You want dialogue? We’re happy to oblige.

I have not been able to blog much recently and apologize for that. It has been a hectic two months. It began early in August with Colin Perkel’s breaking of the story of Toronto Conference’s review of the effectiveness of my ministry, then moved into a hectic September as we prepared documents to file alongside my appeal of the General Secretary’s ruling. The past week has been completely eaten by some minor surgery, something I thought I’d bounce back from within a couple of hours (I actually thought I’d make a TCP board meeting scheduled for six hours after I succumbed to the anesthesia. I know; totally crazy expectations….). But I now have the monstrous splints out of my nose, am learning to shut my mouth to breathe, and have spent the day reconnecting with some close colleagues and posting a few things to Facebook and Twitter. (One of which is announcing Paul Yee’s visit with us on Thanksgiving! Very excited about that!)

I haven’t yet posted to Facebook the open letter to the Moderator that was sent by Bishop John Shelby Spong yesterday. I’ll do that in a few hours. In the meantime, the comment section on The Observer’s Facebook page has been burning up. There, a lot of misunderstanding continues to dominate the conversation. I have not wanted my site to become a blog about my review process but neither do I want to take on the comment sections of several other Facebook pages. So here are a few things that I think need clarification.

These are comments posted on The Observer’s Facebook page. I wrote a long response to one clergy’s post which I am grateful he removed, embarrassing as it was to the United Church. But I’ve got it in my word documents in case that comment shows up again!

“Sigh. More sanctimonious fluff that relies on a straw man caricature of the UCC’s faith as premodern superstition.”

In Amen, I respond to the “straw man” argument that continues to erupt around my work. Many who have not read either of my books or whose understanding of my work is limited to what they’ve gleaned from various media sources like to point to the more highly evolved theologies that are prominent in United Churches. I’m happy to applaud those theologies and am not ignorant of them. Neither am I worried about those highly evolved theologies; they pose no risk to the present or the future.

My argument has never been that we are stupid. My argument is that we are dangerously ignorant of the implications of using the language of “premodern superstition” to mean something completely different from what that language once meant to us and continues to mean to religious fundamentalists. Combine that ignorance with the fact – it is a fact – that the god called God or Allah or Yahweh and which exercises its supernatural muscle at the hands of fundamentalist religious groups the world over, is complicit – either as the cause or as the weapon wielded – in some of the most horrific atrocities being committed in our time.

Straw men don’t wreak that kind of havoc. Those who continue to lend their support to dangerous fundamentalist belief systems of all stripes (even those not religious) wreak havoc. And, like it or not, if you stretch the classical language of theism over belief systems that no longer posit a supernatural, theistic, interventionist being, you’re part of the problem. That’s my argument.

 

 

 

“I sense that he shares a world view with Gretta that restricts itself to empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension. It’s a modernist newtonian view of reality that frankly has become outdated.”

What exactly does that mean? Why does he so easily dismiss a worldview based on empiricism and reason? And what on earth are those other “dimensions”?

Most of us use our senses to understand and interpret the world around us. Does that limit us? Hardly! Experience is a complex compilation of sensory data that is managed, highlighted, recorded, and recalled through processes we have only begun to understand. I would argue that the exploration of how we sort and categorize data and build our understanding of the world based on that is an exciting, unfolding field of inquiry. Cross-disciplinary studies make it even more vibrant as anthropologists and sociologists work alongside neuroscientists. Who and how we are in the world has been the question of the ages; the blend of contemporary soft and hard sciences has much to offer that inquiry. I am saddened that someone considers it so yesterday that it is so summarily dismissed. I find it fascinating and enlightening.

I also find it odd that he would question reason as a way to understanding our world and assume it is dismissed in favour of revelation, although, clearly, that’s a guess. Revelation, long the darling of religious traditions, is too often ruled by that overbearing partner as it offers its imprimatur to the interpretation sanctioned by the religious authorities. Experience is one thing and I have no right to deny anyone’s experience. But interpretation is entirely another and I am under no compulsion to accept someone’s interpretation of their experience no matter how convinced they may be that they know what their experience meant. We are far too eager to slap a convenient “God told us so” on whatever we think is the best thing to do. Let’s work on getting a little more reason into our arguments, especially when they may make the difference between our destroying all life on the planet or preserving it. Seriously. You want to figure that stuff out without the “outdated” concept of reason?  I don’t.

As for the multi-dimensional thing, I’m happy to allow for alternate dimensions. Heck, I’m an agnostic when it comes to the nature of reality. How could I possibly understand the nature of reality beyond what I can experience? That’s hard enough to understand! But if there are dimensions that are beyond our exploration or interaction, just how do we validate their reality? LSD notwithstanding, I think there’s a lot of explaining needs to happen and I’m happy to hear what other models we could use to do that.

“But the issue is much simpler than this for me. As a student minister, God willing, I will one day state that I am in essential agreement with the UCC’s doctrinal statements, recognizing that even in these there is a fair amount of elbow room to allow for differences in theology. That being the case I will make that statement honestly and faithfully trusting that the UCC takes them equally seriously.”

Sorry. You must not have taken that course yet. You don’t get to say whether you are in essential agreement or not. A committee dispenses that wisdom after considerable discernment with you about your beliefs. And the extent and direction of that discernment will be different in different conferences, don’t you know? What constitutes essential agreement in one conference might not be what would be acceptable in another. That’s one of the reasons why we don’t test ministers for essential agreement after ordination or commissioning; because another conference doesn’t get to strip a minister of his or her ministry designation just because what constituted essential agreement in London conference is considered whacko in Bay of Quinte. It doesn’t work that way and it never has. Until now.

Oh, and by the way, that’s not how it’s working now, either, truth be told. Perhaps you haven’t read the material out there about this process but it is a new one. It was requested specifically by Toronto Conference, who felt that essential agreement, good for the UCC lo these many years, was too broad to assess what they wanted to assess. So they asked for a process that would intentionally separate the concept of essential agreement from the questions of ordination. Without essential agreement, those questions have to answered literally. In London Conference, that might be the norm. It’s not in many of the others. So you’d better figure out what conference you want to declare your essential agreement in, because they will have something to say about that. Nevertheless, my hope is that, once you’re in, you’re in no matter where you want to preach. And I get the challenge of being comfortable with that.

“I don’t get it – why various people need to explain GV’s position and defend her – is this an orchestrated campaign – thankfully I credit the General Council and our ES for having some dignity and envoking a process and not hitting back – I also don’t understand why GV who I keep hearing is a revolutionary leader and visionary – has hired and a lawyer and is busy talking to newspapers around sitting down with some CIB people and answering some questions that in essence she has already answered fully -she is not in any form of essential agreement – by her books and website – she is in essential disagreement with everything church – and by the way even the children in my church understand it is not literally a three tiered universe…really – I get asked way tougher questions out in the world and in the military than I was ever asked during candidacy or have seen asked for the years I chaired CIB and was involved with students and supervising…if the story was ever true and even if it was urban legend – this is somewhat like debating angels dancing on pin heads while the walls crash in – and skeptic that I may be – if you are in essential disagreement and I agree with David W Atwood above – theres all kinds of elbow room in the vows and no Bishop S – just like your books did not kill the United Church – neither will this – to me its simple – essential disagreement – no job – discontinued service list – if your church folks want to follow you out in the world – great – thanks the building belongs to the United Church of Canada and go and do your good stuff – which is what you say you want to do but aren’t – as it is – all the money that will be spent on this futile fight – by the United Church and GV – in terms of dollars, staff time and people’s energy – could have done alot of good in God’s world”

Ummmmmm. Let me try to break this down.

First of all, I didn’t start this so I’m not sure how one can applaud the General Council and our ES for not “hitting back”. I didn’t strike out. The conditions of my employment have changed and I am appealing that change. The General Secretary’s ruling, in response to Toronto Conference’s leading question, created an environment in which clergy are to remain in continuing affirmation of their ordination questions. As noted above, essential agreement, which is granted a candidate prior to ordination, is not allowed in the assessment of a clergy person’s ongoing affirmation of those questions.

I am being forced to defend my work and to do it on behalf of all ministers who have also had the conditions of their employment changed. The premise for the review, as stated above, is flawed. The review process, as set out by the General Council, is not being followed. The rules of natural justice have not been employed. How I am to respond in such a situation without a lawyer is beyond me. Again, I did not start this. I have been about this work for fifteen years.

I agree that this is a costly undertaking and so, through my lawyer, asked that we seek an alternate resolution through conversation and dialogue. The General Council did not respond to our request for over a month and then advised us that the church had engaged two lawyers, one for the GC and one for the Conference. They refused to sit down to discuss the situation. I am sad that we have not had that opportunity and I, too, am sad that United Church resources are being used to fund this process.

I don’t think you get to say whether or not I am doing what I want to do.

And, again, this process has nothing to do with essential agreement.

I grieve over how he and Vosper have corrupted the United Church of Canada and are partially responsible for putting it on this slippery slope to extinction.

I would be interested in reading what the uncorrupted version of the United Church would look like. And I’d be very interested to set it up alongside the theological study I undertook in order to be educated enough to be able to converse sufficiently about my beliefs to be found to be in essential agreement. I expect there would be considerable discrepancy.

What is killing the United Church is that it has, for the entire course of its history, not spoken frankly from the pulpit about what it has offered its clergy in their preparation for ministry particularly in the area of biblical study, John Spong’s specialty. What Bishop Spong writes in his book is merely an extrapolation of the kind of inquiry clergy are taught to undertake when they approach the Bible. We are taught to use critical inquiry in our study of the Bible, of theology, of church history – all of it. What is killing the United Church is that it has not supported the sharing of that in the congregation in any way that is visible on a Sunday morning. Wednesday night Bible studies may be provocatively forward thinking but the results of those studies are rarely seen or sung in a Sunday morning service. What is killing the United Church is its unwillingness to articulate its beliefs in anything other than the language of classical theism despite the fact that the beliefs it nurtures in its clergy are very, very far from that.

“The problem requiring them to embrace God is that the concept of God is very ill defined. Everyone has a different idea of what God is. There are ministers that believe of God in a very theistic sense where God has direct role to play in the world. Others view God in a more Deistic, non-theistic or as an impossible to define being.”

Thank you. That’s the point. Many in West Hill believe in something they continue to use the word “god” to describe. I remain comfortable with the understanding within which I worked for the first decade of my ministry. But the word is a problem for exactly the reasons you’ve outlined so I refuse to use it. And I especially won’t use it if it is simply to avoid censure by church authorities. Ask me what I believe and we can have a conversation. Require me to use the word “god” to describe it and it’s no longer a conversation, is it?

“The church has power which I think it has exercised in this case so far in love. They’ve said there needs to be a conversation. Before the conversation has even happened – a campaign has begun – not liking the process, newspaper interviews before General Council, a friends of page and fund raising for a lawyer plus letters like this one telling the church as it exercises its power to have a conversation that it is wrong and needs to get with the program i.e GV should be allowed to remain within the order of ministry and the problem is really the churches.

“This is not a dialogue but a group on monologue with an agenda.”

You are quite right. This is not a dialogue. A review of a minister’s effectiveness is not a dialogue. Perhaps, under ideal conditions, it could be. But these conditions are far from ideal. Indeed, as noted above, they are already far from even meeting the United Church’s review procedures. To say nothing of the fact that West Hill has had no oversight visit in a decade. Nor have any United Church officials come to visit us in any formal capacity to engage in dialogue. You are right. This is not a dialogue.

But we are open to dialogue. We extended an invitation to dialogue to the General Council and they declined. We sought engagement with the Conference and they declined. We have invited the congregation whose letter was used to initiate the review process to come and join us for a conversation and, to date, we have not had a response. Only one congregation has ever called me and asked to sit down with me for a conversation about what I believe and what West Hill is all about. We had a wonderful interaction and built mutual respect.

That members of my congregation have formed an association to raise legal funds was a welcome gesture. I am not sure why you would disparage that gesture. Many in the congregation spoke to me about making contributions to the legal costs. I asked them not to do that. They have funded this ministry with their love, their energy, and their financial support through many years of challenge. I argued that this would be a piece of work that could be done by those outside of the congregation who rely upon the ground-breaking work we do. When it came right down to it, though, I couldn’t ask for that support and my partner and I decided we would cover the costs as a gift from my mom through her estate. She would have so been there for us. That congregants picked up that ask and made it was a noble gesture and I love the hearts that did so. That gesture is not yours to denigrate or to tarnish with insinuation. (For anyone wanting to connect with that association, you can do so here.)

As for newspaper articles: this is an historic moment. The United Church, which has long celebrated actions over beliefs, has indicated a retrenchment. I would like to think that they were really just wanting to have a way to affirm the work that I do with West Hill, but if that was so, why did they demand essential agreement be removed from the equation? That doesn’t really add up to having our interests at heart. We are concerned for our congregation but also for our denomination. I have spent a decade speaking about the United Church across Canada, in England, Australia, New Zealand, and the US and I always speak of how proud I am of the UCC heritage that is mine. I am a product of the United Church and I am not going to sit by and allow what I have known and loved simply turn into something else. The world, which has long lauded the progressive practices of the UCC needs to know what is happening. If you really want dialogue, we’re happy to oblige you. But it’s not going to happen behind closed doors. It’s going to be with the world.