Atheist United Church Minister got to keep her job

[Radagast]

At the end of the day, can't each church decide what their own requirements are?

Sure. But when people have stopped believing in God, we are entitled to question whether they can meaningfully be called Christians.

 

[section9+1]

Putting the coyote in charge of the hen house.

 

[Tanj]

Sure. But when people have stopped believing in God, we are entitled to question whether they can meaningfully be called Christians.

Seems reasonable to me. But are we entitled to say that some other group of Christians is wrong to include them?

 

[section9+1]

I suppose anyone can pastor a church, and a church can burn all its bibles and worship Satan if it wants to. But then it has defiled the blood that bought it and deserves the reward that will find it.

 

[hedrick]

Sure. But when people have stopped believing in God, we are entitled to question whether they can meaningfully be called Christians.

As far as I can tell, this pastor is essentially U-U, as is her congregation. I don't consider the U-U church to be Christian, though some of its members seem to be.

Note however that the United Church as a whole is Christian. If you look at the link that was posted earlier, you'll find this page: Faith and the Bible. "To join the United Church, members are asked to profess their faith in the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and to commit themselves to faithful conduct in the church and in the world.
... United Church ministers, in addition, are required to be in "essential agreement" with the four statements of faith found in the Doctrine section of The Basis of Union."

What has happened in this case is that she took all of these standards in a metaphorical sense.

I assume she would have lost had this proceeded to a formal hearing. The Church leadership chose to settle, with a secret agreement. for institutional reasons. They don't say why.

I'm a liberal Christian myself. But I think for liberal Christianity to have meaning, it has to be Christianity. I disagree with how the United Church handled it.

My own denomination has a similar situation. We have an atheist pastor. As far as I can tell, it has persisted because no one brought a case. The denomination doesn't do regular reviews of the orthodoxy of pastors; it depends upon people to bring up issues like this. I'm surprised no one has, given the aggressiveness of conservatives in pursuing gays, before the change in policy to accept them.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Seems reasonable to me. But are we entitled to say that some other group of Christians is wrong to include them?

Yup. Christian's have been doing it since forever.

 

[Radagast]

Is it just me or does it make no sense at all? I think I can understand the court and settlement decision in terms of employer employee relationship

Just to clarify, btw, this settlement was from a church court, not a government court. So this is not an "employer employee relationship" thing.

And this is the regional church's entire statement on how it's possible to have an atheist minister in a "Christian" church:

"Toronto Conference, the Rev. Gretta Vosper, and West Hill United Church have settled all outstanding issues between them.

The Rev. Vosper will remain in ordained ministry at West Hill.

We acknowledge the faithful work of all of those who have been involved in the process."

At the top level, the UCC says:

"We understand that Toronto Conference, the Rev. Gretta Vosper and West Hill United Church have reached a settlement on the issues between them. This doesn’t alter in any way the belief of The United Church of Ca-nada in God, a God most fully revealed to us as Christians in and through Jesus Christ. The church’s statements of faith over the years have all been grounded in this understanding. Our most recent statement, A Song of Faith, begins with the words 'God is Holy Mystery,' recognizing that as humans we will never fully understand the nature of that mystery.

We continue to hold Toronto Conference, the Rev. Gretta Vosper, and the members of West Hill United Church in prayer."

There is an inconsistency there that I don't fully understand.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't pretend to understand the logic of having an atheist minister but can we refrain from bashing a whole group of Christians merely because they aren't members of your tribe and don't share a particular, culturally-contigent expression of Christianity with you? The above comments about so-called "liberal Christians" are deeply offensive.

 

[Radagast]

This whole episode makes me think of this classic cartoon:

 

[Radagast]

... United Church ministers, in addition, are required to be in "essential agreement" with the four statements of faith found in the Doctrine section of The Basis of Union."

The whole thing about the Vosper case is that United Church ministers are not, in fact, required to be in agreement with those statements of faith.

My own denomination has a similar situation. We have an atheist pastor.

Indeed, and I'm not quite sure how that's possible.

 

[section9+1]

"We can never fully understand the nature of God's holy mystery." True enough. But if you cannot grasp the most basic expectation of that mystery which is to believe that he exists, then you have understood nothing at all and how do you expect to teach or lead anyone if you are as ignorant as that? I'm sure there are some good Christians in the United church but any denomination that contains blatant rebellion is a good one to stay away from.

 

[hedrick]

Indeed, and I'm not quite sure how that's possible (according to him, the PCUSA are "functional Unitarians," but that's probably an exaggeration).

I don't think many of us are Unitarians. Or even unitarians.

As far as I can tell, it's possible because no one has issued a complaint. There are nuances of language, such as people who talk about a "nontheistic God." Shuck uses that language at times. But he doesn't seem to be using it to reach a more sophisticated concept of God. Rather, he seems to be simply rejecting any concept of God. I don't see how that could be consistent with our standards.

You may recall a few years ago that someone became a member of a church in Texas who was an atheist. This was claimed to be technically legal because he had been a member previously, and thus didn't have to do a full affirmation of faith. The GA fixed the constitution to require that prospective members agree to the constitutional questions. I don't believe our denomination would permit an atheist pastor.

 

[Radagast]

I don't think many of us are Unitarians. Or even unitarians.

I edited out that "Unitarian" quote in my post. It was on his website, but it wasn't from actually him. Mea culpa.

As far as I can tell, it's possible because no one has issued a complaint. There are nuances of language, such as people who talk about a "nontheistic God." But I've looked at his statements, and it looks like he's a fairly unambiguous atheist. Our standards don't allow that.

But didn't he take up a new post in 2015? Didn't that involve vows of some kind? I guess he took them with his fingers crossed, and presumably the PCUSA church that hired him wanted an atheist pastor.

I don't believe our denomination would permit an atheist pastor.

Apart from him, obviously.

 

[hedrick]

But didn't he take up a new post in 2015? Didn't that involve vows of some kind? I guess he took them with his fingers crossed, and presumably the church that hired him wanted an atheist pastor.

You don't take new vows. When you move to a new presbytery you have to give a statement of faith. At least that was true in the presbytery meetings I attended. Within the same Presbytery, no. I wasn't there, so I don't know what his statement was like or whether there was questioning. I would certainly hope that he was honest with the church that was calling him.

 

[Radagast]

You don't take new vows. When you move to a new presbytery you have to give a statement of faith.

I understand that he moved to a new presbytery in order to take up his current position, which is in Oregon.

 

[grasping the after wind]

At the end of the day, can't each church decide what their own requirements are?

If you're going to tell one group "your 100% opinion-based philosophical meetings qualifies for tax exemption", not sure how you could deny that to someone else.

Actually no,. "at the end of the day" a church cannot honestly call itself a church unless it actually conforms to the actual definition of a church. One can call a spot of grease on the garage floor the Atlantic Ocean but the spot remands just a spot nonetheless. Serious and reasonable people don't actually think reality changes because one redefines a word.

 

[section9+1]

I agree with the above, but there's certainly a lot of people running around today, that haven't got that figured out at all.

 

[Phil.Stein]

Is it just me or does it make no sense at all? I think I can understand the court and settlement decision in terms of employer employee relationship, but I am not understanding her theology whatsoever. Am I missing something?

Atheist United Church minister to keep her job at Toronto congregation

two separate issues - theology and employment. court likely ruled on employment, without looking ta theolgy. employment contract likely should have specified theolgy, which would have allowed the court to consider her atheism, and make a decision in the church's favor.

 

[hedrick]

two separate issues - theology and employment. court likely ruled on employment, without looking ta theolgy. employment contract likely should have specified theolgy, which would have allowed the court to consider her atheism, and make a decision in the church's favor.

I haven't seen any reference to an actual court case, just to a potential trial in a church "court."

 

[hedrick]

The Presbytery of the Cascades, where Shuck now serves, delegates assessing the candidate to the Commission of Ministry. Questions can be asked at the Presbytery meeting, but it's moot, since the COM has already admitted them.

The COM's manual says that the candidate is asked whether they have any departures from standards. If so, the Presbytery is asked to judge. I found minutes of the Presbytery, but not of the COM, so I don't know what Shuck's answer was. Based on Presbytery minutes, it doesn't appear that they raised any issue for the Presbytery to judge.

On the other hand, the COM surely should have known his beliefs. This was in 2015, when his position was already public.

I wasn't there, but from what I can see, this appears to be a failure of the COM. It's hard to claim that atheism is a reasonable interpretation of the Reformed faith, even in a liberal church.