Is it okay for an United Church minister to be an atheist?

[phyllo]

(This one is for you, Turtle. )

TORONTO — An ordained United Church of Canada minister who believes in neither God nor the Bible said Wednesday she is prepared to fight an unprecedented attempt to boot her from the pulpit for her beliefs.

In an interview at her church in the Toronto suburb of West Hill, Rev. Gretta Vosper said congregants support her view that how you live is more important than what you believe in.

“I don’t believe in … the god called God,” she said. “Using the word gets in the way of sharing what I want to share.”

Vosper, 57, who was ordained in 1993 and joined her east-end church in 1997, said the idea of an interventionist, supernatural being on which so much church doctrine is based belongs to an outdated world view.

What’s important, she says, is that her views hearken to Christianity’s beginnings, before the focus shifted from how one lived to doctrinal belief in God, Jesus and the Bible.

“Is the Bible really the word of God? Was Jesus a person?” she said.

“It’s mythology. We build a faith tradition upon it which shifted to find belief more important than how we lived.”

Vosper made her views clear as far back as a Sunday sermon in 2001, but her congregation stood behind her until a decision to do away with the Lord’s Prayer in 2008 prompted about 100 of the 150 members to leave. The rest backed her.

Things came to a head this year after she wrote an open letter to the church’s spiritual leader pointing out belief in God can motivate people to do bad things — a reference to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.

“That didn’t go over well,” Vosper said. “(But) if we are going to continue to use language that suggests we get our moral authority from a supernatural source, any group that says that can trump any humanistic endeavour.”

news.nationalpost.com/news/relig … o-minister

[Uccisore]

I suppose thats up to the United Church of Canada. I don’t know why they would have a problem with it, they don’t have a problem with anything else - I don’t know on what grounds a denomination that liberal would condemn something like that.

[phyllo]

The grounds for dismissal are that belief in God is required by her ordinations vows.

In response, Nora Sanders, general secretary of the church’s General Council, issued a ruling in May laying out a review process that could ultimately lead to Vosper’s defrocking.

Essentially, Sanders said, the review should determine whether she was being faithful to her ordination vows, which included affirming a belief in “God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

[Ierrellus]

@phyllo

The grounds for dismissal are that belief in God is required by her ordinations vows.

In response, Nora Sanders, general secretary of the church’s General Council, issued a ruling in May laying out a review process that could ultimately lead to Vosper’s defrocking.

Essentially, Sanders said, the review should determine whether she was being faithful to her ordination vows, which included affirming a belief in “God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

Apparently, she believes in a god, just not in the god necessary for her ordination. Sure sounds like Turtle.

[Ierrellus]

duplicate

[LaughingMan]

Just fake it maybe?

[Ierrellus]

Why would she want to belong to an organization that denies free thinking?

[LaughingMan]

@Ierrellus

Why would she want to belong to an organization that denies free thinking?

The answer to that is relatively an easy one.

She enjoys the religious charitable monetary benefits of her position.

[Arcturus_Descending]

phyllo

The grounds for dismissal are that belief in God is required by her ordinations vows.

In response, Nora Sanders, general secretary of the church’s General Council, issued a ruling in May laying out a review process that could ultimately lead to Vosper’s defrocking.

Essentially, Sanders said, the review should determine whether she was being faithful to her ordination vows, which included affirming a belief in “God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[/

Uh oh, she better run for her life then - she’s about to be burned at the stake.

But really, when you think about it, how will a minister preach about Christ, which is more or less, the totality of the christian faith, when she doesn’t believe in Christ? What does she say: "According to the Christ which you guys believe in…"She doesn’t even see an historical christ, let alone a divine one. I’m surprised that she would even want to be a part of the church. How could she reconcile her views with those of the parishioners? But then again, I’m not so sure that every priest or minister practices what he preaches or even believes what he preaches.
She might begin her own church, have her own congregation. She is a deist. Wait, is she an atheist with no vision of god at all? I would be interested in hearing her homilies - the agnostic in me might be more open to what she had to say.

What’s important, she says, is that her views hearken to Christianity’s beginnings, before the focus shifted from how one lived to doctrinal belief in God, Jesus and the Bible.

[/quote]

[/quote]
I’m not sure what she meant by that. Before Christianity, there was Judaism - there was belief in God then, I don’t know when it became specifically “doctrine” but the Jewish community believed in the God of the old testament, the same god which most christians “believe” in.
How one lives their life IS far more important than believing in a christian god or any other kind of god.

[Ierrellus]

She said she would harken back to “Christianity’s beginnings”, not to Judaism. Her fight seems to be with the historic accumulation of Christian dogma. She does sound like a Deist.

[turtle]

she sounds like a very brave person…

[Uccisore]

@Ierrellus

Why would she want to belong to an organization that denies free thinking?

Honestly, that's retarded.  They're already one of the most liberal denominations in the world.  Practically the only fucking rule they have left is "If you're actually going to be a leader in this organization that exists to each people about God, you need to believe in God". And your response is to give them shit because they aren't free-thinking enough? 

She said she would harken back to “Christianity’s beginnings”, not to Judaism. Her fight seems to be with the historic accumulation of Christian dogma.

So why not switch to some other denomination that holds whatever notions of “Christianity’s beginnings” she cooked up in her head? There’s got to be one out there. This is pretty straight forward- she wants to stay in that Church so she can use the pulpit and popularity she’s accumulated to teach religiously-flavored atheism in a Church that isn’t about religious atheism. She could just leave- she could start a website or join another Church or do anything. But no, without the United Church of Canada’s stamp of approval on her heretical bullshit, she wouldn’t draw an audience. So she wants to undermine the Church using the social capital the Church provides to her by declaring her a minister in good standing.

The thing that pisses me off the most about this is that if a converted Muslim wanted to teach Synagogue, or a confirmed Catholic wanted to be a Muslim cleric, or if a Baptist minister wanted to preside over Native American Spiritual rituals, everybody would get it instantly. But when a new age atheist wants to appropriate a Christian Church to teach their shit, well- the Church just needs to be more open-minded and let them, of course.

I suspect the United Church will cave, because the Christian traditions they accept and the ones they reject seem completley arbitrary at this point anyway. But that doesn’t make her not a slime ball.

[turtle]

@phyllo

(This one is for you, Turtle. )

TORONTO — An ordained United Church of Canada minister who believes in neither God nor the Bible said Wednesday she is prepared to fight an unprecedented attempt to boot her from the pulpit for her beliefs.

In an interview at her church in the Toronto suburb of West Hill, Rev. Gretta Vosper said congregants support her view that how you live is more important than what you believe in.

“I don’t believe in … the god called God,” she said. “Using the word gets in the way of sharing what I want to share.”

Vosper, 57, who was ordained in 1993 and joined her east-end church in 1997, said the idea of an interventionist, supernatural being on which so much church doctrine is based belongs to an outdated world view.

What’s important, she says, is that her views hearken to Christianity’s beginnings, before the focus shifted from how one lived to doctrinal belief in God, Jesus and the Bible.

“Is the Bible really the word of God? Was Jesus a person?” she said.

“It’s mythology. We build a faith tradition upon it which shifted to find belief more important than how we lived.”

Vosper made her views clear as far back as a Sunday sermon in 2001, but her congregation stood behind her until a decision to do away with the Lord’s Prayer in 2008 prompted about 100 of the 150 members to leave. The rest backed her.

Things came to a head this year after she wrote an open letter to the church’s spiritual leader pointing out belief in God can motivate people to do bad things — a reference to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.

“That didn’t go over well,” Vosper said. “(But) if we are going to continue to use language that suggests we get our moral authority from a supernatural source, any group that says that can trump any humanistic endeavour.”

news.nationalpost.com/news/relig … o-minister

thanks phyllo—this is right up my alley…I like the way this woman is talking…it is progressive…many people will attack her…most people cant stand taking personal responsibility for their own life…they would rather be taken care of by some higher power…

[James_S_Saint]

Not that she is at all alone, but it is very more than obvious that she has no idea at all of what she preaches and the Church “leaders” had no idea either, else she would never have been hired in the first place.

Protestant churches have a really hard time defending against corruption.

[turtle]

@James S Saint

Not that she is at all alone, but it is very more than obvious that she has no idea at all of what she preaches and the Church “leaders” had no idea either, else she would never have been hired in the first place.

Protestant churches have a really hard time defending against corruption.

james----how do you know ----that she has no idea at all of what she preaches…

[James_S_Saint]

It is like having a Republican run under the Democratic ticket while preaching that the Democratic platform is bad, and complaining that she should have the right to preach as a Democratic, else the Democrats will get misled. She is merely stealing the platform in order to preach her personal atheist gospel. It merely demonstrates how seriously pathetic things have become.

Why not have Judists run Islam or Catholics run Isreal? Why not have Conservatives run the Liberal party? Why not have a white supremest run the NAACP? She is a Secular Humanist who pretended to be Christian so as to troll their audience. And now she is preaching that Atheistic Secular Humanism doubting the Bible and even if there really was a Jesus is what Christianity is really supposed to be.

It really isn’t much different than a white supremest leading an NAACP chapter preaching the hating “them nigers” is what the NAACP is really supposed to be. She is deranged.

[phyllo]

Ier wrote:
She does sound like a Deist.

She self-identifies as a positive atheist (ie there is no god)

Turtle wrote :
…that she has no idea at all of what she preaches…

She preaches love and compassion. Who can argue with that?

What We Believe

While gathering together to begin the process of writing our own statement of faith, we realized that, putting our beliefs down in writing was like drawing a line in the sand. Some members of the community would find themselves able to say “Yes, I believe that,” while others would not. Faith statements have done that since the beginning of time, dividing communities, with stark clarity, into those who belonged and those who did not. That wasn’t what we wanted.

In the early days following the death of Jesus, communities were forming that were choosing to live differently from the societies around them. They shared what they had. They went into areas of disease, at great risk, and worked with the dying. They went against family wishes in order to live up to the ideas of love that they knew. They became known as Christians for how they lived.

And that’s how we want to be known as Christians – not for what we believe, but for how we live. So we created a document we call VisionWorks to help us focus on the question, “How do we want to live?” It is a statement of our values and a challenge to us, each and every day. After all, being Christian shouldn’t stop at what you believe.

westhill.net/what-we-believe/

Visionworks 2015

West Hill United
a progressive spiritual community where
how you live is more important than what you believe

VisionWorks is our guiding document. It articulates our shared values and reflects what we hold to be of utmost significance in our community life. It calls us to examine ourselves in light of these values as we set priorities and make decisions, both individually and as a community.
As individuals with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints, we come together, opening ourselves to new ideas that may challenge our previously-held perspectives. With roots in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, we embrace theists, agnostics and atheists. What we share is a reverence for life that moves us to seek truth, live fully, care deeply, pursue justice and make a difference in the world. We respect individual differences insofar as they are not harmful or disrespectful of others.
We draw insight and wisdom from historic religious traditions and evolving ethical and philosophical thought. From these sources, we distill the core values that we believe are foundational to positive relationships with ourselves, others, all life and our planet.

OUR GROUNDING IS THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF ALL LIFE

With a deep sense of awe, we experience the wonder of life in all its dimensions, compelled to create meaning and purpose beyond mere physical survival and material gain. This dimension of living, which may be referred to as the spiritual, transcends the self as we connect with others and with all of life.

Our choices are grounded in our belief in the interrelatedness of all life and by our core values which guide us in living in right relationship with the self, others and the world.
We acknowledge that, as a part of the web of life, we have a significant impact on the environment and on all other life with which we share the planet. We, therefore, strive to live intentionally and caringly, increasing our awareness of the consequences of our actions, advocating for rights and making ethically-responsible decisions.
OUR RESPONSE TO LIFE IS TO LOVE

We choose love as our supreme value, understanding love to mean the choice to act responsibly with justice, compassion, integrity, courage and forgiveness.
Relationships are both joyful privilege and serious responsibility. We encourage and support one another as we strive to be responsible, loving people. We also recognize that conflict is inevitable in any relationship, but believe that when addressed with open hearts, it can lead to greater understanding. Therefore, when resolving differences, we value assertiveness, active listening and empathetic response. In times of broken trust, we seek mutual understanding, forgiveness and healing.
We embrace a vision of peace and social justice for people of all races, ethnicities, abilities, socioeconomic situations, gender identities and sexual orientations.
We identify and resist injustice in all forms and we strive to create, support and celebrate conditions that promote equity, dignity and community.

OUR SOURCES FOR INSPIRATION ARE DIVERSE

In order to gain insight and wisdom, we actively seek out diverse resources that may inspire us or challenge our perspectives.

We find inspiration in ancient and contemporary sources drawn from the arts, sciences and humanities. We regard all explanations of life and historical claims as human and, so, fallible, understanding that all ideas are formed in particular historical, cultural and personal contexts. Therefore, we consider no text, tradition, organization or person to be inherently authoritative, assessing all resources on their own merit.

When discussing these resources, we strive to communicate our perspectives with clarity and sensitivity, conscious that ambiguity and differing worldviews are inevitable. As we examine ideas and truth claims to determine their worth and relevance, we enjoy the freedom to retain or alter our previous understandings.
As individuals, we take care to own our own experiences and interpretations. We take responsibility for seeking and creating meaning for ourselves, each person choosing his or her own path and respecting the right of others to choose theirs. When making moral decisions as a community, we study issues comprehensively, acknowledge uncertainty and apply life-enhancing values as appropriately and sensitively as possible.
OUR GATHERINGS ARE MULTI-FACETED

We meet regularly to celebrate together, share wisdom and develop relationships.

During our weekly service, we draw from a variety of traditions, making use of words, music, symbols and silence, attempting to appeal to all the senses and address the whole person. We offer opportunities to focus our thoughts, share joys, express concerns, engage in self-reflection and commit ourselves to action. We also acknowledge and celebrate the significance of community and life events such as birth, partnering, loss and death.

OUR VISION IS GROWTH

We celebrate areas of growth in our lives, acknowledging the possibility of growth even during the inevitable challenging periods. We also recognize that even positive growth may involve both loss and gain.
We seek to increase our understanding of ourselves, others and the world. We identify areas in our personal and communal lives that need to be addressed and then attempt to make positive change, however possible.

We assist individuals in discovering and developing talents and invite them to fulfill spiritual and administrative leadership responsibilities within our community. We encourage cooperation and participation in the visioning, planning and operational aspects of our community life. We also offer educational and social opportunities to promote personal growth and to engage with contemporary issues.
We also contribute as individuals and as a community to the growth of other organizations that promote life-enhancing values.
…
As we strive to live in these ways as individuals in community,
we often soar and often stumble.
Yet in joy and sorrow, in certainty and doubt,
we are not alone, for we travel together in the spirit of love.

westhillunited.squarespace.com/visionworks-2009/

[turtle]

phyllo thanks again for this thread…
I did not say that she doesn’t know what she preaches…james said that…
and positive atheist does not mean no god…it means she rejects the THEIST god…

[phyllo]

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_ … ve_atheism

This is a clarification of her position:

*In the first video, gretta mistakenly describes herself as a “positive” atheist. She actually argues that positive atheism, which says there is no god, cannot be proven. Gretta believes that she has no way of knowing whether there is a god or not but as she see no evidence that points to the existence of a divine supernaturat being she is an atheist. By that somewhat technical delineation, gretta is what is known as a “negative” or “weak” atheist.

westhill.net/

[Ierrellus]

@phyllo

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_ … ve_atheism

This is a clarification of her position:

*In the first video, gretta mistakenly describes herself as a “positive” atheist. She actually argues that positive atheism, which says there is no god, cannot be proven. Gretta believes that she has no way of knowing whether there is a god or not but as she see no evidence that points to the existence of a divine supernaturat being she is an atheist. By that somewhat technical delineation, gretta is what is known as a “negative” or “weak” atheist.

westhill.net/

Is she not simply an agnostic?