Hi there and welcome to my website. Many of you have been here for awhile but there are others for whom this is your first visit. I hope this short post helps you find what you need and encourages you to engage.
I know it sounds crazy to many people to think an atheist filling the role of minister in a Christian denomination. And, if she realizes she is and atheist, why wouldn’t she leave? Valid questions. I hope I’m able to clarify some of it for you.
Following Gord Westmacott‘s recent documentary, A Matter of Faith, aired on CBC Radio’s The Current, a former classmate from my theological college – Queen’s University, a college that is now closed – contacted me. She was supportive. It was great to hear from her. When I responded, I described my theological education in the following way (with a few typos corrected!):
I can characterize my theological education in no other way than that we explored the concept of God rather than learned about the being, God; we examined the Bible using critical tools that very much assumed its human origin; and we dove into the stories of Jesus with exactly the same critical perspective, recognizing that not one of the interpretations could be hailed as truth beyond all truths, most especially the arguments for his divinity. So I don’t feel that I am all that far from my education, even if I now use different language to reflect upon it.
That pretty much says it. Theological education in liberal, mainline denominations has, for a very long time, explored far beyond traditional doctrinal understandings. My class in the late 1980s certainly wasn’t the first; that kind of exploration had been happening for decades. In fact, even when The United Church of Canada was formed in 1925, theological conversations dug into the challenges erupting from liberal scholarly studies that threatened the pastoral peace of church members. That challenge has continued throughout our history.
But it has been hidden from most people. A correspondent today who shared with me that it was hard for her to remain respectful, disclosed that she does not consider herself religious though she was raised in the United Church and married there. But she was pretty confident that
Father, Son and Holy Spirit – absolutely need to be accepted if you choose to participate in this church!
It is easy for me to understand her vigorous, though misled, response to the documentary. The United Church of Canada has been encouraging the critical examination of every element of Christianity in its theological colleges for decades but it has failed to let the general public know and it has kept it very well hidden by using exactly the same language to describe an infinite array of understandings of the concept of god, the Bible, and the man called Jesus as is used by fundamentalist believers. My correspondent, even if she did go to church regularly, could not be blamed for completely missing the fact that her denomination grew out of and beyond traditional ideas about Christian doctrine a long, long time ago.
Given that bit of history, I hope your exploration of this site helps make sense of an the “atheist minister” oxymoron. You can find a piece about why I use the word atheist to describe myself, a piece on why I consider myself to be in essential agreement (the term used to determine if someone can be ordained) with the Church’s doctrinal statements, and a whole lot of poetry and rewritten hymn texts that you are welcome to use wherever you’d like (just credit me and, if you’re willing, add a link to the page. Much appreciated!). And don’t forget to check out West Hill United’s website, especially taking time to read our VisionWorks document. If you believe in goodness, I doubt you’ll find much you disagree with. If you believe in fundamentalist Christianity, I still doubt you’ll find much you disagree with although there will be much that you might like to see there that isn’t. We work hard to live up to the values we have identified as important. What someone believes doctrinally is less important to us so you’ll find traditional believers, secular humanists, atheists, and a whole bunch of people who don’t want to be defined by a label in our gatherings.
Of course, we’d love you to join us one Sunday no matter what you believe whether in Scarborough where we meet each week or in Mississauga where we meet on the third Sunday of each month! For more information about those gatherings, contact annie at the office.
If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to email me. I’m happy to respond and appreciate your patience. Sometimes there’s a lot in my inbox!
Thanks, Gretta. The summary of your education pretty much sums it up, as you have said. I will keep that quote handy, and am sharing it with several friends who are leaning in the same direction.
Thanks, David. Glad that was helpful.
It’s always difficult to be a leader in any Reformation. You and Bishop Spong deserve such credit for putting yourselves in the public discussion on the traditional understand of the God figure. It’s been said, “The Bible says God created man in his image, an man has returned the favour.”. People have to learn that concept.
Hi George. I have heard that quote before and believe it to be true. Which isn’t to say, at all, that it wasn’t a very good thing for us to do. It may have, and I’m not an anthropologist so have no right to say this, but it may have been something that actually saved us at some point in our development when our warring, fearful ways threatened to defeat us. Hmmmm. Sounds a lot like today. Still, I think that if we can recognize the beauty and tragedy of our own narrative, one that includes all of us, we may be able to get beyond turning on one another and turn, instead, toward one another.
Thanks for your comment,
gretta
You said elsewhere that “We build a faith tradition upon it which shifted to find belief more important than how we lived.” which shows that you don’t understand the Christian faith at all. At Christianity’s centre is the belief that no matter how we live, we can never be good enough to meet God’s standard and thus our belief in his salvation – our recognition of what He’s done, is what saves us. So your statement runs contrary to the most basic of foundation of Christian faith.
Every other religion believes in “it’s how you live that matters”. Christianity is alone in recognizing we can never be good enough, and it is only through faith that saves us. Belief is more important and comes before “how we live”, but how one lives should follow if one truly believes. In other words, essentially your beliefs are in line with all new age beliefs, you merely have the delusion to represent Christ. Is it right for a teacher to lead an English class in French? The fundamental teaching of Christianity: Galatians 2:16; what the Bible says about people who teach something different: Matthew 18:6.
And it’s one thing for you not to believe in any of this, but don’t fool yourself about what you’re actually doing. If you were actually teaching the beliefs of the Bible (that, for example, faith is more important than works), it could be argued that you were doing your job, but clearly you are not “teaching the Bible” – but merely giving your opinion on its philosophies. My children will not listen to any advice I give, if I state my instruction as “some teaching that I don’t even believe is true or right”.
A pastor’s job is to lead people toward Christ, not away from him as you are doing. Reflect on Matthew 15:7: who are the “wolves in sheep’s clothing”? They are people who look the part but take the sheep away from the shepherd. And who is the “shepherd” in this analogy?
You are quite right, Tony. I don’t understand the evangelical faith tradition as well as do you because I was not raised in it. That said, it is precisely because the evangelical message is that we can never be good enough that I share a different message. We can and must be good enough. We must challenge one another to do so; celebrate with one another when we manage to do good; console one another when contexts don’t allow us to be; and invite one another to recommit. The message that there is no point even trying here on earth because we can’t possibly get anything right and it will all be worked out in the far, far future is a message that was created to control and continues to be used to do so. It is not one I would ever place on the shoulders of a human being and then expect them to stand tall.
Thank you for commenting.
gretta
Tony:
Calling for Greta’s drowning (a la Matthew 18:6) isn’t exactly an effective way of communicating your point. The interpretation of the Bible is a matter much more nuanced, I believe, than you allow. There are lots of issues here, and Greta has the theological and philosophical sophistication to discuss them with you if you would grant a peaceful hearing.
Peace.
Thank you, Lynn!
Hello Gretta,
My name is Barry and I have followed your work from a distance for a while now. I read your book With or Without God and I have heard you on radio programs. Your stance on naming yourself an atheist has become the subject of some debate in my UC congregation of late. Frankly, I am not sure exactly what I think, but I do know that I am not prepared to run you or anyone off a cliff simply because of what has been reported in the media. Your ideas and your work are important for our denomination (even if difficult) and I am glad that you are forcing the conversation.
I think I understand that you use the word atheist for at least two reasons: first that you no longer believe in a personal god that is active in the world in theistic terms, and second because you want to be clear that using god language to describe metaphorical realities is intellectually dishonest and it undermines a relationship of integrity between you, the speaker, and those who are listening to you.
My question is this: given the confusion and emotionally laden content that is tied into the word atheist, does its use distort your intent and your message in a way similar to the use of god language?
Thanks again for the work you are doing and the courage and patience you are displaying in its doing.
Hi Barry,
Thank you for your engagement with my work. I very much appreciate it especially at a time when the legal action I have undertaken against the General Secretary’s ruling is on behalf of all my United Church colleagues, including those who serve your congregation, whose ability to express diverse theological perspectives is being threatened in a way it has not been in UCC history.
A couple of finer points regarding your comments. I do not call myself an atheist for either of the reasons you’ve noted. I do not believe in a personal god that is active in the world in a theistic manner and so I do not use the word “god” to describe what I believe that I previously used that word to describe. My concern is that I am not understood. Using the term ‘god’ to describe what I really believed had prevented my congregation, and I believe many other congregations, from embracing contemporary theological ideas even if I was, or other clergy were regularly sharing them in sermons and study groups. Long before I identified as an atheist (2013), indeed, in both of my books (2008, 2012), I argued for clear language relating to theological ideas that do not square with a supernatural, interventionist being – a god called God. By that I mean, if your understanding is “God is a verb,” or “God is love,” or God is what we create in the world that is a legacy of beauty, goodness, and truth,” none of which are interventionist, supernatural, or theistic, then using the name “God” for that is problematic. It allows the perpetuation of belief in something that I think is dangerous in our contemporary world because it ultimately supports those who posit moral authority in a supernatural being and who may do so for purposes that are antithetical to the UCC’s moral stance.
I do not recall using the term “intellectual dishonesty” to refer to the use of the word ‘god’ to describe something other than a theistic, supernatural, interventionist being, but I can’t, either, truthfully say I have not; being under the scrutiny of media can sometimes prompt regrettable replies. If I have and you can point me to where I did so, I will be eager to apologize publicly and rephrase myself.
It has been my argument all along – an argument that is documented in With or Without God – that clergy are vulnerable. We have not created a church in which this is a very safe thing to be honest about, have we? So clergy who have been taught to consider god as a concept, not a being, the Bible as a collection of human stories with human roots, and Jesus as a man whose posthumous narrative became entangled in those stories to serve the purposes of some very human writers (even if they were altruistic purposes) may yet speak of “God” in a way that suggests it is a theistic being. They do so because they cannot to do otherwise or they will not because of the situations in which they work. I don’t condemn them for that. I lament with them. But if they are in the position to be open and honest about what they believe, if they are retired or just approaching retirement, I think it is their responsibility to do so in order to create a place of security and safety for the rest of us. I have told many retired clergy that they need to get back to presbytery and be supportive of those who remain vulnerable.
As to the word “atheist”. You are absolutely correct that the term atheist is laden with much confusion and emotionally laden content. It would be easier not to use it. I have written about it here: http://www.grettavosper.ca/the-complexities-of-language-atheist/
As I point out in that document, my choice is related to the persecution of those who self-describe or are described by others as atheists (Avijit Roy, hacked to death in Bangladesh, didn’t actually identify as an atheist) and whose lives or freedoms are taken from them as a result. We stand within a long tradition which began with the embrace of a label that caused confusion and emotion: the derisive use of the term “Christian” to describe those who lived in a manner that threatened social conventions. Now the term “atheist” is used to stir up hatred against individuals who use that term or to whom it can be applied. My beliefs place me within the atheist spectrum. My use of the term stands against its use as derogatory tool of slander. When terms used to perpetuate hatred and violence apply to us, we cannot hide and so avoid condemnation; we must openly embrace those terms and risk condemnation. It is imperative that we do so to be in solidarity with those whose lives are at risk and to do what we can to mitigate that risk. That is my tradition and I urge my colleagues and the whole United Church to bravely do the “Je Suis Charlie” thing (maybe after this last cartoon, that isn’t such a great thing but you know what I mean…) in this, OUR AREA OF EXPERTISE, theology, and use that word if their beliefs also place them on the atheist spectrum.
I am an atheist. Anything else that is thrown at me as a result of my using that label comes from the heart or worldview of the person who throws it but it does not reflect what that word means. I use it because I will not stand aside and allow fellow human beings to be maligned because of what they don’t believe. It means, come have the conversation with me. It means I have a target on my back, too. It means, bring it on.
And, indeed, that is exactly what has been the response of the UCC. To my incredulity and dismay.
I hope that is helpful. Thanks again for your engagement, Barry.
gretta
Thanks so much for the detailed and patient reply. To be clear, my characterization of your beliefs are just that, MY characterizations; and clearly I have misunderstood your message in some of its finer detail. No need for an apology on your part – that’s my responsibility.
It strikes me that, in relation to the vulnerability of clergy, you need not only your colleagues to stand up, but UCC members and adherents to as well. You and others in paid accountable leadership can be dismissed by those in the pews and in leadership as malcontents who have their cake and eat it too. That is a charge that is much more difficult to level when there are many of us standing side by side.
Cheers,
Barry
Greta I am on the fence with how I feel about your ministry. I myself went to AST in Halifax and wanted to become a LLWL in the United Church. It was felt I cannot be licensed even though I have done many services and have had nothing but the greatest compliments about every service I ever did. I define myself as Christian and very much believe in the deity of God and Jesus Christ. I hear you saying a lot about God but I do not know what your Christology is and cannot figure it out. Can you comment on that please.
Hi Sue,
My apologies for the tardiness of my reply.
I do not consider Jesus to be the Son of God through whom humanity can achieve salvation. I’m not even sure I like the man; I certainly wouldn’t want to model managerial skills on his behaviour!!! I believe he probably existed but I’m pretty confident that, as I was taught in theological college, the reports of his teachings and travels that we have in the array of gospels that have survived (including those not found in the Bible) are not factual but reflect the writers’ perspectives, motivations, and contexts as do all human writings.
I understand that many who no longer believe in a theistic God like to consider themselves followers of Jesus but I cannot say that I do am. I think that the creator of the concept of hell is not someone I want to “follow”. That said, there are elements of his teachings that resonate with the teaching of many, many wise poets, teachers, and prophets over the course of human history. I prefer to find in their writings and in the writings of our contemporaries, the inspiration to live a life of justice and compassion; in a word, a life of love. As John Dominic Crossan has said, love without justice is banal and justice without love is brutal. Finding the balance between those and ways to live that balance out – that’s the spiritual quest I am on. I do not feel compelled to ground that quest in the scripture passages compiled to create a composite of a divinely inspired leader. Neither do I require that my congregation do so. We seek wisdom from many sources, ancient an contemporary, and bring to them the best of our own evolving understanding.
Thanks for your question, Sue. Again, my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
Hello again Gretta,
I don’t mean to make this some kind of inquisition, but I do have some other questions that have lingered with me and that have come up in discussion with others in my congregation. I know that you define yourself as an atheist, but do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, what do you mean by that designation? If not, why do you continue to associate yourself with a Christian denomination?
I appreciate that there is a significant range of definitions for the word Christian, but it seems to me that some kind of connection to this tradition is implied when one identifies with the Christian church, whether that is as expressed in the United Church of Canada or any other Christian denomination.
Best regards,
Barry