There was much ink ( writting) split on this book.  There are serious problems with it - she does not understand Tillick for example and missed the point of the death of God book - here is rerun of one view.

Fair enough.  However, this review is for the theologians who are looking for more gristle to gnaw on.  Just skim it again, and see if normal person could understand it.  I've been grumbling for awhile that all the fascinating theology I've been hearing (including a 3 part course on Process theology) is going NOWHERE.  We're gazing at our belly buttons, and Gretta is focusing on people who are actually setting down the coffee cup & dragging their tired buts & cranky kids to church for Some reason.  What do the seekers or the normal folks understand about the message of Jesus?   I've just read the chapter about how liberal messages are lost in what people expect to hear.

 I'm still struggling with the necessity of eliminating God from church but I see teh concern she has that until red-herring words & themes are excised from the message, no one really gets the right message.

That makes total sense to me.  I'm wondering - if people dont' take the time to hear deeper or understand, then why are we bothering to worry about what they hear.  But then, ... so we leave them to their own happy church existence and focus on incoming people - the framework is still set to fall back into expected, comfortable wrong messages. 

I want to have a church that has the right messages on the walls, and in the music, and in the prayers, so there is no confusion, no explanation needed that God is not really a grumpy, judgmental being who loves us if we behave.  Process that idea all you want, but who is really listening that needs to hear?  I know it ain't true.  Most people know in their hearts it ain't true, but most of them are skipping church, rather than sitting through the exegesis (now there's a word no one understands). 

I'm seeing this book as a step to cutting through the omphaloskepsis of theology (that is, navel-gazing) and getting a message to the people who have been missing it all along.

Or maybe that extra cup of coffee & time at home is worth more than befuddled messages in a old church pew.

Okay — enough of the theological nit-picking!!

----

It's a read that — to me — induces listlessness.

It's a mediocre re-hash of a lot of far better, earlier work by a host of articulate scholars and theologians, with an original, rather naive bit pinned on, like the tail on the party ass.

The original bit is about busting to be "nice" and trying to get relativistic, new age, post-modern bums on seats so the churches can keep propping up their mostly monstrous buildings and employing ministers. It's about "let's not go to the too hard" stuff about re-investing Christianity with transcendence and spiritual challenges and spiritual growth. It's more about the church's needs than people's needs, in my view. And that, I think, entails sustaining the unsustainable.

Churches are either full of literalist fear and judgementalism or populist pandering: both of which have turned church-going into a form of left- or right-inclined ego preening and beating any REAL issues they happen upon about the head with a gently wielded feather duster. The good work done by churches is too often done by over-worked, under-supported individuals whose motivations are typically derived far more widely than from their faith.

The organisational church almost certainly needs to die and, if it does, it will surely rise again because we all need the help and encouragement and feeding something like a church should be able to offer in order to get our spiritual jouneyings moving along in healthy, vigorous ways. The churches have those resources: they just hide them in case they alienate the wrong people who are loyal supporters of the institution and social club the church (meaning the various organised versions of the Christian religion) has become.

The problem runs deeper than Christianity and i know people of other faiths who also find their "churches" aimless, drifting, conflicted, confused and directionless. It is, I think, a part of the post-modern malaise, the loneliness produced by materialistic self-focus and image issues, all steamed up in climate of multiple sources of fear and anxiety. As a society, we are not much inclined to joy, to fulfillment, to open-ness and generosity, to hospitality, imagining, to ideals or passion. We're more inclined to stick the ear-buds in, go shopping, moan about our powerlessness and fret about youth criminality, as though young people aren't our responsibility. Family values? Where? We care? With a record low voter turnout? We're worried? About the financial "crisis"? Why is it a crisis? If we cared about each other, about living and life-giving, if we had a mustard seed of spiritual vivacity, what would be the crisis? We are pathetic!

The malaise is precisely what the church needs to over-turn: the self-interest, the fear, the loneliness, the boredom, the consumerism, the poverty (spiritual and material), the injustice, the listlessness, the inertia, the environmental degradation. These are the money-changers in the temple. These are the agents of Baal. If we could enjoy LIVING more, we'd care a whole lot more. The energy for that comes from spiritual not material sources. We need transcendence to charge ourselves up: joy burns a lot of energy, especially when it's expressed (as Jesus expressed it) in love.

Sorry, but Gretta Vosper won't get us there. She's heading off in another direction, scuttled back under a psychic pew. We need an Old Testament prophet who'll rip up an emperor or two, and chastise our own stupid vanity.

Unfortunately Gretta Vosper merely adds in a small way to the drift, whereas some of the people whose work she re-works had more to offer in their original forms.

 There are several issues in the reconstruction of Christianity.

One of the issues is the responsibility of the theologian in residence - one of the roles of the minister - and if that person has not reconstructed their theology than what is said will be the old time religion or if they have not done the hard work of construction they can end in throwing the baby out with the the stuff that needs to let go of.

It is true that what the church needs every 500 years is a good rummage sale - but that takes work.  Vosper’s approach is one way of doing it, but in the end if one throws out those basic ideas - like who is and what is the character of God - then what one is left with is a coffee hour of good humanists.  Now that is fine if that is what is wanted.  But let us not call it a christian community - and we need in this world good humanists but we need to know who we are and what we offer to the collective good.

Yes it is true ministers need deep theological studies, and I claim a process grounding prepares one for deep conversations on religious questions.  Once one is grounded then one can meet people at their spiritual depth - and I have found that process theology allows one to deal with and affirm a sense of God and that it makes the faith understandable.  Of course this is premised on the desire of the people to plumb the depths.

It is here that the research of  vibrant communities of faith ( and this has nothing to do with growth as an end, but can lead to growth)  is that they work hard on practices of faith - one such practice is theological reflection - not the only one but a crucial one.  Another is a sense of God and re understanding of the bible - bible study - prayer groups - action groups - spiritual practices -  all of these depend on a construction of what is important.

Now one of the ways the church constructs its future is to have lament - to move on one needs to ask what is lost.?  You cannot move on until the system is open to change - and one of the theological ideas about systems is open space and we keep it open so a sense of God can slide in - now this is not easy and demands deep encounter - thus there is a demand on the seeker to probe the depths -

Another question is what is it that changed your life and what is that you want your life to look like in 5 - to  ten years.

Another is the great commission to love self God , neighbour and enemy is one of the grounding issues that emerges in vivid mainline churches.  You don’t need to know the bible to know this, but study helps unpack it - just as theological reflection unpacks this.

The finial point is ministerial leadership - what is needed is not managers which has been the trend but deep spiritual persons who spend time in study and reflection and learn to share that. 

Vosper says the obvious things that have been said for years - she has the rummage sale that is old hat - but she does not offer a reconstructed Christianity, just a good humanist vision - and if that is what is wanted she has done her job. but that is not a constructive theology.

Mike brilliant as usual.

Hi birthstone

I haven't read the book. I'm  too cheap to buy it and book reviews like on the WC are often  sufficient for me. I am very intrigued by Gretta. I've been reading on her book review forum awhile back; watched her videos, listened to radio interviews etc.  Sorry you missed the great discussions taking place here. There surely is a search button  somewhere....??...that should bring them up . As feedback for you I tried to search the archives but its a bit difficult under the new format. On one occasion after page 9 I clicked next and arrived all the way back to Nov. '06. Other times I got old pages but Gretta wasn't there. Its just too much work. Here are a few I copied for you. I must google Gretta again and see what's new with her and how she is progressing. I haven't heard anything since a long time. (Arminius is off having had back surgery and paradox who lead the review on the WC  is here now and  again)

Nov. 2006  - the oblogger:

About 18 months ago, I started attending West Hill United Church in Scarborough. The minister is Gretta Vosper. Check out westhill.net. A few conservatives have been clamouring for her to leave the church and it's gotten really quite funny. I first went out of curiousity - there was talk about a non-theistic theology, a non-Christ-centred Christianity. What the heck was she on about? Now I'm hooked. Go to my blog - theoblog.ca & follow the progressive christianity category and you can trace how I've moved from doubt (a doubter of doubt) to a "true believer" in trashing the dogma. Spiritually and philosophically, it's a tricky place to be, but I can't think of a better place to work on it. If you ever want to drop by, say hi. I'm the guy at the back with no hair who runs all the multimedia stuff.

That's the ticket, Mike :3

I think this goes beyond the notion of G_d into every aspect of our lives. And various authors and artists, shamans and psychiatrists, doctors and engineers, have been trying to deal with this.

I was on a Halloween walk the other night with my nephews and got to talking with a local teacher who does a shop class and we were talking how much local society has changed. How teachers have to be SO CAREFUL these days. How he finds that his kids seem to want to follow more than create. And so forth.

Part of it has to, I think, to do with the persistence of Naive Realism in our lives, which leads to thinking of ideas as not being as 'real' as other realms of existence. Imagine a world where, just to be topical, someone can look at the current economic kerfuffle from at least two points of view (from a Marxist point of view, from a Free Market Capitalism point of view), and not taking those points of view literally but seeing what follows from them.

How to knock that loose? How to get people to get passionate aboot living? Is there a Way of Teaching (because, I'm thinking that one can't just be a cheerleader, there has to be a Way of Teaching so that people can, once being taught how to drink, can drink) that people can learn?

Drinking deep,

Inannawhimsey

Inanna: I don't know how you "teach" engagement with life. It can only be taught by experience, I think. My own engagement came through solitude in an unspoiled environment undertaken simply as youthful adventure: fun. I could have unintentionally killed myself, twice, during that time. But I was lucky: I happened to fall into it unawares. And what I learned is still unfolding for me.

Getting experience like that is difficult for young people these days, immersed as they are in pressures to function in diverse social settings, from pop culture to careerism, always overburdened with communication and stimulus and entertainment. They experience so many inputs, so much noise. Adults too.

In retrospect, I see great wisdom in the concept of the "vision quest" where a young adult, on the point of maturity, is given the opportunity to experience reflective solitude in a context of natural impartiality: a situation in which the elements of nature can speak without the intervention of other people. This is where imagination, in discovering itself, can bind itself to firm ground and empower meaningful, joyful living.

Information does not liberate anyone, books do not do it, data and facts and multimedia do not do it. They just pile on the pressure to ignore one's capacity to simply "be". They erode the ground under our "be-ing" self and bind us to the mills of things like "goal setting", success and clarified objectives. Young people are easily caught up in this without knowing enough about themselves to even think about goals that will bring them joy and satisfaction. So it all resolves into goals relating to image and money and group-formation which inhibit the pursuit of meaning.

A vision quest requires preparation, however. And this falls back on the kind of education that is its precursor. Education has to be about self-reliance, not in the sense of ego-driven individualism and material success, but in the sense of appreciating substance over appearance, and knowing how to test oneself against the substance rather than the mirage of one's own being. Without this preparation, a vision quest would turn simply into an inflicted misery. The important part is not the "vision" but the "quest": you have to be prepared and encouraged to quest the substance of yourself, the part that does not break this side of death, and that's a tall order, especially these days. It's that "substance" that does not break that one's living needs to feed, not the belly or bank account.

It's what a bird does with its wings, not its beak, that makes it a bird.

Hi folks - glad you still have energy for this.  I was busy for a day or 2 - not really hiding! 

I was in church today, wishing (not really) that I hadn't read the book because I was clearly hearing all the misrepresentations in songs, prayers & liturgy.  We had visitors because of a baptism, and I heard a service that spoke only to regular pew sitters, and spoke a familiar, easily recognized old style message.  Nice, but...

I think that dismissing this book as having not developed a sense of Spirit as non-theist is getting off track.  So far, I haven't seen her clearly say, "there is no God".  What I hear her say is, there doesn't need to be a God for church to mean something amazing for people. I also haven't heard her say that God is a bad thing, just that if we don't clarify our message, old doctrine will always overtake what we think we're saying.

Maybe church in the future will include many groups, not centered around a single worship time.  There will be a traditional Sunday AM worship, and likely another sort of worship time on Sundays or other time.  ALso though - discussion groups, book studies, a music & prayer time, a prayer group, a youth program, environmental or justice groups.  The minister's role would be to know theology & spirit nurture, but also the value of speaking different "languages" and the ability to connect the various groups in respect & common vision.  The church should be proud of its Christian tradition & able to articulate its continued connection, but also able to articulate its journey from doctrine.... to inclusive & open.  Rather than the sign & phone message saying : "Worship at 10:30", it will say - 'Call for our program schedule'

The church is never full of people with their noses in books.  It isn't only for people who bother to dig deep & study, but the biggest potential for reaching out is people who are interested but want some info straight up.    Perhaps we can do it with Christian connection, but Gretta's encouragement to clear the cobwebs out of the message is an important thought too.

 I need to read the next chapter now.

birthstone - I also finished With or Without God after the WC discussion. This book really spoke to me and where I am on my spiritual journey. Last spring I (along with my partner and subsequently our child) left the United Church we were active in because we found ourselves in a different theological place than what we were experiencing in worship at that church. Much of what Gretta wrote about was really meaningful for me. And your posts here birthstone have resonated for me as well.

Thanks Myst

I get the impression that scholars give up on 'lesser' folks, and it is too easy to say that such non-scholars 'aren't really interested', or they 'just want feel-good stuff'.  I've heard both things said far too often.
Well, BALONEY.

They are tired.  They don't have time for study groups or reading wordy tomes.  They are caught up in sick kids and crazy jobs and ailing parents and divorce and on & on.  If they are asking, or in the pews sometimes, or even just reading books like the Da Vinci Code, they are hungering for more.

Let's give it to them.  It takes some creativity and some wading out of comfort zones, but its time we figured out how.

I just stepped in on this discussion expecting esoteric theology, of which I may have patchy comprehension, but have little inclination to explore with great depth nor time to do the reading. 

Now i"m looking forward to reading With or Without God, knowing it's written for the non-scholar.   I'm intrigued with the notion of God as a projection and could see myself working with that.  It reminds me of the response to "It's just your imagination".   No "just" needed.  The imagination is powerful enough. 

Myst, 

Have you and your partner been able to find another church which suits you better?  Can you say more about what bothered you in the worship at your old church?

Birthstone, 

Hi,

You wrote:  "I was in church today, wishing (not really) that I hadn't read the book because I was clearly hearing all the misrepresentations in songs, prayers & liturgy. 

Could you say more about the misrepresentations in the songs, prayers, and liturgy?  You and Myst seem to be on the same page with this, and I would like to understand your viewpoints more clearly.

Hi Folks

I just want to post Gretta's video website for those who haven't seen her. I watched two tonight. Her role in the UC doesn't  matter to me. I just want to say I really like her and thoroughly enjoy watching her videos.

The claim of the book is for non scholars is misplaced - she claims to offer a scholarly take on the history of Christian faith and thus the book is judged on how well she does that.  She is an appealing and well spoken person but there is a point when that is not enough... for example there are all sorts of people who offer nice psychological bromides and they are appealing and are judged as what they are - feel good stuff.... now that works for some and that is fine.

However there are others in the seeker group who want more and i spent some time last week with those people and to a person they found the book a vacuous actuality - saying we have heard all this before and better - but where to go.

It is ok to junk the language of the church but when one does that that is what is done - the language of spirituality no longer is efficacious - why gather?  I was at an covenanting service and was struck how if the God language of the trajectory was junked why bother - If God is only a projection of our mind it becomes so individualistic that there is no shared meaning - God means whatever we want it to so so much for the tradition.

We need a postmodern turn to examine the tradition and the book is just another modern tome - nothing postmodern about it.  There are many who seek who understand the postmodern turn in thinking and seek a organizing philosophy that addresses this - a book that does that is Catherine Keller's On the Mystery - divinity in process - fortress. Compare to Vosper's book and then we can have a conversation.

I didn't mean to leave the impression that I"m anti- intellectual.  I'm truly impressed with those who make it their life's work to explore all the nuances of faith and religion.  It's just that I'm an average, practical shmo who has a need for extrapolated  information that doesn't require me to be an academic. 

I'm still capable of critical thinking and am able to assess the merits or lack thereof of  a particular approach using the limited background I have, but I do need to listen to those who are "idea people" and can articulate what seems authentic to me.  

I watched one poorly-edited video of Gretta Vosper speaking, so I've just ordered her book from the library.  I'm way behind the wave too, and will reserve judgements and opinions until I've been able to read the first chapter.

I too was late getting around to reading the book and so didn't get very involved in the earlier discussion.  I must say that I was disappointed in the book.  It seemed to have no heart, no soul, no meaning.  It reminded me of two children's books that have recently appeared in our church library.  Both have beautiful pictures and simple story.  One talks about feeling thankful  and being happy because you give thanks - but thanks to who?  Who do you thank when you see a beautiful sunset, or feel a gentle breeze on a hot day, or pick up a puppy, or experience your grammy's love?  Who is the 'you' in 'thank-you'?   The other is even simpler.  Each page has a beautiful picture of an animal and the words "Bless the . . . sheep, birds, whales, hares, bees and trees.  But who is to do the blessing?   Where is the perosonality, the relationship, the heart?

This is the feeling I get when I read this book.  I cannot disagree with it, she has a lot of good ideas, but it leaves me hollow. 

I agree, others have done it better.   She quotes Borg, but seems to feel that he doesn't go far enough.  I like Borg.

I did buy the book for my son for Christmas.  He's got an intelligent, inquiring mind.  It will be interesting to discuss it with him.

paradox3 I sent you a wondermail ....

Hi Seeler, 

Marcus Borg resonates very deeply with me.  My minister did a sermon series about Heart of Christianity in the spring, with related discussion groups held after each Sunday service.  He used Tim Scorer's study guide, and it was a great resource. 

In WWG, I found Gretta to be quite dismissive of Borg and his ideas. 

To answer Paradox3's questions .....

We haven't found another church home (yet), which is a rather odd feeling since we have both been very involved with UCC congregations- well since birth. The challenge at our recent church was the 'disconnect' between the spoken word and the music lyrics. Some of the theology/imagery/language in some of the music, especially the weekly praise songs, did not fit with my beliefs and it became quite distressing to attend worship.

Vosper's book provides a way forward for the church of the individual.  It provides the blanks that those in the pew can fill in however they wish.  This is done at the expense of a community of belief, a shared experience as Pan put it.  Eliminating the Bible and any theistic references exacerbates this effect, eliminating the majority of the ties that bind the Christian community together.

One point of praise songs suggest to me that this congregation is either conservative or not serious - no wonder you were not happy - this is just a hunch - praise songs tend to mindless and full of bad theology.

Right on Nighthawk

So I've cracked this book now, and I must say at this point, I'm in agreement with those who find it a breath of fresh air. 

It sounds to me, if your background is solidly church-going and you're used to that congregational experience over the long-term, this book may seem detached and lacking in inspiration for you.

Since I have only patchy experience of "organized religion", most of it as an adult, I find in Vosper a resonant approach which speaks to me -- so far.  Yes, it's clear she has an axe to grind and maybe makes that a little too apparent.

There have been so many quotes that just jump right out at me -- to many to quote here, but this one's good:

...for those who have to ignore, reword, or quietly object to much of what is saidin a typical liberal church service, and long to listen, learn, sing, pray and speak in terms that make sense in the pew, the home, the workplace, and in the quest for a more humane world........(p.18).

I can say with certainty -- and it's not an indictment of any particular denomination -- that "church" is an experience that has long ceased to be meaningful for me.  I'm "un-churched".  "Church" brings with it a lot of baggage -- some of which is just invisible to long - term attendees.  Whether it's to project a public face that exemplifies "Christian" values or it's unconsciously exclusionary practices, the church has disappointed some of us.  I think there's confusion between what is 'christian" and what is "church". 

I  know there are celebratory alternatives to the church experience other than those based on the old models of Deity. Celebrations that acknowledge that our limited ideas of god, the Cosmos etc. are simply our way of describing the seemingly singular human transcendant aspirations.

They come from the holy within ourselves and our love for one another, and they don't need to be cold, intellectual exercises or mawkish "feel good" cliches and songs.  I'm looking for that authenticity which can be shared with everyone without rigidly identifying it.  Gatherings that are enjoyable, colourful, meaningful and even fun. Ones that could honour the ungendered, the gendered, the darkness,  the seasons, and rites of passage in very intimate and non-proscribed ways.

I think of christianity as rich, loamy compost from which a loving life can emerge, not an end in itself.

Gotta read some more.

It goes without saying that Christianity is needs to be reconstructed - new forms developed and I claim it can be done and is done in a theology that takes God seriously as a reality, but that needs a new model of how we speak about God - Butler Bass said we need every 500 years a rummage sale - to get rid of what is not needed.

However Vosper's rummage sale throws out the possibility of religious experience.  True she keeps the desire for a humane world there - but are there other secular methods - like ethical humanism - that do that better and do not keep the fiction that one is still connected to the trajectory called Christian - The book moves one right out of that trajectory - and that is fine if that is what is wanted but in the end one destroys the possibility of an transcendent experience - it moves all theology to solipsism or projection.  Her model of God is no god and it is all imaginative.

As a postmodern I find her stuck in modern liberal theology - liberal theology is an important trajectory and one can develop a post modern constructive theology based on the liberal tradition.

Where I find problems is first with her understanding of Tillich ( who she calls a non theist) and that misunderstanding leads her to Cupitt and others.  Tillich said God is not a being but  simply  being itself, that which all beings have in common.  God does act purposive and causally and responsive to the world - what he does is to say God is not an individual and what we say about God is symbolic - now that turn is in response to the intellectual issues Tillich responded to, and there is a school of thought that revise him in light of Process Theology - reworking of ultimate concern as a reality in itself... to be more analogical.

Vopser uses the projectionist school begun by Feurbach - and not even as well as his work - she uses Cupitt who suggested that the word "God" refers to a cluster of ideas we have formulated imaginatively and projected unto the universe - she does not use Kaufman who says God is a creature of our own imagination but his is an attempt to get beyond the modern problem of objective reality to suggest a transcendent reality.

The problem with all this modernist/liberal theology  is that is not able to deal with or do justice to the basic Christian narrative that there is a God who is transcendent - creator of the world, saving reality, acts with compassion for all and is the source of novelty and justice and compassion, and is experienced - experienced in the same sense we experience others who have some influence on us, and form us. 

The end result is we are self created selves - and we know this solipsistic experience neglects objective reality - that there is an other beyond us - The answer for some is the panentheistic model which is not supernatural ( which is the problem for liberal theology) and still having some influence on what becomes - one of the many influences and one that gets embedded in what has been (ideas) and thus efficacious directly and indirectly - God in the world and the world in God, and God is the source of the creative advance.

Such a theology keeps open the religious experience as real experience - not just a projection - and thus makes worship an active process in the becoming of the world, and part of that which moves us to a humane world - worship actual forms character - for there is a God worthy of worship - not just some projection of finite humanity.

Panentheism:

MANY THANKS for the book tip — Catherine Keller's On the Mystery.

It's a cracker of a book! I got a copy from www.amazon.ca

If you must read 'With or Without God' please ALSO READ: Catherine Keller's On the Mystery — then get your butts back here and get with a real conversation.

MP said, "If you must read 'With or Without God' please ALSO READ: Catherine Keller's On the Mystery — then get your butts back here and get with a real conversation."  Italics mine.

Mike, I know you to be a passionate and rigorously scholarly gent, but although to some it may seem petty, I found the italicized phrase really dismissive and hurtful.

If you were able to rephrase that, would you?

Is everyone aware that the approaches one brings to any discourse often are through "different coloured glasses".  We don't all begin with the same purpose or  theoretical framework. 

It's my intention to have a "real conversation" as you put it.  The problem?   Who decides it's veracity.

I do see the value of a balanced view.  Are you suggesting that in reading enough of the relevant material, such balance is achievable without it becoming an end in itself?

Can some of us read as virgins to the text and have that conversation?

Sorry Ninj — my thought was (and is) that the different perspective of Catherine Keller certainly gives me a more articulate and accessible basis from which to discuss Vosper's book, one that can be available to everyone: my comments have been out of my own personal experience and journey and this, of course, isn't available to others.

By a " REAL conversation" I was meaning that we could be on an equal footing, or at least have access to common ground. That can make things a whole lot more fruitful for everyone, including folk who may choose not to enter the discussion but read the posts.

The "veracity" of a conversation surely can only mean the sincerity with which we each approach it. I hope you're not looking for any greater or absolute "truth" in anything you read here; that would be very dangerous (and naive).

Anyway: don't let me put you off.

Catherine Keller's On the Mystery is a very good read! A very very good read.

Panentheism and MikePaterson, 

Could you say more about Catherine Keller's book?  I just checked, and the Toronto Public Library does not have a copy. 

Bruce Sanguin's Emerging Church provides a useful frame of reference for examining Gretta's theology. 

The book study group here on wondercafe is just finishing up Chapter 7 of Bruce's book.  There has been some really interesting conversation about spiral dynamics theory and mysticism.   When we move on to Chapter 8, we will have the opportunity to discuss Bruce's ideas about leadership in the church. 

Hi Nighthawk, 

From the perspective of one who travelled the progressive path for a while (five years at West Hill United Church), I agree with you totally.  The worship style at WHUC has very much evolved to be a blank slate.  The argument, of course, is that this represents radical inclusivity.  Up to a point, I concur with Gretta, because the religious humanist perspective has much to commend it.  Many active congregants at West Hill would say that life-enhancing values provide the "ties that bind".

However, any church which decides to go this route will also lose a great deal.  "There are many losses," Gretta once told me in an e-mail.   "I have felt them, too," she said.  A few weeks ago, I saw some folks from my old congregation at a memorial service.  At least two of them expressed unhappiness about the recent elimination of the Lord's Prayer.   In WWG, Gretta talks about the challenge of going forward without the shared story the Bible provides.

I agree with many (but not all) of Gretta's arguments concerning orthodox and liberal expressions of Christianity.   It is clear that her viewpoint re: the "disconnect" in the liberal church is shared by many who have read her book.  What is the solution to this dilemma?  Gretta offes one solution, but there are a variety of other ways to be a "progressive" Christian.  

In his critical review, Panentheism wrote: 

Thus in the end book makes a good case for a non theistic view, if you buy the premise in the first place, and thus there is no transcendent reality. But at what cost to the future of the world? In whose interest? And, in the end, makes all religious communities redundant.

The final paragraph of WWG (before the Toolbox) hints at a time when church will no longer be necessary. 

Birthstone -- if you're still here, considered yourself "indulged".

LOL @ Ninjafaery!!!

When I have some time i will give some thoughts on Keller's book - as much as I like Bruce Sanguin's book, and he does offer some ideas that counter Vosper - Keller's book is less new age - and here I must declare my interest - Keller, Brock Parker and Epperly ( all of whom offer process/relational view with depth) were classmates and students of Cobb and Griffin. Thus my view is colored by that and because we find a process/relational theology the most constructive view  and allows us to have the rummage sale without losing theism ( panentheism is the answer).  Now most in Canada who studied did not encounter this view and thus the liberal tradition logically went in Vosper's direction.

The problem I have Bruce is his use of evolution which tends to be progress - there is an sense of being better than the past.  Where as a process view understands history and context as crucial and thus not progress in consciousness - as being more divine ideas but a connection with the past and how it shaped us and how we can re shape our present by identifying the mistakes that entered into our ideas.  We deconstruct to reconstruct -

As well a process/relational view is about reality - what is real and God is not exception to the metaphysical rule but the best example of it - if  what is actual is a product of relationships and if there is both intra and inter subjectivity in each actual thing, and if we feel that which is external through this process, and if we understand the world is in process - becoming into being and perishing - then we can have a model of God that reflects this reality - panentheism.

Hi Pan, 

Thanks for your response.  I agree that elitism is an inherent risk in Bruce's conceptual model, and I think he recognizes this.  I like his emphasis on the dignity and disaster of each stage, because he does not totally discredit the lower levels of the spiral. 

The Chapter 8 discussion should be interesting.  Bruce relies on some of LoveJoy's ideas about change and leadership (which he references), but he and LJ are not completely on the same page.  I haven't read LoveJoy's book, unfortunately.  It would be fascinating to compare the change strategies advocated by Sanguin, Vosper and Christie, (Emerging Church, WWG and Evoking Change respectively).

I'm not ditching this... just haven't had time or brainspace to read this week.  The church librarian is going to be after me :) 

I've been wondering a lot about this stuff though, as I'm preparing a worship service & sermon & intergenerational stuff for the 23 - Christ the King Sunday.  That adds an extra wonderful dimension to my reading & our discussions. 

Birthstone, 

Gretta told the National Post back in the spring, "The central story of Christianity will fade away.  The story about Jesus as the symbol of everything that Christianity is will fade away." 

In a nutshell, this is the reason I could not follow Gretta any further down the path.  In a real life conversation  a few years ago, she told me she considers the two of us "not all that far apart theologically", the major difference being her "reluctance to call herself a follower of Jesus".  This says it all for me.  Or just about all .

Gretta makes many good points in WWG, and she is clearly resonating with many church folks like yourself.   I agree with much (not all) of her critique of the Christian church.  But I left West Hill because I disagree with her analysis of Jesus (a Middle Eastern peasant with a few charismatic gifts and a great posthumous marketing team);  her analysis of the Bible (unreliable as a source of moral guidance) and her view of God (a human construction). 

Gretta makes a good argument for non-theism, and presents it as a radically inclusive model.  To a certain extent, this is valid.  I have been back to visit WHUC a few times since my departure, and overall I am pretty comfortable with the worship service there.  It is well done, with alternate readings to the Bible and with progressive music written by Scott Kearns.  I am just not ready to toss out so much of the Christian tradition, which still speaks deeply to me.  In fact, I do not foresee ever wanting to go that route.

WWG really only talks about two extreme polarities:  a supernatural, "old man in the sky" view of God, and God as a human construction.  Doug Todd wrote in the Vancouver Sun, "Given all the expansive, multidisciplinary thinking going on in Progressive Christian circles these days, it is hard to understand why Vosper ignores so much of it." 

The last paragraph of the book, before the Toolbox, hints at a time when the church will no longer be necessary.  Charles Lewis wrote in the National Post on May 3, 2008,  "She envisions a time when there is no religious divisions (sic) and everyone shares in their common values and their only differences are cultural.  Still, she said there is no conflict with this and being in the church."

Here on wondercafe, I have argued many times that we have room for Gretta's theology under the United Church umbrella.  But I think we need to understand her theology, which is perhaps more radical than some readers realize. 

Mike

I haven't read Catherine Keller's book . There are some of her writings on the net. I didn't save the links but I must say I liked her very very much.

paradox3

Thanks a lot for your comments on Gretta. I'm inclined to agree with you. I like her but perhaps I'm forgetting she's speaking in a Christian church and setting. She might be better suited giving seminars in a hall. According to what you are saying I'm quite surprised that the UC hasn't dismissed her.

Hi Stardust, 

LOL @ "seminars in a hall"!!!   Some people have compared Gretta to a motivational speaker.  She is a fabulous speaker, of course, and I hope I have not given you the idea that I dislike her. 

Personally, I am not in favour of the UC dismissing her.  It would be a very difficult task for a Presbytery to determine whether or not she is in "essential agreement" with the United Church.  Our moderator has said that he would not continue in Christian ministry if he felt as she does, but he supports the idea of a broad theological spectrum.  He was quoted in the National Post a few months ago in this regard. 

I am somewhat bothered by Gretta's supporters who argue that non-theism is THE answer for the future of the Christian church.  Over on the CCPC website, they are advertising a congregational leadership initiative as follows: 

a time for courage .... a time for vision .... a time for leadership

The Progressive Christian Congregational Leadership Initiative
with Gretta Vosper

The Progressive Christian Congregation Leadership Initiative is being offered as a significant "next step" in the work of shifting the worship and practice of Canadian mainline Christianity from its primary focus on traditional Christian doctrine and story to one celebrating the non-exclusive principles of compassionate living and right relationship with self, others, and the planet. 

An online study guide of WWG is also being offered.  It contains "tips for effective leadership within a potentially resistant faith community".   Count me among the resistant, if you like .

James said this in his sermon "What we do matters. The daily practices of the faith shape what we do believe. Christian practices “are patterns of communal action that create openings in our lives where the grace, mercy, and presence of God may be made known to us”. (Craig Dykstra) If we believe in the love of God, then our daily practices reveal God’s love in all we say and do."

This is the crucial question for if worship of God shapes us then what is the meaning of Christian worship.  It  is true the church has a rummage sale every five hundred years and everything- I mean everything - is on the table.  Then we go and find out what is crucial to the doing... what is it we do that has changed our life and project if it is needed the next 5 - to 10 years.

Now if I felt and thought  like Vosper I would leave the church.  I hang in because I think in the rummage sale we will find what is necessary and there is still something in theism, Jesus, communion, bible that speaks and will continue to speak -  yes there are resistant communities but may be, just may be we need to listen to what is crucial and what is not - we need a time of lament for that which is lost and we cannot move on until we do and that lament opens the system to newness.  Paradigm shifts continue that which worked while moving us in new directions... the new must answer what the old did, but in better ways.    In the end it is a question of God and if God is only our projection let us let go of that project called the church and move on, but in process thought I found the answer to the God question and it is a post modern answer - not the modern answer of Vosper.

Amen to that, Pan.  I couldn't agree with you more.