I hope to be attending a conference of religious progressives in Australia and the South Pacific in Melbourne 15-18th April.

Gretta Vosper is listed as the main guest speaker.

I would be interested to hear opinions on Gretta's theology (both positive and negative) to prepare me for  the conference.

Also, in addition to her theology, her ability as a public speaker?

Anyone out there been in her congregation?

I've actually had the same questions and we've had some threads here in the past on where is the line between a very progressive Christian like Vosper and a UU Christian like my church's interim minister. Given that modern UU'ism evolved from liberal Christian movements of the 18th and 19th centuries, who knows where progressive Christianity might ultimately be headed?

Mendalla

I really liked Gretta's book and got a lot out of it. I would love to study it in a group setting. Seeler, the event you will be attending sounds very interesting to me -- I hope you'll report back on it.

My opinion about West Hill UC being within the UC despite holding the views that they do is that we are a really big tent with room for all who wish to be here. It may be that some views and belief systems held by some of the people in the big tent are not as willingly accepted as others (many wouldn't relate to West Hill's position and many don't relate to the more literal views either). Regardless of anyone's views, we welcome the people. Once we welcome people, we will find a diversity of beliefs, forms of worships, decisions around mission, etc. That's what I love about the UC.

Although I agree with seeler that Gretta Vosper threw out the proverbial baby with the bath water, I also agree with Motheroffive. I think "Vosperianism" is secular humanism, which is fine, and should be acceptable and accepted under the broad umbrella of the United Church.

In the colour memes of the "Spiral Dynamics," secularism or atheism is a neccessary stage—the Orange stage—of spiritual development. Unless we are blindly believing abolutists, almost every one of us goes through an atheistic stage in their spiritual development. This applies not only to the development of individuals but also to that of cultural groups.

No reason to throw a family member out of the house just because they undergo a necessary growth spurt.

lol - you say that like it's a bad thing.

That Christians are coming to understand that seeing things only in part, as Paul is written to have said, means that all those "absolutes" are simply human attempts to create a false sense of security, (or, more succinctly, claptrap) should be celebrated.

Be well

David

I've met her - she's a very warm, thoughtful, pastoral person.  The community was warm & familiar.  I did miss a spiritual language, though I'm quite comfortable with progressive church.  The UCC is a wide umbrella - I've seen the far right side of the UCC and I'm certainly more comfortable at West Hill.  But for my own ministry, God has more face time :)

 I'm a pretty secular kind of guy and and I feel kind of uncomfortable in this particular discussion because I get the feeling we'll be quoting scripture here soon, however, it strikes me that Vosper perhaps feels that the old names and labels do more to cover up meaning than to reveal it because so many are so sure they know what the terms mean that they fail to look for further deeper meanings.  The use of old forms and familiar creeds may well obscure rather than elucidate.  

I imagine too that Vosper may well think that by refraining from making any special claims for Jesus (you know ... the usual,Son of God etc.) and by focussing on his actions and the consciousness that he represents (notice I didn't say "represented") that Jesus is taken out of history and brought to the present ... that if Jesus is the word made flesh than what ought to be presented is the flesh and not the word.  In this way Jesus becomes a stronger more immediate symbol and example of love and less a representative through which we participate in a vicarious and passive "Christianity".

Just wondering how many Christians these days would describe their faith in just the above way?

My theologian of choice is Marcus Borg. Based on seeler's description, I'm thinking Gretta may prove to be a little radical for me.

But who cares? If  she's a warm caring person as also mentioned - I'm sure I won't have any difficulty in seeing the image of God when I listen to her.

Vosper does not exculisvely own or define the word Progressive. Borg also calls himself a progressive, even though Vosper does not feel Borg measures up to her definition.  The American Progressive Christians have a very different definition than Vosper's Canadian group does.

http://www.tcpc.org/about/8points.cfm

http://progressivechristianity.ca/ccpc/index.php?option=com_content&task...

Gromit - actually, the UCC tent has been big enough for a different idea of Jesus for a very long time.  When it was founded, there was a push to make the Articles less 'fundamental', shall we say, but in order to smooth things with the various groups, the Articles settled into familiar, doctrinal statements.  And that was 100 years ago.  Frankly, if Jesus is central to one's belief, and "Christ" has meaning for you in a good way, then you can be Christian.  Some folks have tried to set down some little rules about it, but pshaw... rules are just rules.    Sacred cows make good barbecues.

Good info to share, JamesMurray. 

I think a key point of why Greta leaves Jesus & God out is that those names have become laden with baggage that blocks people's journey & faith, rather than helping it.  I see her point, but I'm not sure it means we have to do away with them altogether, as she has considered.

I should, perhaps, add that fundamentalism and authoritarianism also are essential stages of spiritual growth, and that there should be room for those in the big mansion as well.

Absolutism at any stage makes some of the co-inhabitants of God's mansion difficult to tolerate. This applies to atheistic, secular, and progressive absolutists as much as fundmentalist absolutists.

Absolutely!

Were you actually trying to say something here?

I see, so you think that it's ok to label yourself as something you're not? Do you introduce yourself as a woman, or as black, or etc. When in reality you are none of those things?

Do you even know what christianity is?

[/quote]

As with most fundies, when the question gets tough, you dodge and wiggle. Do you consider yourself qualified to inform God who can claimed by Christ and who should go to hell?

Just "yes" or "no" Besh. Stop trying to avoid the question by making it about me (as flattering as that might seem). You stated that Gretta Vosper is not a Christian unless she meets criteria based on your interpretation of Scripture. Either you claim the right to tell God who gets to heaven or you don't. Which is it?

I have a hard time with seperatists.

I have such a firm belief, based purely on an understanding I believe I have aquired over some serious time.

I believe it to be a sign of insecurity if people are in fear of a message being tarnished in a way that would create a problem for all that is good.

The security is of God, Who better than to seal a security for us?

The message is quite incorruptable, when it is shown to be tried & tested true.

For me this is only obtainable through relationship with God in constant communion with Him.

To know His voice, & to know it so well that it moves us to do that which feels natural, & wonderful.

For anyone to say how it works with another man is the same for himself, is lacking understanding, & compassion.

I have discovered a message of forgiveness, & a message of unity that stems from it, in no small way at all, & to discount the unitive roll in the new covenant, is a grave mistake, indeed.

Bolt

As previously noted, that you feel qualified to tell God who and isn't Christian is between you and God. At least you were honest enough to affirm your claim.

When the question of hubris arises, perhaps your honesty will carry more weight than your presumption.

so this gets far away from the topic....  is there value at West Hill and in Gretta's ministry?  yes, I believe there is.  Maybe some folks have strict lines and that makes them feel like good Christians, compared to um, bad ones.

Well, some are just amazed that they have found a way to follow Jesus and live in some spirit of God that doesnt' require things that they can't stomach.  Might sound like too broad a definition for some of you, but there is good coming of it, and peace & wisdom & transformation.  My experience is that you don't shut the door to the kingdom to anyone searching, even if they are asking different questions that you did.

The option would be....?

By your interpretation of Scripture ac. - Which means you place your judgment above God's. You believe that your understanding of the Bible is superior to mine, or to Vosper's or to anyone else's.

I believe that you are incorrect. However, I don't claim the authority to tell you that you're not Christian. Both you and I are imperfect, which means that, though we each have something of Theos within us, we each also, as Paul said, "fall short of the ability to think like God." (which is a more accurate rendering of the word King James and boys called "glory of God".... in my opinion )

You also claim that I judge, yet I've repeatedly stated that the value of your interpretation is between you and God.

You, however, do not extend the same courtesy to allow God to decide whether Vosper or I have a place in the family of Christ, as you claim that anyone who does not recite your mantra is NOT A CHRISTIAN. (your capitals, not mine. Is that what you meant by shouting JEE-ZUZ' name?)

I don't judge you ac, I merely point out what Scripture has Jesus say about those in his day who made similar claims about knowing God's mind.

If you feel judged, you need to look elsewhere for the source.

Indeed not.

Be Well

David

I heartily second that. Not only "acceptable" but indeed absolutely essential. How poor would our relationship with one another, let alone God, be if it had only one form?

It would be like saying that the only people worth being friends with are those who drink Foster's.  

Say, did you happen to notice that there's no beer smilie here?

UCC's Methodist element showing I guess..... although.....

.... there's no coffee smilie either. And this is supposed to be a café????? And this from a church born and bred in the land of Tim Horton's.

GR, you could do a lot worse! 

Attention to all those who drink Tim Horton's - (Canadians).

 My crap meter has expired on all those who hide behind sockpuppets - with the exception of those who have a legitimate need, as in the asexual thread.

 If you feel the need to garner support to the extent that you have to invent sockpuppets - you are seriously lacking in both credibility and self-esteem. Beat a path to your nearest therapist!

Sockpuppets  are meant to be nothing more than bits of wool with buttons for eyes. 

Hi Gromit, 

The United Church of Canada welcomes a wide range of theological positions, which is one of our strengths as a denomination.  There is an interesting article in the most recent edition of the Observer about Unitarian Universalism.  The author writes: 

"Of course, United Church theology is hard to define, and ranges from very conservative to very liberal.  In fact, in some cases you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a Unitarian congregation and a United Church one. 

That's certainly true at West Hill United in Scarborough, Ont., served by Rev. Gretta Vosper, author of With or Without God.  Her book argues that churches should transform into spiritual centres that welcome people of all faiths and views for the purpose of strengthening communal bonds, allowing for personal growth, and advocating for social justice.  Sounds a lot like Unitarian Universalism."

Anne Bokma goes on to ask, should a merger between the two be considered?  "I don't think that would be a bad thing at all," says Vosper.

I am not sure if Gretta means our denomination as a whole, or just her congregation at West Hill.

Actually, besh isn't the first fundie stalker I've had over the years. I think it's the same sort of "forbidden" attraction that leads the hellfire and brimstone crowd to hookers.

Gee .....Why do I feel so dirty all of a sudden?

Anyway besh, as usual, fundies are bravest when hidden. Funny how no one has any trouble seeing behind the mask though. I doubt anyone would mistake your writing style for mine, do you?

Thanks for a chuckle though.

David

Interesting to see this in light of past threads on UU'ism and progressive Christianity. As I've said before, I can't really see such a merger working at the denominational level although it might work for Vosper and her allies/followers. I mean, you have the UCC, which has articles of faith written right into it's founding documents and UU'ism, which is explicitly (and quite resolutely, I might add) non-creedal. That is, we do not have a core set of beliefs about metaphysics or theology and do not require any affirmation of faith to join (just a commitment to uphold the principles, which are more of a covenant than a statement of faith), leaving the formulation of said beliefs to our individual members. Being non-creedal is core to UU'ism, so I can't us giving that up and I suspect that there's a strong segment of the UCC that wouldn't want to see it become non-creedal. Now, if the UCC went through some kind of progressive-traditionalist split or something (God forbid, because we need the UCC in this country), I could see some progressives, Vosper among them, finding a home in UU'ism.

Mendalla

Congregations certainly do change, Birthstone, and there are a variety of ways this comes about.  In the case of WHUC, it was pretty much a "top down" process, as Gretta outlines quite frankly in her book.  She anticipated that a few people would leave the congregation, but I believe she underestimated the number of departures that would eventually occur.

Thanks for acknowledging the "cost" to the former membership, Birthstone.  I think that it is an important part of West Hill's story.

Hi Mendalla, 

Nice to see you on this thread . . . I thought you might be by to add your UU perspective.

A divide eventually took place at West Hill at the congregational level.  It was not really a progressive-traditionalist split, however.   I would call it more of a progressive-liberal split.  Many folks use the terms interchangeably, but Gretta draws clear distinctions between liberal and progressive theology.

Fortunately, the burning of heretics has gone out of fashion.

Hi p3:

As you remember, the study of Bruce Sanguin's Spiral Dynamics shed a revealing light on Gretta Vosper's theology.

In terms of the Spiral Dynamics, it seems that Gretta and her congregation are at the Orange or Orange/Green stage of spiritual development, which is an essential stage of spiritual growth. Not at all a threat to the Church but an essential step on the way forward.