Phipps

Bill Phipps

Posted by Larry Warren on December 19, 1997 at 20:30:39:

I would be interested in finding out what the feeling is of people, regarding the
article " The Changing Face of Jesus" as posted by ConfBC their address is
bcbroad@ecunet.org.
I am a new christian and all this can be quite confusing, is there no Discussion by
United Church leaders prior to striking out on a radical course in theology. I
realise the United Church has views from right to left but !!

Posted by Jim Love on December 21, 1997 at 14:27:50:

In Reply to: Bill Phipps posted by Larry Warren on December 19, 1997 at
20:30:39:

: I am a new christian and all this can be quite confusing, is there no Discussion
by United Church leaders prior to striking out on a radical course in theology. I
realise the United Church has views from right to left but !!

Yes, it is quite confusing. Actually Bill Phipps represents a view that I would
place just to the left of a middle United Church theology. There are folks in the
church that likely would consider his views to be fairly tame. But, there are a
whole host of other folks who would consider Bill Phipp's theology to be weak,
overtly discounting of tradition and insufficient in being able to address individual
and corporate concerns. There are many views in the United Church and that is
both our strength and our weakness. In my opinion, we tend to allow too much
flexibility. When I hear a United Church minister, out east (forget his name),
refer to himself as an atheist ... the hair on the back of my neck stands up.

I am currently studying to be a minister in the United Church of Canada, and
while studying I have come across some pretty wonkie and disturbing ideas. But
as a friend of mine told me, "Don't believe everything you hear".

If you'd like some good mainline United Church theology, I would suggest that
you subscribe to "Touchstone" journal. It has good essays on Christian theology
and history in the United Church of Canada. There is a link to it's page on the
internet from United Online. You can get information on how to subscribe to it.

- Jim Love

Posted by Peter VanderKam on December 20, 1997 at 06:47:54:

In Reply to: Bill Phipps posted by Larry Warren on December 19, 1997 at
20:30:39:

Hello Larry,

You referred to a manuscript called: "The changing face of Jesus"
I am interested in reading it and send you an e-mail note to that
effect by using the provided link at the top of your
post. I came back by way of the mail-deamon as being undliverable.

Can you please respond by this way? Thanks!

: I would be interested in finding out what the feeling is of people, regarding the
article " The Changing Face of Jesus" as posted by ConfBC their address is
bcbroad@ecunet.org.
: I am a new christian and all this can be quite confusing, is there no Discussion
by United Church leaders prior to striking out on a radical course in theology. I
realise the United Church has views from right to left but !!

And while you are at it, why not drop in for a visit at:
http://www.osiem.org/project2000
http://www.superiornet.net/project2000

Shalom,

Peter.

Posted by J. Lucas on December 20, 1997 at 15:07:42:

In Reply to: Re: Bill Phipps posted by Peter VanderKam on December 20, 1997
at 06:47:54:

It is strange that some United Church members are more concerned about Rev.
Phipps than they are about their own church. A decision must be made. How
dare we allow our church to be destroyed while we pretend to pray instead of
acting.

Posted by Mike Jones on December 20, 1997 at 16:14:15:

In Reply to: Re: Bill Phipps posted by J. Lucas on December 20, 1997 at
15:07:42:

: It is strange that some United Church members are more concerned about Rev.
Phipps than they are about their own church. A decision must be made. How
dare we allow our church to be destroyed while we pretend to pray instead of
acting.
:

What do you mean by your comment that a decision needs to be made? Could
you please offer some clarifications?

Thanx!

Mike

Posted by Peter VanderKam on December 20, 1997 at 19:54:21:

In Reply to: Re: Bill Phipps posted by Mike Jones on December 20, 1997 at
16:14:15:

This message is addressed to J. Lucas who is quoted here as saying:

: : It is strange that some United Church members are more concerned about Rev.
Phipps than they are about their own church. A decision must be made. How
dare we allow our church to be destroyed while we pretend to pray instead of
acting.
: :
To which Mike Jones replied:
: What do you mean by your comment that a decision needs to be made? Could
you please offer some clarifications?

To which I added:
As Mike Jones, I have several questions, and ask that you deal with them.
a)"It is strange that some United Church members are more concerned about Rev
Phipps than they are about their own church".

I am sorry, but I don't know what you mean! How does it show that I (you *are*
talking about me aren't you?) am more concerned about Bill than I am about my
own church? I would appreciate it if you would explain this more fully. What
have I said or done that led you to this conclusion?

b)As Mike Jones, what decision do you want to be taken. Decision about what?

c)Your last sentence is loaded!
You state: "How dare we allow our church to be destroyed, ..."
Q1: Who is this "we" you are talking about?
Q2: Is "our" church being destroyed? By whom?
You state: "...while we pretend to pray instead of acting".
Q1: is this the same "we" as the previous "we" of this sentence?
Q2: do you and I now belong to the same group, and if so, how did we get on the
same side of the fence?
Q3: Who is *pretending* to pray?
Q4: who is being inactive? Are you speaking for yourself here, or are you still
talking the royal "we"?

The more I try to digest your message, the more puzzled I become as to its
meaning and intent.
Care to explain?

Shalom,

Posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 19, 1997 at 21:51:10:

In Reply to: Bill Phipps posted by Larry Warren on December 19, 1997 at
20:30:39:

What makes you think this is a radical course?

Posted by John Shearman on December 21, 1997 at 18:59:36:

In Reply to: Re: Bill Phipps posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 19,
1997 at 21:51:10:

As one who has been a part of the UCC since 1926, and one of its ordained
ministers since 1950, I can truthfully say that this current discussion has done
nothing but encourage me in my belief that we are contiually being led by the
Spirit into new forms of outreach and ministry. When in recent years have so
many people in so many places been discussing their personal beliefs in and about
God and Jesus Christ? I listened twice in the past two days to Bill Phipps on
television and radio programs broadcast across Canada. In both instances, he was
clear, cogent and challenging. Few church leaders in recent years have made such
an impact on the national psyche with such profound respect for those who agree
and disagree with him. Rigorous debate such as this can only be spiritually
creative for the church and for those willing to grapple with their own convictions
and search anew for Him who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

[ed note: Phipps was again on Pamela Wallin on Jan 22/98. Talk about being clear, cogent and challenging!]

Posted by David Shearman on December 22, 1997 at 07:03:07:

In Reply to: Re: Bill Phipps posted by John Shearman on December 21, 1997 at
18:59:36:

I listened twice in the past two days to Bill Phipps on television and radio
programs broadcast across Canada.

Lucky you!

There are also lots of us who have been busy in worship, attending christmas
concerts, going to events where there has been face-to-face discussion. No matter
what Mr. Phiips says, Christmas is still coming...

I'm curious as to why *all* of the moderator's comments have gone into the
public media. Few people in our community have watched the moderator or
listened to him. The Session here has said "Leave it lie." Even in the local
convenience store, the only comments have been "You have a nut at the wheel."

Perhaps I'm too much of a scrooge about this... I just find it *not helpful*, these
days.

Posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 22, 1997 at 09:09:18:

In Reply to: Re: Bill Phipps posted by David Shearman on December 22, 1997 at
07:03:07:

David,

: I'm curious as to why *all* of the moderator's comments have gone into the
public media. Few people in our community have watched the moderator or
listened to him. The Session here has said "Leave it lie." Even in the local
convenience store, the only comments have been "You have a nut at the wheel."

Enlightenment, if you please: (a) how do you know *all* Bill's comments have
made it into the media? Surely you're aware that even the highly touted "full text"
of the first Citizen interview was still only an edited version. And, (b) what is it,
precisely, that Bill has said which makes him a "nut"? And, please, I know that
scroogey-ness is hard to avoid at this time of the year, but no "If you have to ask,
you won't understand" answers; those go beyond Scroogey-ness into Grinchley
vainglory.

: Perhaps I'm too much of a scrooge about this... I just find it *not helpful*, these
days.

No comment.

Doug

Posted by John Shearman on December 22, 1997 at 17:31:06:

In Reply to: Re: Bill Phipps posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 22,
1997 at 09:09:18:

: David,

: : I'm curious as to why *all* of the moderator's comments have gone into the
public media.

Having spent a short span of a long life working in the media, I can suggest that
they know when they have a good "issue" to push about which they are certain to
get a wide variety of conflicting opinion. Besides, it makes good copy when the
news is slow as it usually is at this time of year.

As far as Bill being a nut, I am convinced that he is most certainly not and has
good support for his argument. But then, he might not enjoy it so much if his
remarks didn't stir things up. Both he and the UCC will survive.