TORONTO – An ordained United Church of Canada minister who believes in neither God nor 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 West Hill church, 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,” Vosper 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1997, said the idea of an interventionist, supernatural being on which so much church doctrine is based belongs to an outdated world view.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.“It’s mythology. We build a faith tradition upon it which shifted to find belief more important than how we lived.”
“Is the Bible really the word of God? Was Jesus a person?” she said.
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.”
What we have is a pastor who openly admits she is an atheist, and argues that the Bible is "myth", being evaluated by her denomination to determine if she should be employed as a pastor in said denomination. To be clear, she voluntarily affirmed a belief in God as a part of her ordination. But hey, what's in a vow, right. This is one more example of the direction that progressive christians are heading, and the fact that there are some who believe that it is perfectly fine to lie when taking ordination vows ( they wouldn't admit to lying, they just redefine the words so they can answer affirmatively without an overt lie) and to actively work to undermine the tenets of the group they lied to get in to.
It seems as though atheist christian is a contradictory term.
26 comments:
This is a person who obviously believes that it matters how we live. That is, with no God, what difference does it make? If I am willing to deal with the consequences of what we, as Christians, might call "living badly", then "how we live" is about as subjective as anything can be. People like Vosper seem to think that "being nice" is something that is understood in exactly the same way by all. There already exists too many who think it doesn't matter how we live. Others are total jerks and believe they are good people.
The Vosper types simply wish to dictate what they think is how we should live. While I believe that Christian teaching has unrivaled value for everyone, even for those who do not believe God exists, there really is no reason to do so without Him. What some might regard as truly good reasons, others would not care.
I seek to live a Christian life because it pleases God. He is the reason it matters how we live. It's not about helping others as much as how helping others might please God. It's not about harm as much as it is not causing harm because doing so displeases God. It's all about loving, honoring and serving God.
"What happens to God after Galileo put him out of a home and Darwin put him out of a job? In other words, what difference does God make or what does God really do?"
The above will be answered in a sermon at a church affiliated with a "mainstream christian" denomination.
Gotta love the progressive christians.
"God has always been a human construction. Is there anything real to which the symbol God points?"
More from an atheist "christian pastor".
So,if there really is a Hell and nonbelievers will end up there for all eternity, what punishment is appropriate for people like this who choose to lead people away from the God revealed in scripture? It's one thing to be wrong and have your wrongness affect you, but isn't it worse to be wrong and to encourage others to follow you down that path of wrongness?
And is that not question appropriate for us all? If you are mistaken in your understanding of God and your words lead people down paths of wrongness, what then, do you think?
Grace.
Dan,
Of course it is applicable to everyone to some degree. I would suggest that for someone to be virtually intentionally leading people down a path that is contrary to what the Bible teaches and to do so under the auspices of a "mainline" denomination is particularly problematic. Especially when one must lie to gain the sanction of said denomination. Also, when one considers what the Bible teaches us about the responsibility and culpability of those in leadership positions within the Church, it seems unwise to take the step of going completely off the reservation lightly.
What is interesting about your question (and why it is still around), is that you show a total lack of interest or concern about what is actually happening within the "mainstream" Church, but instead try to focus the attention elsewhere.
Based on your silence about the substance of the post, one could reasonably assume that you have absolutely no problem with folks like these being ordained, and placed in a position where they teach and lead others with ecclesiastical authority. The fact that there are "pastors" who claim to be "christian", while denying the very existence of Christ and of the God revealed in scripture, who simply extend your "Genesis is myth" position to include the entirety if the scriptures (except the Gnostic gospels, those are perfectly fine), doesn't even seem to engage the slightest bit of interest from you. I wonder why that might be?
"The title of the blog post was “I’m A Presbyterian Minister Who Doesn’t Believe in God.” I suppose on the surface of things that is provocative enough. In it I wrote about things I have written over the years, basically, that my philosophy is a naturalistic one. Religion is a human product and its texts and symbols are a product of human cultural evolution."
"The questions today have to do with God. What did I mean when I wrote that I don’t believe in a supernatural God? It means in response to the first question I was asked that I do not think an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being exists. Or if it does, it really doesn’t matter because it doesn’t do anything."
"Only in a poetic way by saying God is a poetic word for gravity or in a deistic way, a god who set up the laws, wound the clock and went to sleep, can that hymn make sense. Some old wag put it blasphemously that Galileo put God out of a home and Darwin put God out of a job. Newton, too for that matter."
" Whether we like it or not, whether we find it romantic or not, science cleared the heavens and earth of the gods. For 99.999% of the time, you likely believe as I do that there is no supernatural being, that is a being outside of nature, God, intervening in the natural world and fiddling with things. When I say I don’t believe in a supernatural God or shorthand, God, because that is what is almost always meant by God, a supernatural God, I am simply saying what we mostly all know and believe anyway, at least most of the time."
"For centuries monotheism served us until science continued to push back and explain things without the need of a God hypothesis."
"The name of this infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of all being is God. That depth is what the word God means. And if that word has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps, in order to do so, you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps even that word itself. For if you know that God means depth, you much about Him."
Just some more "theology" from an atheist "christian"
I'm guessing this doesn't even phase Dan.
Based on your silence about the substance of the post, one could reasonably assume that you have absolutely no problem with folks like these being ordained
One would be mistaken, if one made such an assumption (you know what they say about assuming).
Rather, I do not know this fella and all I see here are some out of context quotes. I'm familiar enough with the popular habit of some of taking out of context quotes and building a strawman to knock down that I'm not particularly impressed. So, I have nothing to say about this fella because I know nothing of his positions and I don't reach conclusions or make declarations with no knowledge of a situation.
Seems reasonable, grace-full and downright biblical to me.
So, you're fine with what you see, you have absolutely no problems with either the quotes or the news story? None of it bothers you even the tiniest bit?
To be fair, it doesn't even concern you enough to do the research.
Also to be fair, you have never ever taken out of context quotes and built a straw man or tried to paint a picture of someones position.
So, you're fine with what you see, you have absolutely no problems with either the quotes or the news story? None of it bothers you even the tiniest bit?
I would disagree, perhaps, with some of her conclusions and the language she's using to express it. But this is a snippet of a news story, I'd be inclined to withhold judgment until I heard from her directly.
For instance, she never claims "atheism," that is your word. If your conclusion is correct (which I doubt) and she claimed to not believe in a God at all, I might ask her why be a Christian preacher in a tradition that does believe in God? It might be an interesting conversation.
I suspect her position is more nuanced than you are concluding.
To answer your question: I'm not "bothered" by her quotes that I might disagree with any more than I am bothered about your quotes that I disagree with. I disagree with them, that is enough, isn't it?
To be fair, it doesn't even concern you enough to do the research.
That, for a change, is absolutely fair and correct.
I'm much more concerned about people who might say that God's idea of "justice" is different than hours... that to God, it might be "just" and moral to say that a newborn infant "deserves" an eternity of suffering for that infant's "sin nature" or that newborns "lie" or are inherently evil. Those are claims that are concerning, to me, because they poorly portray the Jesus found in the Bible whom I name as Lord.
I'm more concerned about them because of how they portray God and because they are so prevalent, that the damage done to Christian teaching is much greater, in my opinion.
Setting aside whether or not you agree on the specifics, for a minute, on the principle, wouldn't you agree that the principle of saying:
I believe there is a god and that god is vastly unjust and unloving and evil, you should follow this god or be punished for an eternity...
is a greater concern than someone saying...
I believe in the teachings of Jesus, but I don't believe he was God, not in the sense we normally mean, anyway.
?
"I suspect her position is more nuanced than you are concluding."
Dan, If someone claims that God does not exist and that the Bible is fiction, by what standard could the rationally claim to be Christian? Despite your skepticism, that is exactly what we are seeing from the Progressive wing of christianity, a move toward denying the existence of God and declaring the Bible to be fiction. The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence, is your problem, not mine.
The problem with your equivalence in the last comment is that it is 100% false on both sides.
No one is saying "I believe there is a god and that god is vastly unjust and unloving and evil, you should follow this god or be punished for an eternity...".
And the claim "I believe in the teachings of Jesus, but I don't believe he was God, not in the sense we normally mean, anyway."
Is also false. (there may be some who would suggest your version, but that is not what the folks I am referencing are saying).
So, how can I respond to a false equivalence beyond pointing it out for what it is, false. If you can provide a quote of anyone saying anything close to your first premise please do, but if you can't than you need to stop falsely characterizing your opponents.
I have to say, the massive amount of hypocrisy you are displaying here is putting you really close to getting cut off again. So tread lightly, and don't put words in peoples mouths.
“I don’t believe in...the god called God,”
"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."
“It’s mythology. We build a faith tradition upon it which shifted to find belief more important than how we lived.”
The title of Greta Vosper's blog is "Minister,Author, Atheist", I think that if she describes herself as an atheist, then my referring to her as one is in 100% agreement with how she refers to herself.
"Clergy in liberal traditions may be preaching what they believe, too, but they use language that obfuscates and hides their true beliefs about the god called God, about the divinity of Jesus, about what the Trinity really means, etc., to the point that no one even questions that they believe the same things that Rick and Bill believe albeit with a slightly softer edge."
"Gretta Vosper argues that if the church is to survive at all, the heart of faith must undergo a radical change. Vosper, founder of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity and a minister in Toronto, believes that what will save the church is an emphasis on just and compassionate living—a new and WHOLLY HUMANISTIC approach to religion. Without this reform, the church as we know it faces extinction." (Emphasis added) The quote is from the summary of one of her books on her website, so it seems safe to presume it accurately reflects here view.
"Gretta has written two books in which she calls for a POST-THESITC expression of church to emerge in our contemporary context." From a favorable piece at Patheos
"Her message is for the liberal churches–the proverbial main line. The historic, liberal seminaries in the United States and Canada teach modern textual criticism and pastors who graduate from those institutions know that the Bible is a human construction with many problems. Yet the average member would never know it. The clergy keep the story alive by hiding the truth behind ancient rituals that keep the institutions going." Same piece
"The prayer posted to the United Church’s web portal is one of the myriad responses and I appreciate that we chose to offer it in a timely manner. I question, however, the merit of such a response because it underscores one of the foundational beliefs that led to the horrific killing in Paris: the existence of a supernatural being whose purposes can be divined and which, once interpreted and without mercy, must be brought about within the human community in the name of that being." From Vosper
I think that it is safe to conclude that Vosper herself identifies as an atheist (since she clearly says she does), and the for her to maintain employment in a church that clearly has theism as a foundational tenet (a tenet she claimed to agree with), is hypocritical at best. I suspect that it is more the fact that being "legitimized" by membership in a recognized church gets her more publicity (and book sales), than if she was to be honest with herself and the rest of the world.
So, before you say anything else, you need to answer these questions.
1. Is lying when taking the ordination vows of a denomination right or wrong?
2. Is it possible to be a christian and an atheist at the same time?
Not Vosper, but from atheists who deny God while having lied when asked ordination questions.
"We can call ourselves non-theists or post-theists or a-theists and declare game over, there is no reality to which theism points and thus no need for religion or Christianity. Some of us do that. Others of us say, no, there is a place for religion and Christianity even as a supernatural interventionist god is superfluous."
"God has always been a human construction."
"I’m a Presbyterian Minister Who Doesn’t Believe in God" (I guess this one will get you to start in about "nuance")
"Religion is a human construct
The symbols of faith are products of human cultural evolution
Jesus may have been an historical figure, but most of what we know about him is in the form of legend
God is a symbol of myth-making and not credible as a supernatural being or force
The Bible is a human product as opposed to special revelation from a divine being
Human consciousness is the result of natural selection, so there’s no afterlife"
"Many liberal or progressive Christians have already let go or de-emphasized belief in Heaven, that the Bible is literally true, that Jesus is supernatural, and that Christianity is the only way."
"Personally, even though I don’t believe in God as a supernatural agent or force, many still do. I utilize the symbol “God” in worship. This may be viewed as cheating but since our cultural tradition is filled with images of God, it is near impossible to avoid. As a symbol, I’m not yet ready to let go of God. It is a product of myth-making — I know that — but the symbol incorporates many of our human aspirations. I find that “God” for me is shorthand for all the things for which I long: beauty, truth, healing, and justice. They’re all expressed by this symbol and the stories about it."
"I title the following "What This Presbyterian Believes."
I believe...
1. in evolutionary theory. This obviously includes human beings. Evolution and science in general have had major implications regarding theology that we mostly ignore or in our worse moments deny.
2. in higher criticism of the Bible. The Bible like all other books are human products (what else could they be?) and should be read as such as opposed to special revelation from a divine being.
3. that all religion is a human construct. Its primary purpose has been and should be an attempt to find and evoke meaning amidst life's contingencies as opposed to speculation regarding supernaturalism.
4. that "God" functions as a symbol. The concept of "God" is a product of myth-making and "God" is no longer credible as a personal, supernatural being. For me, "God" functions as a shorthand for the Universe and sometimes for qualities and aspirations I wish to pursue or to emulate.
5. that human consciousness is the result of natural selection. Human beings do not have immortal souls nor will consciousness survive death. Thus there is no afterlife. There is no heaven, no hell, and no need for salvation from one realm to another.
6. that there is no "end" in human time. Earth is four billion years old. Earth was here long before human beings. Earth will spin on its axis and revolve around the sun long, long after the last human being has breathed her last. We will have to find meaning and our "eschaton" in this life.
7. that Jesus may have been historical but most of the stories about him in the Bible and elsewhere are legends. But he's cool. He serves as a human ideal and a focal point for devotion (like an ishta deva)."
All of the above are direct quotes copy pasted from various blog posts by the authors.
I think that given the clear and unambiguous declarations that It's safe to conclude that these folks are atheists.
That's not the problem, the problem is that they are deceptive about what the believe, and have lied in order to gain their positions and the validation that goes with being ordained in a denomination. Oh and do they get extra points when they equate Christ to a Hindu deity?
before you say anything else, you need to answer these questions.
1. Is lying when taking the ordination vows of a denomination right or wrong?
2. Is it possible to be a christian and an atheist at the same time?
I'll answer your two questions and we'll see if you answer my one question:
1. Yes.
2. I don't know, that's up to God. Certainly not according to mainstream evangelicals, but they don't get to make that call.
Your questions:
Do you think a newborn tells lies, is evil and literally deserves an eternity in torment for their "sinful nature" or, if you prefer, for "their sins..."?
"Do you think a newborn tells lies, is evil and literally deserves an eternity in torment for their "sinful nature" or, if you prefer, for "their sins..."?"
Since I've never suggested anything of the sort, and have never seen anyone who is even reasonably mainstream advocate that position, I wonder what would lead you to ask such a loaded question.
BTW, your answer to #2 was just one more example of you being unwilling to take a stand because you might get bitten by it later.
If you are seriously suggesting that it is a possibility for someone who actively denies the very existence of God and denies or barely acknowledges the existence of Jesus can in some way be considered a Christian, I'm just flabbergasted. I know you are willing to open the door pretty wide, and even to flirt with universalism, but seriously, how do you expect anyone to give you any credibility at all with this?
Since you were pretty weasley on the second question, here's a couple more for you before you can move on.
1. Is there a line between Christian an non Christian?
2. Is someone simply claiming to be a Christian enough for you to conclude that they are?
3. Is belief or acknowledgement of the existence of God necessary for one to be considered a Christian?
4. Is there anything be it doctrine, belief, acknowledgement, action that is necessary for one to be a Christian.
5. Do you agree that there is an should be a special degree of punishment for people who use their ecclesiastical positions of authority to mislead people?
As for your question. It's off topic for this post and it's based on a false premise. Against my better judgement, I responded to it. But if you can't stick to the topic or can't ask questions based on a premise that is not false, your off topic questions will be deleted.
This is just one more example of your inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty. If you are going to quote people out of context to build up straw man versions of their positions, don't whine about it. (For the record, I have more than adequately and accurately represented the positions I've pointed out here. I have extensively quoted the very words of the people in question, with very little editorial comment, and absolutely no examples of my re-casting their positions to make them appear worse than they are), in so doing I've let them speak for themselves. If you're going to whine when people make what you consider off topic comments at your place, then don't make them elsewhere. I know it annoys you, but I am going to try very hard to hold you to the standards you demand of others.
MA,
While I agree with your points, and think you have a much better grasp of reality than Dan, I felt like I needed to edit your off topic comment. I decided that I couldn't delete Dan for his off topic comments, while allowing others. Below, is the section of your comment which in my opinion is not off topic (despite the first phrase). I hope that you will understand my position on this. I realize that in all fairness, I should have deleted Dan's comment where he asks the question that took things off topic, but I chose to leave it as a signpost of sorts. It is a great example of his petulance in demanding that others do as he wants. Every other off topic comment of Dan will be deleted (or edited if it's worth the effort).
Thanks for your understanding.
"I know this is off topic here, but this arrogance in suggesting that God must align His justice with our own understanding of the term is the type of thing that leads false preachers like Vosper to presume they can be a minister while denying God's existence. They cannot wrap their mind around just how different from us He is, and thus do not accept Him for daring to be so different. Thus, to them, He cannot exist. But since he doesn't, let's beat the crap out of Vosper because there is no wrong in doing so without a God who determines right and wrong. There is only other people, like Vosper, and I dislike their notion of right and wrong...and justice...more than they dislike God's."
I'm going to throw some quotes out that would seem to undermine the notion of atheism and Christianity peacefully coexisting.
"If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time."
WL Craig
“The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,”5 then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably."
Paul Kurtz
"Moral behavior depends upon social conditions, moral education, etc. Under these conditions, it is possible to develop a sense of empathy for other human beings."
Kurtz
"Moreover, if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. If life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint. As the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky rightly said: “If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted.”
WL Craig
It seems as though, what these atheists are trying to do is to co-opt the "social gospel" aspects of Christianity, while jettisoning all of the elements of Christianity that make it distinctive.
Ultimately, my problem with these folks is not what they believe or teach. As far as I'm concerned people can believe whatever they want no matter how stupid it is. It's the fact that they are doing so under false colors, the fact that they have to lie and equivocate in order to hang on to the perceived stature that being ordained in a "mainline denomination" confers. It's the fact that if they were honest and became UU's or just atheists, no one would pay them any attention at all. No one would buy their books or listen to their radio shows or read their blogs. Frankly, they would be sacrificing their employment prospects as well. Of course we all know that self sacrifice is not something that Christians are called to do. As long as they want to cling to the coattails of Christianity it's a problem, to the extent that these nuts are gaining some traction and actually expanding their foothold it's a travesty. As long as enough people are willing to be "tolerant", "inclusive", and want a "big tent", eventually this stuff will keep growing.
“Human beings are not insignificant worms in this story. We are the self-consciousness of this universe. It is possible that there is intelligent life somewhere else. But whether there is or not, we human beings are the self-consciousness of Earth and the Solar System for sure. We are here and able to tell this incredible story. Before human beings there were no stories of the universe. There were no stories of gods, stories of love, stories of sacrifice, stories of sadness. Self-consciousness emerged from evolution and all of our aspirations and hopes have emerged from our interactions, from our storytelling, from our small Bibles to a larger ever-emerging Bible that is our ongoing life story.”
Hubris?
"Self-consciousness emerged from evolution and all of our aspirations and hopes have emerged from our interactions, from our storytelling, from our small Bibles to a larger ever-emerging Bible that is our ongoing life story."
What proof supports this? Or, as Dan would say, "on what basis" can this be asserted?
BTW, as of the posting of this comment, my previous comment that you moderated still appears, along with your response to me. Just sayin...
Sorry, if was in a hurry and forgot. Thanks for mentioning it and thanks for your understanding.
The basis is that someone asserted it as a fact, therefore it is a fact.
Post a Comment