Hi RevJones

Earlier upthread, you wrote: "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."

I agree, there has to be a lot more to it than that. But, that is not what James Murray said. He said that if that is the "best" you can say about a congregation then "you should shut it down.".

You also wrote: "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."

I believe that caring and compassion is far more than just a "serious bonus". It is more like a requirement. I don't know how you define "God worship" in the context of your post, but the attributes of loving, caring and compassion for your fellow human beings seems to have been given the highest priority whenever the subject of discipleship came up in the Bible

It seems to me that the New Testament puts far mor emphasis on "caring" than it puts on the importance of correct theology, doctrine or posturing before God.

P3 said:
"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."

Who ever said we were unique in that? Certainly some people have experienced that on a personal level, but it would be bizarre to generalize that to say that because some have felt at home here, that everyone should and that it is the only place one could. There are plenty of congregations out there who are caring, warm, and incredibly nurturing. But that doesn't take anything away from WH and the fact that I think WHuC is a fantastic community doesn't take anything away from those other communities of faith.

Gretta has certainly said publically that she has found this congregation one of the life-giving she has served, but I think you'll agree that ministers have a very different perspective on this. By that I mean that the congregations has reflected back to her their joy, caring, and nurturing. And as you know, many ministers experience abuse by their congregation or daily problems such as not getting paid on time. For example, I can say my current job is the best organization I've ever worked for too. Doesn't mean there aren't other good employers out there.

Dandarii,

Hi again,

You wrote: { Who ever said we were unique in that? }

Well, Dandarii, Gretta gave me that impression, but perhaps I misunderstood her. The last time I visited WHUC, she said in her sermon that she had never seen another community of faith (or any other community) where people care so much for each other. But maybe she meant it in the sense that Indira offered upthread, or was just sharing this as a personal experience.

You wrote: { Certainly some people have experienced that on a personal level, but it would be bizarre to generalize that to say that because some have felt at home here, that everyone should and that it is the only place one could. There are plenty of congregations out there who are caring, warm, and incredibly nurturing. But that doesn't take anything away from WH and the fact that I think WHuC is a fantastic community doesn't take anything away from those other communities of faith. }

Thanks for the clarification. I like the way you expressed this, and I agree with you completely.

It is often said that the progressives are creating communities of faith which are "values-based, spirit-filled and dogma-free". Additionally, "integrity" and "radically ethical" are frequently mentioned. Would you agree that these qualities are also to be found in other congregations?

Gretta wrote: { James' purpose appeared to be solely to denigrate the community I serve with what, in person, might have been accompanied by a snigger. }

The post in question did not read like denigration or sniggering to me, so I hope that RevJamesMurray will come by and clarify this for us.

Gretta wrote: { 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. }

Again, I did not read RJM's comments as an attack, so I will await his clarification. What "destructive competitiveness between members of the order of ministry" is Gretta referencing? Is she saying that our clergypeople don't get along with each other?

p3 said:

"Additionally, "integrity" and "radically ethical" are frequently mentioned. Would you agree that these qualities are also to be found in other congregations?"

ABSOLUTELY! There is no question in my mind that they would.

p3 said:
The post in question did not read like denigration or sniggering to me, so I hope that RevJamesMurray will come by and clarify this for us.

I'm sorry but it did read that way to me as well. Perhaps because it hits home significantly. It appeared that he ridiculed the letter writer, a good friend. Also suggesting that *my* congregation shut down, when he knows very LITTLE of how we worship, how we are transformed, and how we seek to make a positive difference in the world (by the way we live). [to be clear - like many other congregations out there are seeking to do as well.]

That hits home. And it's hard to take. How would you feel if such things were implied about your friends and your congregation?

thanks for listening. Dana.

IWonder,

Hi,

You wrote:

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.

Fair enough. I think that you are making assumptions though.

I believe the point that RevJamesMurray is making is that from the inside every congregation describes itself as warm and caring. In fact, if you could lay hands on a JNAR (Joint Needs Assessment Review) that stated the congregation was anything other than warm and caring I would be shocked and amazed.

That this phenomenon exists means that the claim of "warm and caring" works as a personal opinion not as a rule.

You wrote:

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.

In your opinion.

I don't find the comment terribly charitable. I don't find it unbecoming. Particularly since we wrestle constantly in Presbytery about how precious resources are being eaten up by dying congregations which are, according to those who worship in them, warm and caring and nurturing environments.

Which I don't argue with. The fact remains that warm, nurturing and caring is not enough. Reproducing is also a requirement for life and many congregations are no longer fertile in that regard.

You wrote:

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.

Well and good. That there is testimony of individuals leaving West Hill points out that for some, at any rate, the warmth, care and nurture were not enough. I don't think anybody is to blame because of that. Sun loving plants do not, as a rule thrive in the shade and vice versa (no moral or theological code employed) the same patch of garden cannot be all things to all plants. Neither can anyone congregation.

Obviously what some lift up about what is good and valuable at West Hill is not lifted up as valuable by all nor is it fair or reasonable to expect that it should be.

Which leads back to the original complaint.

Warmth, care and nurture exists for the person who feels warmly welcomed, cared for and nurtured. For those on the margins, however one chooses to define the margins warmth, care and nurture probably feel lacking.

The test of a congregation is not how much offense they take at having their warmth, care and nurture critiqued but how much grit they show in trying to address that critique.

In the end that grit is only shown when the one who once offered the critique has their opinion changed or at least challenged.

My concern is that congregations who take a great deal of pride in being warm, caring and nurturing might be more insular than open. I think that is a fair criticism for any congregation to consider and I direct it towards the congregations I serve routinely. If we find ourselves warm, caring and nurturing but others don't we may have a big problem.

Apart from that purposeful comes into play. As friend Panentheism points out there are other organizations that also provide warmth, care and nurture and there is nothing wrong with that. Those organizations have a specific purpose and that becomes part of their identity and is a distinctive. What is it that makes the Church distinctive if it isn't warmth, care or nurture?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Friend Rev John makes a helpful clarification on the words warmth, care and nurture - again my point in using Rotary is that there are very good groups out there that provide that for its members - Now using Rotary they are more than that - Rotary has also been leaders in providing low cost housing and other worthy projects. Interesting from the perspective of members of present and past congregations ( mine) they would say they did this because of their christian influence and found that the Rotary way was more neutral to get some good things done- the reason such volunteer organization emerged was their ability to cut across denominational lines that often split communities. Thus my comment was to affirm two things - the words do describe many communities and we judge them in the end on their positive contributions to well being and the common good.

As John pointed out when a church qua church can only be described as warm et al on its JNAC one wants to ask more questions - what is its rationale for existence and if it is only warm et al than one has to ask why not more?

Sociologically there are important symbols that set one warm community apart from another and that is their belief system (world view) and in a community of shared belief systems one can ask if one is no longer within that community.

While that is a judgment call that judgment may be as simple we are in different communities.

Knowing James I believe that is his point - in my words - when are you no longer part of a community?

I don't know if he will be responding as he sent me an email saying he was off for the summer - and he was at conference this weekend.

I understand Gretta's response - she is getting a lot of flack and when it comes from those who work in the the progressive wing of the church it can hurt -

Hi John

You wrote: "I believe the point that RevJamesMurray is making is that from the inside every congregation describes itself as warm and caring. In fact, if you could lay hands on a JNAR (Joint Needs Assessment Review) that stated the congregation was anything other than warm and caring I would be shocked and amazed.>

I do understand the point that RevJamesMurray is making. What I object to is his choice of words in making his point. It would be difficult to choose a more inflammatory and hateful reference than to invoke the name of Westboro Baptist Church along with those other two clergy names. There are many ways of saying what he wanted to say without those references.

You said that you would be shocked and amazed that any JNAR would say anything but "warm and caring". I agree, but in some cases it would be dishonest. That point was made in the JNAC thread a few days ago. That being said, it still has nothing to do with RJM's choice of obnoxious references.

You wrote: [with reference to shutting down congregations]: "I don't find the comment terribly charitable. I don't find it unbecoming."

I think you are nitpicking between "uncharitable" and "unbecoming". In the context that we are talking about, my dictionary says: uncharitable means "severe or harsh", and unbecoming means "unattractive, not fitting or proper". I think RJM's recommendation to shut down a congregation if the best thing you can say about it is that it is "warm and caring" is still unbecoming.

You wrote: "The fact remains that warm, nurturing and caring is not enough."

I have no disagreement with that statement and essentially said so in my post upthread. In fact I have no disagreement with most of the rest of your post. My discomfort with RJM's post was not about his ideas, but with his deliberate choice of inflammatory ways to express those ideas.

IWonder,

Hi,

You wrote:

I do understand the point that RevJamesMurray is making. What I object to is his choice of words in making his point. It would be difficult to choose a more inflammatory and hateful reference than to invoke the name of Westboro Baptist Church along with those other two clergy names. There are many ways of saying what he wanted to say without those references.

Think for a moment.

Is he saying that West HIll and Westboro Baptist Church are the same or is he saying that he believes that they would each give a similar description of themselves?

One could say that emerald green and hunter green are pretty colours and as one who loves the colour green I would agree. If someone was trying to stretch the point of pretty colours they might also say that emerald green and alazarin crimson are both pretty colours. I find that a challenge because I am not partial to the colour red.

That is not saying that emerald green and alazarin crimson are the same colour, that would be nonsensical. It is saying that these disparate communities describe themselves in a similar way.

The real test is not that members of West Hill find West Hill warm, caring and nurturing or that members of Westboro Baptist find Westboro Baptist warm, caring and nurturing, the real test would be would visitors from Westboro Baptist find West Hill warm, caring and nurturing and vice versa particularly if the difference were declared up front.

By your reaction one would think that somebody thought that the Samaritan would make a better neighbour than a Priest, Scribe or Pharisee.

You wrote:

That being said, it still has nothing to do with RJM's choice of obnoxious references.

I think the real issue is not RJM's choice of reference but why you find it so obnoxious.

You wrote:

I think you are nitpicking between "uncharitable" and "unbecoming".

If you don't mind me pointing it out "nitpicking" seems to be one of your favourite accusations against me. Would it be uncharitable or unbecoming if I were to turn the tables and suggest that it is you who is picking at nits.

You want to be offended? Fine be offended. If you want to believe that RJM intended offense go right ahead. I find it interesting that a discussion of warm, caring and nurturing would run so hot.

You wrote:

My discomfort with RJM's post was not about his ideas, but with his deliberate choice of inflammatory ways to express those ideas.

Do you know for a fact that RJM was intending to inflame or did he push one of your buttons and you are now in the process of reacting?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Rev. John said to IWonder: "Do you know for a fact that RJM was intending to inflame or did he push one of your buttons and you are now in the process of reacting? "

Gosh "¦ I think there is a lot of button pushing and inflammatory remarks here. I would hope that is not anyone's "intention". Debate is important, and even some friendly banter ... but I think some of this should be "taken back" so to speak "¦ because it does go WAY too far.

As I read through the comments, I look back at the words "shut down". Wow. I wonder if Jesus would want West Hill "shut down"?

Somehow, I don't think so. I think Jesus would tell the disciples who are saying that to leave them alone or to indeed let them come to him "“ however they come.

I can't believe that such a suggestion would be made on this forum.

Indira

Hi John

You wrote: "Think for a moment.

Is he saying that West Hill and Westboro Baptist Church are the same or is he saying that he believes that they would each give a similar description of themselves?"

I did think, and for longer than a moment. Now you think for a moment. I assume you know why Westboro Baptist has a reputation as being one of the most racist, homophobic and hate-filled church in North America. I also understand RJM's point that many non-church organizations can be "warm and caring" - Pan suggested the Rotary club, and I have no problem with that. I cannot read RJM's mind of course, but the use of the name "Westboro Baptist" is just about the very last thing that would come to my mind as a reference in a discussion about warmth and caring.

You wrote: "By your reaction one would think that somebody thought that the Samaritan would make a better neighbour than a Priest, Scribe or Pharisee.

I do not know who would be the best neighbour. It would depend on the personality of the neighbour I suppose. I can't say whether you or I have I have ever met a Samaritan, Priest, Scribe, or Pharisee So I don't see what that has to do with RJM's choice of words.

You wrote: "I think the real issue is not RJM's choice of reference but why you find it so obnoxious."

If you don't understand what I find obnoxious about any reference to Westboro Baptist in the context of this discussion, then there is no point in me trying to explain it further. Go to their website and see for yourself.

You wrote: "If you don't mind me pointing it out "nitpicking" seems to be one of your favourite accusations against me."

If the shoe fits.

You wrote: "Would it be uncharitable or unbecoming if I were to turn the tables and suggest that it is you who is picking at nits?"

Touché - as a matter of fact that is exactly what I thought when I provided the dictionary definition of the two words. I almost didn't take up the challenge, because in any nitpicking contest, I assume I would ultimately lose. I think of you as the master, so I will try not to keep up with you any further on this. (LOL)

You wrote: "You want to be offended? Fine be offended. If you want to believe that RJM intended offense go right ahead.

Being offended is not usually a choice I make. It happens, and I have to deal with it. I suspect that RJM may have slung these 3 references off in a hurry or without thinking. And I assume that if he had thought about it a bit longer he would have found a better way to discuss warmth and caring using a more appropriate example than Westboro (as did Pan). It obviously offended me and it obviously offended Gretta.

I also shake my head a little at Paradox3's comments about the remarks in the Observer from a member of West Hill stating that it is an exceptional community of faith - warmth and nurture etc. Pardox3 said to this:

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

Well isn't that a major point of Gretta's book? It's how we behave that is more important than what believe. It's how we live in harmony that's more important than our particular theology.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with recently with an older clergy friend who smiled and said, "Now Indira, it's nice that you find some of what they're saying interesting"¦BUT, you MUST remember, that a lot of those people over there don't really know anything about our religion."

Then, the person added (still smiling, but with his eyes rolling) "¦ "They're just all about "˜love and goodness'."

Hmmmmmm.

What's our religion about again?

I'm starting to wonder if maybe "theology" is just a load of crap.

When I said "crap" above ... what I meant was "silliness". - I

Indira,

Hi,

You wrote:

I would hope that is not anyone's "intention".

So, if it is not intentional what would the most appropriate response be, a request for clarification or turning the heat up?

You wrote:

I wonder if Jesus would want West Hill "shut down"?

I wonder if Jesus thought everything was just wonderful as it was?

You wrote:

Somehow, I don't think so. I think Jesus would tell the disciples who are saying that to leave them alone or to indeed let them come to him "“ however they come.

Fair enough. Do you think Jesus allowed everyone who came to remain as they were or was transformation in order even for those who came to Jesus?

You wrote:

I can't believe that such a suggestion would be made on this forum.

The suggestion was prefaced by the word "If" a very small word which often holds a great deal of weight.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Rev. John; Yes, I didn't mean to turn the heat up. (Well, if I did at all that's why I added the amendment changing the word "crap" to "silliness"). :-)

You said:

"Fair enough. Do you think Jesus allowed everyone who came to remain as they were or was transformation in order even for those who came to Jesus?"

Well ... I think one of the main attitudes at West Hill among the people (certainly this is true of other similar congregations I know) is that they see themselves learning continuously. They seek transformation.

Transformation in agape love doesn't begin with discussion of shutting people down though. It begins with an open ear and a desire to grow together.

Who was that gentile Samarian woman that Jesus spent time with, though many of his disciples would not have done so? What was her name? Do we know her name? Hmmmm ... maybe her name was "Gretta".

I must confess that I am finding this discussion more and more confusing!
I will agree that participants in this discussion have not always chosen the best words for their purposes -- I suffer from this affliction quite often. I do wonder, however, if it is possible for us to entertain the idea that it is helpful and healthful for there to be some kind of boundaries around Christian identity in this United Church of ours? Can we discuss that without folks feeling rejected or attacked or ...?

I would not support the idea that the police break down the doors of West Hill UC and chuck everyone into the street. A congregation or community group has every right to gather. And I would even go so far as to say that God is at work wherever nurture, challenge and love are being shared.

The question being raised for me, however, is what are the parameters -- or indeed, are there any parameters -- to what a "united church of canada congregation" looks like? In my pastoral work I have wondered about this quite a bit. Our national church identity is so wrapped up in "inclusivity" (which I applaud, by the way!) that we can lose our sense of who we are and who's we are. I discovered one regular attender of my congregation thought that United church meant that we "united" all faith experiences and traditions (she had been confused about why I kept harping on the stories of Jesus, and wasn't preaching on learnings from Buddhism and Islam).

I find, more and more, that it is my calling to help congregations rediscover the treasure trove of the Christian path. If folks don't find the Spirit there, then let us bless them on their way, and help them to find another community of faith (or shared values) to nurture them. But when folks come to a United Church of Canada, I want them to be introduced to the way of Jesus, to a personal, loving God, and to transformative living.
Shalom

IWonder,

Hi,

You wrote:

Hi John

I did think, and for longer than a moment.

Fair enough. That doesn't answer the question I asked.

You wrote:

I assume you know why Westboro Baptist has a reputation as being one of the most racist, homophobic and hate-filled church in North America.

I understand why you and I would accept that as Westboro Baptist's reputation. I am mindful that none within think of Westboro Baptist in those terms.

You wrote:

I cannot read RJM's mind of course, but the use of the name "Westboro Baptist" is just about the very last thing that would come to my mind as a reference in a discussion about warmth and caring.

Which is probably more to the point of what RJM was driving at.

You wrote:

I do not know who would be the best neighbour. It would depend on the personality of the neighbour I suppose.

Which is precisely the point of the parable and preciesely why I used it in the discussion. Samaritans were reviled by the Jews who heard the parable. Their paragons, those that they had a favourable bias towards are painted in inhospitable hues. No doubt many would have thought that a priest, levite and a scribe could pass someone in such obvious need and not stop.

The Samaritan does though and that is the rub.

The one reviled and outcast does what was expected and the listener is invited to think that perhaps maybe, just maybe, someone I have no love for and no tolerance of is, all things considered, as human and as decent as I am.

By tossing Falwell and Westboro Baptist into the equation RJM suggests (at least that is how I received it) that even those we think we are the least like think of themselves in the same way that we do.

If that offends it is likely due to pride. Humility thinks a different way.

You wrote:

So I don't see what that has to do with RJM's choice of words.

For those familiar with the parable it explains much.

You wrote:

If you don't understand what I find obnoxious about any reference to Westboro Baptist in the context of this discussion, then there is no point in me trying to explain it further.

I get that you hate Westboro Baptist. They aren't on my Christmas card list either. Does RJM say that they are the same or that they would make the same claim about themselves? I don't really need more umbrage about Westboro Baptist I'm just wondering if you see that point.

You wrote:

If the shoe fits.

Would that be warmth, care or nuture. Sounds like a dismissal to me but I could be wrong.

You wrote:

I almost didn't take up the challenge, because in any nitpicking contest, I assume I would ultimately lose. I think of you as the master, so I will try not to keep up with you any further on this. (LOL)

I am not worthy of such praise. The sound of dismissal echoes loudly.

You wrote:

I suspect that RJM may have slung these 3 references off in a hurry or without thinking.

I suspect that he was thinking very carefully about it. I suspect he would be more surprised that people didn't get his point.

You wrote:

It obviously offended me and it obviously offended Gretta.

Obviously. It allowed for offense to be magnified all around. So something at the very least was nurtured. Warmth and caring appear to have been optional.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Indira, I am now really confused. For a church that is removing GOd symbols, it seems weird to hear all your references to be about Jesus and GOd people.

"I also shake my head a little at Paradox3's comments about the remarks in the Observer from a member of West Hill stating that it is an exceptional community of faith - warmth and nurture etc. Pardox3 said to this:

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

Well isn't that a major point of Gretta's book? It's how we behave that is more important than what believe. It's how we live in harmony that's more important than our particular theology."

I'm kind of shaking my head here myself; both you and the letter writer seem to be missing that Vosper does eliminate theistic theology as relevant to the future church. Paradox3 was simply pointing out that the letter (or at least what was reproduced in the Observer) ignores Vosper's theology and simply cheerleads for the inclusiveness and nurturing qualities of WHUC. This isn't a bad thing, but it's not entirely relevant to the base theology either. The objections to the book are not based on a rejection of community values, or of fostering nurturing, inviting churches, but objections to the thesis of the book, which attempts to point out flaws in theistic faith in the church, in the hopes of rebuilding an apparently more relevant non-theistic church. The book is self-styled as confrontational: when someone writes a book designed to confront, people will feel battered by the content. When this is noted, supporters who simply say "it doesn't matter because our church is inclusive and nurturing" are not only avoiding real discussion of the matter, it's pretty much a non-sequitur.

Indira,

Hi,

You wrote:

Yes, I didn't mean to turn the heat up.

Thank you. I never meant to imply that is what you were about. To clarify I believe that the escalation came in the responses to RJM's post.

You wrote:

Well ... I think one of the main attitudes at West Hill among the people (certainly this is true of other similar congregations I know) is that they see themselves learning continuously. They seek transformation.

Fair enough but that isn't the question I asked.

You wrote:

Transformation in agape love doesn't begin with discussion of shutting people down though.

True it doesn't and that is not how the discussion of this book began and it certainly is not how RJM has participated from the beginning in the threads discussing "With of Without God".

You wrote:

It begins with an open ear and a desire to grow together.

I agree. I think that ears closed and wagons circled when people thought they read something that wasn't written.

You wrote:

Who was that gentile Samarian woman that Jesus spent time with, though many of his disciples would not have done so?

Which Samaritan woman are you referring to? The one wanting her children blessed or the woman at the well at mid-day? Not many Samaritans are named in scripture, it was probably enough of a shake-up to show them being rather quick on the up-take. Naming them would have made them seem just like us.

You wrote:

What was her name? Do we know her name? Hmmmm ... maybe her name was "Gretta".

Possibly.

Her family name may have even been "Phelps"

But then the real point was that someone different could know who God was. Interestingly we are comfortable with substitution in the Parable of the Good Samaritan but it has to be acceptable substitution.

We would love to have the priest, levite and pharisee replaced by Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts and Joel Osteen. We would thrill with replacing the good Samaritan with say John Spong.

We would love that because it would allow us to point and snicker at at people we don't care for. Which is not how the parable was designed to work. It was intended to be heard in such as way eliminate pointing and snickering at others and more humble reflection about who we are and how we operate.

So . . .

For myself the three louts would be replaced by John Calvin, John Bolt and Albert Wolters (it doesn't matter if you don't know who all of them are, the point is I do and I think highly of all three) and the good Samaritan would be replaced by Benny Hinn. (whom I do not think highly of at all).

If I think about why each is used as they are I come closer to getting the message. If I just feel outrage about it I have missed the point.

RJM lumped together a group that some feel most strongly shouldn't be lumped together at all. In that he has been an equal opportunity offender because I would think that folk in Westboro would rather be found dead and mutilated if they were ever to be found in West Hill at all.

Which is, the point.

We all think we are warm, caring and nurturing when we look at ourselves through our own eyes.

What others see is different.

If I were to listen only to assessment of myself on the "This it My Body, this is my blood thread" I would be:

-respectful
-possessor of a great amount of grace
-GOOD!!! VERY GOOD!!!!

If I were to listen only to assessment of myself here on this thread I would be:

-master nitpicker

I wonder who should be most offended that all of those be included together.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Crazyheart: Hey there.

You said:

"Indira, I am now really confused. For a church that is removing GOd symbols, it seems weird to hear all your references to be about Jesus and GOd people."

Well, I don't personally go to Westhill. The church I attend refers to Jesus all the time as well as God (and using various beautiful words for God). That's the same with respect to another progressivish church I attend less frequently but with which I stay connected.

I used those references because they hold a lot of meaning for me and are familiar language for everyone on this thread.

From what I understand the Westhill folks do still focus quite a bit on Jesus - questing for the historical Jesus etc. I've shared a few emails with Dandarri recently where we talked about Jesus quite a bit. I think she likes him.

Doug and I have discussed God lots too. :-)

Nighthawk and RevJohn: Those were interesting thoughts too. I shall think about them.

Nighthawk: Regarding that point about Gretta's theology vs. the loving community she has built... well ... it isn't that I've "missed the point" about her theological differences. Maybe I'm just saying that I get the overall point that details of theology are less important than how we live. We need to live with love in our hearts. Maybe Jesus would care about that more than caring what imagery we use.

Rev.John: I guess it was the woman of Samaria who was the woman at the well that I was thinking of. I was also trying to make the point that we don't know her name ... just like we don't know the names of so many women from biblical times. Why is that? Maybe they were too often "shut down" (not by Jesus, but by others). :-)

Indira,

Hi,

You wrote:

I was also trying to make the point that we don't know her name ... just like we don't know the names of so many women from biblical times. Why is that? Maybe they were too often "shut down" (not by Jesus, but by others). :-)

Maybe.

Why don't we know the name of the rich young ruler?

Why don't we know the name of the father who's son was possessed by a demon that threw the boy into fires?

Why don't we know the name of the Gadarene demoniac?

Why don't we know the name of the paralytic who was lowered through the roof?

Why don't we know the name of the Centurion who confessed that Jesus was truly the son of God?

Why don't we know the name of the repentant thief on the cross?

Were all of these shut down or was the point something other than what these men were called?

Grace and peace to you.

John

IWonder - for what it's worth at this point, I hear what you're saying about RJM's post. It is unnecessarily inflammatory to bring names like Falwell and Phelps into a conversation where people are making heartfelt attempts to learn about and understand one another in good faith.

Indeed, I think that if we don't have warmth and caring, then we're hooped. But, Indira, I don't think our only choice needs to be between warm and caring or theologically correct. I think a huge strength - and challenge - of the UC is its theological openness.....but I don't think that that openness has ever been asked to stretch as far as Gretta Vosper would like to see it stretch now.

Surely the creation of a Christianity based in atheism - or maybe, post-thesim? - is worthy of some deep and thoughtful debate. Can the church be broad enough to embrace ethical secular humanism as a subset of the Christian faith?

I really hope that the discussion continues throughout the church. Gretta Vosper is asking the church to completely redefine its essential worldview.....it's a challenge that deserves to be taken up and talked about. Is the UC broad enough to welcome those whose entry point into Christianity is its values and principles, rather than any of its core beliefs? I hope so, inspite of my own strong emotional reactions to the notion of giving up the reality of "God"......but whatever may come, I hope the discussionc ontinues.

Hi Indira - just read your last post.....I see what you were getting at .....I totally agree with you. Theological differences shouldn't stand in the way of acting in love. =)

Dandarii,

Hi,

There has been so much activity on this thread today, I had to scroll way back to find your comments from this morning. I very much appreciate your recognition that other congregations offer warmth, nurture, integrity, and so on. Thank you for that. As I said earlier, perhaps I was misunderstanding some of Gretta's remarks.

You wrote about RevJamesMurray's post:

{ I'm sorry but it did read that way to me as well. Perhaps because it hits home significantly. It appeared that he ridiculed the letter writer, a good friend. Also suggesting that *my* congregation shut down, when he knows very LITTLE of how we worship, how we are transformed, and how we seek to make a positive difference in the world (by the way we live). [to be clear - like many other congregations out there are seeking to do as well.]

That hits home. And it's hard to take. How would you feel if such things were implied about your friends and your congregation?

thanks for listening. Dana. }

You are welcome of course, Dana. I can appreciate your take on RJM's comments, although we are reading them a little differently. Too bad he is not around to provide some clarification for us.

Diana: You wrote: { I think a huge strength - and challenge - of the UC is its theological openness.....but I don't think that that openness has ever been asked to stretch as far as Gretta Vosper would like to see it stretch now. }

From what I know of Gretta and WHUC, I would say that your assessment is completely correct. Panentheism has called for discussion about how far the denomination is willing to stretch theologically. And RevJamesMurray has suggested that we need to talk about what kind of progressive church we want to become congregation by congregation.

I concur with both of them, but I do not imagine that these tasks will be easily done. Janet Cawley and Anthony Robinson have some interesting ideas about congregational identity and purpose, and I have recently gone to a workshop with each of them. The church I attend hopes to do some work in this regard in the fall.

Diana:

You wrote: { I really hope that the discussion continues throughout the church. Gretta Vosper is asking the church to completely redefine its essential worldview. }

I really hope the discussion continues as well, and I have been happy to encourage such conversation here on wondercafe.

It is not clear to me if Gretta wants the church to completely redefine its essential worldview or not. She wants the church to be open to individuals who are non-theistic in their spirituality; I would say that is very clear.

Does she expect that the entire denomination will adopt a non-theistic worldview? I am not clear about this, but I would hope that is not what she means.

WWG argues strongly for non-theism, but also talks about being inclusive of a variety of interpretations of the divine. So I am a little confused about this point.

Nighthawk:

You wrote:

{ Paradox3 was simply pointing out that the letter (or at least what was reproduced in the Observer) ignores Vosper's theology and simply cheerleads for the inclusiveness and nurturing qualities of WHUC. This isn't a bad thing, but it's not entirely relevant to the base theology either. The objections to the book are not based on a rejection of community values, or of fostering nurturing, inviting churches, but objections to the thesis of the book, which attempts to point out flaws in theistic faith in the church, in the hopes of rebuilding an apparently more relevant non-theistic church. }

Thank you so much for understanding what I was trying to say!!!

The book definitely argues for non-theistic gatherings, and the use of spiritually inclusive language. It is not clear to me if the "theists" are expected to eventually become "non-theists"... what do you think? Is Gretta arguing that this will be the evolution of the church?

Dandarii wrote (a long way upthread):

{ 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 have copied it here, because Dandarii is suggesting that Rev Vosper is offering one way, not necessarily the only way.

Is anyone interested in talking about co-existing as theists and non-theists within Christianity?

"Okay, we know this now about the bible, about Jesus, that we experience god in a non-theistic way..."

I'm having trouble understanding how one can experience God in a non-theistic way. I understand non-theisms such as agnosticism and such but can one really be a non-theist and "experience" God? If you experience God wouldn't that be theistic?

Meredith,

Here is a quote from page 281 which might answer your question:

"With a new mission and consequent evangelistic message, the church will, of course need some retooling. It is interesting to note, however, that its old hammer, discerning the will of God, is still useful in the new paradigm. The only difference is that, this time, we're not pretending to be able to understand the will of a cosmic being that doesn't exist. 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."

Hi paradox - I think that even being inclusive of nontheistic spirituality would involve a profound shift in the church's worldview,as it would mean acknowledging the validity of understanding "God" as a nonexistent human construct.

If the church recognizes the possibility that a relational Divine does not exist - even if that is not the official "position" or doctrine of the church, then I think we have a very different worldview. I don't necessarily know whether that's a positive or negative thing.....but definitely different.

And you continue to do an AMAZING job of moderating these discussions. Thank you so much.......my mind is slowly, painfully opening to new possibilities!

Meredith - I think Spong uses the term theism to mean a belief in a supreme, intervening being. He may have changed his views, but in the last book I read of his, his image of God was Tillich's "ground of all being"......more panentheistic, I guess. But he never went as far as Vosper in saying that God is merely a human construct - he still believed in God as a reality, just not a supreme being.

Thanks P3!

I have to confess to having a great fondness for nitpicking when it comes to language and I'm muddled by the paragraph you offered to explain what "experience of God in a non-theistic way" means, particularly understanding how we can be challenged by a "humanly constructed set of life-enhancing values we strive to uphold." The challenge comes in applying them in our relationships with one another (for example remaining caring and civil toward those who challenge your ideas or not attacking people because their ideas trouble and annoy you). Life enhancing values contain no will to be discerned or understood so god = life enhancing values doesn't work.

Statements such as "discerning God's will" and "experience of God" point to an understanding of God as a relational being and don't transfer well into non-theistic terms in my opinion no matter what letter case you use to spell "god". Perhaps it is better to do away with theistic language altogether in a non-theistic community instead of redefining them because the result is too confusing.

Meredith,

Hi,

You wrote:

I have to confess to having a great fondness for nitpicking

Hey! Get your own schtick!

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn,

Fine and if delousing the world becomes to much of a burden for you to bear alone don't cry to me.

Meredith,

Hi,

You wrote:

Fine and if delousing the world becomes to much of a burden for you to bear alone don't cry to me.

I'm not alone.

The new creed says so.

nyah, nyah and nyah

pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbl

Grace and peace to you.

John

Diana and paradox3: The United Church already is inclusive of non-theistic spirtuality. Many Pantheists and Panentheists regard the universe as self-creative, divine, or "self-theistic." Panentheism, and even outright Pantheism, seem to be the latest rage among progressive UCers. It certainly is my beliefsystem, and I was recently accepted into the United Church. There is hope for Christianity yet :-)

Arminius,

Hi,

You wrote:

The United Church already is inclusive of non-theistic spirtuality. Many Pantheists and Panentheists regard the universe as self-creative, divine, or "self-theistic." Panentheism, and even outright Pantheism, seem to be the latest rage among progressive UCers

This is me doing what I do so well.

Pantheists and Panentheists are theists. In order to be non-theistic you would have to ignore the theos like Atheism does.

Panentheism (the poster and the system) rejects supernatural theism. Emphasis on the supernatural as that which is rejected not the theos.

Pantheism (which may be the rage in circles or corners of the United Church but is by no means turning heads) claims that everything is theos so it cannot properly be considered non-theistic.

It might be accurate to say that Pantheism and Panentheism are not "traditionally accepted" theisms (even at that I think Panentheism would be more acceptable as a form of theism than would Pantheism) it is grossly inaccurate to protray them as non-theistic.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Diana wrote:

"IWonder - for what it's worth at this point, I hear what you're saying about RJM's post. It is unnecessarily inflammatory to bring names like Falwell and Phelps into a conversation where people are making heartfelt attempts to learn about and understand one another in good faith. "

It feels to me that there has been more knee-jerking than questioning since RJM's post. If we were truly trying to understand one another in good faith, why are we shutting out any references to elements of Christianity that offend our sensibilities? Why can we push boundaries in one area but not another?

Indira wrote:

"Nighthawk: Regarding that point about Gretta's theology vs. the loving community she has built... well ... it isn't that I've "missed the point" about her theological differences. Maybe I'm just saying that I get the overall point that details of theology are less important than how we live. We need to live with love in our hearts. Maybe Jesus would care about that more than caring what imagery we use."

My problem here is that you're still treating any discussion about differences in communities as irrelevant . How are we to decide what it means and how best to act in love for our world if we have no discussions of what love means to us?
You're also creating a false dichotomy between belief and action. The two overlap constantly. What we do affects what we believe and vice versa. Talking about theology is how we talk about what we believe, and how we respond to that belief. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but pretending that differences are not there is silly. Those differences in belief will translate into differences in our action.

paradox3 wrote:
"The book definitely argues for non-theistic gatherings, and the use of spiritually inclusive language. It is not clear to me if the "theists" are expected to eventually become "non-theists"... what do you think? Is Gretta arguing that this will be the evolution of the church?"

The books strikes me as being more hopeful that this will be the way taken forward, than saying it is sure to happen. It does seem that Vosper believes a non-theistic church would be more relevant to the world than a more traditional church. In some places, the book does seem hopeful that progressives will be able to gently nudge "non-progressives" along this path.

Arminius:

While panentheists may not be a completely homogenous lot, it is not accurate to say that panentheism is non-theistic. Panentheism by its definition involves a transcendent nature to God as well as immanence. By contrast, pantheism has no transcendent nature to God: God is wholly immanent, and identical to the universe.
Personally, I do see issues with a pantheistic model of God. Firstly, I don't believe it is consistent with Christianity's view of God, as seen in the Bible. Secondly, I find it leads to a nihilistic existence. If all is God, then all action is an act of God. Every act of love, but also every act of hatred.

RevJohn and Nighthawk: Yes, of course, if Panentheism and Pantheism wer non-theistic, then they would not carry the suffix "theism." Thanks for setting me straight.

Even if the cosmic totality is regarded as self-creative--as the "Great Self-Generative Spirit," as it says in the Gospel of Judas--it is so far beyond us humans that it matters little whether God is separate from, or contained within, the universe it created. Either way, God is beyond our comprehension.

Real non-theists probably would regard the cosmos as an accident. But can anyone really regard the cosmos as an accident? I can't imagine that anyone would.

Arminius:

Hi again.

You wrote: { The United Church already is inclusive of non-theistic spirtuality.}

It might be worthwhile to state that the United Church is "already inclusive of a variety of ways to understand theism".

Hi Diana,

You wrote:

{ I think that even being inclusive of nontheistic spirituality would involve a profound shift in the church's worldview,as it would mean acknowledging the validity of understanding "God" as a nonexistent human construct. }

Thank you for giving me this to ponder :)

If we have respectful relationships with people of other faiths/ no faith, I think we need to accept the validity of "understanding God as a nonexistent human construct". Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, and non-theists are found within Unitarianism.

I fully accept secular humanism as a valid expression of sprituality.

Whether or not the United Church is willing to accept non-theism as a theological stance within its congregations is another question. I think the question needs to be asked, and would welcome some debate about it.

Meredith:

Hi again,

You wrote:

{ Perhaps it is better to do away with theistic language altogether in a non-theistic community instead of redefining them because the result is too confusing. }

West Hill continues to move in this direction, and I applaud them for their honesty in doing so. My argument is with equating "non-theistic" language with "spiritually inclusive" language.

It can work that way for some traditional Christians, but not for all of us. For me, personally, it is important to hear "God-talk", etc, in order to explore the Christian tradition more deeply.

Nighthawk:

You wrote:

{ In some places, the book does seem hopeful that progressives will be able to gently nudge "non-progressives" along this path.}

I agree with you, but I think that there is some inconsistency in the book. More than a "gentle nudge" is being advocated in some places. I am thinking of the statement about casting us into the waters of dis-belief, and so on.