradition as you understand it.

Besides, who even makes moustache wax these days?

Hi All: I haven't posted here in ages, and am just on the run (off to school BBQ), I but wanted to add something.

Meredith ... suggested that one of Gretta's folks was considering most ministers shady and underhanded. I think really all Dandari was saying was that she felt Gretta herself had a lot of integrity - and yes, in her view, maybe more than many. That's different than an accusation of underhandedness.

(Rev John ... mentioned some sort of shady behaviour though .. hmmm :-).

I know there have been references in past threads to the idea of Gretta making other clergy her "strawmen" as well.

To be honest, I think there is some of that strawman thing happening. I see a little of that in the chapters of her book that I've read, and I've heard that kind of talk from other progressives. (I do think it perhaps goes a little too far - the suggestion of clergy "hiding" what they've learned in seminary in some sort of conspiracy - good grief).

STILL: I've noticed some of the folks in these threads refer to Gretta as "dishonest", which however much you disagree with her ... just isn't true. There is no need to insult anyone's integrity.

ALSO and VERY IMPORTANTLY: I will point out that I know Gretta has done some very hard work to form support groups for her colleagues and their families. At one point she invited my parents (well my mom, at least) to be involved in one. My parents aren't involved with her CCCP group, so she had no reason to do that other than a genuine desire to be supportive of her colleagues. (My Dad, who has just retired as a UCC minister, actually openly disagrees with much of her thinking ... although he has said categorically that he would defend her TO THE WALL in terms of her ABSOLUTE RIGHT ... to be incorrect :-).

All the best everyone ...

Indira

When I was at Five Oaks - 84 -94 we ran several courses over the years based on constructive postmodernism - some called it progressive - from the bias of Process thought ( and others who were pushing the borders)... I had a hard time of getting people to sign up and had to cancel the possibility of crossan because of cost and interest.

I think Gretta is to be admired and would I defend what she says - yes and no - yes her right but there are times when the ideas move out of essential agreement.

Now the debatable point is whether there is a basic and primary doctrine which defines the christian movement - when it is rejected does one move outside. It is the debate about a really real transcendence - if we begin there we can debate the adequacies of the model used to describe the really real. However, to say it is human projection is offer another intellectual tradition -There are some who are open to non theists but the institution itself has some belief in a transcendent reality - to say at the least it is mystery and language cannot capture it and thus all metaphors are equal - but note there is an assumption of a transcendence - that may be the bottom line for debate and conversation to happen.

There are real differences in world views and as such we do mean different things - that is fine but that means the difference matters.

- My comment was a wry and exasperated response to what I perceived to be a pretty unfair generalization of clergy. I was trying to think of characteristics that would exemplify lacking in integrity and for some reason shady and underhanded came to mind. Maybe you could suggest other ones that would capture what it means to lack integrity more precisely Indira.

Hello Excavator,

You wrote: { When people, even in this tread, suggest that Gretta or "progressives" leave the United Church - become Unitarians, Humanists etc., it is saying something about who gets to "belong" officially and who doesn't - exclusivistic. }

Could you show me where it has been suggested on this thread that Gretta or "progressives" leave the United Church?

Indira: You mentioned references to strawmen and dishonesty. Just a point of clarification - - you didn't mean here on the WWG Readers' Group threads, did you?

RevJamesMurray,

Hi,

You wrote:

revjohn- I know you base a lot of your theology on Calvin, but I am sure you are also conversant with modern scholarship.

That has been a bit of a bugaboo discussed in one of the earliest threads. What is meant by "Modern Scholarship." So bearing in mind that what I might recognize as scholarship others might proclaim to be apologetics (and somehow unscholarly) I offer the following.

Most recently the congregation of Mt. Zion in Renton Ontario went through a study of Christian A Schwarz's "The 3 Colors of Ministry" Schwarz is the head of The Institute for Natural Church Development and his approach towards Christianity is, in his own words, "Organic" That is to say that he rejects an institutionalized approach to theology as well as a spiritualized approach for a more balanced presentation.

The purpose of "The 3 Colors of Ministry" is to build on the Reformational Theme of "The Priesthood of all believers" by demonstrating a) that all individuals have been gifted spiritually by God and that b) not everyone possesses all of the possible gifts that God can give.

Schwarz sums this up in the proverb, "no one has it all together but together we can have it all"

So that runs through several Calvinist lenses "Irresistable Grace" and "Perseverance of the saints" to mention two.

Recently, at Pentecost we dealt with the gifting of the Holy Spirit as a lectionary option and I was able to bridge the gap between our study and our worship by addressing Schwarz's thesis and pointing to the application of that thesis in the life and work of the Congregation in the here and now.

I'm currently reading "For All The Saints: Evengelical Theology and Christian Spirituality" (Timothy George and Alister McGrath eds.) I'm looking forward to the first article in the Critique section by Ralph C Wood it is called "Outward Faith, Inward Piety: The Dependance of Spirituality on Worship and Doctrine" It sounds like it will address some of the issues that the Reverend Vosper raised in her book although it will be from a different perspective.

I recently finished reading the transcripts of a debate between Richard J Mouw and David J Englesma on the subject "Is The Doctrine of Common Grace Reformed" I found Mouw more convincing and Englesma too much appealing to a literalist interpretation of scripture but other than that it was a brilliantly presented theological debate and both men offered commendable arguments.

It struck me as I read it that the doctrine of Common Grace appears to mesh very well with what friend Panentheism shares of process theology. There are some obvious metaphysical differences and a lot of what Mouw offered in defense of the doctrine of Common Grace reminded me very much of some of Panentheism's posts.

I don't know yet how either of those recent works will worm their way into a sermon or how soon they will be able to do so.

I do know that they offer another lense which will come into play when reviewing some texts and so even if not properly footnoted they will shape the form of sermons to come.

I am still mindful of a quote from my first faculty advisor Professor Albert Wolters who said, "Remember, Biblical Scholarship isn't necessarily either" which I have interpreted as his warning to be as discerning of anything so labelled as one would any spirit one comes into contact with.

You wrote:

I think it would be interesting for this discussion to hear how you share/integrate modern insights while honouring the tradition as you understand it.

Having spent time in Newfoundland and Labrador I have come up with a new appreciation ofr the fishers of people text which I use to combat a typical mainlander's view of fishing (Which is what Islanders call trouting). It also connects, via evolutions in technology to the commercial fishing enterprise which Jesus was apparently referencing.

Having been three years now in the Haldimand Clay I have also come to a new appreciation of the agricultural based texts and seek to tie the lessons learned there into the current practices of farming the land.

Scholarly method helps to facilitate those translations and despite the advances in technology in agri and aqua cultural pursuits there is still, it appears, a high need for the grace of God to augment both.

Am I successsful?

I hope that I am. I'm probably not the fairest critic to ask.

You wrote:

Besides, who even makes moustache wax these days?

You don't need to wax a moustache to twirl it. Though you have to be careful or you can knot it by twisting it to much in one direction.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Meredith: Well, I think what was said by the person above was that she'd love to see others as "full of integrity" as Gretta, not that they're bereft of integrity. I think it was more a glowing comment of support for Gretta by a member of her congregation. (It's like if I tell my son that he's the most wonderful boy in the world and I can't think of any other boy as perfect. It isn't really an insult to all the other sweet little boys in the world).

Actually, I know the person who said that has also had very positive things to say about quite a lot of other ministers too.

Paradox3: Yes, I'm pretty sure both the comments were on WWG threads. I think Panentheism made the "strawman" comment. I don't have time right now to go back through them and check, but I'm 99.999999999 % sure. :-) (I haven't really been looking at many other discussions on the book).

Anyway, I will say that I have been reading the book. I haven't finished it. I can tell that there is a lot I disagree with, but I also find some passages inspiring quite frankly. I'm holding off on making any overall conclusions until I have read the entire book.

I do have to sign off right now for the night. Good night to you.

Indira

Excavator - I totally take your point about the worship experience. I, too, get weary of having to translate lyrics & liturgy into a language that works for me.

One thing I'm wondering - after worship, in study groups, small groups or whatever you have at WHUC, is there acceptance and support for people whose spiritual reality includes a theistic God-concept? Maybe Paradox could comment on this, as well? I don't have a clear sense of this yet.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole idea......if progressive Christianity is defined by progressing beyond a belief in a theistic notion of the sacred to an atheistic notion, instead of remaining open to a myriad of interpretations of the sacred, then it seems to me that progressive Christianity is just a new set of beliefs to replace old ones.

The TCPC's first point is that they follow the life and teachings of Jesus. There is no qualification of a particular belief or nonbelief in anything - that seems to me to be radically inclusive and still holds onto the one area of common ground that all Christian groups, no matter how diverse, have shared.

If you listen to the 'dirty laundry' sermon, it does sound like everyone is expected to use non-theistic language. Gretta Vosper's non-theistic approach is only one voice in the field of Progressive thought. She doesn't speak for everyone. The majority of Progressives are theists in some shape or form.

Yes I made the comment of "straw-men" - an example is on page 81 "the predominate wordview posits a supernatural God with which the people has a significant, covenantal relationship" Then uses this as the definition of the biblical view of God - supernatural is the straw-man - because that does not nuance the understanding (s) of God in the bible -it is to impose a later model and then to say that is the meaning.

Like Gretta, I oppose a supernatural view but that view comes later in theological thinking. The point I would make is if we begin as the reading of God in the bible is the covenantal and relational aspect - then what would make the most sense philosophical today? - hence the panentheistic model picks up the idea of a really real source of love compassion, novelty, and justice- covenantal and relational.

Another example is at the bottom of page 50 - straw-men means setting up a half truth and then making the whole truth to shoot it down.

Here is another example where I say yes and wait a minute this needs to be more nuanced - page 72 - yes death and after life emerges to answer some existential questions but you cannot reduce that is the only way to read the text - yes it can be read that way. For example, what happens is the debate on apocalyptic verse eschatology views is moved into only apocalyptic and if you read the texts only as that way then she is correct - however again it is more nuanced.

I agree world-views do influence reading but they can be deconstructed and I think there is a lively debate going on within the texts and when one shifts their world-view one can see the possibility within the text for that new understanding - it is also correct that if one does';t then the text is not helpful

So I go back to yes there is some beautify writing about the current problems of the church, how we understand and how they can mislead, yet the analysis is not complete - because it begins with a one note premise of a supernatural God as the basic belief and thus all theistic models are rejected - and I am not clear why.

Here is another way of approaching the text that maintains a theistic view and rejects a supernaturalism - this is to show that we do not have to become non theists - to suggest that is the only option.

Since we read out of assumptions here is another way of look at one biblical view of God. We know there There are many stories in the Bible that show God changing God's mind, amending God's ways, regretting, resolving, being jealous, angry, and loving. This suggests God is in dynamic relationship with creation. So one possible read of this is God is intimately involved in the becoming of the world. At the same time the Bible acknowledges that creatures have true power for self-determination. To have self determination means power of influence on what becomes. This means that creatures can respond to God positively or negatively. This means that God continually adjusts the divine response (aim) to creation, based on the creatures' decisions from moment to moment. This is suggestive of a theism that is interactive and not a one time event - becoming or process.

There is a sense of growth in God. God takes into God's own experience (aim) all that happens in creation and then responds to creation with new possibilities ( novel responses) and then once again receives all that happens in creation and so on. Each creature, by its very existence, adds to God's experience. And God must be responsive.

The ideas of divine impassivity (changeless) and omnipotence (all-power) don't ring true with the way many of the biblical stories portray God. The Bible portrays God in relational terms. Of course this is another theism which affirms an transcendent reality that is incarnated and as a relational really real both effecting and being effected. This is a different starting point metaphysically than that which supports modern liberal theology and a projectionist view of religion. If you begin here you would have a whole different theology than what is found in the book. It is here that the debate is and must be engaged in.

My son recently attended a live stage performance of a "Family Friendly" version of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Many of the parts which in the movie are played by adults were now performed by pre-pubescent children. Dr. Frank N Furter was no longer a transsexual transvestite, and his theme song was altered to read " I'm a sweet transformer from Transistor, Transylvania". All of the sexual liasons were removed, which comprises the middle third of the show, and as a result the last third of the show made no sense whatsoever. (Not that Rocky Horror ever did make a lot of sense). The call-back lines, where the audience normally participates, were handled by actors, who interjected with inoffensive call-backs instead. He left the show, feeling it had been gutted of everything odd, wild and passionate, which made Rocky Horror the cult classic it is.

When we take the transcendent, active passionate God out of Christianity, do we have anything worthwhile left?

Generation Gap warning - try imagining your minister using that Rocky Horror analogy in their sermon next Sunday at your congregation ! Would anyone get it?

RevJamesMurray: Did your son take toast, confetti and candles with him?

No toast allowed, no hotdogs, bagels, waterpistols, newspapers. so what's the point?

RevJamesMurray:

I have been told that the Sesame Street Cookie Monster no longer says "ME LOVE COOKIES!!!"

"Cookies are a sometimes food" is his new slogan :)

The featured letter in the June Observer reads as follows:

"Rev. Gretta Vosper's With or Without God left the reviewer feeling "blindsided by sudden gusts of wind and rain" (Reviews, April). As a member of her congregation at West Hill United in Scarborough, Ont, I can say that my experience of that community of faith and Gretta has been filled with gentle warmth, acceptance, nurturing and caring. I've never experienced that sense of belonging and unconditional love in any other church - not the United Church I grew up in or either of the two other denominations I tried as an adult."

Respectfully, I am wondering how this is relevant to the theology outlined in WWG.

A little over a year ago, I heard Gretta express in a sermon that she has never seen another community of faith where people care so much for each other.

WHUC is a warm and caring community, but I do not consider it unique in this regard. I have belonged to three different United Church congregations over the last 16 years, and have found them very much alike when it comes to welcoming newcomers and providing a nurturing environment.

Diana:

You wrote:

{ One thing I'm wondering - after worship, in study groups, small groups or whatever you have at WHUC, is there acceptance and support for people whose spiritual reality includes a theistic God-concept? Maybe Paradox could comment on this, as well? I don't have a clear sense of this yet. }

I am happy to comment, Diana. There certainly was support for people who believed in a "capital G" God when I was attending WHUC, but I don't know what it is like now. I left in spring 05, when the theological shift was underway and being explained to the congregation.

This was a short time after the launch of the CCPC. I could see that the Canadian group was going in a different direction than the American group (TCPC), but they had not yet articulated their 8 points. This was done later, but I don't remember exactly when.

You wrote:

{ I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole idea......if progressive Christianity is defined by progressing beyond a belief in a theistic notion of the sacred to an atheistic notion, instead of remaining open to a myriad of interpretations of the sacred, then it seems to me that progressive Christianity is just a new set of beliefs to replace old ones. }

The progressives often say that they are building communities of faith which are values-based, spirit-filled, and dogma-free. Here on wondercafe, I have learned the difference between dogma and doctrine. Yes, they are free of dogma, but I would say that they possess clearly defined doctrines. I agree with you completely.

RevJamesMurray,

You asked, { When we take the transcendent, active passionate God out of Christianity, do we have anything worthwhile left? }

Over on the CCPC book discussion, an interesting question has been raised. Can theists and non-theists intermingle within Christianity? This is what I was getting at when I started the thread about living peacefully together under the United Church umbrella.

To answer your question, I would say yes. If we also consider Jesus to have "no more import than the stories being lived out around us", I am less certain how to respond. Panentheism has suggested we need to consider at which point a theological perspective has left the Christian trajectory. I agree with him, but I don't think that this will be easily done.

Panentheism:

Thank you for your clarification re: the straw man argument. I have just learned that it is a type of informal fallacy.

I am sure "warm and caring" can be used to describe the congregations of Jerry Falwell, Westboro Baptist, and Jimmy Swaggart as well. Being warm and welcoming has nothing to do with your theological position or your (non)belief in God. If 'warm and welcoming & caring' is the best or only thing you can say about a congregation, I think you should shut it down.

Yes we can think of all sorts of warm and caring groups - like the Rotary or other such groups - and they can do positive things in our community.

I read about a third of Bruce Sanguin's The Emerging Church. Sanguin is the UCC minister who preceded Gretta Vosper at West Hill UC. He presents another more theistic vision of what a progressive Christian church can look like. An excellent read, and lots of practical advice for a congregation seeking to evolve.

A new low, James and George. I hope these petty remarks were rash, unthinking outbursts because I can't imagine they were at all considered. And you missed the word "nurturing." She finds the church nurturing. Perhaps the meaning of that word eluded you? And you missed that when people are in warm and caring, sound congregations they are open to discovering ways to grow -- spiritually and intellectually. Perhaps growth isn't essential where you are. Since you're both aware of exactly what it is that someone at West Hill would be offered to help them grow, perhaps you could let me know just what you would find so offensive that it needs to be shut down? The challenge to live in right relationship with the person she finds herself to be, with the person she lives with, with her kids, their teachers, the angry old man across the street? Perhaps you object to her being stretched to live in right relationship with whatever kid had to sew that shirt you're wearing, or the people who are building a wall in the Middle East and those living in its shadow. Maybe you object to her trying to figure out how to live in right relationship with the military in Myanmar who are turning thousands out of the refugee camps at the same time as she struggles with how to be in right relationship with those they turn away, presented with only a few bamboo poles and a tarp. Maybe you object to her deciding to eat locally or as a vegetarian or vegan because it makes your slab of beef from out west look a little too excessively indulgent both in terms of the resources it took to grow it and the ones it took to get it to your table. Or maybe you don't think that the struggle to live in right relationship with anything but some remote God-thing that no one anywhere has yet described adequately enough for me or anyone else in a manner that might be construed as helpful is really worth it. Maybe we should frame all our attempts to find and offer compassion only through a version of church that agrees to using obscure first-century language and rituals contrived in the darkness of the middle ages. Or, to be contemporary about it, maybe something that we can call spiritual but that we only recognize as such because we use the word "God" or "Spirit" or some such theistically inspired image. And while we're at it, don't forget to make sure we distinguish ourselves from others we label Rotary and Unitarian because then we'll be able to remember what we're better than, right boys?
Your words are immature, vacuous, and uncaring, But then, that was obvious.

No the word nurturing was not missed - to say there are a lot of communities out there that do that is not a negative statement about them but an affirmation. The nuanced question is what makes communities different? No that the difference does not makes them better or less but the question is a sociological examination.

Nowhere was it suggested that the warm community be shut down - if that is how it was read than I was not clear. My critique is when do we move beyond essential agreement? and wish one another well but we are in different families - can get together over dinner and good wine and have a conversation but we know we are on different paths.

What I have learned in my many experiences of inter faith is that we can have common cause even if our basic rationale for our cause is different - in fact to honor the insight of the buddhist, for one, we agreed that we had different world views and by that acknowledge we could learn from one another.

I go back to one point - in many chapters I said to myself - nicely, beautifully written, making good points but in the end - no that is not the full picture -the chapter on the emergence of christianity is one such chapter - as a reviewer I would have to say it is not the full picture - a good beginning but not the only conclusion that can be made from the description. A similar analysis can lead to other affirmations... thus the disagreement is the basic thesis - the metaphysics we read out of - and the book assumes the worldview of sense perception that limits us and ends in projection as the only outcome. I use reformed subjectivity found in James, Whitehead, and others - thus our constructions have a ontological source as well as being our constructions - the aim of God and our response which is an ongoing process.

RevJames: I too am about halfway through Bruce Sanguin's "The Emerging Church." I am reading it slowly and making notes. It offers excellent practical advice on how to become an emerging congregation and Church within a traditional, but necessarily not traditionalistic, context.

Love of tradition does not equate traditionalism; we can treasure our traditions AND be progressive at the same time. I think almost every one of us progressively minded Christians is ready to discard traditionalism, but not necessarily traditions. I think Gretta made the mistake of throwing out traditions together with traditionalism.

Tradtions, however, evolve, and some might or should be amended or discarded. We, as progressive individuals and congregations, must do our own soul searching and make up our own minds which traditions we want to take into this newly emerging, post-demoninational spiritual age. Gretta's book helped us think about what to keep and what to discard. Bruce Sanguin's book is more of a practical manual.

Gretta,

I have read your post several times, and have been struggling with how to respond to it. I am honoured that you are continuing to follow the discussion about WWG here on wondercafe.

Respectfully, I would like to offer that some of your comments seem sarcastic and needlessly unpleasant to me. How can it be helpful to refer to your colleagues' words as "immature, vacuous and uncaring"?

As a former member of the congregation at WHUC, I know it to be a warm and caring community. My point is that I do not believe it to be unique in this regard, or to offer nurture to a greater degree than other congregations.

Does being "non-theistic" necessarily create an environment more conducive to intellectual and spiritual growth? No doubt this will be true for the non-theists, if they compare West Hill with more conservative churches. For me, personally, (as a more traditional Christian), WHUC offered less opportunity for growth than my current congregation.

Thank you for your thoughts and comments in response to Gretta's post Paradox.

This has been an extremely interesting discussion but I find myself with one uber question (It may have been asked before but I haven't seen it yet): Given everything she has written in this book, why is Vosper remaining in the United Church? Why does she consider herself a Christian?

We send some pretty clear messages when we replace words in hymns. In some circles changing words like "Christ" to alternatives like "hope" would be seen as being hostile changes. Hope is important but it isn't in the same ballpark as "Christ".

So I'm interested to hear the response to that one simple question (And its followup).

I do have other questions, however, but they're more for Gretta's presbytery and Toronto Conference itself. While most 363's are petty and mean spirited efforts this is one case where it could be justified. From what Gretta has written I would hunch that a person could argue a strong case that she is not in essential agreement with anything in our Basis of Union. So why aren't there any challenges?

But those may be questions for another day and another thread.

My intention, p3, was to challenge the purpose for the dismissive and unhelpful remarks made by James, in particular, and George, in response to James, that were posted in regard to the letter from Ms. Pal in the Observer. James' purpose appeared to be solely to denigrate the community I serve with what, in person, might have been accompanied by a snigger. My response, in person, would have been delivered with the anger generated by his post -- anger at a colleague who perpetuates the destructive competitiveness that exists between members of the order of ministry and who takes aim at what was obviously the guileless offering of someone for whom warmth and caring is an important part of Christian community and whose remarks did not warrant such an attack.

As far as James' own letter to the editor goes, I was struck at the difference between our reactions to the reviewer of my book. James, as you will have read, lashed out at the Observer for being anti-intellectual in its choice, a remark that must have struck the reveiwer, a theological student, harshly. When I finished reading her review and read that she was just beginning a course of studies toward ordered ministry, I was immediately concerned that the Observer had presented her with such a controversial book at a time when she would be working hard to synthesize her beliefs and to assess them in juxtaposition to those of the "established" church. Would Ms. Pal, the author of the "warm and caring" letter have responded favourably to James' response or my response? I would expect she's in the right congregation.

The following is the letter mentioned by Gretta in the post above:

"Here we have the most controversial book about religion of the year and you send someone with a first-year theological education to review it. How anti-intellectual. Is the Observer saying we can't trust our trained leaders and scholars to review this fairly?"

Rev. James Murray
Montreal

RevJamesMurray wrote: I am sure "warm and caring" can be used to describe the congregations of Jerry Falwell, Westboro Baptist, and Jimmy Swaggart as well. Being warm and welcoming has nothing to do with your theological position or your (non)belief in God. If 'warm and welcoming & caring' is the best or only thing you can say about a congregation, I think you should shut it down."

In a discussion about Gretta's book and Gretta's West Hill congregation I find that this reference to Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart is very offensive. And to even mention the name of Westboro Baptist in the context of this discussion, I find to be absolutely disgusting.

And to say that any congregation should be shut down if the best thing you can say about it is that it is "warm and caring" is a comment that is unbecoming of a United Church minister.

If I had to choose between one congregation whose primary emphasis was warmth and compassion, and one whose main emphasis was theological correctness, but was cold and callous, I know which one I would choose.

James Murray has a point when he talks about warm and caring congregations. While it is wonderful that a church is warm and caring those shouldn't be the only two qualities that characterize it. There has to be a whole lot more to it than that. If all a person wants is warmth and caring they can get that in many other places besides the church. Sometimes we get more pastoral care from a bartender or mechanic than we do from church people.

Churches have a primary function and that is to worship God. Plain and simple. Everything else is secondary. If a God-worshipping church is warm and caring then that's a serious bonus.

Gretta's church may be a wonderful place to be on a Sunday morning but the basic question remains: Is it a Christian church? I would suggest that from what little we have heard and read about that is extremely debatable.

But I'll leave that one to the respective congregation and Toronto Conference.

RevJones wrote: "I do have other questions, however, but they're more for Gretta's presbytery and Toronto Conference itself. While most 363's are petty and mean spirited efforts this is one case where it could be justified. From what Gretta has written I would hunch that a person could argue a strong case that she is not in essential agreement with anything in our Basis of Union. So why aren't there any challenges?"

Rev Jones, I do not know if you are a United Church minister or not (there is nothing in your profile to indicate). It would seem to me that for a United Church minister to suggest a 363 review against another colleague, especially just for theological reasons, would be very surprising. A 363 review can be devastating to the career of a minister and should not be done lightly. If the relation between minister and congregation is destructive, abusive, or if the pastoral skills are in question, then that is might be grounds for such a review, but for differences in theology, it is questionable.

From all I have read from existing members of the West Hill congregation, there is no pastoral reason for such a review. In fact the congregation seems to be caring, compassionate, committed to doing justice, and thriving, despite some defections to other nearby churches in order to better meet the theological and doctrinal preferences of some of the members.

I find it offensive that you suggest I call for a 363 "lightly". I don't make this recommendation lightly and I never will. I'm well aware of what they do and that's why I've said that they are, for the most part, petty and mean spirited exercises that should be avoided whenever possible, This is one of those situations, however, for one may be warranted (It may not be - it's really up to her presbytery to decide). At the very least some effort should be made to assess whether or not Gretta is in "essential agreement" with the Basis of Union.

Incidentally, according to the UCC Manual a 363 can be requested by "Presbytery" but it is not clear who actually makes the formal request.

Again, maybe there are other ways to sort this out.

RevJones said: I find myself with one uber question (It may have been asked before but I haven't seen it yet): Given everything she has written in this book, why is Vosper remaining in the United Church? Why does she consider herself a Christian?

I would direct you to her website where she addresses some of these very questions: www.grettavosper.ca . I would also suggest you read her book since you admit readily that you know little about the issues involved. Based on some of your comments I wouldn't expect you to agree with much of what she says, but I do think it would give you insight about her motivations, her view of the sacred, and why she is attempting to stretch the church from within.

you also said: We send some pretty clear messages when we replace words in hymns. In some circles changing words like "Christ" to alternatives like "hope" would be seen as being hostile changes. Hope is important but it isn't in the same ballpark as "Christ".

And I would ask you - what does "Christ" mean to you? Simply saying Christ tells me nothing really. Do you mean Life-giver? Hope? Joy? New Life? Saviour? Right-relationship? And if you said "Saviour" what would that mean?

You see, within the UC, Saviour and Christ can mean all of these things. Many clergy and some lay people in the liberal church use the word Christ but they really mean "Hope" "Joy of a Spring Day" "Peace".

So when "Hope" and "Wisdom" are used at West Hill, we are not in fact watering down anything, or making substitutions of words for some politically correct reason. We are in fact, being clear in our approach.

Perhaps you as a clergy are not speaking in metaphor when you speak of Christ. Who is to know. If you are not, then there is no reason to use attributes to clarify the metaphor. Carry on.

But, I believe that for many in the liberal mainline denominations, that is simply not the case.

Hi RevJones

I did not mean to be offensive, or to suggest you would do so lightly. But I did say that I would be surprised if a United Church minister would do so for theological rather than pastoral reasons.

As I said, I do not know whether you are a United Church minister or not, so I did not know how much you know about 363 reviews. I do not profess to know the statistics, but I assume that most 363's arise from the local congregation for pastoral reasons. That would seem to be the emphasis of the United Church Manual.

As you suggest, the Manual does allow it to be initiated by Presbytery, but I assume this is mostly because they are acting on information about some kind of disfunction or problem within a local congregation. In any case, since your profile says you live in Alberta, I presume you are not in West Hill's Presbytery.