Monday night I listened to Gretta Vosper talk about the perils of pathfinding. In a sense, it was a story about ministry.
She had a big problem. She loved her congregation. She loved her calling. She loved sharing her education and her thoughts on religious ideas. But she didn’t have the same God as her church.
She put a lot of passion and work into her sermons in order to explain the history, the context, the subtleties of the old and important writings. She tried to explain out the differences in time, and how important it was to live in today’s world, with today’s understandings of things.
She would finish her services, and the congregation would smile, and she would realize their understandings of God had not been changed or challenged in any real way at all. And when she looked a little deeper, she noticed everything within the old and comfortable rituals of the church reconfirmed what could only be an elementary understanding of God.
So she broke down, and finally told them she didn’t believe in the same interceding God they did. She didn’t believe in the God of agency they did. She didn’t see God as Love, at least in the way they said they did. She certainly didn’t believe the Bible was the authoritative word of God for all time. And she didn’t know what to do.
Some people in the church were ready and willing to take up the new path with her. Others were not. It became a time of losing allies, dissolving relationships, and things falling apart. But it was also a time of examining values, embracing new friends, and hope taking shape. In her mind, it had to happen because, well… how else would something as old as a church change?
There is a story about Jesus who was approached by a rich man wanting to know how to receive eternal life. In short, Jesus told him to sell everything he had and turn his life towards helping others. The rich man was unimpressed with the cost, and walked away. When Jesus was pressed to explain what he had said to the rich man, he came up with a really creative image:
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. [See Mark or Matthew]
A little while ago a friend online posted a collection of interpretations for this passage. There are lots, each one with a history and a use all its own. But the most intriguing one for me was this:
It can be a simple process, but not an easy one. The camel must first be completely destroyed. Once that is done, it can pass through the needle’s eye. [if you know where this came from, please tell me so I can link it or give credit]
That’s a tall order. Churches don’t like being destroyed. Even if it is the only way forward.
I have to give my respect to the United Church of Canada. They have not excommunicated her or fired her. They have not swept her under any rug. They haven’t even simply walked away, like that rich man unimpressed with the cost. But they are watching and they are waiting.
Gretta talked a little bit about burn-out. As minister, she is the spiritual leader but not necessarily the executive leader, and she did express some hesitation about where this was all going. It sounds like her progressive church is starting to move on it’s own momentum now. Many of the new members of her church have little history with things like Sunday School curriculum, or group assemblies or religious studies. At this point, they cannot return to the old rituals and easy resources. They are making it all fresh and all new. As a result, they work with the passion of zealots and new converts. A moment of care and consideration can be important, especially in unexplored territory. If you are willing to set yourself on fire, some people will be more than willing to help you find the matches.
In breaking new ground, I fear Gretta and her congregation may be digging holes for themselves and losing sight of the many paths already cut through the trees, so to speak. Many people have walked these paths already. (I wanted to ask her, “Why not ask the Unitarians for help?” but the question period ended before I plucked up my nerve.)
When it all gets done, I’m not sure if anything will be left to pass through that narrow eye of the needle. But, they are facing the daunting task of change, and they are doing it head-on. I’m just not sure whether to lend a hand, or be ready with a bucket of water.
What do you think?
It reminds me a bit of Naked Pastor’s story. I’m fascinated by the stories of pastors who gradually stop believing in the same God as their congregations, and face these crises of identity. John Loftus and Ken Pulliam both kept outright atheism secret for awhile, and there are apparently large numbers of pastors who continue to lead flocks while secretly being unbelievers.
I think it may be a bit of a stretch to talk about the church body moving forward in cases like these, though. Even when the changes are rather modest, the congregation rarely moves along — church shopping is too easy, and the old people just leave, while new people eventually come to form a new flock that is more “progressive”. The pastor herself may go through a rebuilding of her identity, but typically just replaces the flock with a new one.
There are plenty of these stories on the internet, for sure. The NP has been very good at expressing and documenting his personal changes. I’ve come across a few atheist rabbis recently too. I have a lot of respect for ministers because of the (near) impossible tightrope they walk — challenge the comfortable, comfort the challenged, know the difference, still get a steady paycheck, be the revered voice of God, and yet be a powerless servant…
According to Gretta, the church lost about 20-25 families I think (they are now likely in other churches). And as you suggest, they have been replaced with more progressives over time. But still, that’s significant for a regular-sized church.
In some ways though, I think this whole thing is a kind of historical inevitability. Even by probabilities, it was bound to happen where the variables all collected into one church — a minister trying to express a college-level understanding of liberal theology, a critical mass of congregants educated to a similar level (and seeing an opportunity to explore), secular influence rising in the community…
She has dropped the use of the word ‘God’, and only rarely uses Jesus as a kind of ‘model for behavior among many’ sort of thing. The significance of all this certainly isn’t the uniqueness. It’s not unique at all. A minister’s spirituality almost has to be fluid over a career, not fixed. But for me, I think it’s cool that her governing body, her denomination ( unlike her, still holding God, Jesus and the Bible as so important), has in a sense said, “Ok, let’s see where this goes…”
My bet is this might eventually make some closer ties between the United Church and the Unitarians (which very well means it won’t change Christianity a whole heck of a lot…
)
yeah! we’re working on that too in my context but i have a dude who’s been at it for 25 years in the same place. so we’ve made great strides and we have people with 400 level views of God sitting next to those with a 4th grade view of God. we have super-progressive types with an incarnational theology sitting next to those conservatives with a “me, God and country” version of faith. it’s part of the journey to get people together and resist from dehumanizing the other side. it’s the much harder path, easier to just claim “reason” or “faith” or some other concept and go about dehumanizing others, but that’s not what we’re called to do, IMHO, as Disciples.
i hope she finds a lot of love and support along the way. she can come visit us anytime she wants.
hey z1g. I was hoping you would look at this and add your viewpoint.
400 level? Nice. I like the idea that the religious can gain XP and level up.
“get people together and resist from dehumanizing the other side.”
Amen!
JSA and I have talked about the importance of ‘connection’ over ‘concept’ on a different post. Connection through communities (plural!) certainly is the way to go, since changing minds seems like a near impossibility!
Have you looked at Vosper’s book?
Yes! When I saw Zero1Ghost’s comment, the part about “get people together and resist from dehumanizing the other side”, reminded me of the E.M. Forster “Only Connect” sermon.
James here is my cut on Vosper – we are both Canadian United Church of CanadaAn critical reveiw of With or WithoutWith or Without God, deserves a critical review. This
is because she gives us an entertaining book and clearly sets out a
agenda for the liberal church. She is clear about what she sees as the
issue for the church and names in every chapter.
If you begin with her logic, (she clearly states God is a projection),
that the function of religion can be summed up sociologically, as
community building and passing on values of enlightened human
consciousness, and that all god talk is projection, then she makes her
case. Of course, to do that she reduces all theistic questions to the
classical supernaturalist understanding of theism. Even those who have
left that behind and have offered another response become non theists or
a- theists in the book. In one sense, this is a slight of hand, but
it serves her cause – of God as projection.
She is correct that there is embedded liberal theology the unresolved
theistic question and that the liberal answer can lead one to a
projectionist theory. Those who used Kant or Heidegger attempted to
explain “˜Acts of God, and that ‘leads to the logic of projection. Thus
the book names this direction clearly.
Thus if you grant her premise she makes her case. However, that leaves
another logical question of why the church now? Why spend energy on
“˜religious’ matters when they are all sociologically functions of human
community? What is the rationale for a “˜sacred’ – a word she uses
often? She calls for integrity, and she names that lack in many
liberal traditions, yet in the end, what keeps one in the church with
integrity if the “˜sacred’ is an empty word? It could be the narrative,
but that is self serving. It could be the history of care of the world
and it is a useful network to do good. In the end that is the rational
for the church in the book. However, she does raise the role of
existential questions about meaning. The question there, is community
enough? Is acting well, enough? Why not dance and play music, go to
concerts and have dinner with friends over wine? They, after all, she
suggests fit the role of religion? What keeps the seeker in?
Now she does say this book is for the seeker, and those who are
spiritual but not religious. I can see the appeal for them. But all
spiritual disciplines do ask what are the practices one engages in
daily? If it is doing good, then how is that different as a spiritual
discipline, from those who just do good? The book appeals to those who
have grown up in the liberal tradition and wondered if the religious
language actual refers to some transcendent reality. In a real sense
the book is an illustration of Taylor’s thesis in “A Secular Age” that
the theological trajectory of the liberal thought leads to this
conclusion – of the loss of transcendence. As well the opening “Honest
to God” offered was not followed up with a rethinking of the
metaphysical issues facing theology. We left that issue behind.
What is interesting that there has been, since the 20′s, another
tradition, from Whitehead, James, Hartshorne, to develop a theism that
is takes into account scientific moves, issues of knowledge, and
spiritual traditions. It has not been well known in most liberal
churches, but it does offer an alternative view over against projection
and supernaturalism. It assumes both human creativity and creativity
that is eternal and beyond human experience and is human experience. It
can achieve an answer to the questions we have about “˜acts of God’ and
human activity which allows for both to be real and not projections.
In the end projectionist theories do eventually undercut the aim of
suggesting actions matter most. For the projectionist theory removes
the connection between ideas and the implication of ideas on the world.
In the final sense it is another run at idealistic views of the world
and that the world is our creation. The question is that a robust
enough view to address the mess we have made of creation? It is a half
true but what of ideas embedded in actions? In whose interest have we
relativized truth? This is not to return to some absolutist stance, but
to appreciate James insight, that our abstractions, while not the
truth, do point in the direction of some transcendent reality. It is
through conversations about ideas that we can approximate something that
is more than our creation – some transcendent reality.
Thus in the end book makes a good case for a non theistic view, if you
buy the premise in the first place, and thus there is no transcendent
reality. But at what cost to the future of the world? In whose
interest? And, in the end, makes all religious communities redundant.
Hey George! Thanks again for the elucidation!
“Projectionary theology” is a little tricky to wrap an understanding around for the regular old masses. And so I think Vosper’s worries about even the use of the word ‘God’ is well founded. The word doesn’t have a fixed thing to point at, from person to person.
Funny thing about definitions – the more we look at them, the less stable they become, for almost any term.
One thing she did mention during the Q&A of her talk – she suggested that both the word ‘Progressive’ and the word ‘Christianity’ in her Progressive Christianity were temporary labels, and she does predict they will both be dropped in coming generations. I’ve been a part of many conversations now trying to define a “Christian” and the most useful answer so far has been “someone that calls themselves a Christian”. Otherwise the term doesn’t span wide enough to include all variations. Sometimes I like this, it suits my aims. Sometimes, it feels like a farce taken too far…
I’m curious now about Taylor’s “A Secular Age” but I think I would disagree with the loss of transcendence. Thank you for the title, I will check into that now. However, transcendence is something I think we do not fully understand well either. I’m a big fan of horizontal transcendence, and believe it might be achievable and verifiable and sufficient for what humans need/desire.
I’m not sure I understand how projectionist theories undercut the aim of making actions matter most. Could you go further with that, by any chance? I’m reminded of a lesson from my history teacher in high school. He was explaining the difference between a psychologist, sociologist and anthropologist. In short, all three were asked to make a restaurant run better. Cooks and wait staff were getting orders jumbled. All three used special jargon, different ideas and explanations, but all three came up with the same solution – get the wait staff to put food orders on a turnable spindle so the cooks could prioritize and manage the work ahead of them. So the conclusion is this: ideas might explain out the problem and solution, but it is the action, the physical behavior of creating order, that makes us transcend the infinitely complex physical realm (and, thus, we can get down to work
).
As to your last paragraph, I would say we can transcend reality by changing it through our actions (I might even say those actions can be the expressing of ideas) and thus make transcendent reality. It just might not line up with what we first thought we knew about transcendence.
As to the idea that all religious communities are redundant, well yes that is a possibility. But, I think I found a partial, positive answer from a story from Joseph Campbell. He was in Japan and overheard an American delegate talking to a Shinto Priest: “We’ve been to a good many of your ceremonies and visited many of your shrines. But I don’t get your ideology. I don’t get your theology.”
The Shinto Priest paused in thought, and then slowly shook his head and said: “I don’t think we have ideology. We don’t have theology. We dance.”
Don’t worry so much about getting the ideas right. It’s about getting the steps right. I think we are here to teach each other our dances and our songs.