The United Church Observer, a magazine that explores issues relevant to The United Church of Canada (UCC) and its members from an arm’s length position, has drop-kicked the conversation on whether clergy who no longer believe have a place in the UCC’s pulpits. Confronting the Unbelievers was published in its May issue.*
It is a conversation that is way overdue. When I took my ordination vows, it was the responsibility of Bay of Quinte Conference to determine whether or not I was in essential agreement with the 20 Articles of Faith found in the 1925 Basis of Union which brought together the Methodists, Congregationalists, and half the Presbyterians in the country. Even then, I found the biblical Article XIX, Of the Resurrection, the Last Judgment, and the Future Life, a little harsh. (Heck, my staunchly middle of the road former husband – ordained from the same college as I – even thought that one was a bit over the line.)
We believe that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust, through the power of the Son of God, who shall come to judge the living and the dead; that the finally impenitent shall go away into eternal punishment and the righteous into life eternal.
Youch! Oh, and in my case, yikes!
Nevertheless, the Conference determined that, with the beliefs I shared with them through a series of conversations and interviews, I would be able to comfortably say that I believed in “God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” It was a stretch even then, but for many reasons. The church had been struggling through the challenging conversation about gender inclusive language** and saying I believed in “The Father,” went against the grain for me and most of my fellow classmates. Still, my conference was convinced and, as history will confirm, I was ordained in 1992 in Pembroke, Ontario.
But the conversation is not about verbal calisthenics. It is about the integrity of the UCC pulpit and whether those in it have the permission to really share with their congregations what they mean when they say the word “god.” Whether they can share, boldly and beautifully, what our theological colleges and conference Interview Boards teach and celebrate as evolving understandings of that concept, one we have, for a very long time, hidden behind that too easily misunderstood label, “god.” If they can share fully how their beliefs – with or without a traditional understanding of that word – shape their ministry, their lives, and their worldview, how those beliefs call them to be in the world and how they feel called by those beliefs to inspire others to do the same. Too often, I think that permission is not there. It is not forthcoming from the pews and it is not promoted from those courts to whom we are accountable. In an institution in decline (that link to my theological college will tell you it is closing for an indeterminate time), fear can get the better of us. It is courage we need right now. The courage to have these difficult conversations.
Some time ago, in conversation with a friend, I learned of the highly sexualized culture of her workplace. It was rampant. From the topmost executives, to the lowest wage earners. There were no overt gropes or inappropriate come-ons. It took the form of explicit jokes being shared by email so that she didn’t know what to expect when she opened something from her colleagues or her boss. It took the form of explicit sexual comments in meetings and raucous laughter whenever someone struck a position or made a gesture that could be remotely misinterpreted as sexual. It took the form of little birthday presents or cards that always had a sexual theme to them. It was never-ending. Even in the presence of new recruits. And she felt powerless to do or say anything about it.
When everyone is using the same language, living within and supporting the same culture, it is very difficult to change that language, to confront it and open up the conversation. If someone does it, they are at risk of losing their jobs, being ignored for promotion or frozen out at the proverbial water-cooler. To raise one’s voice in opposition to a cultural norm is to risk being bullied and shamed by one’s peers and coworkers.
The United Church can do better than this. It must. The conversation is crucial and while not as sexy a topic as a sexualized office environment, the fear of retribution for sharing one’s deep convictions about the evolution of his or her faith is just the same and just as dangerous. It is the responsibility of those in the highest positions of authority in our church to create safe space for these discussions to happen. To date, that conversation has not taken place.
And so I thank you, David Wilson, editor of The United Church Observer, for placing this conversation in the pews of our church. And you, Mike Milne, for making it an engaging kick-off.
- There is one factual error in the article. I am not a positive atheist, which means that I do not deny the existence of the god called God or any gods, for that matter. I couldn’t possibly know that. I’m an agnostic when it comes to the nature of reality. I am a negative atheist which means I see no proof for the god called God or any other gods. And were I to see reproducible proof as differentiated from the interpretation of someone’s experience, I would recant and believe in whatever god produced it. I appreciate this quote by a former clergy colleague, Jerry DeWitt: “Skepticism is my nature. Free Thought is my methodology. Agnosticism is my conclusion. Atheism is my opinion. Humanitarianism is my motivation.”
**The whole gender-inclusive language debate proved a bit of a debacle, at least in my eyes. Those of us who chose to “include” feminine language for god, quickly learned that it was simply another version of exclusive language; it, too, raised hackles. What worked, and what has ultimately proven to be the key element regarding the best way to deal with the multiplicities of understandings of god, was removing gender specific language entirely.
The evolution of belief or unbelief seems forbidden in a suspended-animation status quo that mimics the exclusive status quo of the Bible. Imagine the plight of the Mormons: progress for them was a new religious experience rejected by all Christians everywhere, even though Mormons are really nice people. So are Buddhists, Jews, Moslems, Jains, Sihks, Hindus, Shintos, existentialists, secular humanists, atheists, radical positivists, and so on. Adding scripture to the Old and New Testaments? The Modern Testament? God After Science seems a matter of sudden death for the witnesses. Christians don’t see a changed world (Darwin, evolution, DNA, the biochemistry that produced the entire chemical paradigm of reagents leading up to the final pre-life and life forms of DNA from their organic cousins), which implies a different set of rules of the Great Unknown that itself created the history of all god talk, and all religions, making theology as we know it schizophrenic, obsolete, and mere fantasies. And scientists, atheists and many other such “filters” want to end all religion as a fiction, due to its vilifying, demonizing, and shunning all unbelievers and science itself. Of course if science “nukes” the faithful, that ends that issue. But what makes life on earth a biochemical reality creates its own paradigm. God After Science is my personal take on what the human mind does over time in the absence of meaning and open dreams of civilization, as God is a perception. Ghandi said, “God has no religion.” Indeed, why would he or it? Only our compassionate forefathers taking pity on future generations, by dint of royalty and decree, could amass sacred scripture and law to end or limit the human jungle. And now, with genetic engineering promising an evolution greater than from Kitty Hawk biplanes to SST’s, our cultivation and perfection of the human mind and passions by genetic engineering will, some day, become inevitable to our squeamish sensibilities of today. Imagine tapping the fullest expressio/ns of the “honor, power, and glory of God, forever and ever” in full stereo/video of direct brain stimulation/simulation by way of education and bestowing future college-level degrees. Imagine a human race education of endless doctorates for a lifetime, all genetic diseases wiped out by choice, all suitors ideally prepared for marriage by similar preparation, and futures flourishing way beyond today’s trivial standards. We would want only the best, correct? But getting over future shock itself takes time and recovery. All, all in good time. God bless!
Thanks, James, for your thoughtful response. There is a void experienced by many. That it isn’t experienced by all? What does that mean? We have to explore these challenges without drawing lines to declare some heretical and others acceptable. Ever the challenge.
gretta
I also applaud the Observer for this article. I thought it got off to a rough start but had a great finish! We need to have this conversation in the UCC, in a respectful manner, without bullying by clergy or lay. We have had other important contentious conversations in the past about things like womens’ rights, ordination of gays, etc., all those things on which the UCC has shown such tremendous leadership and vision. Some went better than others, but we survived those and are more credible as a result, in my opinion. I believe that if given permission to be honest and to speak with integrity, many of us in the pews will affirm that a description of the infinite mystery based on ancient writings and concepts prior to 21st century knowledge (such as Hubble for one example), just don’t cut it any more for people with more than just the “church’s” traditional world view. And related to this, at a time that is being described as the start of the 6th great extinction, we need to have more conversations about who is going to try deal with it, us as the stewards of Creation, or is it simply the responsibility of the omnipotent guy in the sky. Those are my thoughts.
Thank you, David. It is important for the people in the pews to also call for a rich conversation. Thanks for doing that.
gretta
“Skepticism is my nature. Free Thought is my methodology. Agnosticism is my conclusion. Atheism is my opinion. Humanitarianism is my motivation.”
This is a great quote which also accurately describes my current position. I spent a (literally and figuratively) good 20 years as a very active lay member of the UCC, in the middle part of my journey from secular Judaism through fundamentalist Christianity through liberal Christianity and on to negative atheism. From my perspective, religion is a human construct which provides us with examples of both some of the best and some of the worst things humans can do. So I wonder if the UCC will be able to find a way to (continue to) move away from the worst parts while keeping the best parts.
Here is a comment I just posted under the article on The Observer’s website:
“They will know we are Christians by our love,” and NOT by our professed beliefs. Has Rev. Cheryl-Ann Stadelbauer-Sampa, Executive Secretary of London Conference forgotten this 1960s song?
From my perspective, every single minister in the United Church of Canada — and not just Bob Ripley and Gretta Vosper — is an atheist. Not only do we not believe in Thor, the Norwegian God of Thunder, or Zeus, the Greek High God of Olympus, we don’t believe in the God who murdered the first born of every Egyptian family or who supposedly commanded, led and executed the genocide of the people of Canaan 40 years later.
The questions raised by Ripley and Vosper could be boiled down to this: do we believe in a supernatural realm that is separate from and in some ways superior to the natural cosmos? I don’t. I see the supernatural/natural split as a result of the rise of modern science of the last 300 years. Before then, common wisdom held that all phenomena were supernatural — the results of the actions of divine or malign spirits. Today, almost all our beliefs are secular — that the earth revolves around the sun despite appearances, that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, that germs cause disease, and so on.
For me, religious beliefs are neither here nor there. What matters is whether or not we can trust the cosmos, our bodies and the community despite human fragility and social injustice; and whether or not we can follow the path of Love as revealed in the stories of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. I trust in Love. I don’t believe in a deity called “God.” Neither does Rev. Stadelbauer-Sampa, I would suspect.
Here is an idea — we could call it the “Vosper Litmus Test.” Every minister in the United Church of Canada who publicly calls for Gretta Vosper to be “defrocked” is for that reason alone automatically put on the Discontinued Service List. Who’s in?
Rev. Ian Kellogg, Mill Woods United Church, Edmonton Alberta
I am a Presbyterian (PCUSA) minister who took a year and a half to work for the Jesus Seminar, which changed me forever. I learned from Richard Holloway of Scotland that, concerning religion, “We made it all up.” When asked what the Gospel is, he responded “Life before death, for everyone!” From Don Cupit I learned that religion is mostly about language. Of course the language of religion is myth and metaphor. So when I was examined for reception into the presbytery in which I now reside, I explained that every faith statement of orthodox Christianity has a larger meaning. E.g., David Friedrich Strauss said, “Resurrection is the possibility of our transformation.” To say that Jesus is Lord is to say that his teachings rule, and no one else is “lord.” To say that he is Savior means that in some way he makes things whole. To say that he is Son of God is to say that he is like God or that “God” must be like him. Etc. We need to be firm in our teaching about such things.