fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

‘Dialogue’ As Subversion

The word signals a deadly trap for institutions
shutterstock_383279887

A reader sends news from Canada that the case of the United Church minister who is an open atheist is closer to being resolved. Excerpts:

Sub-executive members of the church’s Toronto Conference announced Thursday they have asked the church’s general council, the most senior governance body, to hold a formal hearing to decide whether Rev. Gretta Vosper, who does not believe in God or the Bible, should be placed on the disciplinary “Discontinued Service List.”

“Some will be disappointed and angry that this action has been taken, believing that the United Church may be turning its back on a history of openness and inclusivity,” it said in a statement.

“Others have been frustrated that the United Church has allowed someone to be a minister in a Christian church while disavowing the major aspects of the Christian faith. There is no unanimity in the church about what to do.”

No unanimity in the church about what to do about a pastor who denies the existence of God and the holiness of the Bible? No wonder the United Church is in terminal decline (the average age of its members is 65). More:

In her appearance before the sub-executive, Vosper said she took pride in the fact the United Church embraced diverse perspectives and was always willing to leave one chair empty at the table for those people “from whom they least want to hear.”

Her lawyer, Julian Falconer, said it was troubling the church would “choose discipline over dialogue.”

“This should not be about legal hearings and an adversarial process. This should be about inclusion and support for a very healthy ministry,” he said.

And there you have it. “Discipline over dialogue.” Let us all stop to remember Neuhaus’s Law: Wherever orthodoxy is optional, it will sooner or later be proscribed. 

What Father Neuhaus meant is that today the left wing of the United Church wants to allow an atheist minister to keep her pulpit because of inclusivity, and appeals to the principle of “dialogue.” But you can be very sure that the left wing of that church (and perhaps whatever counts as the right wing of that very, very liberal ecclesial body) has its own orthodoxies — say, rejecting the orthodox Christian view of homosexuality — that no pastor can proclaim from the pulpit and expect to keep his or her job. As Neuhaus has written:

With the older orthodoxy it is possible to disagree, as in having an argument. Evidence, reason, and logic count, in principle at least. Not so with the new orthodoxy. Here disagreement is an intolerable personal affront. It is construed as a denial of others, of their experience of who they are. It is a blasphemous assault on that most high god, “My Identity.” Truth-as-identity is not appealable beyond the assertion of identity. In this game, identity is trumps. An appeal to what St. Paul or Aquinas or Catherine of Sienna or a Church council said cannot withstand the undeniable retort, “Yes, but they are not me!” People pack their truths into what Peter Berger has called group-identity kits. The chief item in the kit, of course, is the claim to being oppressed.

At some point, dialogue is useless, and is only used by the left as a stalling tactic until they get their people into positions of power, or until they wear down the conservative opposition. In the life of the church, there is no point in talking with people who believe there is no objective truth by which we can and should settle our theological disputes. It’s all about power.

Advertisement

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Subscribe for as little as $5/mo to start commenting on Rod’s blog.

Join Now