In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Colin Perkel of The National Post
has an update here on
our old friend Gretta Vosper, the United Church minister who believes in neither God nor the Bible. She is, in
Perkel’s words, “prepared to fight an unprecedented attempt to boot her from
the pulpit for her beliefs.” Or her unbeliefs, I guess.
Tom: The attempt by the United Church to give Gretta her gold watch and wish her all the best in
her future endeavors may be unprecedented, but it’s hardly a surprise, except
perhaps in that the United Church is taking some sort of stand here about
atheism in their pulpits.
Immanuel Can, does “the idea of an interventionist,
supernatural being on which so much church doctrine is based” belong to “an
outdated world view”? More importantly, can we separate how we live from what
we believe? Gretta thinks we can and should.
Accommodation and Popularity
Immanuel Can: Over the last century, one
of the major trends in what’s now called the “mainline” Protestant churches has
been accommodation to modernism. Whenever a new belief, idea or value judgment
became current in society, these major groups quickly brought their doctrine
into line with it … from evolutionism to abortion and gay ordination and beyond.
Their detractors always insisted they were selling out the word of God to buy
temporary popularity, and that their strategy would inevitably result in them
standing for nothing at all. But for a bit, the mainline strategy seemed to
work for them.
Tom: And then the numbers caught
up to them. According to The Post, in the early seventies the United Church averaged around 400,000 weekly attendees across Canada. In 2015 they were projecting a hair over 100,000
weekly Canada-wide. In Vosper’s own “church”, two-thirds of the congregation
left when she revealed her views about God.
Looking at either stat, that’s not attrition: that’s a death spiral.
IC: The Vosper controversy will
doubtless be characterized as one of the dying gasps of the accommodationalist
churches; and that seems about right, to me. It’s just too far to try to absorb
atheism within Christianity. It’s beyond any sense of either word.
Prioritizing How We Live
Tom: Gretta Vosper thinks we can
separate how we live from what we believe; that how we live is the truly
important thing. She actually (and ahistorically) posits a time in church
history “before the focus shifted from how one lived to doctrinal belief
in God, Jesus and the Bible”, and claims:
“It’s mythology. We build a faith tradition upon it which shifted to find belief more important than how we lived.”
Was there ever a time in church history when Christians
lived morally in the absence of faith?
IC: A sort of ancient “Golden Age of Atheistic Christianity” at a time prior to all
conviction of truth, you mean? That’s pretty funny. That’s not even plausible
mythology, let alone history.
Tom: Well, this
is it. She’s pulled the notion out of thin air. She seems to have this
ludicrous conviction that Christianity started as a lifestyle movement, and that
the “belief” aspect she deplores was some kind of later development; a false
step along the way.
But in fact belief and how we live are inextricably tied
together. We can debate which is chicken and which is egg, but belief drives
actions. And wrong actions invariably compel people to concoct belief-based
explanations for them.
Ontology Precedes Ethics
IC: I can’t imagine how her story would even go … “First, there were lifestyle
‘Christians’, and later they started to believe something, but it was something
bad …” Bizarre. One of the smartest quotations I’ve ever seen about ethics
is from an Indian author who wrote, “Ontology precedes ethics”. That is, what
we believe is real determines whether or not we will be moral. But Vosper has
to imagine that Christian ethics could exist among people who don’t believe in
any Christian truth. And that’s just backwards.
Tom: And that’s
the order we find in Romans, isn’t it. First, “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie” and as a result of that,
“God gave them up to dishonorable passions”. The belief system they had chosen dictated how they chose to conduct
themselves.
IC: Quite. Or we could think of
Titus 1:16, which talks about people whose behavior is really a
reflection of what they ultimately believe to be true: they talk about
knowing God, but their deeds show they deny his existence and authority.
Their morals spring from their deep ontology (beliefs about what does or does
not exist), not from their religious pronouncements. What one believes always
manifests at the moral level. It’s the true well from which action springs.
Motivating People to Do Bad Things
Tom: Funnily enough, Vosper is
unable see the implications of her own words. The incident that triggered this
probe into Vosper is an open letter she wrote on the subject of belief,
in which she said — referencing the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris —
that belief in God can “motivate people to do bad things”.
So even Vosper recognizes that “ontology precedes ethics”
everywhere except in her unique mythology of “Christianity’s beginnings”. She told
The Post:
“If we are going to continue to use language that suggests we get our moral authority from a supernatural source, any group that says that can trump any humanistic endeavor.”
IC: “Humanistic endeavor?” What
can that mean? Literally, it means simply, “whatever humans want to do”. And
she’s right: morality is about not just doing whatever we want
to do.
Tom: Yes, I thought you’d enjoy
that one.
IC: But I think she’s actually
got something more specific in mind … something like “being nice to
people” or “loving your neighbor” or “improving the human lot” or something of
that kind. Unfortunately for her, historically speaking, humanism of that kind
is nothing but secularized Christian values. And once they’re secularized,
they’re also deprived of any ontological warrant. Nothing makes it necessary
for anyone to believe in them anymore.
Removing the Foundation Brick by Brick
Tom: Quite so. But at 57, she’s
caught in that lovely in-between stage of having grown up during a period in
which Christian values were common and you didn’t have to explain to those
around you why honesty or generosity or fidelity or loyalty were good things.
People generally agreed that they were, even if they didn’t always observe them
when it was inconvenient. And like so many people today, Vosper does not really
grasp the consequences of her brick-by-brick removal of the foundation of the
house she lives in since the house, while teetering with every passing breeze,
has not yet collapsed. She thinks the cracks in the plaster and the slightly
uneven ceiling in her living room is the worst it will ever get.
IC: I think that’s right. In
fact, the whole foundation is not merely rotting … for her, as an atheist,
it’s gone. It never existed.
Tom:
I think my favorite quote in the whole Post
piece is the one from David Allen, the executive secretary of the
Toronto Conference:
“What we don’t want is to limit the scope of beliefs within the church, and yet what was being questioned here was: Has she gone too far?
The vision of the United Church of Canada is: There is a God in whom we believe, and our statements of faith are very clear about that.”
Perish the thought that a church would wish to limit the
“scope of beliefs” within it. Perish the thought that we must refer to our
“statements of faith” to determine if we believe in God or not. If the
subject matter were not so achingly sad, these lines would be comedy gold.
IC: It reminds me of a review of
the (rather atheistic) existentialist play, Waiting for Godot, as
performed at the 2001 BeckettFest. The play is about fools waiting in vain for
someone to come and rescue them. Secular theatre critic Robert Everett-Green of
the Globe and Mail made this comment about one of the main
characters:
“Didi has the bright-faced air of a United Church minister who would be very happy to spread the gospel if he hadn’t forgotten it.”
When even non-Christians are spooling out quips like that, you’ve got to know your
church is having credibility problems.
No comments :
Post a Comment