That triumphal barnburner of an Easter hymn, Jesus Christ Has Risen Today ”“ Hallelujah, this morning will rock the walls of Toronto’s West Hill United Church as it will in most Christian churches across the country.
But at West Hill on the faith’s holiest day, it will be done with a huge difference. The words “Jesus Christ” will be excised from what the congregation sings and replaced with “Glorious hope.”
Thus, it will be hope that is declared to be resurrected ”“ an expression of renewal of optimism and the human spirit ”“ but not Jesus, contrary to Christianity’s central tenet about the return to life on Easter morning of the crucified divine son of God.
Generally speaking, no divine anybody makes an appearance in West Hill’s Sunday service liturgy.
Unbelievable unbelief.
What I fail to understand is why she wants to be in a Christian Church. She is not forced to be a Christian. She can start what any New Age Spiritualism thing she wants. She can be a Wiccian or athiest or whatever so why does she cling to a lable she does not believe in?
Very sad.
“Glorious hope is risen today…” so my question is what do they do with the next line: Alleluia. Hallelujah. Praise Yahweh.
It’s true, Glorious Hope has risen. But that divine hope came in the form of a man, and has a name. Removing that fact abolishes the Hope. There is no hope – people have tried to simply “remove the sources of suffering” for thousands of years. It’s never worked.
*Sigh* As a general response…. Please… any clergy reading this who share this rejection of Christianity… please…take off the collar and stop trying to represent a tradition you don’t believe in. Lay people do not need “placating”. They are not stupid as she suggests. Nor are they lazy and lacking in corporal works of mercy. Lay people come to church hungry for the reality of God and the reality of Jesus Christ. If you don’t believe in God or Jesus Christ, Fine. If the Bible has no more merit to you than The Velveteen Rabbit. Fine. What’s not fine is that you are pretending to be Christian clergy. You can’t have it both ways.
I am particularly disturbed by the end of this article which has Ms. Voper quipping about how to fool her judicatory into thinking she really believes what she clearly does not believe. Please. Is honesty too much to expect?
Sorry, one more thing. I am glad that The Globe and Mail sees fit to expose this.
This is indeed very sad. At Advent, Dean Limehouse and key laypeople are presenting a series in Sunday School called the Whole Truth of Half Truths. This priest falls right into the traps that we are discussing. I wish that she would log in and listen to the calsses on the website.
Entirely interchangeable with Katherine Jefferts-Schori, as far as I can tell. Salvation through political correctness — the Cheez Whiz of faith. I’ll take a well-aged Forfar [Ontario] cheddar, thanks.
#4, could not agree more. There *are* faith traditions in which this pastor’s theology is perfectly acceptable. The Unitarian Universalist church comes to mind quickest, but I’ve seen plenty of other non-denominational churches with similar outlooks. I would think that leading such a congregation would be preferable for this pastor because it would not entail playing word games–with the congregation or anyone else. Perhaps this is uncharitable, but it feels almost like some of these pastors would rather stick with “Christiaity” in order to see themselves as theological rebels or innovators, rather than merely accepting that they’ve moved to a wholly different (but not at all new) faith tradition.
The same thing could be said for Spong. Why does he cling to something he does not believe?
Soooooo……..
Why does she and her congregation stay in the church?
Perhaps it is so they can keep the property, assets and legitimacy of the institution.
It certainly isn’t because they want to continue the theological tradition.
Doug Hale+
#10 – correct, and they want to transform the Faith into something acceptable to them; they can’t abide the continued existence, the continued witness to the God who doesn’t bend to their will. They must undermine the churches who do.
Isn’t that what happened in the TEC? The ‘truce’ between the Orthodox and heretics didn’t hold long; in short order they went about hounding the Orthodox out of the Church. This is all about institutional capture.
I think the Globe and Mail did us all a favor by exposing this woman for what she really is…….a Secular Humanist masquerading as a Christian (without Christ).
“You are like little children sitting on the curbstone searching the gutter for things: behind you is a king’s palace…. In it sits your Father, but you won’t listen, you won’t even turn around to look. You just keep on hunting in the gutter for things; and it doesn’t matter whether it’s rotten vegetables or pennies or shillings you find there, they can never make you happy without your Father”
—George MacDonald
[Also posted on Stand Firm]
So, exactly what is the relationship between this and the slightly more pro-Jesus Emergent Church? I’m genuinely curious.
Again that famous quote from Macbeth; “..The fiends that lie like truth..” Throughout the pages of Church History we have always had those that deny the truth. They shall continue to be with us until the Second coming of our Lord and the judgement day that follows. May His flock, including me, be ready .
Unbelievable.
Further down we have a story about vampire-novelist Anne Rice stating:
[blockquote]As we experience Easter week, we celebrate the crucifixion that changed the world. We celebrate the Resurrection that sent Christ’s apostles throughout the Roman Empire to declare the Good News. We celebrate one of the greatest love stories the world has ever known: that of a God who would come down here to live and breathe with us in a human body, who would experience human death for us, and then rise to remind us that He was, and is, both Human and Divine.[/blockquote]
And yet, here, we have a priest denying the need to affirm [b]Jesus Christ has risen today[/b], prefering to substitute a nebulous catch phrase of [i]glorious hope[/i] in HIS rightful place.
Everything is topsy-turvy in the world today.
and some wonder why our comments can seem to be a bit ‘testy’ at times. Makes one sad. 🙁
Alleluia! Jesus Christ is Risen!
Jim Elliott <><
#12, yes, I agree. If nothing else this article demonstrates the meaning behind the phrases we hear in common usage throughout the TEC these days: namely: “Anglican comprehensiveness” — “unity not uniformity” — “encompassing a wide range of beliefs but united in mission” — ‘a listening process’ — ‘dialogue’ — ‘questions are more important than answers’—
I think Ms. Vosper does an excellent job of fleshing out what is meant by these phrases. They mean it doesn’t matter what we believe, it doesn’t matter what we teach others to believe. In fact it’s best to not believe in God at all…. What matters is that we do good works and live righteously. (as if we can determine such good works and righteousness apart from the Living God and the Word of God!) Sadly, reducing Christianity to a mere ethic, detached from the real Presence of a real and holy God, is nothing new.
One more thought….
The saddness this brings me isn’t really about Ms. Voper and her lack of faith. Rather it is the shrugging of the shoulders of the rest of the Church that is unwilling to draw ANY line about what does or does not represent the Christian faith for the sake of ‘comprehensiveness’.
I think that Americans should read up on the history of the United Church of Canada as a very helpful backgrounder for this story. I’ve been living in the US for over 10 years now, but I recall back in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s that the United Church of Canada had a moderator that did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I know that the UCCanada’s official body has adopted “progressive Christianity” lock, stock and barrel, and has been one of the most vocal supporters of gay “marriage” in Canada, that ordination of practicing homosexuals is fully permissible and has been for at least 10 years, that the denomination has experienced many departing congregations, and that it is a denomination in serious numerical decline. I doubt very much that the opinions expressed by this UC pastor are that far out of line from the denomination.
The official United Church website is here. You can read the Wikipedia article on the denomination here. And the MagicNumbers blog (which has been occasionally linked to on TitusOneNine before) has the following post on the UC’s numbers.
I think that the United Church of Canada stands out as what certain factions in TEC would like the TEC to become. TEC is not the first one to blaze this trail.
“Exactly what is the relationship between this and the slightly more pro-Jesus Emergent Church?” —Frank Fuller [#14]
Not much that I can see.
The United Church of Canada is a post-post-Christian church. It is Liberal Protestantism taken to its logical conclusion of relativism, secular humanism, and unbelief. (The UC Canada was, I’ve heard, already well down this road by the 1960s.)
Another way-station on the road to utter irrelevance. In a post-church “church” based on a kind of ideological purity, the fewer the members, the more “successful” the church. Don’t worry… the issue won’t last long, at this rate!
A similar theological dud can be found in the Green Sermon of the PB. The Resurrection was twisted into a convenient catalyst for preserving the more important earth upon which it happened.
If 815 had had its way, ECUSA would have joined a Liberal Protestant amalgamation much like the United Church of Canada.
During the early 1960s, the National Council of Churches launched an ecumenical project called the “Consultation on Church Union” (COCU), in which ECUSA took part. In 1966 COCU reached agreement on a colossal set of mergers to create a Protestant superdenomination, to be known as the “Church of Christ Uniting.”
Fortunately the Methodists voted it down. Then, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, the evangelical and charismatic renewal movement within ECUSA helped assure that ECUSA would not join.
Thank you Globe for exposing this Apostate. Her heresy will be her downfall.
Nevertheless, it is not unexpected that the “new world” theology, also know as relativism, would be spreading blasphemies such as hers.
H
Anyone consider following the money on why these an other indviduals stay with an organization whose mission means nothing to them? There’s no mention of the size of the congregation and its population trend over the last ten years. If you don’t really believe in the “product” your pitching, no one’s going to buy it.
I ought to add here that attempts at organic union between the Anglican Church of Canada and the United Church of Canada fell apart along about 1976 because the ACC decided that the UCC were far too liberal.
‘Nuff said.