|
I was just
wondering...
Posted by John Shearman on December 01, 1997 at
11:29:21:
In Reply to: I was just wondering... posted by
Mike Jones on November 30, 1997
at 20:55:53:
: This kind of feedback leads me to ask the
following question: Is it just me or does
anybody else see a
difference between clergy and lay people's responses regarding
Bill's comments? My experience so far has been that it's a number of
clergy who
have shown the most resistence to what Bill has to say.
Actually, I think it is a vocal minority who have
spoken out so vehemently against
Bill Phipps. Since 1988, there has
been a very vocal coalition who seek to call us
back to the exact
wording of The Doctrinal Basis of Union, somewhat like the
so-called
"Constitutional Constructionists" in the USA. But there is an excellent
forum for the discussion you propose now going on in Project 2000
moderated by
Peter VanderKam, of Thunder Bay. Check it out and get
involved.
Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 01, 1997 at
12:08:54:
In Reply to: Re: I was just wondering... posted by
John Shearman on December
01, 1997 at 11:29:21:
Why don't we find out whether it is a "vocal
minority"? Perhaps the church should
put a remit before all
congregations (possible under the rules of the Manual). I
would be
curious to know if I am in a small minority. I wouldn't change my mind,
but it would be interesting to see.
By the way, I think your
comparison with the "Constitutional Contructionists" is
excellent. I
see many similar ideas. Of course, I think the constructionists have a
good case :-)
Mark.
Posted by David Shearman on December 03, 1997
at 06:47:18:
In Reply to: Re: I was just wondering... posted by
Mark Fearnall on December 01,
1997 at 12:08:54:
I disagree with my father that it is a "vocal
minority". I suspect that it is a
component of the church.
I also disagree that we should hold a "remit". A
remit is *not* a referendum. It has
a specific purpose and focus
with respect to the Basis of Union. It has it's roots in
the Barrier
Act and our Presbyterian heritage.
There is *no* provision in UCCAN polity for
referenda. As the late Howie Mills
said, "The church does not do
theology by popular vote." And I believe he's right.
Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 03, 1997 at
10:03:53:
In Reply to: Re: I was just wondering... posted by
David Shearman on December
03, 1997 at 06:47:18:
David,
I agree, we don't want a referendum. I'm in
Quebec, please don't even mention that
word ;-)
I probably wasn't clear. There is an idea I keep
hearing which suggests that the
United Church's "majority" do not go
along with the Basis of Union. If that is the
case (questionable),
perhaps a remit should be forthcoming on changing the Basis
of
Union.
Mark.
Posted by Peter Smith on December 01, 1997 at
17:43:35:
In Reply to: I was just wondering... posted by
Mike Jones on November 30, 1997
at 20:55:53:
: This kind of feedback leads me to ask the
following question: Is it just me or does
anybody else see a
difference between clergy and lay people's responses regarding
Bill's comments?
In this area there is a slight difference between
what I have heard clergy and
laypeople say. The lay people who have
talked to me (in the congregations and in
the presbytery) are all
angry, upset, and outraged that Bill Phipps is speaking as
Moderator
of the church in such a manner. Even the UCW units (the older group
and the younger groups) in this area have written asking for his
resignation.
As for the clergy I have spoken with, they all
have concerns with the way Bill
Phipps has conducted himself but are
asking that the discussion and concerns be
expressed within the
church, not in the news media.
Posted by David Shearman on December 03, 1997
at 06:42:25:
In Reply to: No wondering round here about it...
posted by Peter Smith on
December 01, 1997 at 17:43:35:
I'll echo Peter's observations. In rural Ontario
(but still within sight of the CN
Tower!) some United Church people
are upset, angry and thoroughly ticked with
the moderator. I can say
I've had only two positive comments since the phipps
phlapp started.
I have had *no* takers on my invitation to join a study group on the
GC christology book. The Session has told me to walk away from it. Most
people
just yawn.
Clergy are *not* impressed. Most are disappointed
that the anger created is getting
in the way of Christmas and Advent
work. The moderator is not well-respected for
his words, at least in
this part of the church.
I suspect that if the moderator were to appear at
a presbytery meeting, I'd probably
listen courteously. But I would
not go out of my way to listen to him...
Posted by Jim Love on December 08, 1997 at
10:48:37:
In Reply to: I was just wondering... posted by
Mike Jones on November 30, 1997
at 20:55:53:
: People are saying "Finally! These things are
being discussed. It's about time!"
People are talking about this in
coffee shops, restaurants, and even bars.
And what is the depth of the talk? Are they really
digging deeply into these
questions of the nature of Jesus Christ,
or are they talking about the controversy?
: Is it just me or does anybody else see a
difference between clergy and lay people's
responses regarding
Bill's comments?
There is an anti-intellectualism (both
conservative and liberal forms) in the church
and I have seen this
being expressed in the Phipp's debate. Many people in the
United
Church and in our culture are historically illiterate. They also tend
not to be
willing to do reading into the background of the faith.
Although, this may seem
elitist, I think that it is difficult for
anyone to enter into these discussions about who
Jesus is without
doing some introductory reading. I would suggest "Faith Seeking
Understanding" by Migliori (sp?). We need to know about the Chalcedonian
Consensus in order to grasp the importance of someone saying "Jesus
is not God".
Posted by Mike Jones on December 08, 1997 at
11:23:53:
In Reply to: Re: I was just wondering... posted by
Jim Love on December 08, 1997
at 10:48:37:
: There is an anti-intellectualism (both
conservative and liberal forms) in the church
and I have seen this
being expressed in the Phipp's debate. Many people in the
United
Church and in our culture are historically illiterate. They also tend
not to be
willing to do reading into the background of the faith.
Although, this may seem
elitist, I think that it is difficult for
anyone to enter into these discussions about who
Jesus is without
doing some introductory reading.
Is it a question of people (I'm assuming that you
mean both clergy and lay people)
not "willing" or people needing to
meet other needs in their lives. It is important that
we pursue
historic literacy, but it is also important that we make the rent and
car
loan payments each month. For me, making sure the service is
ready for Sunday is
another need that can't easily be ignored. When
all is said and done I barely have
enough energy for the daily
"Dilbert" comic strip (Which is hilarious, by the way!).
I'd love to
read and think about lots of things but there are other concerns that
need
attention.
|