It’s been two months since the articles of the “Beyond Belief” piece in The Observer were published so it was with some trepidation I opened my newly arrived copy to see what the response had been. Eight years ago, when the first article “Out of the Box” was published, letters flooded the editor’s office and the letters section of the magazine for a full year. Many were vitriolic, many very supportive. My favourite then was from a woman out west who suggested that “Maybe ministers shouldn’t be that honest.” I loved that! This time, it’s a whole new world. I’m hardly standing alone anymore with more and more colleagues both within the United Church and other denominations finding it possible to give voice to their doubts or non-belief. Atheism is in the news. The Sunday Assembly is planting atheist churches across the United Kingdom and the United States. Secular congregations are popping up all over the place. Perhaps the only strange thing about what I do is that I’m still doing it in the United Church, convinced as I am that my denomination has what it takes to open itself to real conversation about belief, disbelief, and the unpacking of those peculiar phrases heard so often in church, “God loves you,” “God be with you,” “What is God saying to us in this situation?”, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Until we can really explain what we’re doing to that baby, why what one person thinks God told him is so radically different from what another believes God told her, and why it never really feels like God’s love when you’ve been given a horrible diagnosis or lost a loved one to violence and why, for many, it certainly doesn’t feel like God is anywhere close, we won’t really have created a safe place to question, despite our desire to look like we have. But I digress …. I wanted to share the letter sent to the editor of The Observer that most touched me. In the article, I spoke of being a product of the United Church’s 1960s New Curriculum. Because of it, I had never been fed as much traditional doctrinal Christianity as many have. As a result, the intellectual shift away from language that masked what I really understood god to be to language that is clearly understood was not a big one. It really only took my needing to see clearly that my words were not understood “as poetry”, as Ken Gallinger said in his piece in the same October issue. So it was wonderful to see this letter amongst those that were printed in January’s edition. “I am the last survivor of the four person senior editorial team of the New Curriculum. Gretta Vosper has wrestled with her understanding of God, and I hear her saying that, in part, she owes her theological perspective to the fact that she is a product of the New Curriculum. Thank you to Vosper for suggesting that it helped her to begin her own deep reflection. Her stance is not the only one possible, but it does point to the fact that our major problem in the church today is that of the meaning of God. “Vosper suggests that we should have kept on with what we started in the 1960s, but perhaps we are too late. Yes indeed. If only.” Rev. Gordon John Freer Thank you, Gordon, for the gift you gave me fifty years ago, and for this new one. The first helped set me on a path. The second is a lovely bouquet received along the way.
favourite letter to the editor of the observer
5 Responses
Comments are closed.
Hi Gretta,
Nice post, and it evidences your long history and “credentials” in this space.
I’m going to be leading a discussion series for an Episcopal Christian education program next month on the “Painting the Stars” video series, in which you appear and discuss ideas such as those in your post.
I’m going to be asking my class, “Here’s someone who’s a minister, and obviously “spiritual” but also an atheist. What do you think of this? Is this actually possible??”
Some in my class will be OK with my questions, some will be appalled that I am even asking them.
Any thoughts or recommendations?
Best regards,
Ken
Hi Ken,
Delighted that you’re using the resource and that you are willing to engage your people in significant and potentially divisive conversation. Thank you for that. My experience has been that the most important thing, and you know this, is to create safe space. It may be that there will be those who do not think it appropriate for a minister to be an atheist and those who don’t have an issue with it but the group dynamics may be such that only one perspective finds expression because of the fear of conflict. The word “atheist” is dreadfully loaded. That’s one of the reasons I embrace it – to try to defuse some of the negative energy around it. (Not sure that’s been the direction the energy has flowed!) So I would think it is important to get people to talk about their ideas of what the word “god” means to them long before you get to the word “atheist”.
I often talk about a workshop we used to do back in the late 80s and 90s related to inclusive language. A variety of pictures cut from magazines or old calendars are displayed around a room – on tables, on the floor, wherever. There are enough for people to be able to choose one or another from amongst them in response to the direction, “Find a picture that most represents your idea of god.” You then use either plenary discussion or pairs or groups to have people share how the picture represents god for them. In the original events, we would then move on to a variety of biblical images for god, representing the non-gender specific qualities found in that book.
The reason I use that workshop as an example is that on only one occasion did I ever have someone pick a picture of a “being” that they said represented god for them. Everyone else picked things that were experiential or emotional or relational – mostly relational or nature focused. My point is that while we were so diligently chasing a non-gender identified god, we completely missed that our people held predominantly non-theistic images of god. They did not relate to a theistic god and that was over 20 years ago. Helping them get to that realization before challenging them to acknowledge or accept an atheistic understanding of reality would be, I think, a good first step.
I am totally open to a conversation with a group at the end of a session, too, if you would like to arrange that.
Hope that helps!
gretta
Ken, as a follower of Gretta’s work and a pastor myself I find the one’s who are appalled are the ones that I most carefully unpack their concerns and fears, offering up a gentleness and safe place to be appalled. Teasing apart a faith and an understanding of “God” shakes people to the root and so in the early stages there is a knee-jerk reaction because of the fear and work they must do to reconstruct what it means to be “spiritually” fulfilled and in tune with their own spirit. I am currently working in a First Nations community and find these polar opposites to be challenging but most fulfilling as I watch people loosen the grip on traditional thoughts and indoctrination only to see them blossom in their new and welcoming understanding of a faith in the universe itself … creation and energy. Just on Friday I had a woman in her 80’s show a flood of relief, and her body relaxed, when she trepidly asked me “Are you a ‘dualist’?” Then felt that wasn’t asking what she wanted to ask so ventured further to say it in a clearer way, “do think God is outside of us?” and the conversation that followed was rich and rewarding for both of us! Keep asking the questions, simply be on the journey with your friends as you ask the questions and never abandon them even if they appear to abandon you for a while!
Gretta & Cynthia,
Thanks to both of you for your thoughtful and helpful replies. I will keep them in mind should I encounter some of the objections I’m anticipating in my upcoming discussion groups.
One question I’ll be asking any objectors is: What if a local atheist group wanted to join our local ecumenical efforts to stock and staff the Food Pantry for the poor? Would we tell them they couldn’t join? What does God ultimately care about more–that people have the correct beliefs, or that hungry people get fed?
My own hope is that eventually, in the very long run no doubt, a modern “theology” will evolve that embraces both science and the religious histories and spiritually useful practices and texts of many faiths, but that doesn’t turn any of these human creations (including science) into idols.
Ken
Hi Ken,
There’s a funny story on Hemant Mehta’s blog on Patheos about his raising money (from atheists) and having it rejected because of where it came from. Strange but true. So you never know how people will react.
If you aren’t familiar with the work of Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow, , check that out. Michael has more fully woven a fully scientific perspective into a religious one than anyone else I am aware of and his wife, Connie, is a well-published scientist. He and I disagree on the use of the word god but, in instances where there would otherwise be no bridge to post-theism, his most probably holds more sway.
best,
gretta