Last night, I didn't sleep as well as usual. I was awake at 4:00 AM. Once I realized that I was "up", I turned on my radio and caught a BBC radio documentary on Gretta Vosper, our United Church "atheist minister." I'm not going to go into a long explanation of Vosper's stance. You can find her on Google. Also check our "Progressive Christianity - Canadian style."
It was a very thorough doc, with some good history of how this came about, and where it is currently headed. The bottom line for me is that Vosper has been instrumental in ripping a congregation apart, and rebuilding it in her own image. They apparently love her. Fine with me. What is troubling is that Vosper is very charismatic, attractive, and well spoken. She has been on a long journey from regular UCC minister to her current "atheist" stance. She makes it sound terribly radical, and she attracts people who appreciate her 'radical' stance. She has expressed her concern that the word "God" carries too much baggage to be useful any longer. She apparently doesn't think the word "atheist" also carries baggage.
Her main thesis appears to be that there is no "Supreme Being" who lives beyond the moon and stars, "up there." Rather than articulating a more contemporary view of God, she abandons the word and the concept, and calls this radical. I find myself thinking, "What? This is radical?" I don't believe many "God fearing" people hold such an antiquated concept any longer. Most that I know, who aren't literalists, understand that although at times we use the old language of "up and down", "here and there", none of us understands that in literal terms. Most understand and accept the concept of evolution in nature, and in religion!
Speaking only for myself, I think of/understand the concept "God" to refer to that Power or Force that is woven through all the universe, creative and sustaining, and that this force is perceived by humans as Love, or at least Benign toward us. Our forefathers and fore mothers in the faith - the ancient Hebrews - grasped that concept as well, but expressed it in the primitive categories of the day as an anthropomorphic, emotional and powerful "person" or "power" beyond their ability to express this. They used language like "fear", "obey", "trust", "worship", and other pretty human terms to describe their experience. Moving that inarticulated concept into our day, we understand that language differently, even if we use it routinely. What is so radical about that?
Vosper is a master (mistress?) of getting attention, so she gets headlines because she puts things in dramatic language. The media loves her, and the UCC squirms around the dilemma of what to do with her. Should she be lauded, or defrocked? Can she today say that she is in any kind of agreement with the faith statements that she acknowledged at her ordination to ministry decades ago? Does she still meet the requirements of a person in ministry in our faith community?
Personally, I think not, on the basis of what I have read (her books) and heard (through the media). I have no quarrel with her continuing in "ministry" in a congregation that is willing to accept her version of "faith." I don't believe that she still qualifies to be a minister within the faith community that originally ordained her. I think we should send her on her way, with good wishes, but not the "imprimatur" of the Church community of which I am a part. She, and some of her devotees raise the spectre of 'witch hunt' and 'heresy trial.' Nonsense! She has simply moved outside the bounds of the Judeo-Christian community in which she began. Perhaps in another blog, I will describe 'worship' in her congregation - although I doubt Vosper would deign to call it that. It sounds more like a civil rights meeting, with little reference beyond itself!
Enough for this time. I would appreciate comments and questions on this rant, and/or questions it raises. I'd love to dialogue about this.
It was a very thorough doc, with some good history of how this came about, and where it is currently headed. The bottom line for me is that Vosper has been instrumental in ripping a congregation apart, and rebuilding it in her own image. They apparently love her. Fine with me. What is troubling is that Vosper is very charismatic, attractive, and well spoken. She has been on a long journey from regular UCC minister to her current "atheist" stance. She makes it sound terribly radical, and she attracts people who appreciate her 'radical' stance. She has expressed her concern that the word "God" carries too much baggage to be useful any longer. She apparently doesn't think the word "atheist" also carries baggage.
Her main thesis appears to be that there is no "Supreme Being" who lives beyond the moon and stars, "up there." Rather than articulating a more contemporary view of God, she abandons the word and the concept, and calls this radical. I find myself thinking, "What? This is radical?" I don't believe many "God fearing" people hold such an antiquated concept any longer. Most that I know, who aren't literalists, understand that although at times we use the old language of "up and down", "here and there", none of us understands that in literal terms. Most understand and accept the concept of evolution in nature, and in religion!
Speaking only for myself, I think of/understand the concept "God" to refer to that Power or Force that is woven through all the universe, creative and sustaining, and that this force is perceived by humans as Love, or at least Benign toward us. Our forefathers and fore mothers in the faith - the ancient Hebrews - grasped that concept as well, but expressed it in the primitive categories of the day as an anthropomorphic, emotional and powerful "person" or "power" beyond their ability to express this. They used language like "fear", "obey", "trust", "worship", and other pretty human terms to describe their experience. Moving that inarticulated concept into our day, we understand that language differently, even if we use it routinely. What is so radical about that?
Vosper is a master (mistress?) of getting attention, so she gets headlines because she puts things in dramatic language. The media loves her, and the UCC squirms around the dilemma of what to do with her. Should she be lauded, or defrocked? Can she today say that she is in any kind of agreement with the faith statements that she acknowledged at her ordination to ministry decades ago? Does she still meet the requirements of a person in ministry in our faith community?
Personally, I think not, on the basis of what I have read (her books) and heard (through the media). I have no quarrel with her continuing in "ministry" in a congregation that is willing to accept her version of "faith." I don't believe that she still qualifies to be a minister within the faith community that originally ordained her. I think we should send her on her way, with good wishes, but not the "imprimatur" of the Church community of which I am a part. She, and some of her devotees raise the spectre of 'witch hunt' and 'heresy trial.' Nonsense! She has simply moved outside the bounds of the Judeo-Christian community in which she began. Perhaps in another blog, I will describe 'worship' in her congregation - although I doubt Vosper would deign to call it that. It sounds more like a civil rights meeting, with little reference beyond itself!
Enough for this time. I would appreciate comments and questions on this rant, and/or questions it raises. I'd love to dialogue about this.
No comments:
Post a Comment