The United Church of Canada
Moderator Controversy:
Bill Phipps and Responses
Christian Apologetics
Dr. James Beverley
Tyndale Seminary
May 14, 1998
I wish to thank Dr. Bob and Mrs. Verna Blackburn for their encouragement and articles from the renewal groups and the Lutheran bishop, Dr. John Trueman for encouragement, Dr. Graham Scott for encouragement and the latest Theological Digest & Outlook, and Dr. James Beverley for his ongoing encouragement and interest.
Thanks also to Dr. Victor Shepherd for his encouragement and insight, Dr. Andrew Stirling for his encouragement and kindness, Al Clarkson for hard copy newspaper articles, Jacquie Lyn for all the Calgary Herald articles, David Fisher for his newest article, the Moderator packet and encouragement.
Thank you also to Mary-Frances Denis for where to find more responses from both sides, and for her understanding about my confusion that there really is only one conference for Alberta. (Having grown up in Ontario, where there are more than one conference, I was confused.)
Thank you also to various UCC people who have Internet response sites. These include: Mark Fearnall (Shawville QC), Brian Wilkie (Ottawa ON), and Wayne Wilson (COC) and especially Tony Copple (Kanata ON) . Thanks also to Terry Harris for taping the Pamela Wallin interview for me, and to the rest of the 1997-98 OTS Student Council for allowing me to use the Internet for this project in our shared office. Without this assistance this paper would not have been possible.
Thanks also to the authors of the appendices section, to Ron Piggott for his HTML coding, and to Tony Copple for e-publishing this paper.
I also regret that Bill Phipps was unable to respond to my e-mail concerning this paper, but he was away in Africa. - Laurie-Ann Zachar
| Statement of Acknowledgement and Thanks | Page 02 |
| Table of Contents | Page 03 |
| Introduction | Page 05 |
| Bill Phipps the man | Page 06 |
| Bill Phipps "Prophet in a Baseball Cap" | Page 07 |
| Bill Phipps the Pastor | Page 08 |
| Bill Phipps' Election | Page 09 |
| Bill Phipps the Moderator: Confusion with the Moderator Role? | Page 10 |
| Past Controversial Moderators | Page 11 |
| The Controversy | Page 12 |
| Theological Issues Raised: Christology | Page 15 |
| Theological Issues Raised: Resurrection | Page 17 |
| Theological Issues Raised: Heaven/Hell | Page 18 |
| Theological Issues Raised: Biblical Authority | Page 18 |
| Theological Issues Raised: Other Apologetical Issues | Page 20 |
| Theological Issues Raised: The Virgin Birth | Page 21 |
| Theological Issues Raised: Miracles | Page 21 |
| Theological Issues Raised: Influence From Process Thought in the Problem of Pain and Evil | Page 22 |
| Theological Issues Raised: Influence from panentheism | Page 22 |
| The Cost of the Controversy: Exodus continues from the UCC | Page 24 |
| The Cost of the Controversy: M&S Fund continues to decline | Page 26 |
| The Cost of the Controversy: Cost to the Gospel | Page 27 |
| The Moderator's wording issue: word smith or contextualization? | Page 28 |
| Concern of Over-Contextualization: Is the Gospel Lost? | Page 30 |
| From "Repent and Resign" to Applause: Why the Continuum? | Page 32 |
| Responses in the United Church: Renewal Groups | Page 34 |
| Responses in the United Church: Opposed Clergy | Page 34 |
| Responses in the United Church: Opposed Laity | Page 36 |
| Responses in the United Church: Seminary Students: Emerging Leaders | Page 37 |
| Responses in the United Church: The Christmas Confession | Page 37 |
| Responses in the United Church: Supportive Clergy | Page 39 |
| Responses in the United Church: Supportive Laity | Page 39 |
| Responses in the United Church: Phipps' congregation | Page 40 |
| Responses in the United Church: Phipps' presbytery and conference | Page 41 |
| Responses in the United Church: Other supportive presbteries | Page 41 |
| Responses in the United Church: General Council Executive | Page 42 |
| Diversity of Gifts and Understandings | Page 42 |
| What is Essential Agreement? | Page 44 |
| In the sister churches: Clergy | Page 45 |
| In the sister churches: Laity | Page 46 |
| Romans 8:28 - All Things Work to the Good for those who love God | Page 47 |
| Dialogue: The Guttenberg Net | Page 47 |
| Conclusion | Page 48 |
| Endnotes | Page 49 |
| Sources Consulted and Cited | Page 73 |
| Appendices: Shift of Liberalization | Page 83 |
| Appendices: Resurrection through the New Curriculum | Page 83 |
| Appendices: To the Moderator: Laurie-Ann Zachar | Page 83 |
| Appendices: Response: John Trueman, Community of Concern | Page 84 |
| Appendices: Response: Dave Snihur, National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations | |
| Appendices: Response: Gail Reid, Fellowship Magazine | Page 85 |
| Appendices: Response: Graham Scott, Church Alive | Page 86 |
| Appendices: On Doubt | Page 87 |
| Appendices: Concerned Clergy: Mark Fearnall | Page 88 |
| Appendices: Supporters : "Darren L." | Page 89 |
| Appendices: "Drop the Issue": Iain Macdonald | Page 91 |
| Appendices: The Moderator's Congregation: Ronald Read | Page 91 |
| Appendices: What Would Jesus Say? Jim Wallace, Calgary Herald | Page 92 |
The Rt. Rev. Bill Phipps is the new and controversial moderator of the United Church of Canada. Within a few months of office, he 'turned the church upside down' with comments that seriously downplayed Jesus' divinity, the resurrection, the reality of heaven and hell, and the reliability of scripture. Since then he has been both praised and denounced, both within and without the UCC. Is he the "prophet in a baseball cap"1 or is he a heretic?2 Is he a compassionate activist who understands the suffering of the oppressed, or is he a radical liberal who knows how to cleverly manipulate words?3 Is he indeed a cobra who can be crass and crude?4 At first the choice seems easy, until one gets to know him. Can someone this likeable be capable of such deception? Or is he simply spiritually blind to some of the core truths of our faith while very sensitive to others? He is hopeful in the controversy generating discussion of Jesus both within the Church and in the surrounding Canadian culture. Yet, who is Jesus to the Rt. Rev. Phipps? These are not easy questions, but along this journey, we may discover who Bill Phipps is, as well as the inclusive church of diversity in which he is a leader.
Is the new moderator representative of all the United Church in his beliefs? This question can be answered with a loud "No!" This denomination includes many different types, including liberals and evangelicals, of a wide variety along the continuum of both streams. One of the ways in which the variety could be understood is in the work of outreach. "It may mean a preaching mission for some, or work for social justice for others. Some church members would describe themselves as evangelical; others would not. According to a 1981 Observer poll, 10 per cent of the United Church would consider themselves to be evangelical."5 Many of these people left after the 1988-90 crisis over 'the Issue.'6 However, due to recent statistics as reported by former moderator Marian Best, the number of UCC people involved in the renewal groups are 5%, although there may be some who are not as vocal.7
Bill Phipps the Man
Bill Phipps was born in Toronto on May 4, 1942 to a
'staunch' United Church home. His father
Reginald was an Eaton's accountant who was strongly relational
with family, church and friends. In
this atmosphere he learned about social justice through his
father's volunteer work at inner-city
missions, and unconditional love from his mother.8 He
later returned this loving presence to his mother when she was
dying in 1981. "He's never been afraid
to be with someone in pain" says Carolyn Pogue-Phipps, "Most of
us are afraid of the darker side of
life. Bill isn't. He'd simply calls it life."9 He continued
to stand unafraid in situations of suffering, whether in
inner-city Toronto, New York and Chicago, in
war-torn Nicaragua, or in being present with dying step-children.
Part of his 'prophetic' concern of
outreach to the downtrodden comes from what he has personally
witnessed. After he graduated from
Osgoode Law School, he spent a summer with Brooklyn Presbyterian
Church when the surrounding
area was dangerous. "It was a summer of riots and soldiers on
the streets, [... where] the church [was]
trying to be the church in a war zone."10 Later, he attended
Chicago's McCormick Theological School on a three-year
scholarship, where he learned from Saul
Alinski, marched with Martin Luther King Jr., and worked in a
children's leukaemia ward.11 In 1969, he was
ordained, continued working on his law
degree, and in community work.12 He was admitted to the
Law Society of Upper Canada the following year.13 After
pastoring in Trinity St.Paul's in downtown Toronto,14 he
moved to Alberta in 1983 "where he took an administrative job as
executive secretary for the church's
Alberta and Northwest Territories conference [...]"15 It
was during this time that his first marriage ended in divorce.
After visiting Nicaragua during their horrible civil war,16 he continued as executive secretary, and working
with the Division of Mission in
Canada.17 He also
protested with the Lubicon Cree. As
executive secretary, he was also involved with the Issue (over
gay ordination) that buffeted the church
in 1988. He also served all courts of the church in a variety of
ways, including being a General
Council commissioner to eight General Councils.18 In 1990,
he married writer Carolyn Pogue (who used to work for the
United Church Observer), and
moved to pastor Calgary's Scarboro United in 1993.19
Shortly after their marriage, two of Carolyn's children died
within two years. They chose to redeem
their time of grief by an outreach to others in pain. Each
Christmas their church has a "Hard to Be
Merry Christmas service"20 He is also both an avid baseball
and hockey fan, listens to jazz and classical music, spends much
time alone to replenish energy, and
takes long walks with his wife in the nearby mountains.21
Phipps' weaknesses, according to parishoner Mary Beard are
"that he over-extends himself, [...]
is impatient with stupidity and he's impulsive."22 A
colleague from Edmonton also adds that "he is quite hesitant. He
tries to make everybody feel
included. He's very upset personally when people feel their faith
is threatened by what he says
[meaning cost of the controversy]."23 Pogue-Phipps also adds
that he is somewhat of a romantic, that he is open, "[...] and
that [he has] no hidden agenda. It's all
there."24 Loyalty and
friendship are also very important to
him as he described in the Pamela Wallin interview.25 His
friend 'Jake' Williams, whom he met in a sand-box at age 5
continues to be an metaphoric reminder
to him that one can strongly disagree, yet still love
unconditionally.26 Behind this commitment seems to be Phipps' view
of dialogue, in which differences
are discussed in 'love,' otherwise considered an offence. Says
Phipps,
"My great passion for the[UCC]and for the church at large is that
it should be a place[...]where we can have
honest differences and speak the truth to each other while always
respecting the dignity and personhood of the
[one] with whom we are in debate."27
Tony Copple has further to say concerning Bill Phipps himself.
"Bill is a remarkably articulate politician. He can sway a crowd.
He truly believes in his view of Christianity.
He is scrupulously honest and ethical, and is currently
building bridges within the church, and getting the
church a lot of editorial. On Friday Nov 7, 1997 he took part in
a conference call with about 10 hostile to his
views (including me), and on Monday Nov 10 he debated with a
large crowd at Parkdale United in Ottawa.
He has many supporters, both ordained and lay. He has received
letters from former church members saying
that his vision was appealing to them, and they wanted to come
back to the church. He may feel that he can
increase the membership and influence of the United Church by
promoting a more liberal understanding of
our beliefs.
So why does this make me so, so sad. Not because Bill has
spoken out, but because a sizeable number
within the United Church are clearly sympathetic with his views
and support him, if the attenders at the
November 10 gathering are representative. I'm sad because he was
elected by people who knew his beliefs. He's
courageously doing exactly what he was elected for. But they and
he aren't [sic] reckoning with some
significant Christian forces [the number of transformed lives
through the Vineyard movement, the Alpha
programme, Billy Graham, etc]"28
Bill Phipps "Prophet in A Baseball Cap" -
Baseball and Social
Justice
Bill Phipps was declared as the 'prophet in a baseball cap'
at the 36th General Council in
Camrose, Alberta in August 1997.29 This epithet
presents him for both his love for social justice and his pastime
of baseball. However, Phipps
does inform us that "he is not a baseball fanatic. He just loves
the game." Says Asling,
"Phipps is well known for two things in the church he has served
since his ordination 28 years ago [in 1969]:
his commitment to social justice, particularly for First Nations
people, and his love for baseball. [...] In 1984
he started the Moderator's Cup baseball tournament as a way to
help ease the stress of Council. At this Council
he will get to present the trophy that he created and donated to
the winning baseball team. Its one of the
privileges of the office [that he says] he will relish."30
However, the UCC directive of justice and outreach to both
Canada and the 2/3 world31 is where Phipps' deepest
concern abides, and this seems
to be an extension of his earlier experiences. Says Asling,
"[...] While he has served in the church in
three congregations and in administration as executive secretary
of Alberta and Northwest Conference,
Phipps' heart is in the prophetic social ministry of the
UCC [italics mine]"32 Phipps noted that"it's not that [the UCC]
have forgotten our prophetic
voice [...] but I think we've spent a lot of time internally for
the past 10 years. [...] [However], I think
people are [now] sticking their head[s] out and saying we've got
a tradition of being out there
and being critics of our society; [so] we need to be doing that
more."33
The written material that Phipps provided for the
commissioners at the Camrose conference
included intermittent phrases such as prophetic, public
witness, and loving justice.
He expressed a concern that congregations and all
courts of the church have
the potential to be prophetic.34 This may also refer
to the ministry of the laity as well as the clergy and
bureaucracy. He also believes people both within
and outside the church are ready for the United Church to speak
out loudly and clearly on behalf of
those who are hurting in society. Yet, in order to do this,
there must be a unity of purpose
and motivation within the whole church. This requires
knowing self-identity as Christians35 and responding in a call
to reach out to others.36
Phipps believes that Christian communities in Canada have
much wisdom and strength to bring
to the community at large. "[However], Phipps, [as a] lawyer
[...] acknowledges that the church must
learn to be prophetic as a minority in society. It is a
process he says has already begun with
the church's aligning itself with the marginalized in
society--the homeless, the poor, First Nations and
environmentalists."37
The process according to Phipps
includes "real congregational renewal. [...]The church's worship
[...], education [...], pastoral care[...],
and prayer life are also mixed up with its political life.
That means challenging political and
corporate institutions. Phipps believes that "[...]the Bible is
one of the most political collections in any
religious literature.And any[one]who says you can't [sic] mix
Bible and politics has never read the
Bible."38
Adjacent to his concerns of putting faith into action is his
theologically liberal position. Even
with his view of being 'mutually tolerant of other view points in
the UCC'39 it is clear that his presuppositions would be as
evident as some of the earlier
moderators, and thus there was already potential of the public
disclose of liberalism that has long
been one of the views of the UCC and its seminaries. However,
though his liberal views were no
secret, he found it beneficial to meet with the leaders of the
renewal groups when he was elected. It
may have been politically wise to do so, since the orthodox
voice within the UCC is defended
through the renewal groups, such as Church Alive, Community of
Concern and the National Alliance
of Covenanting Congregations (as well as Fellowship
Magazine, which is the offspring of the
now defunct United Church Renewal Fellowship). John Trueman,
president of COC reports this
exchange as congenial and neutral in tone:
"Rev. Bill Phipps has never been known for giving reform/renewal
people the time of day; yet he moved quickly
to meet with their leaders at Camrose. Our Vice President, John
Hoover, described their exchange of views
as "very frank and forceful, but cordial" - but tempered these
remarks with the reminder that "while we are
listened to once in a while it has not led to any concrete action
for traditionalists to help us feel more at
home."40
Phipps also "envision[s] every UCC congregation becoming a safe
place for people--that everyone
[...]no matter who they are or where they come from, is welcomed
in our churches, and is loved as a
child of God."41 Can one
hope that these are not mere
words to a church that has been polarized for years? Orr also
adds that Phipps wants the 'storytelling'
in the church to continue among the groups that are in some
conflict.42 Phipps narrates his concern in the following
quote:
"There are people hurting in many parts of our church and I
guess we have to be open and hear what they
have to say," he said. "The fundamental principle has to do with
God's unconditional love for all of us [...]
When people do not show each other respect as human beings, then
I think we have to hear the gospel." He
said he wants all groups in the church to speak the truth to one
another in love.43"
"
John Hoover also spoke in hopeful expectation:
'[...] we welcome Phipps's initiative, and hope we can build on
what he heralded as his "great passion for the
United Church . . . that it should be a place out of any other
place in the world where we can have honest
differences and speak the truth to each other while always
respecting the dignity and personhood of the person
with whom we are in debate."44
John Trueman believes that such words [may] seem to indicate a
change of heart for Phipps, since his
term of office as Executive Secretary was marked by "[...]little
respect, let alone compassion, for
renewal/reform supporters. Or are they just words?"45 Phipps said in recent interview46 that
he respects the conservatives' opinions but completely disagrees
with them and that they are concerned
about theological formulas. However, this disagreement is
defended by saying that "[...] learning from
[other beliefs] enhances my Christianity, it doesn't[sic] dilute
it [...] We're fairly good at it because
we're nondogmatic and we don't [sic] have a lot of doctrines."47 Thus Trueman was concerned upon Phipps'
election that their new
moderator would 'fight fair' in being a 'prophetic' social
critic. Says Trueman, "Now that this 'prophet
in a baseball cap' has taken over, can we rely on him to be a
fair umpire? Can we count on him to
call a foul a foul? Or will he bend every rule to prevent us from
scoring? Above all, will he try to put
our heaviest hitters right out of the game?"48
Bill Phipps the Pastor
Bill Phipps is very much supported by his congregation (as
will be later shown below). Since
he arrived at Scarboro UC, "membership at the upper-middle class
church on the edge of the Beltline
downtown has doubled to 325 families."49 He is known
within this context as having a "real affection for people, a
real concern and love for each individual,
[...] with an openness and acceptance [... often] missing in
other churches."50 As a congregation, they are involved in weekly
Bible studies, letter writing
campaigns to address child poverty, school reading programmes and
evenings serving dinner at the
Mustard Seed Mission in downtown Calgary.51
His understanding of the human side of suffering is very
articulate, and is expressed in the
Christmas service for those in transition and grief. During the
1997 Christmas season, Phipps
continued with the service, despite his three year leave of
absence. Asling believes that Phipps' decision
not to leave his congregation relates to a strong sense that the
prophetic life of the church is rooted
in congregational life and linked with the pastoral work
of congregations. Says Phipps, "the
church exists for the sake of the world. The congregation exists
for the sake of whatever part of the
world it sees as its responsibility."52 At this Christmas
service, Bill Phipps embraces those who have come to his
church for the special liturgy
. Says Leahey-Bailey,
"Although embroiled in controversy in his role as moderator of
the United Church of Canada, here at this
service, the focus is on those who are suffering. According
to Phipps, the burdens people are carrying are
varied. 'This service helps people in various ways. The main
thing is for people to acknowledge that Christmas
can be really tough. For many people it's the worst time of the
year. It's just an awful season.' Tears flow easily
during the service. And that's okay. '[Do not] be embarrassed by
those tears, nor angry with them,' Phipps tells
his congregation. 'For they are tears of reality. They are tears
of feeling genuine loss and experiencing the
emotions of what it is to be a human being, to be a real
person.''52
Bill Phipps' Election
Bill Phipps won on the first ballot in August 1997 over the
other nominees, Dr. Andrew Stirling
of Parkdale UC in Ottawa (a thoughtful evangelical) and John
Ambrose, the managing editor of the
new Voices United hymn book.54 One United
Church minister who was recently interviewed shared his surprise
that Phipps won over Ambrose so
easily, because Ambrose was smooth in his style, while Phipps was
crass and crude in comparison.
Stirling however, did not have a chance.55 Some who were
commissioners of the conference say that the vote was nearly
unanimous, and others do not. Rev.
Tom Sawyer, of Edmonton's St. Stephen's College reported that
he
"[...]was very pleased that Bill was elected moderator of the
church [...] It was the first time in years
that a moderator had been elected on the first ballot. There was
a strong sense of unity, unanimity and
oneness among the delegates [...] You no longer have to leave
your brains at the door. A [...] lot of people
[were] very excited at Bill's election.''56
Phipps believes that his first ballot election as a
sign that the United Church still shares
his vision of what a church ought to be about: "speaking out
against injustice in society [and] being
prophetic [in action?]57 Sawyer says he can
understand opposition to Phipps' statements. "I'm sure people
from a more conservative
persuasion would like things to be more black and white,'' he
said. "But the mainstream United
Church knows that things aren't black and white[italics
mine].''58 Perhaps Sawyer's comments of 'black and white'
may be a somewhat problematic,
and one may remark that more definition may be required to
avoid confusion and give more
assurance. The UCRF
in an earlier era often remarked in its publication Small
Voice that the UCC had to fight
being called a 'United Church of Confusion.'59
One commissioner reported on Tony Copple's moderator site in
November 1997 that he did
not vote for Bill Phipps, and gave clear reasons why he
did not do so. He reported that Mr.
Phipps' declaration that Jesus was a window to God (but
one of the most important windows
we have),
"it became quite obvious to the discerning that he is more
Unitarian than Christian [... in] what he
actually believes. [...]In any case, you now have some evidence
that the vote taken in Camrose was not
unanimous. Heaven knows why, but as one prominent renewal person
said prior to the election, 'I hope Bill
wins; he'll do more for renewal within the United Church (by
repulsion) than all the other moderators
combined! I hope this man's words end up being
prophetic."60
The words just reported may have been prophetic, but not without
a cost (which shall be covered
below).
Bill Phipps the Moderator: Confusion
About the Moderator
Role?
During this present controversy, there was much confusion
concerning what the moderator role
actually is. Phipps was even asked by Pamela Wallin why he has
not run for political office, since he
would be perfect for that more defined role.61 His reply was
that to work within the church was better, and that it is a more
freeing institution because of its
biblical mandate.62
While the renewal groups such as
Community of Concern were very clear about the moderator's role
as a leader of a Christian
church, where social ministry and empowered faith are
supposed to be combined. Says
Trueman, "A Moderator's job is defined as being 'to give
leadership to the United Church ...
heartening and strengthening the whole UNITED CHURCH.' "63 However, one Calgarian questioned Phipps'
motivation and was confused about
the moderator role. AnnMarie Hall wrote a letter to the
Calgary Herald editor concerning
his theological remarks (to be discussed below)which includes
the following comments:
"Phipps could be doing effective work for social justice as a
lawyer or an activist, and have a much clearer
agenda. It is obvious that social activism and political
influence are more important to him than spiritual
issues. [...]It is disappointing and disturbing to see yet
another charismatic Christian leader use the faith as
merely a means to an end, a way to get a political or social
cause heard. Phipps has pursued the role of leader
and spokesperson, a representative of the Christian church in
Canada. His first and foremost responsibility
is to represent the church; that role must come ... before
any cause he chooses to champion, worthy as
it may be. My question for Rev. Phipps is, why the ministry? What
is his motivation? Power? He surely has
power now. Phipps is in a highly visible position of religious
authority, blithely announcing he does not believe
or support tenants that unite Christian believers in Canada and
worldwide. I wish he had gone public with these
beliefs before he was elected moderator."64
Phipps personally responded to Ms. Hall's letter in
defence of both the role how a candidate
is chosen for the moderator position. Some of his response is as
follows:
I want to thank Ann Marie Hall for her thoughtful letter. There
are a few points of clarification I would like
to make. First of all, one does not ``pursue'' the role of
moderator in the United Church of Canada. I was
nominated by four Presbyteries within our Church; [these were
Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto South and
Northern Lights]65 there
is no way in which there is any pursuit of
the office. Rather, one is nominated and then elected. Any
campaign for that office would be totally
outside the tradition of our Church. Secondly, [concerning]
[...] the comments I have made, [I believe
they] are within the mainstream of the United Church and reform
theology. I believe strongly that I am
well-rooted within the Christian tradition, although not
frozen in its language. [...] Lastly,
the biblical tradition is very clear that ``the spiritual''
involves all of life, including personal relationships,
prayer, worship, politics, economics and more.[...] Why the
ministry?'' Because I have a passionate belief that
in Jesus Christ we have a glimpse of God's call for us to reach
out to all those who may be left out of the
benefits of our society. I have a strong belief that the God of
love as depicted in scripture is something our
world needs now more than ever.66
Other United Church people expressed concern that the
moderator should more adequately
reflect the official beliefs of the church, such as the Twenty
Articles of the Basis of Union,67 and be concerned for the
harmony and unity of the church.
Steven Chambers defines the moderator position as having four
specific roles, "although each person
brings to the task unique gifts and contributions."68 Phipps'
unique gifts, appear to be his social conscience and
understanding of human suffering. These four roles
are: a presiding role (over General Council meetings, the
Executive and Sub-Executive), a
representative role (representing the United Church at
public national occasions, including
royal and papal visits), an interpretive role (although
only the General Council has the right
to speak officially, the moderator is the spokesperson of the
church) and a pastoral role.69 It appears that the
concern of the controversy is over the
representative and pastoral roles. The representative role was
in confusion because he seemed to
represent his own views only in the Ottawa
Citizen and following media
exposure, and the pastoral role was questioned because the
controversy was shaking a church that still
has not recovered from the 1988 Issue and mass exodus. Was this
really helping the Gospel?
What of the cost?
Phipps was concerned about the representative role and that
he is not meant to be like a
bishop that may represent one view on behalf of the people. Says
Phipps, "Some people have written
in and said, 'We respect that you can have your own view, but
once you're elected Moderator, you
have to represent the whole Church. I am not a bishop, or
a pope, or anything like that, and
we have to understand that's not the understanding of the United
Church Moderator."70 The General Council
Executive also affirmed this non-
episcopal role, particularly because the UCC is a conciliar
church. However, although the moderator
and other officers of the church courts are free to express
personal points of view, this freedom of
expression "must be tempered by the need for congruence with
stated policies and statements of the
UCC."71
The first moderator of the UCC, the Rt. Rev. George
Pidgeon, was concerned that
social activism not be entirely at the expense of Christian
doctrine. This could open a door to agnostic
clergy to "avoid the imprisons of unbelief"72 as it had with
Methodist James Shaver Woodsworth, who had offered to resign
twice for his unbelief, and was
refused. He was not given an invitation to leave the ministry
until his pacifist politics conflicted with
the Church during World War I.73 Thus, Pidgeon warned
in 1926 that "social service is not religion. Christ was no mere
social reformer."74 Another former moderator, Richard
Roberts, also warned in 1932 that
"religion was in danger of becoming a pale and anemic counterfeit
of itself."75 The General Council Executive's response to the
controversy shall be discussed
below.
Past Controversial Moderators
Phipps said the United Church has always been
freethinking and past moderators
[such as Ernest Howse, Bob McLure, and Bruce McLeod] have said
much more outrageous things.
'What's new is that my views hit the front page of a secular
newspaper.'76 Have they said more outrageous things in the
name of liberalism, progress and
'making things new' (or contextualization?) Ernest Howse was
moderator in the late sixties and then
pastor of Bloor Street UC in Toronto. It was during his time of
office that the United Church
Renewal Fellowship began in protest with the growing
liberalism.77 Victor Shepherd recalls what Howse preached on
Easter Sunday one year:
Phipps insists that he hasn't [sic] said anything that United
Church moderators haven't [sic] said for 35 years,
all the way back to Ernest Marshall Howse. Phipps is correct. His
perfidy isn't [sic] new and is no greater than
theirs. Well do I remember Ernest Marshall Howse's public denials
of the incarnation when Howse was
moderator. Well do I remember Howse's Easter sermon of 1968. I as
flat on my back, encased from neck to
groin in a body cast as a result of a three fatality car
accidents in which my spine had been fractured. Since I
was encased in plaster, I didn't [sic] go to church in Easter
'68; instead I turned on the T.V. set and watched
the Howse's broadcast from Bloor Street United Church. Howse
managed to get through the entire sermon,
on Easter Sunday, without once mentioning the resurrection of
Jesus Christ. This, of course, was no accident,
since Howse had already said many times over that such matters as
incarnation and atonement and resurrection
he disdained. Phipps is right: he's no different from his
predecessors in the office of moderator.78
Other moderators who were known for their liberalism were
Lois Wilson (who believes that
Jesus is not the only way to God),79 Bob McClure, the
layman-doctor moderator, Bruce McLeod, who is 'like a fighter'80 and past moderator Marion Best. Other past
moderators were also liberal, but
were not always outspoken about it. McLure's comments during his
office were often dismissed
because he was a medical doctor and not someone who went to
seminary.81 Muriel Duncan also writes that McClure said
"that ascribing supernatural powers
to Jesus detracted from the image he held. [He] regarded him as
a son of man so much more than
emphasizing that he is the son of God."82 McLeod, believes
the same views as Phipps, and also says that liberal views are
"[...] not a new issue. For a hundred
years these things have been taught in our seminaries."83
McLeod also recalled the former moderator Ernest Howse, who
"faced similar questions about the
divinity of Christ and the resurrection as Phipps did [in the
media]. [McLeod said that] the United
Church is quite used to this. The mainline of the church
was not shaken [italics mine]."84
John Ambrose, one of the other nominees for the moderator
position was concerned that
Phipps was not saying anything new, and that "the difficulty is
when you start speaking out informally
(in the media) and there is no opportunity to translate what you
say."85 Ambrose believes that much of the "heated
censure" of Phipps' opinions is due
to Canadian Christians' "theological and biblical illiteracy"
because they have a tendency to "literalize"
traditional beliefs.86
This attitude of viewing evangelical
Christians as less learned is one that is common, and many
evangelicals view it as an attempt to
marginalize them. This label does not always fit evangelicals,
as in the examples of Billy Graham, who
does not believe that hell is literally a 'lake of
fire', or John Stott, who "holds
approximately to the idea that hell is annihilation or an
unconscious state."87
The Controversy
So Phipps' liberal views and his phraseology of expressing
his faith is not new. What is
new is the way it was conducted, by a newly elected
moderator, to a secular newspaper,
the Ottawa Citizen on October 24, 1997, as if it were one
of the accepted official views
of the church. The newspaper may also have been secular, but
the interviewer, Bob Harvey was
not.88 Phipps also
believes that when people see theological
proclamations as stark headlines it is problematic.89
Another surprise is that this is not usually the "norm for United
Church ministers to proclaim [their]
beliefs, they prefer to discuss Christian based philosophy and
behaviour."90 However, there has been precedent from
previous moderators, and as Phipps has
stated, he intended to talk on other issues. It seems
that the inclusive agenda and view
of the UCC bureaucracy has remained the same since the 1960's,
and through this (intentionally or
not), an Arian error from early church history has resurfaced.
Phipps, in the name of avoiding what
he believes is Docetism (an overemphasis on the divine nature of
Jesus)91 has 'swung the pendulum' too far in the other
direction. When he is further
questioned about his beliefs in the original interview, his
defense is to remind them that he is not a
professional in determining doctrine.92 Although Phipps
calls himself no theologian,93 in some sense, everyone is a
theologian and a philosopher,94 because as spiritual and
ontological beings, we want to make sense of our lives and what
is around us.95 Several United Church ministers have
commented on Phipps' remark of
not being a theologian. Graham Scott commented on Phipps by
asking a question. Says Scott:
" Now Mr. Phipps admits that he is no theologian. Why then would
he deny Jesus Christ's divinity and physical
resurrection? There is a difference between remaining silent
before a mystery which one does not understand
and denying faith statements that have been affirmed by virtually
all Christians at all times in all places. It is
one thing for him to attempt to articulate his faith in Jesus and
quite another for him to deny
historic and universal faith statements. We are compelled
to deny his denials [italics mine]." 96
Victor Shepherd also humourously commented , "True enough
[...]but since he manifestly isn't, [sic]
then where theological matters are concerned why doesn't
[sic] he simply shut up? [italics
mine]"97 As thinking and
creative human beings, we
prescribe meaning to things, but what we impose is not
necessarily the truth. Truth then is the core
question when it comes to Phipps, especially when he believes in
introducing Christ to the moral
economy (which is theology and social justice in the world
through the Moderator's Consultation on
Christ and the Moral Economy).98 Where is his
centre? He claims in the original interview that "[...]the
[moral] centre is in biblical terms, our
concepts or words or experiences as compassion, justice, peace.
The Jewish term "shalom" encompasses
a whole lot of things. Peace with justice. There is no peace
where there is no justice. It's how you
apply that in a given situation."99 Yet, is this guideline of
situational ethics a centre? If Christians who are both
liberal and conservative on the lesser
issues are held together by the core doctrines of our faith, what
is holding him together?
Is it merely a rewording of the same faith as Antonio Gualtieri
believes?100 Or is the United Church really so inclusive
that core doctrines such as the
resurrection, the incarnation, the divinity of Jesus and
authority of scripture are believed to be mere
theory? Even Peter Wyatt, the general secretary for faith and
ecumenism for the UCC believes there
are two sides to this inclusive diversity. Says Wyatt,
"Our strength is our diversity and the freedom we give people.
[...] But the shadow side of that is that people
wonder whether there are any boundaries? In point of fact, we
have doctrinal standards. We believe
that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Saviour of the faithful, But we
[do not] use those doctrinal standards to
exclude people [italics mine]."101
One of the writers of the original Twenty Articles of Faith
was Canadian Methodist Nathanael
Burwash. He was the one who reconciled the doctrines of
predestination with that of Wesleyan
Armininism in such a way that there was a creative tension. He
had believed that it was
theory that divided the two groups in their theology.102 However, those two doctrines are not
absolutely essential for saving faith. Even
Burwash, who was a noted reconciler of doctrines, upheld
scriptural truth and the human theories,
(including ones of human origin that were a hypothesis).
Said Burwash concerning the
difference of scripture and 'theory':
"The Scriptural elements of faith we held to be essential, the
theories human and at best imperfect, and
changing with the progress of human science and philosophy. We
strove to include all the prominent elements
of religious faith, and to eliminate all speculative theory,
especially where its harmony with Scripture
might be questioned [italics mine]."103
Thus, scripture was used as the 'plumbline' for the test- instead
of allowing contextualization to act
as the guide. These twenty articles of faith are now
currently under revision in the Vision
2000 movement under leader Peter Vanderkaam,104
and during one of the past councils, there was a
motion to declare the twenty
articles as an historical document, thus not the guiding norm for
UCC clergy and members. (This has
not yet cleared).
It seems to be clear that Phipps' 'creed' is social justice,
of a sort; a biblical selectivity
that only focuses on the prophetic justice acts of Micah,
Amos and in cases Jesus, but he does
not see that there is more to the story. Says Harvey in the
original article, "His lapel button, 'zero
poverty', reflects the views he developed in the mid-1960's as a
student observing riots and civil rights
marches in New York and Chicago. 'Biblically, it's an abomination
that there are any poor people in
Canada at all', he says.105 His views on poverty are
strong and definite. 'Your soul is lost unless you care about
people starving in the streets.' He says
Canada's major churches can no longer be called mainline churches
because there is relatively little
influence."106
It is very true that many churches are indifferent to the
poor, and often do not know how to
really help; but arousing the Church to act does not come from
attacking her very centre. Calgary
Baptist pastor Tim Callaway, believes that many evangelicals
are indifferent to the poor and
those in transition.
"Whilehe's willing to help, Callaway [is] appalled at the number
of evangelical Christians who regard every
destitute visitor as a 'scam artist.' 'I'm amazed at the
response I get from people, says Callaway. [...] It would
be so easy if Jesus [had not] said 'love your neighbour'. [...]
If you [cannot] love your neighbour whom you
have seen how can you love the brother you [have not] seen?' I'm
all for an orthodox statement of faith [...]
I'm also for an orthodox statement of life."107
Charles Nienkirchen, a professor at Rocky Mountain College and
Tyndale Seminary, also adds that:
"Phipps, and others within the United Church, are celebrating
this outpouring of discussion about Christ's
nature and other key Christian doctrines, arguing that it will
foster intelligent discussion and the pursuit of
truth. Evangelicals disagree. That will only further
polarize the church by creating more confusion.
[...] If you [cannot] trust the biblical account of God's
involvement with Jesus Christ, [...] what can you trust?
That kind of polarity is the tragedy of the North American
Christianity. Mr. Phipps is asking us to choose
between historical Christianity and social compassion. That's
the worst of all possible choices."108
Graham Scott, the president of UCC's Church Alive is
concerned about the lack of empowered
faith behind the good works. "Moderator Phipps' denials, unbelief
and agnosticism are not good news.
They seem to me an invitation to suicide. They do not even
inspire me to care for the poor. But Jesus
Christ, who, though he was rich yet for our sake became poor,
does inspire me to care for the poor,
for all human beings and for the world that God loves so much
(John 3:16, 2 Cor. 8:9).109 Scott also confided to
McLean's magazine that he hopes
"[that] Phipps will do what Jimmy Bakker did and write a book
entitled I Was Wrong. [...]
My only question now is, 'Why, if Jesus is not God, should we pay
any attention to him?'"110
There is nothing wrong with social justice, but by itself,
it does not fill one with compassion for
the lost, it is not Christocentric and empowered by the
Holy Spirit. Phipps' creed is very
much steeped in humanistic social justice, thus he
"believes that it is Christ's
humanity[as a window to view the divine God]
that brings people closer
to him."111 Then what
would make Jesus distinct?Where
is his heart and empowerment? He says that the Spirit of God in
Christ energizes him, forgives him,
and empowers him to engage the dark corners of life.112
But is this a minimized Christ? If the resurrection is
irrelevant as he believes,113 then even the
preaching of the apostle Paul was in vain
(1Cor 15:14).If the resurrection is irrelevant, than by what
power does he minister if he accepts a form
of godliness, but denying its power? (2 Tim 3:5) Says
Victor Shepherd, "the resurrection of
Jesus Christ is the foundation of every aspect of the
Christian faith. St. Paul insists that if
Jesus Christ had not been raised, then preaching would be a
waste of time, faith would be a
superstition and forgiveness a pipe dream."114 More will
be covered on the resurrection below.
When Phipps was interviewed by The Ottawa Citizen
originally, he believed it would
be about his political views, but it was not. Says
Finch-Drichen, "The Ottawa Citizen meeting was
called partly in response to a barbed August editorial lambasting
the [UCC] of its choice of leader and
among other things, for being too political too be
relevant."115 Is Phipps being too political? Was there
not a reason for Pamela Wallin
suggesting that he run for office? John Hoover also believes that
Phipps' political presuppositions give
him an outlook that may place his socio-political aspirations as
the goal of his work and his
theology. Says Hoover, "For [Phipps], theology is the product of
the human mind and the human
imagination, readily adaptable to serve political ends."116
The Theological Issues Raised:
Christology
Christology was debated all throughout early Church history,
but modern Christology has been
an issue at least since H. S. Reimarus' Fragments in
1778.117 It can even to traced back as far as Konrad der
Gassen who denied Jesus as true
God and true man, and was executed at Basle in 1530.118
McKnight believes that since "Reimarus raised [Christological]
questions, and scholars have not
answered them, in spite of having over two centuries to do so."119 Phipps says he does personally
believe in Jesus; but what does he
believe about Jesus? It is clear that he does not believe
the Chalecedonian formula of being
fully God, fully human that was agreed upon in 451. Phipps even
got the date of the council wrong
in the Wallin interview and elsewhere.120 What does he
believe about the uniqueness of Jesus Christ? Phipps says that
"I believe with all of my soul that Jesus embodies all of God
that can be embodied in a human being. That
makes Jesus special, it makes Jesus unique. The Leap of Faith
which Christians take, is that Jesus was unique
and special and reveals us the nature and will of God. [...] I
can say quite comfortably [that] Jesus is the Son
of God, the Word made Flesh, the Messiah, Emmanuel, God with Us.
God was in Christ, reconciling the world
unto God's self. [like the reconciling and making new Jesus in
the new UCC study?]"121
Carole Burton questions this 'reconciliation' - although in the
context it appears above it seems
normative, but in the November 24 statement, it appeared to mean
a blanket coverage which did not
include the aspect of individual appropriation.122
Another concern involves the actual incarnation of Jesus as
professed by Phipps. Earlier in the
paper it was mentioned that Phipps can be a word smith. This
concern appears in a response about
his statements and Christology. Says Burton, "Many of us believe
that in [one of his ] statement[s],
Phipps is using orthodox Christian phrases in order to pacify UC
people, but he means
something different by the phrases. Jesus is some of God
incarnate, some of God
made flesh. By this he can still hold to his belief that Jesus
reveals as much of God as is possible in
a human being - but he is not fully God."123 Is his focus
so much on the transcendent aspect of God's nature, and that He
is wholly other, that he forgets that
the full incarnation was indeed possible for God, and that he is
no mere avatar (to use Hindu-type
terms of a visitation of God)? Phipps is thinking of God's
transcendence when he talks of Jesus'
incarnation. So he says that " Jesus express[es] God, reveal[s]
God as much as any human being
can."124 Perhaps
the problem here is that Phipps
has swung the pendulum too far on the transcendence of
God, and too far on the
humanity of Jesus? Believing in both transcendence and
imminence are possible.
Therefore, Phipps concern to avoid Docetism has forced him to
swing to the other extreme. He
believes that to call Jesus God (starkly, without also mentioning
his humanity) is heresy.125 Bob Bater, the former
principal of Queen's Theological
College in Kingston, believes that Phipps is not heretical in his
confession, and that "no church, except
perhaps the Eastern Orthodox Church, has ever been willing to say
simply that Jesus was God. [...]
Traditionally, the churches say that Jesus was 'fully divine,
fully human."126 However, Bater forgets the Nicene Creed, and
even the words to "Hark the
Herald Angels Sing" and "O Come all ye Faithful."
A core issue around the Christology debate centres in the
act of worship. Burton
believes its the "acid test" of Jesus' divinity.127 CS Lewis
also addresses this issue somewhat with his trilemma question of
Jesus being either a liar, a lunatic
or the Lord (as in to fall at the feet of Jesus and call him Lord
and God).128 Perhaps Phipps would call him a
lesser Lord, thus not deserving
the full worship that is due the Father. (Phipps would also most
likely not call the head of the Trinity
the Father either, he would call God as the "most loving
parent").129 Phipps apparently stated clearly at both the
Parkdale UC (Ottawa) and the
Metropolitan UC (London) meetings in November that he believes
that we are not to
worship Jesus. He said, "We worship God. We do not worship Jesus.
Jesus pointed us to the God we
are to worship."130
Mark Fearnall, pastor of Shawville UC, personally attended
the meeting at Parkdale UC, and
sent Mr. Phipps an open letter (which is still on his moderator
site)131 concerning implications for UCC unity and
worship. Phipps proclaimed that
we do not worship Christ, and Fearnall confesses that he wanted
to yell out, "I do!"132 Thus the real question is very serious,
which is: Can we, or can we not,
worship Christ?"133
Fearnall's concern is powerfully
communicated in the following quote:
"I do not see how we could possibly honour both views for when
(and if) we are together you(in good
conscience) could not worship Jesus Christ, while I must (in good
conscience). How can we be united in
worship when we cannot agree as to who can receive worship? If
you are correct about Christ, I am
committing idolatry: the worship of a
creature![italicsmine]"134
Another way to defend the divinity of Jesus concerns the
forgiveness of sins. Andrew Stirling believes
that the authority of Jesus (his divinity and Lordship) is either
based upon the forgiveness of sins or
it he is not Lord.135
Says Stirling, "There is not much
neutral ground. [There] is no Jesus of the 'fuzzy navel.'"136
Jim Amy also stated in a sermon that "forgiving sin was something
[that] only God had the authority
to do. Yet Jesus claimed that perogative for himself [...]137
(Mat. 9:2, 5; Mk. 2:5, 9; Luk. 2:9, 5:20, 23, 7:48). Tony
Copple also included this defense
in his open letter to the Moderator,138 as did Victor
Shepherd in his response to the Moderator.139 Jim Amy
also lists other biblical defenses concerning the divinity of
Jesus. These include Jesus' self
understanding concerning his authority: as the judge of the
world (Mat. 25), as modifier of the
Sabbath (Mk. 2), as unique in relationship with the Father and
was preexistent (Jn. 8:85), over
heaven and earth (Mt. 28:19), as the source of life (Jn.
5:39-40, 6:33-35),140 and there were also the disciple's
understanding of Jesus, which included
'doubting' Thomas' declaration! (Jn. 20:28) More shall follow on
this controversial topic in the
response section.
Resurrection Issue
The resurrection is the very core of the Christian faith. In
fact, even skeptics had to understand
that it was the very beginning of a movement which was not merely
due to social forces. Says
Craig:
"the earliest believers pinned nearly everything on it. [It was]
the sine qua non for their belief in Jesus
as Messiah and in his death as the basis for the forgiveness of
sins. [...] Though [the liberal scholar]Bultmann
protest[ed] against any further historical probing behind the
faith of the first disciples, even the most skeptical
critic must posit some mysterious X to get the movement going.
But what was that X?"141
Although in the original interview it appeared that Phipps was
belittling the resurrection when he
called it irrelevant, in the Observer he clarified his
beliefs. Like William Craig, he does
assert that "without the resurrection, there would be no
Christian community or Christian faith."142 He likewise
asserted this in the Pamela Wallin
interview, but was agnostic in defining it, for fear of losing
the mystery of the religious language.143 In the Observer he
stated:
"[...] After the crucifixion, the followers were afraid and
bewildered. 'It's over, how do we get out of here with
our lives?' But something clearly powerful happened where they
experienced a living Jesus after he died. It
motivated them to risk their lives and be willing to die for
their faith. It wasn't [sic] just a dream. I don't
[sic] have any idea what it was. The Gospel accounts each tell a
different story. [...]"144
Phipps rephrased these words into a recognition of the
transformation that comes from the power of
the resurrection. Says Phipps,
"There is no question that the followers of Jesus experienced
God's transforming power in the resurrection.
Jesus was so alive for them that they were driven to risk[...]
their lives in proclaiming the Gospel. The
'resurrection event' is difficult to harmonize in the Gospel
accounts, but there is no doubt that Jesus becomes
a living, transforming power in the lives of his followers, and
continues to do so to this day."145
Phipps explains this further when he was asked to speak at
Metropolitan United in London on
November 13, 1997 that he respects those whose faith
"depends on a certain kind of bodily resurrection. Some people
need to believe, and do, that Jesus rose from
the dead, in the same body, walked around and then ascended into
Heaven. [...] I don't [sic] think its necessary
to believe in the Resurrection in that particular form in
order to believe in the Resurrection and that
Jesus lives and is alive. In fact for me, one of the really
interesting proofs [...] is the commitment and passion
of his followers from that moment until today as we gather in
this place. The critical question for me is how
and in what way is Christ Jesus calling each one of us into
relationship with him and into the world."146
Carole Burton pointed out that in a statement Phipps also
proclaimed that he '"also believe[s] in the
mystery and power of the resurrection,' but basically he believes
that the influence of Jesus
is still powerful in the world today. He does not believe that
Jesus is actually still alive and present
in the world. Jesus was, not is.147 It
is quite possible he believes this way, but one thing is for
certain - he is agnostic concerning
details other than it was more than a dream or a vision. Instead,
it was "something so profound [...]
that they believed that Jesus was alive, [...] energizing them,
[...] transforming them, [...] sending them
on to continue the ministry they began with him. [...] It was
something powerful enough that they were
willing to go from where they were, to risk their live[s]. [...]
Jesus was alive and well and
beckoning them into continuing that ministry [italics mine]."148 Graham Scott pursued Phipps' agnosticism on
this area even further. Due to
Phipps' revulsion for the idea of a bodily resurrection like a
form of resuscitation (something that
resurrection is not but could be misunderstood to be),149 he instead denies the objectivity of the
resurrection. Graham Scott has
a very strong argument against this denial. Says Scott:
"Granted that Phipps acknowledges that after his burial, Jesus
began to live in the minds of his disciples and
friends, this is obviously a subjective event and equally
obviously at variance with St. Paul's insistence that the
resurrection is a real event. Phipps seems to have focussed on
only one word of 1 Cor. 15 - the word 'spiritual
body' (v.44). We simply note that Paul also uses the word 'body'
and that the context of [this chapter] makes
it crystal clear that he insists that Jesus rose from the dead in
a real way. [see Luke 24:39 and John 20:20-27]"
150
Heaven/Hell
Phipps chooses to be agnostic on this issue,151
perhaps he believes it could be a distraction from concerns here
on earth. A Thornhill pastor used
to say in his sermons that life should not be like a bus stop
while we are waiting to go to heaven.152 Perhaps there is
some of this attitude behind his remarks
when he says that although he believes there is a continuation of
life after death, "[he] has no idea
what the nature of that is."153 It is not surprising that he
does not see heaven and hell as places if he believes they are on
earth.154 Yet I would like to ask the question that yes,
a form of hell may be
evident here on earth, but what of heaven? Surely there would be
a place better than here?
In the original interview, Phipps said concerning the reality of
hell:
" I have no idea. And I don't [sic] think Jesus was that
concerned about hell. I think we're concerned
about life here. And the Jewish tradition wasn't [sic] that
concerned about hell either. They were concerned
about just relationships here. I've got enough problems, and I
think most of us have enough problems, trying
to live an ethical life knowing all of the ways we compromise
ourselves and all of the frailties that we've got.
We've got enough problems trying to live ethically and well here
to have any knowledge or understanding or
worry about what happens after I die [italics mine]."155
It is true that the Hebrew Scriptures talk more of Sheol,
the place of the dead more than
hell or gehenna, however, hell can also be interchangeable
with sheol. Dr. James
Beverley, a theology professor at Tyndale Seminary, also
questions Phipps on Jesus' concern about
hell. Says Beverley, "I urge him to do a word search in any
concordance on this topic. [...] What is
happening here is [...] a disregard for the emphases of Scripture
when it contradicts personal taste
[which also happens with evangelicals on other issues]."156
According to the Quickverse computer word search, the word hell
appears 14 times in the New
Testament (NIV), 54 times in the whole Bible (KJV), and
sheol appears 67 times in NASB!157
Biblical Authority
The issue of the diminishing biblical authority is one that
has been raised by the United Church
Renewal Groups from their very inception beginning in the 1960's.
Instead of scripture being the
guideline for all doctrine, as the afore-mentioned Nathanael
Burwash had done, it was made merely
one guideline in the 1992 view of the Wesleyan method of
understanding. Wesley's guideline
was: scripture (first), tradition, reason and experience.158
This was adapted to: heritage, understanding, experience
and scripture.159 Note that scripture is named last
in the list. Don Faris
believes that this rewriting of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral [so]
distorts it that Methodist scholar Albert
C. Outler wishes he never coined the phrase!"160 Faris
believes that the source of this attack against scriptural
authority (as well as sound theology) can be
traced to what he calls "inclusivity ideology."161 It has
affected the New Creed by not naming Jesus as Lord, and God as
Father, and has diminished
the value of scriptural authority. Says Faris, "If [...] you wish
to diminish the authority of Scripture with
its clear theological and moral boundaries, what better way than
to give three other sources equal or
even superior status? No wonder the Moderator [became]
confused!"162
It appears that somewhere along the history of the UCC, the
"slippery slope principle of biblical
authority"163 came into
effect. It became noticeable to the
laity in the 1960's with the Sunday School New Curriculum, yet
was evident in the seminaries at a
much earlier date. Even Nathanael Burwash, who contributed to
Church Union and the original Basis
of Union, found that some of his students at Victoria College
were becoming increasingly liberal in
scriptural understanding. Some of his students included James
Shaver Woodsworth (previously
mentioned),164 S.D.
Chown and A.M Phillips.165
Phillips was later accused of a
heretical understanding of the atonement, and Chown stepped too
far into liberalism with a
sociological interpretation of heaven. Chown was
important in the first years of the United
Church and was one of the nominees to be the first moderator.
Instead, because it was politically
expedient to give the position to a former Presbyterian, it was
given to George Pigeon.166 If Chown was that
liberal as a UCC leader then, is it any
surprise that many in leadership are liberal now? Reginald
Bibby, in the recent Unitrends
report discovered that only 24% of faculty at UCC seminaries
believe that Jesus is Saviour and
Lord.167 Now there
is more to this issue than
whether one is liberal or conservative.168
One aspect of a diminished view of scripture is
selectivity. Phipps, for example is very
good at using biblical examples of social justice, caring for the
poor, and good works. Yet other clear
statements in scripture are not accepted. It is not even the
case that one could say, well, that's a
different biblical genre, that its not meant to be
literal, or that its meant to be a metaphor.
Many times it seems to be 'just plain disbelief ' and
agnosticism. James Beverley notes that "[...]what
is happening [with Phipps] is simply a disregard for the emphases
of Scripture when it contradicts
personal taste."169
Yet can Phipps even defend his view
of scripture, or will he just change the subject and talk about
another biblical aspect - that
of social justice?170
Could this be a 'red herring' (an
argument that introduces another point to avoid what is being
asked)? This trait of avoiding a specific
scriptural question (other than calling it irrelevant, as he does
in the original interview)171 is also shown in the
Edmonton Journal, when he said,
"Those who say the United Church is drifting away from the Bible
haven't [sic] read it for
themselves."172
Mark Fearnall is concerned about Phipps' view of not
worshipping Jesus, which is a biblical act
- not once does he tell the worshipper to stop. However, the
underlying issue concerns the place of
scripture. Says Fearnall:
"For the modern theological liberal, usually the judge of
scripture is him/herself [which is arrogant].
Often they will acknowledge that scripture affirms in many places
that Jesus is God, but they will add that this
is an addition by the writers. Often it seems as though they have
'inside' information on which scriptures are
accurate [but they do not have new documents to prove it]. But
the moment we focus on some scriptures
to the neglect of others is when we fall into error.[italics
mine]"173
Lastly, even secular reporters, such as John Robson are
questioning Phipps' biblical selectivity of 'cut
and paste.' Says Robson:
[...] Bill Phipps has never been shy about speaking out on
worldly issues. When a man whose primary identity
is minister, then head, of a Christian church speaks out with
certainty, he cannot avoid the implication that he
does so based on an understanding of the Gospels that he shares
with his parishioners. It is particularly
disingenuous to declare that the Gospels are either impenetrable
or irrelevant theologically, but then to find
secular certainty in them. And he did. He assured us that anyone
not concerned about the poor would lose
their soul. But you can't [sic] just believe in Scripturewhen it
coincides with your own preferences. You must
accept all of it, including the claim that Jesus was God.174
This selectivity also represents the slippery slope principle in
the words of John Trueman, who in his
opening address of the 10th annual COC meeting, said that the
UCC has gradually slipped from a
high view of scriptural authority and supremacy of Jesus
eventually to Mr. Phipps' remarks, which
endanger the connection with the Canadian Council of Churches [as
well as the W.C.C.] "The
'trapdoor' has been opened to Unitarianism."175
What does the Moderator say to defend himself in this
area? He combines an argument
of particularity (the Bible was written by believers most
likely to their own era), with a
misunderstanding of eclectic biblical genre as [usually] less
than literal. It is true that much of the
genre is metaphorical, but not as much as Phipps' version
appears to be.176 Says Phipps:
"Jesus is the Living Word, not the Bible. [This is true, perhaps
he wants to avoid what he believes is
bibliolatry?] The Bible is a whole combination of thing; it does
contain some history, a [...] lot of mythology,
poetry, letters [and] legends. They mythology expresses a larger
truth than history can. I like the line" 'I take
the Bible seriously, not literally.' It is the story of faith
written by believers. For example, Mark had a different
agenda than John: he wrote in a different time to a different
audience."177
Other Apologetical Issues
Other issues that Phipps raises include a possible incursion
of the Sophia doctrine, the denial
of the Virgin Birth, the defamation of miracles, the influence of
process thought in the context of the
problem of evil and suffering, and the influence of panentheism
(not pantheism). The Sophia
issue is one that has only one reference, but it warrants a
question. What does Bill Phipps mean when
he "refers to God as 'she' when he speaks[?]"178 Is this
a reference to Sophia (the feminine 'goddess' of wisdom of whom
radical feminists proclaim?) or is
he merely using inclusive language? Inclusive language can be
very helpful in many contexts, but when
this is superimposed onto God, who is not only neither male nor
female, but exhibits both in
character, it brings confusion. This imagery is also shown in a
hymn in the Voices United
hymnbook, in which the 'womb of God' is enshrined and worshipped
as an image of God.179 A line of this hymn is as
follows: "Mother and God, to you we
sing, wide is your womb, warm is your wing."180 Another
example is the hymn, Dear Mother God, in which worship is
given to the "Dear Mother
God, your wings are warm around us, we are enfolded in your love
and care.[...]"181
The Virgin Birth
The Virgin Birth is also something that Phipps believes is
not necessary doctrine to claim as
a part of Christian identity,182 and he sees it as a didactic
metaphor of pure storytelling.183 It is here that there
appears to be influence from the nineteenth century scholar
Strauss, who believed that the Gospels
were all in the form of stories. However, the ancient Near East
used the story form to portray
composition worth keeping - because although there were written
manuscripts, the best way to
memorize events was to put them into story form. This form does
not or should not detract from
truth. It is merely the form. This view was also displayed by
Frank Morgan, who in 1942, held a
preparation class for young church-goers to equip them for
university philosophy that would challenge
their "childhood beliefs."184 Says Morgan,
" In our living room we talked abo ut the very questions the
moderator has raised. We even discovered that
another faith claimed that its founder was virgin born, for this
is an ancient way of explaining extraordinary
people. All this happened 55 years ago!"185
Morgan's discussion in 1942 was predated by P. Annet, in 1744
within his book The Conception
of Jesus.186
However, this same man also disbelieved
the resurrection of Jesus, and was convicted of blasphemy in
1762.187 Thus, this disbelief in the virgin birth is not
new, but is merely a 'replay' of the
earlier scoffers of the first and second centuries due to either
believing that Jesus' biological father was
a Roman soldier, or that it was a carry-over from the stories of
surrounding cultures concerning some
of their heroes.188
Miracles
The defamation of miracles is also an issue in the
controversy, particularly with the devolution
of Jesus. The disbelief in miracles is not new, and has been
espoused in 'modern' history by T.
Hobbes (1651),189
Spinoza (1670), Locke (1705),
Woolston (1727-29),190
Hume (1748) and Reimarus
(1754).191 These most
likely are only the past writers that
stand out in past Enlightenment thinking. Phipps is most likely
influenced from this past procession
of naturalistic presuppositions, which are also very present in
the contemporary Jesus Seminar, which
he encourages UCC people to investigate.192 He was
included in Mike Trickey's article on the spirituality that is
growing in Canada that is not specifically
connected to organized religion. However, belief in spirituality
is high, and Phipps was asked to
comment on this grassroots interest. Trickey commented that
"[...] 54 per cent of Canadians believe
in divine intervention or miracles."193 Phipps responded
to this comment by saying, "That strikes me as high, but
these things always depend on what
your definition [of miracles] is. You can say that from the
Christian and biblical perspective that God
is involved in the world and that the divine is very present in
all of human life. I wouldn't [sic] call that
divine intervention, but some might."194 He also said he
was not surprised at Trickey's comment that 69 per cent of
Canadians admit to praying for divine
intervention "or guidance when faced with a particularly
stressful situation."195 Says Phipps, "that's not surprising. You
won't [sic] find many atheists in a
foxhole."196
Process Theology in the Problem of Pain and
Evil
There is also some evidence that Rev. Phipps is influenced
from process thought within the
context of the problem of evil and suffering. This view that God
is limited in love and power197 is evident
especially as he shared his testimony (of his
family suffering) with Pamela Wallin. Ms. Wallin addresses the
question of the problem of pain and
evil with the Moderator, because it is clear that he understands
the tragedy of human suffering. She
asked him, "How do you look at [all the suffering you have seen]
and say there is a great and good
God, a power larger than mine, who looks at this, and allows
[suffering and evil] to happen?"198 Phipps was not only
emphatic that God identifies with us
in our suffering, and is powerfully present, especially through
the cross199 but he also diminished God's omnipotence
when he replied,
God doesn't [sic]allow it to happen. Period, full stop. As you
know, two of my stepchildren have died, one
aged 14, and one aged 20. I've been at the bedside of people of
all ages, whether they're one month old, or
a hundred years old, who have died. And people who would come up
and say, and this is where I get really
angry, "Well, God must want something for [?] that child." I feel
like punching them in the face. Or that its
"God's will that this happened." I don't [sic] understand it, its
NOT God's will."200
Phipps was even stronger in his denial of God's omnipotence when
he spoke with a reporter in
Calgary. Again the context was about the loss of his
stepchildren, when he said, "They were tragic
deaths. [...] When you go through that, life is thrown into a
whole different perspective.''201 Says Stockland,
Phipps' different perspective doesn't
make Phipps' unorthodox ideas any more correct, of course. [..]
However startling or wrong-headed,
they remain the result of anguished inner struggle. "202
Phipps reveals more as follows:
God is not all-powerful and will not just swoop down to
intervene in tragedies. [...] God did not swoop
in to save my two step children. But God sure was present to
comfort us, [...] be with us and reassure us.
God is vulnerable, and it's the God of the Cross who has more
power to save us than the all-powerful God
that can wave magic wands."203
Other forms of suffering also deeply affect the Moderator,
including the martyrdom of Salvadorian
bishop Oscar Romero, and the mass suffering that was experienced
by the Jewish people. Says Phipps
concerning the Holocaust:
"If there's a theological question that the people of the
Bible have to ask this century, it's where was God
at Auschwitz? I think there are some good answers, but the
question itself blows away the God who's
going to intervene and rescue people because he's all powerful.
To me, what the Holocaust symbolizes
theologically is that God is not all powerful.''204
Although Phipps is 'right on target' concerning the presence of
God in suffering and that he suffers
with us, the limitation of God's power is not a biblical response
to the problem. It is an
understandable one, in which many modern authors take, such as
the author of Why Bad Things
Happen to Good People, but it is not a biblical response.
The Bible teaches "both
God's omnipotence and his total perfection in love and
goodness."205 There is a balance even in the midst
of suffering.
Influence from Panentheism
This view is not pantheism which David Fisher says is "God
IS all things, [but] rather,
panentheism holds that God is IN all things [thus not apart from
His creation]. One description of
panentheism is to say that as the soul is to the body, so God is
to the world".206 Andrew Stirling believes there is a connection
between panentheism and the rise
of interest in environmentalism and earth-based spirituality. In
this 'religion', there is no
transcendence, no transformation, and no accountability.207
The 'transcendence' in panentheism especially concerns
reconciliation of Jesus to a broken world, as
is shown in the Reconciling and Making New Document, and in the
Mending the World Document.208 "Panentheism is often
monistic by nature. [Thus], namely
it holds that there is essentially one reality, and that all
other beings are but attributes or
modes of that reality."209
Fisher worked through writing on the incursion of
panentheism while considering the UCC
Mending the World document of 1997, and has later found
that this ideology has also
influenced Bill Phipps. The concept of Jesus' reconciliation
seems to be viewed through the lens of
panentheism by the Moderator, especially when he makes the
following statement:
"'[that] God was in Jesus reconciling the world to God's self;
[...] that as much of God that was possible was
revealed in Jesus of Nazareth, [...] and therefore we can say
with confidence that Jesus was the Son of God,
that Jesus is the Word made flesh, that Jesus is God incarnate
[...]'. At the same time he holds that Jesus is
not [fully] God. "210
This Arian view is consistent in the context of panentheism,
because, according to Fisher, "from a
panentheistic perspective this is logical. God is said to be
in Jesus, and revealed by
Jesus. Jesus is God's Son because he reveals the nature
of God. Jesus is held to be God
incarnate because God's presence was enfleshed in the
human being, we have known as the
historical Jesus.[italics mine]"211 This view also connects
to Phipps' resistance of worshipping Jesus, because it would
"fail [...] to categorically differentiate
between who Jesus was in relation to the Father, and who human
beings are in relation to the
Father."212 His
agnostic view towards heaven and hell as
well as the denial of the objectivity of the resurrection is
also consistent with the
panentheistic world view.
How did panentheism influence the modern church? It
seemed to gain a foothold into
theology through an interest of contextualizing the images of
God. Contextualization generally is very
helpful in increasing understanding of theological concepts, and
was perceived by Reform theologians
as the principle of accommodation.213 However, adopting
other worldviews, such as panentheism, is not
contextualization, it is adaption! The
Reconciling document has one small section, which
acknowledges that "[...]some theologians
are experimenting with new images, including that of the world as
God's body. As a
metaphor it is not to be understood literally. It invites us to
see all things in God, and God in all
things."214 However,
this metaphor, which was also present
in ancient mythologies,215 is one that is so powerful that
it could significantly alter one's view toward God. If one wanted
to understand the immanence of God
in his connection with creation, why choose panentheism? Why not
choose Eastern Orthodox
theology, which is more discerning in how God's 'thumbprint' may
be revealed within his works?216
However, Fisher does have an insightful comment concerning
why we should understand the
theological framework of the Rt. Rev. Phipps. Says Fisher,
"Since panentheism has undergirded a portion of Mending the
World, and is acknowledged by the
Reconciling & Making New document on Jesus, it seems to
me that it might hold a key in
understanding what otherwise seems like rather confusing and
inconsistent statements about Jesus, heaven
& hell, the resurrection and so forth."217
There are also risks that are involved with adopting panentheism
as a world view when it becomes a
prime motivator within the Christian faith (rather than a
Christocentric-empowered view). "By
accepting panentheism [in this fashion], the traditional
theistic distinction between the Divine and the
created order is dissolved."218 Phipps demonstrates this
in part when he says, " The biblical faith is one that is
primarily concerned with how we work out our
life here in this earth [...] The God we know in scripture calls
us to engage life in this world in human
relations with each other and with the earth itself.
[italics mine]"219 Is this concern of reconciliation with the
earth about respecting the earth in
stewardship, or is it dissolving distinctions? The risks of
panentheism include: "the conceptualization
of Christ as an impersonal force [his personality would be
contained within creation], the elimination
of any conceptualization of the resurrection [... including]
judgement or hell, [...] the repudiation of
the belief that Christ died to save sinners [opposite to Rom.
5:8-9], as well as trying to hold
contradictory claims that God is good when evil is
acknowledged to be present within
creation, and Christ is said to be in all things. [italics
mine]"220 The last statement would explain why
the Moderator may acknowledge
the presence of God with the sufferer, and yet also imply that
God is not powerful enough to prevent
it. Theodicy is a difficult question enough without the presence
of panentheism. However, the
true reconciliation of God in Christ is more than the
Reconciling document proposes. "God
is not reconciled, nor does he reconcile himself, but he himself
reconciles us or the world to himself
(2 Cor. 5:18-19), while we are reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10) or
reconcile ourselves to him (2 Cor.
5:20)."221
The Cost of the Controversy: the
Continuation of the Exodus From the
UCC
The exodus from the UCC essentially started with the New
Curriculum in the mid-sixties, but
grew to mass proportions during the struggle over the Issue in
1988-90. Ralph Garbe believes that
the 1988 General Council decision to allow the ordination of
practising homosexuals was more than
the catalyst which damaged the restraining dam of the UCC. He
called the reaction to this decision
as "the largest single exodus of members in the church's [entire]
history; [greater even than that caused
by the New Curriculum, which was a loss of 92,410 Sunday School
students alone in the first year.222 Former UCRF leader,
Joe Campbell called for a choice
between "Christianity and Churchianity; [and so many from the
UCRF left, as well as
many other members and adherents]."223 Many
United Church people who were either 'kept in the dark' or were
sleeping, were now awake and
questioning all around them. Says Cumming,
"The exodus, which had already begun, gained momentum. Sad to
say, [many of] those who were leaving, did
not leave as a body, they left as individuals and families. In
some cases, these people were welcomed into
the fellowships of other denominations; but others seemed to be
wandering in a wilderness. Some, [...] even
a year later, were still not attending church anywhere or they
[had] not settled into a church home."224
The national church itself estimates the number at 20,000, but
the true figure may have been
significantly higher. Unfortunately, many of those who withdrew
from the church were renewal-
minded Christians who felt they had been pushed out of the United
Church. Those leaving included
the majority of members and leaders of the Renewal Fellowship."225
Since then, the decline has continued in large numbers, with
each upcoming change. Victor
Shepherd believes that the UCC loses an equivalent of up to 400
members a week, yet the larger
United Methodist Church in the US loses up to 1,000 members.226 Even though the exodus in the U.S. is
larger, the one from the UCC
is more grievous because the denomination is smaller than the
United Methodists.227 Says Shepherd, "the [UCC] is two and a
half times smaller [per capita]
than it was in 1925. [...] Also since 1969, we now have only
28% in attendance [or 320,000 ca.].228 This means that the
active church has shrunk by 72%,
although the rate of decline never remains constant."229
This 'exodus wave' is causing the UCC to become Canada's
fastest shrinking Protestant
denomination,230 and
even the United Church Head
Office says on their home page that there are 3,000,000 [ca.]
members and adherents, 701, 968 of
which are members, and only 296,600 attend regularly. 231 Both Mackinnon in the Edmonton
Journal and Wallin report the
number as 700,000"plus" [ca].232 Philip Cline reports that
in 1926, the membership of the new [UCC] stood at 609,779 of a
Canadian population of nine million
[ca]. "In 1996, [...] membership stood at 713,196 of a Canadian
population of nearly 30 [million]."233 The exodus was also
contributed to by the factor of
marginalization, particularly of the leaders of the reform
movements, and dissenting clergy. John
Trueman also shows stark figures of membership loss during the
terms of the four previous
moderators. These are as follows: Sang Chul Lee (1988-90) 34,
536; Walter Farquharson (1990-92)
43, 648; Stanley McKay (1992- 94) 31, 513; and Marion Best
(1994-97) 41, 018).234 Says Trueman, "our church has been
losing an average of 45 members
every single day since 1987. [...] This without taking
into account the tens of thousands of
our members who are stopping out but retaining their
membership[...]."235
Mary-Frances Denis, the public-relations person at the Head
Office in Etobicoke commented
on the latest church statistics. Cline reports her saying that
"[The UCC is] in the company of most
'mainline' churches [concerning] declining numbers. [...] Ours
is an aging population, [...] and many
local churches continue to exhibit health and vitality [due to]
geographic location [or] insightful [...]
leadership who are able to present the Gospel effectively and
develop programmes that meet local
need."236 However, John
Trueman continues his warning
to not be "lured into complacency [...] by those who say
comfortingly that all mainline
denominations are losing members. Of course they are [italics
mine]."237
The Phipps effect238 or phenomemenon239 also increased the
exodus in certain evangelical
congregations, especially the ethnic ones, who were
previously protected from liberal
incursion through their own cultural distinctiveness. Although in
some of these churches, its 'business
as usual' because they essential run their own affairs240 ,
others are more distressed about the Moderator's comments. One
such congregation was Ottawa's
Chinese UC. Its pastor, T.K. Ng, was one of many who have
complained about the damage of the
Phipps' effect. Ng said
"that in 1989, his church split, and 315 members left. [...] The
church has slowly built up attendance again, to
an average of 300 to 400 [...]. But since [the Moderator's
comments], attendence has dropped to about 80
people [more than 300%]. [The]members believe Phipps' views are
heresy [...], we have been hurt [...] and
have a right to exist."241
Another ethnic church in Winnipeg was also similarly affected.242 However, even "though [many in] the United
Church have been troubled by
the declining numbers - some attribute it to an emphasis of
social action over spiritual practice ---
Phipps said people are returning one by one."243
Thus, the Moderator does not seem troubled by this trend, as is
shown in the following quote. Stern
reports that "Phipps sees a bright side [?] to the church's
declining membership. The United
Church 's new position as a 'sideline church', he says,
affords other opportunities. 'We can do
a lot more. We can change society from the margins. We can
critique a society that has lost its moral
centre."244 What of the
cost? Mr. Phipps does not
seem to be disturbed by the cost as shown by the exodus.
In fact, the controversy to him "is
a healthy sign [that] the church is beginning to fulfil its role
as a social advocate."245 Phipps says, that he does not "[...]
think [that the UCC] generates enough
controversy, [and that] we need to take even greater risks
[especially in pushing harder on specific
social issues]."246
Yet, what of the other costs, such as the
lack of financial support to the Mission and Service fund? What
of the cost to the Gospel
message?
"Michael Scott, chairperson of the church's Division of Finance,
told the nearly 400 commissioners meeting at
Camrose, Alberta, that the church's financial lifeline, the
Mission and Service Fund, is in trouble. Scott wanted
commissioners to know the state of the church's finances before
they endorse actions this week that would add
to the already under-funded, overwhelmed budget. Only one
quarter of our members give to the Mission
and Service Fund, and the number of givers has declined 14%
over the past six years. Over 22% of our
donors has been lost in recent years. The average per donor
remittance is $157 per year. Our donor base is
aging and declining . . . ."Many congregations are choosing to
invest their money in themselves and their
communities and many have no idea what work is being supported by
the Mission and Service Fund . . . . [Scott
went on to say that] there are no more funds available for 1998
unless the church goes deeper into its reserve
fund something he doesn't advise or undoes commitments currently
being made."248
Asling was concerned that the UCC is not living within its means
and is currently using the reserve
fund as a form of "pain killer."249 This action disguises the
problem of establishing budgets (with shrinking revenues),
without being clear about visioning or
priorities (both short and long-term). Asling reported that the
"reserve fund now stands at about $8.1
million and while that sounds like a lot of money, [but it is
spent quickly as is shown by the following
quote]."250 Scott
said that this figure "represents two
months spending by the church or three months givings to the
Mission and Service fund. "251
John Trueman gave thoughtful insight to this shortfall in
the following quote:
"When will headquarters realize that no amount of spending and
advertising [in the Observer and in
local congregational bulletins]will convince members that some of
M&S [fund] is being used for purposes that
many cannot in conscience condone? When will we get a straight
answer on how much is being spent on such
spin-offs of the inflexible liberal agenda as legal defences and
settlements?Why should an aging membership
leave bequests to a Church which refuses to take their concerns
seriously?252
Some responses concerning the M & S Fund both before and
during the controversy include
many congregations funding their own projects and mission trips
with funds that may be otherwise
delegated.253 Many
individuals also take a stand of not
supporting this fund as well.254 Jack Waller even publicly
sent a complaint in the form of an open online letter to Virginia
Coleman, the Secretary of the
General Council. In it, he was concerned of the lack of
credibility of the Council's decision to support
Mr. Phipps, as well as a concern of the diversion of more M & S
Funds. Says Waller, "The monies
which will be diverted into damage control will serve to further
erode [...] the M & S Fund, which
continues to suffer, due to manner in which the United Church
has allowed itself to become
embroiled in temporal concerns."255
What is the Moderator's response to the shrinking Mission
and Service Fund? Asling reports
Phipps' concern as follows:
"The church has to get its financial house in order to tackle
some of the political issues of the day. He worries
about the decline of the church's Mission and Service Fund. He
wishes all United Church members could
attend councils such as the Camrose meeting so that they might
see the breadth of the work, the commitment
of staff, the spirit of the group. If they did, "Mission and
Service givings would triple," Phipps predicted. "For
United Church people, the money is there if they were inspired
enough by our story."256
The Cost of the Controversy: Cost to the
Gospel
Bill Phipps is in many ways a inheritor of skepticism, and
of the 'modern' world-view (although
he may be somewhat influenced by the post-modern view as well).
Skeptics have often claimed that
they were not out to harm others Christian faith.257
Bill Phipps has said this in a public apology (apology in
the general modern sense) and regret
in a pastoral address on Vision television:
"Some people have been extremely exhilarated by the comments as
reported and caused them to have many
conversations with friends, [...] neighbours and many other
people. Other people have felt deeply hurt, that
somehow I was taking issue with some of the fundamentals of their
faith and I want to apologize to anyone
who was hurt by what I was reported to have said. I honour
people whose faith is deeply rooted and grounded
in the traditional understanding of our creeds and our Christian
faith. Indeed, the strength of our United
Church is that we do respect people and where they stand along
the long continuum of our Christian belief.258
He also expressed this concern in the Parkdale UC meeting when
asked about his regrets. He told
those in attendance, "I would never ever want to hurt anyone,
especially on things that go to the heart
of our faith."259 If
he had to do it again, says Muriel
Duncan, "He would begin with his positive faith statements, but
he'd [sic] still answer honestly and
directly."260 However,
apologetically, one must
understand that there can be actual differences between a
skeptic's motives and the result
of the skeptic's actions.261 How many have been
stumbled by the confusion caused by the controversy? Has this
really helped the Gospel?
Phipps would do better to begin on a positive note, as
earlier suggested by Muriel Duncan. For
it is best not to preach agnosticism and doubt but faith and the
Gospel (which includes service).
Graham Scott also believes this core truth of evangelism, as is
shown in the following quote:
"Emmanuel Principal Earl Lautenschlager's insistence years ago
[was] that ministers should preach what they
believe, not what they don't [sic] or cannot yet believe. What
we may not believe will likely not help spread
the Gospel. But what we do manage to believe can be used by God
to build up the faith in our congregations
and in seekers." 262
Phipps also realized his mistake in at least not mentioning his
doubts first (although it would not have
been wise to talk about them to the media at all). Harvey
reports the Moderator's regrets as follows:
"Mr. Phipps said that because he was caught off-guard, he made
the mistake of saying first what he did not
believe, and those negatives have stuck in people's minds. Now he
says he begins by saying first what he does
believe. [...] As this thing has gone on, I think the
conversations with people have been even more interesting.
I think they have encouraged people, basically."263
Another part of proclaiming the Gospel is through actions, and
many times UCC people do this out
of genuine faith. However, actions must be undergirded by a
positive faith to have a real impact
apologetically. Says Graham Scott, "[...] When actions are
coupled with denials of the faith, we think
that the witness of the action is being drowned out by the noise
of the denials."264 Perhaps it would be best for Mr.
Phipps to just do his good works and
not make theological comments, except perhaps to ask his popular
question, 'who is Jesus to you?'
Scott also asks that the Moderator would
"let his good works speak for themselves and not drown out their
message with front-page denials of the faith.
Perhaps his gift is to lead in doing good and in calling Canada
to social justice. [Yet], clearly, his gift is
not that of theology, [...] apologetics or [...] of
evangelism."265
The Moderator's Wording Issue: Word
Smith Or
Contextualization?
Earlier in the paper, it was mentioned that Bill Phipps is a
word smith, in the sense of using
specific words that may have one meaning, yet mean something else
entirely. This may connect with
his outspoken desire to not use language from earlier eras266 Jim Breen commented on Phipps' modified
argument (on the Vision Network)
concerning the 'mere' change of word context. Says Breen, "That
statement on Vision [...] did not
contradict his previous statements! He was just silently
redefining his terms [...] to state [...] 'I am
comfortable saying that Jesus is the Word made flesh' is
another example of the radical
theologians in the tradition of Tillich, using traditional
language to say very different things!!!"267 James Beverley
states that one of the examples of
'sloppy thinking' that Phipps appears guilty of in this context
is of equivocation, or the "careless use
of words [which means] using a word in a different way than the
general meaning of a word."268 Another witness to
this slippery use of words is a UCC
minister who has been placed on the discontinued service list,
perhaps for being so outspoken in his
views, although officially this has not been made public.
Through this following quote the
pain of dissociation from the UCC is very evident.269 Says
Wigglesworth:
"While the moderator has changed his latest statements to better
reflect the whole of the church, remember
that Bill is a words smith and will change the words to sound in
the way he thinks you will accept them. He
will change his way of speaking according to the group he speaks
to. His ultimate intention is to change the
UCC to the church that reflects his first interview with the
Ottawa Citizen. He will use any means to do this.
The most effective means in the long plan is to change the way
the structure works. This is not a flashy out
there thing like his interview but it is where the real miracle
of Jesus Christ and the Holly Spirit can take place
if we as people who believe in Jesus are willing to take a stand.
I hate to say it but all the public protest will
do little good. You have already seen how the executive of
General Council has affirmed both Bill and the
Basis of Union even though Bill denied 17 of the 20 articles of
faith. They are very good at double talk. The
only way to make sure that we can proclaim the Gospel is to
insure that the principles of the Basis of Union
are guaranteed in law. That is what my case can do if I have the
financial support to keep going.270
Gualtieri, a religion professor, defended the Moderator's
beliefs and said that Phipps is actually
more conservative in his doctrinal beliefs than his 'critics'
might hold him to be. "He said that if you
analyze Mr. Phipps' words in the initial Citizen interview
[...], and at meetings like that at
Ottawa's Parkdale United, [...] you find that 'Mr. Phipps is
almost boringly conservative, [because the
words are different, but the concepts seem to be the same]."271 This same professor also believes that
Phipps' critics have confused faith (which
is an orientation that implies action)272 with belief.273 However, is there
not a propositional side to
faith as well as an active experiential one?274 The 'beliefs'
that many UCC evangelicals are concerned about are a part
of Mr. Phipps' faith - as much
as a tomato stake holds up a vulnerable sprawling plant.275
So while it is true that faith and belief are not exactly the
same thing in orientation, they are
very much interconnected to bring ones faith into
maturity. Yet, notice that Gualtieri does
not mention that where Mr. Phipps' words are the same, the
meanings may be very different.
Don Anderson also proposes that belief is no mere dry and sterile
intellectual assent, but is the
"mentor of existence, [...] and the pervasive of life. [He finds
that] belief is not that which [he]
confess[es], but [...] it is that which God is confessing in
me."276
Perhaps this word smithing/contextualization concern is one
that affects far more than the
Moderator. Victor Shepherd believes that there has been a
deliberate change in the meaning of
religious symbols for some time.277 He said that the
understanding behind religious terminology may subtly
change, but the symbol would not at
first.278 Perhaps
this is a time of transition? But a
transition into what? After the meaning behind the symbol would
change, eventually the symbol itself
would have to be completely changed.279 However, the
death of core symbols can be very damaging to faith, because
within those symbols are truth that can
be too deep to articulate into words. Thus, according to Leanne
Payne, when the symbols die, so does
the faith.280
The Moderator also strongly believes in dialogue, and he has
been insistent on it all along
during the controversy. Part of the dialogue concern includes the
importance of mutual
respect, especially of the personhood of those in dialogue.
Relationship is the key for Phipps, and
this is a good concern. He also seems easily offended when the
pain and frustrations of others are
put in strong words. For example, when Gail Reid asked whether
the orthodox theological perspective
could be protected by motions through Conference and Presbytery,
and gave the example of Ted
Wigglesworth's situation (of being removed from his church and
disallowed from applying for other
UC pastoral positions) she informed the Moderator that "many were
suspicious that he was an
example of [...] persecution [against outspoken evangelical
clergy/reform leaders]".281 His reply focused more upon his
concern of that word than of
answering Reid's question. Instead, he said, "Obviously, there's
a difference of opinion."282 It
appears to him that
'persecution' cuts off dialogue (which is true), yet what can be
done about the problem of hate mail
and incidents such as finding a bag of excrement smeared on
renewal group buttons at the Camrose
General Conference (in August 1997)? Phipps believes that using
terms such as 'persecution' even if
one is marginalized "reinforces [...] exclusion."283 As long
as the dialogue is not just words, but also actions
that respect the personhood of
all involved, this is reasonable. Yet, has this really been
happening?
Phipps truly believes that the language in which we
understand Christ must be one that is
contemporary in order for people to meet the living Christ. This
is quite true, for culture can be used
as an effective tool for the Gospel. However, he may not
understand the need for apologetics around
the core truths behind the ancient creeds, and thus, be
caught unknowingly in "chronological
snobbery."284 Does he
believe that the 'new' scholarship
such as the Jesus Seminar is better because it is new?
Would he be willing to admit that
there is more than his 'modern' worldview allows him to see? He
said in the Pamela Wallin interview
that he is more open than he used to be.285
Perhaps there is hope here for true understanding. Muriel Duncan
asked the Moderator how he
thought Christians would best grow in faith and understanding.
It is here that his motive of
contextualization shows best. Says Phipps,
"God is not embarrassed by anything we think or do, by any
questions we might have. We don't [sic] have to
protect God. We have to engage in honest and open struggle where
any question is acceptable. We have a great
opportunity now. People in our society are yearning for spiritual
sustenance. The whole Christian church is in
danger of hiding behind dogma and words that were written 1600
years ago. I'd rather meet the living Christ
than one wrapped up in language we don't [sic] understand."286
Concern of Over-Contextualization: is the
Gospel lost?
Even though Phipps has given an apology for hurting the
feelings of church members;287 he still refuses to
step down or to retract his statements,
since they are personally held beliefs.288
However, he seems to be confused about how this is affecting
the church. According to Harvey,
"Phipps said his worst fear is that the controversy over his
views will divide the church, but
his hope is that church members will see it as an opportunity to
'invite people to see the significance
of Jesus in our world [italics mine]."289
It is quite probable that Phipps believes he is trying to
contextualize his form of the gospel,
but even his version has been skewed by decades of the
surrounding culture. There simply is nothing
left to adapt, because if current culture has been adopted in
the central core of the faith, it ties you
to culture, and when culture declines, so does the church! To
this, John Neal formerly of the UCRF
had long ago given a plea concerning the destruction of United
Church uniqueness. He reminded
them that "we cannot be all things to all people.290 Thus,
it is essential that the United Church be called back to what is
central and core to her faith, and to
reevaluate, in spite of Head Office's decision to defend Phipps
because he fits within the inclusive
scope of the church. Inclusivity works well, but only if you
have a core identity and grounding. If this
is lost, than the moorings are lost, and that which held the
church falls apart.
One of the areas where Phipps uses contextualization is in
the example of salvation. He uses
the word in different contexts in his interview with Gail Reid
(for Fellowship Magazine) and
in his address to Metropolitan UC in London (November 13, 1997).
When Reid asked him about
orthodox beliefs and the importance of making a choice in their
faith (while respecting the dignity
of the person to choose), he talked about his father's ministry
with teenage boys in showing him the
example of Jesus. In this context was Phipps' view of
salvation. Reid asked him:
"[Would your father] 'have shared what he believed if [the boys]
had asked him?' [Phipps replied], Oh, sure,
but he was also a person who respected other people's right to
think what they thought and would encourage
them to do that." [Reid followed with], 'And to make a
choice?' [Phipps replied] 'Well, make
a choice or continue in dialogue for the rest of their life.
I know people who say: 'The only way to
salvation, the only way to heaven is to believe in Jesus Christ
as your personal Lord and Saviour. That's the
only way you are going to get to heaven and anyone who is not
saved by Jesus Christ is going to hell.' They
are very clear about it. I know others who also believe this,
who have no desire to impose it on anyone else.
They will accept that other people have a different point of
view which is just as valid as theirs. It is
just that they disagree fundamentally. Those two people have
the same belief; but the way they carry
it out, the way they relate to other people, is totally
different.That is where the dilemma is."291
However, Phipps also believes that "its the height of
arrogance to claim that a particular
group of people know the only way to God. [...] Anything you say
about faith must be said in humility.
Its arrogant to think we have the answers to everything, [...]
and that our experience is the only [valid
one] and that everyone else is wrong. [...] There are countless
people, [...] and experiences of God that
other people can have." 292 However, even though Phipps'
believes that salvation through Jesus is not unique (although he
is not clear on whether the salvation
of the non-Christian is inclusive as in the concept of Karl
Rahner's anonymous Christians, or whether
it is a pluralist view), he does acknowledge the need for
salvation in the form of reconcilation and
healing (or perhaps the Hebraic meaning of shalom?)
Phipps' address to Metropolitan UC
included this quote:
"Salvation, and I've got to say this because some people have
asked about salvation, I think salvation for our
world, which is in deep need of salvation, is through witness to
the love and the justice and the compassion of
Jesus Christ and not through the market economy, political
power or any other kind of thing where people
are looking for salvation now.[true] The spirit of
God in Christ energizes me, forgives me,
empowers me to engage the dark corners of our life; to heal the
broken, to stand in solidarity with the
oppressed; and to embrace the weak. And I think the United
Church of Canada is strong and provides a
Christian home for people who are struggling with what life means
and wants to struggle with that question
with fellow travellers and people who can love understand, honour
and respect each other. [italics mine]"293
Phipps' concern for reaching out to the downtrodden has already
become very clear - this is
part of a missionary mandate. However, is he using evangelical
terminology here to satisfy the
evangelicals in that congregation? In this address, he also
raised the issue of evangelism through the
controversy created by his remarks (which shall be covered in the
Romans 8:28 section). Says Phipps,
"Now isn't that wonderful? Wouldn't it be marvellous if everyone
in our society was trying understand
and come to grips with who this Jesus is, for us and for the
world? Isn't that what evangelism is
about? Isn't that what spreading the Gospel is about?"294
He sounds almost evangelical in this remark.
Muriel Duncan raised the issue that some UC people were
concerned that the Moderator is
advocating salvation by works.295 An Alvinston UC pastor
very strongly portrays this view online. Says Breen,
"The alternative Phipps presents, is one of works, not grace! If
Jesus is only a prophet whom we should listen
to, then we are only given hard work to save the world. Since
Jesus the dead prophet did not address every
issue then we don't [sic] live in 'relationship with him today'
but before God! As we seek to live 'responsibly
before God,' choosing the best ways we can figure out to bring in
the Kingdom [...] on a practical level are left
trying to save the world. Phipps' own language about social
action [in the original article?]betrays
this orientation [italics mine]."296
Duncan also addresses this issue, but directly has given the
Moderator an opportunity to reply. Says
Duncan, "To some, the Citizen article suggested you might
favour salvation by good works
[meaning your soul is lost unless you care about those starving
in the streets] over salvation by
faith."297 Phipps gives
a detailed answer to this question
that includes the grace of God as essential, but he does not
mention the need of asking for
salvation. Says Phipps,
" What does God require of us? Jesus continues to call his
followers to 'do justice, love tenderly, and
walk humbly with God' (Micah 6:8). If you don't [sic] understand
the nature of evil, that every institution and
person is subject to powers and principalities that twist
goodness into evil, then actions can become arrogant
and isolated from reality. You hope with all your energy that
what you are doing is helpful, but you don't [sic]
know. We need God's grace. The good news is God loves us totally
and unconditionally. Now we don't [sic]
believe it. If we really believed then we could go out into the
world and try to live as Christ did, knowing we'll
make mistakes, knowing God will love us anyway. I don't [sic]
like the word salvation anyway. The
purpose of all the good works is not to chalk up brownie points;
that 's why the word salvation bothers me. It's
not that I'd do this to be saved. Not at all. We are already
saved in God's love. [boldening mine]"298
Again, it is essential to ask, what of the salvific aspect of
personal faith? Was he saying that we
are "already saved" because he knew he was speaking to UCC
people? He may have answered Muriel
Duncan's question, but his answer causes many more questions.
Perhaps this would be another
dialogue topic with the Moderator.
Responses- From "Repent and Resign" to
Applause: Why the whole
continuum?
The UCC was known for its diversity in theology and ministry
from its very inception when
nearly all of the Canadian Methodists, all of the
Congregationalists and many of the Presbyterians
united into one church.299 However,
the reconciling theology in the Basis of Union cannot fully
explain why the United Church has "such
heated debates over key issues."300 What can shed light on
this situation? Is it merely a matter of having different but
equally valid opinions (which is relativistic),
or is the plight more serious? David Fisher examined the
presuppositions that are in the UCC and
declared them to be major worldviews.301 Two of these
orientations are from the surrounding culture, and the other is
the biblical theistic worldview. The first
two are the modern and post-modern world views. The modern 'lens'
has questioned everything in
"the light of reason and conscience [in its desire of
eliminating] superstition [where] reason [becomes]
the key to certain or absolute knowledge of the world."302
This powerful world view tends to dismiss the divinity of
Christ, the bodily resurrection, the second
coming of Christ, and miracles as being prescientific.
Revelation is replaced by reason, and with the
addition of Godfried Lessing,303 a 'ditch' is
created between the Christ of Faith and the Historical Jesus.
Both the latter quests for the Historical
Jesus and the modern Jesus Seminar are direct descendants of this
view. Thus, when some Christians
are more influenced by the modern world view than others
(including Bill Phipps), there will be
disagreement.
What of the third worldview, that of postmodernism?
Postmodernism has been in evidence for
at least twenty years, and it:
"points out that the process of selecting and analyzing what we
observe is unavoidably filled with bias. As a
result, postmodernists tend to reject any claim to a universal
standard of truth, and, going further, tend to
criticize all such claims as being inherently oppressive. For
[this person], truth is definitely not 'one size fits
all.' Rather, truth is viewed as having been created or made up
over time by a particular community;
it is thought to be 'constructed' as one might construct or write
a story. [...] If there are no absolutes, "[...] then
social convention ends up determining ethics. [...] Truth [then
becomes] what we make of it, and as such,
every interpretation is viewed as equally valid [italics
mine]."304
The view of each opinion being just as valid as another appears
in some of the responses to the
Moderator, and even in his views as well. For example, in his
interview with Gail Reid, there was
discussion on whether dialogue would be possible in an atmosphere
of disagreement. He gave
thoughtful answers in the interview, such as respect for the
opposing person in debate. This is where
Phipp's legal background shows itself. Says Phipps, "Part of
[this] is my legal training. Lawyers are
trained to go into court and argue opposite sides of a case as
vigourously as possible, using everything
at their disposal. After that they should be able to [...] talk
together, and say, [...]'I never thought of
that argument. Where did you get that case?"305 However,
influence from postmodernism's relativism was also prevalent in
the interview when he advised that
UC clergy should accept their parishoners views as equally
valid.306 Says Phipps, "I think the UC minister has to be
able to respect contrary points
of view within their congregation, and the church at large, and
not feel that they are wrong or that
their job is to convert them to their point of view."307 Yet,
when Reid asked what would happen to evangelicals in a more
liberal church, he responded as follows.
"Nothing happens to them. The way you are talking it sounds like
if I believe something there is going
to be some authority to come and tell me I am wrong. Nobody tells
me what to believe."308 The Moderator's
defensiveness in this comment also
reveals a trace of post modern thinking.309
Fisher believes that there are Christians [both within and
without the UCC] who hold "to a
greater or lesser extent, each of these three world-views."310
So why if we are all influenced in differing degrees by these
worldviews is it not possible to agree?
Says Fisher, "Sometimes its because the [presuppositional]
undercarriage is just too different,
[which is especially shown through the past] debates [...] with
respect to the ordination of
homosexuals."311 The
apologetical arguement of popularity
is one that is quite prevalent in the UCC at this time, and this
is where postmodernism is most evident
in the church. Says Fisher,
"How the [UCC] has responded to the recent controversy over the
public statements of the Moderator [...]
also reflects a postmodern emphasis. His comments were defended
not so much on the basis of how well they
conform to a core understanding of Christian belief, or even
based on reason, but rather on the strength of
support he had in making them, their relative popularity, and
that they were respectful of diversity. [...] Without
the acknowledgement of an objective standard by which to 'settle
the arguement', the [UCC] is left with the
difficult task of trying to build a consensus about what we
believe. [...] Understanding the postmodern way of
looking at the world helps to explain why we study issues as a
Church. Whatever the issue, we tend to take part
in a broad Church-wide consultation. Everyone has a voice. Our
stance is not so much a declaration of 'this
is true' based on an appeal to biblical norms, but rather it is a
reflection of a collection of opinions on
specific topics - some more or less biblically informed."312
Thus, it is important to remember the presuppositions and
world-views of not only the Moderator,
but of all who have responded in the following sections. Each
worldview has its own definition of what
a Christian is313 of
who Jesus is to them and of what
outreach to the world is, that of evangelism, dialogue, mercy
work, social service.
Responses in the United Church: Renewal
Groups
The Renewal groups are generally opposed to much of the
theology behind the Moderator's
remarks, but not his social service. Some of the official
responses of these groups are stated in full
in the appendix section. This response section will briefly
cover some of the other replies of the
renewal leaders and participants. Many of the lay participants in
the renewal groups are standing up
and protecting their evangelical clergy from presbytery
censure,314 and are otherwise encouraging them. One of
these participants is Ian Outerbridge,
a Toronto-area lawyer and United Church former elder, who said
that "[...] he believes there are good
legal grounds for laying a charge against Phipps within the
church's own courts. He said 'there is a
serious question as to whether or not he ought to even be a
member of the United Church of Canada.
Outerbridge [also] said Phipp's opinions are heretical, and he
could be charged with
spreading false teaching, and failing in his duty as moderator to
provide spiritual leadership to the
church."315 Mr.
Outerbridge is only one of many who think
this may be possible. There was also a legal attempt by pastor
Don Anderson to censure the
Moderator, but this did not succeed. COC president John Trueman's
response was one of the strongest
of all, and has been included in full in the Appendices. The
opposing response to his remarks have
been varied, but includes calling Phipps a false teacher,316
an iconoclast of ecumenical orthodox church doctrine such as what
is contained in Christmas and
Easter, (and including that of the World Council of Churches),
the Twenty Articles of the Basis of Union 318 the United Church manual319 and even
the New Curriculum that was so shocking in 1964-65.320
These are some very strong responses indeed. Gail Reid's
later response to the controversy was
to see what God is doing through the controversy, to assess the
damage and begin the healing. She
perceptively has written that it is not Bill Phipps entirely
who is to blame, for he has "stated openly
his concern and burden for those hurt by his statements. For
months he has travelled across the
country pleading for dialogue and respect for our diversity. The
problem is that before he ever spoke,
we were vulnera ble as a church. The secular media's hunger for
controversy only exposed our
weakness. We seem to have lost the very thing that brought us
together - our unity of belief. [...] This
is not a plea for watering down our faith, but rather an
opportunity to proclaim it, [and] pray for our
Church - especially those who are hurting because of this. [...]
Repent and forgive. In Christ, there are
no divisions."321
Responses: Some Opposed Clergy
Responses from opposed clergy vary. Some call the moderator
a heretic, an apostate,322 while others
are questioning why he would
publically speak his views when they are not within basic
agreement of the Basis of Union (of 1925),
a 'creed'323 that all
seminary students and those in ministry
must accept upon ordination.324 Consequently, many
pastors have distanced themselves from his statements, in
preaching about all that he dismissed325 and many have been
demanding that he step down to
show that he is at least responsible.326
There are different concerns behind these pastors' protests.
Allan Schooley, a Calgary pastor
(Southwood UC) who publically called Phipps a heretic, was
concerned with ecumenical relations with
other churches because of the moderator's remarks. Indeed, says
Schooley, that [... Phipps] definitely
stated Jesus was not God, which I think first and foremost is
problematic.''327 Schooley said that he planned to preach a
sermon called Heresy In High
Places.328 Also,
in a letter to the editor of the
Calgary Herald, Glenn Wilms, (a retired minister at
Calgary's Central UC) also suggested
the Moderator pastor should consider his future in light of his
earlier comments. Said Wilms, "If
Phipps is still not in agreement with the 20 Articles of Doctrine
of the church, he should resign as a
minister and offer to serve as moderator in a non-theological
capacity."329
Allen Churchill (the senior minister of Dominion-Chalmers
UC) also remarks, "[The
Moderator's comments] puts the United Church outside of the
historical centre of the Christian
church'' It will also make it impossible to attract new
church members, [...] as well as make it
equally difficult to work ecumenically with other Christian
churches [italics mine]."330 Allen Churchill, the senior pastor of
Dominion-Chalmers UC in Ottawa,
was also concerned with interdenominational outreach:
"The United Church of Canada has always been ecumenically
oriented," [...] "How can we work with other
churches if we [do not] have the same theological basis?'
Churchill [believes] Phipps' views clash with the
Articles of the Basis of Union of the United Church, the
agreement which in 1925 brought together the
Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches. That
document, he says, confirms a belief that Christ
is the son of ... God and the way to salvation. "If he thinks he
speaks for the majority of church members, then
the United Church is no longer a Christian church, but is a
unitarian church with Jesus as teacher," said
Churchill. "No moderator has the ability or mandate to
redefine the theology of our church [italics
mine]."331
One minister, who often writes for the various renewal groups, is
Don Faris. In his response to Bill
Phipps, he challenges his belief in supporting modern
scholarship, such as the Jesus Seminar. Faris's
sardonic wit is most apparent in the following quote:
"We certainly should look to modern scholarship. If Bill Phipps,
who claims he is no theologian, was a good
theologian, he would know that the Jesus Seminar is considered to
be a bad joke in the scholarly world. It is
a self-selected group of Unitarians and ultra-liberals who vote
on the texts of the gospels to give their opinions
of whether Jesus really said it or not."332
However, a modifying statement regarding the Jesus Seminar is
that it is not entirely composed of
'radical liberals and Unitarians', but some evangelicals and more
moderate liberals such as Michael
Steinhauser.333 Not all
of the members are like John
Dominic Crossan (who believes Jesus' body was eaten by dogs).334 Faris continues in his sermon to draw together
two opposites that are preached
by Phipps in a logical attempt to defend the gospel. Says Faris,
"[...] the ironic part of the Moderator's
telling us to consult the alleged scholarship of the Jesus
Seminar is that this group [...] voted that
Jesus did not say one word of Matthew 25:31-46. So on the basis
of the authority of the Jesus Seminar,
Bill Phipps should stop telling us that Jesus said to feed the
poor, clothe the naked, visit the sick,
etc."335 The acerbic
humour of some of the loyal
opposition336 can
surely be appreciated when seeking to
understand such a serious matter.
Responses: Opposed Presbyteries
Some of the Presbyteries were opposed to the Moderator's
remarks. Some of these include
Halifax and Oshawa. The Halifax presbytery also called for prayer
for Mr. Phipps, while the Oshawa
presbytery gave a specific critique of the comments concerning
underlying relativism. Part of that
response is as follows:
"While recognizing how genuine and deeply felt is the Moderator's
social concern, we are disturbed by his
failure to ground that concern within the core of the Church's
faith and life. His statement that 'Jesus talks
economics more than he talks about anything else' constitutes a
grossly unbalanced treatment of the scriptural
witness. The rejection of a positive correlation between a
'proper relationship with Jesus' and moral conduct
is based on embarrassingly scant historical evidence. Throughout
the interview, the Moderator seemed to be
adrift on a sea of relativism, offering few grounds for
understanding g social needs or moving church and
society to respond to them. [...] The impression is given that we
[the UCC] are very wishy-washy about the
great themes of Christmas and Easter [...]."337
This statement is only one of the responses of opposed
presbyteries.
Opposed Laity
Responses from laity also vary as widely as the clergy. One
music minister from Renfrew ON
commented on the Moderator's theology and compared it to some of
the hymn titles in the new hymn
book Voices United. Some of the hymns included "Holy,
Holy, Holy," "The Day of
Resurrection," "What a Friend We Have in Jesus, " "All Hail the
Power of Jesus' Name," "What
Child is This," "Lift High the Cross," "Just as I Am," "Amazing
Grace" and many more hymns
with similar content.338 She was concerned that
Phipps was insinuating that Voices United was full of
misconceptions. Says Brydges,
"Would he suggest a new committee be formed to "once again"
produce a suitable United Church hymnal?
Should it include such hymn titles as: "Jesus Was Not God,"
"Christmas and Easter are Deceptions," "Your
Church Wedding is Unnecessary," "I Don't Know if There's a
Heaven or Hell," "I Have No Idea Where You
Go When You Die." Would these new hymn titles be of assistance
to the Moderator in his responsibility as
noted in the United Church "MANUAL" section 511: 'to give
leadership to the United Church, especially in
spiritual things, quickening in the hearts of the people a sense
of God as revealed in Christ, and heartening
and strengthening the whole United Church?'"339
On a practical and pastoral note, she is concerned of teaching
unbiblical concepts. Don Anderson
responded to Brydges on-line complaint. He was somewhat puzzled
by the possibility that
although "Bill Phipps has expressed difficulty with the
scientific possibility of the resurrection, [...]
apparently there is no difficulty in singing hymns which express
concepts he doesn't [sic] believe
in. [Yet], the new hymn book [may appear to be] an authoritative
statement of what the General
Council perceives its people believe.
Other lay responses to the Moderator in the United Church
Observer include: calling
the church a glorified social movement,340 Phipps a secular
humanist,341 a
non-Christian,342 a theist, humanist and social activist,343
that the Moderator should reconsider his career,344 a slap-
in-the-face for struggling congregations,345 a jerk,346 a call to pray for
Phipps' conversion,347 that Phipps would make a good Kiwanis
service club president,348 and a successful
politician.349 Other responses include: more upset and
discouragement350 that the moderator is "completely out
of 'sync' with the lay members"351 and that if UC members
who do not believe in Jesus'
divinity should wish to leave, they should be allowed to
essentially form their own churches.352 One response compared
the decline of the UCC with that
of the more conservative churches. Says John Edelhofer, "It's
sad to see the [UCC] slipping ever
farther into apostasy. It is ironic that [more evangelical]
Christianity is experiencing rapid growth
while the [UCC] rolls decline."353
There are many more responses of this type, in both the
Observer and Fellowship
Magazine that express hurt, betrayal and confusion. Some of
these responses are also on the
internet moderator rresponse sites. There have also been direct
responses to the Head Offices, some
directly to the Moderator by e-mail, and letter, and others to
other executive leaders. It is no wonder
that the General Council Executive responded in their address
that 'We acknowledge that there is pain
in the body of Christ."354 Now can there be healing?
Seminary Students: Emerging Leaders
Jim Love, a VST student has many questions of Mr. Phipps,
both positive and negative.
He challenges Phipps on the 'I'm no theologian" issue, as have
others mentioned above, in a way
that invites others to consider theology for everyone. Peter
Wyatt, during a panel on theological
education in Faithfulness Today V said he believed that lifelong
learning in theology is important.
"The church does not just 'rubber stamp' the academy. It has to
make its own confession [to
critically reflect their faith]"355 at Faithfulness Today
V. May 2. Hamilton ON.) The importance of understanding the
heritage of the UCC and of the
Church at Large is essential, otherwise there is a danger of the
church's vitality shrivelling up.
Kowalski called the United Church ten years ago a "cut flower
church" [that was completely cut
off from its roots]. Thus, it appears that Peter Wyatt has
understood this danger, and encouraged
learning, asking questions and finding out where their church has
come from.356 Jim Love picks up this theme when he
writes:
"The moderator is not like a Pope? We are not required to agree
with him. Why concern ourselves about the
theological 'error of Bill Phipps' ways? We're not theologians?
Are we? Theology means [...] theo,
the Greek for God [...] and ology, the 'study of', in this
case, God. [A] theologian [is] one who studies
about God. Whether we know it or not, we are all studiers of
God. We all ask the fundamental
questions. [...] To be a human is to ask [if] there [is] a God.
We cannot help but be theologians. And as
Christian theologians, we ask special questions [such as]
Who is Jesus?"357
The Christmas Confession
During the Christmas season, many pastors and laity signed a
new and clear confession of their
belief of Jesus' divinity and other essentials of the Christian
faith. This confession began on the site
of associate pastor Brian Wilkie of Dominion-Chalmers church in
Ottawa.358
It was released on Christmas Eve and has been circulated by the
Internet, fax and mail, as well as
through the renewal groups. Says Wilkie, "There are [many]
members of the church feeling lonely and
isolated as they hear the leadership profess a different gospel.
We're just trying to encourage one
another."359 This
confession was produced independently
of any "existing organization inside or outside the [UCC, which
include the renewal groups, although
it has since been supported by these groups]."360
Bill Phipps' response to this grassroots confession (which
includes both clergy and
laity) especially centres around the assertion that " the [UCC]
has been brought to a crisis
in which we must answer again the question Jesus asked of His
disciples: 'Who do you say that I am?
[and the statement within the confession that] Jesus is God."361 Says Phipps,
"It isn't [sic] a crisis. I think it is a bit alarmist, a bit of
an overstatement. It's generated some wonderful
discussion. [...] [And the confession's statement that] 'Jesus
is God' is not one which Christians within the
Reform tradition would normally make. This 'Jesus is God' is not
the way we talk.' It is the way
newspapers talk. Reform theology would never make such a
bald, short unexplained statement. We talk
about Jesus being fully human, fully divine, or Word made flesh,
or He came to reconcile and make new."362
This confession gathered 250 lay and 65 clergy signatures
nationwide during the Christmas
holidays,363 [with one
hundred of those signatures within
the first 48 hours]364
and this response is still growing.
Andrew Stirling also insightfully and loosely compared the
Christmas confession to the Barmen
declaration, which is the historical confession of the German
Confessing church during the Nazi
regime.365 He also
defended the Confession in a
Faithfulness Today Seminar by saying, "[that] when [people]
criticize the Christmas confession, I
suggest that they read Karl Barth."366 Although the current
controversy is not the same as the confessing church, there is a
need to continue to uphold the
divinity of Jesus as central, thus recognizing him as the
empowering centre. This notion is shown within
the declaration as "The [UCC] can only be faithful and
strengthened to serve others and resist evil
whenever it corporately confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord and
Saviour."367 Therefore, the Christmas confession represents
the grassroots of the UCC in a
positive way as a proclamation of faith. Peter Wyatt also
believes that this confession shows
"a serious undertaking to be constructive," and also hopes that
the evangelicals within the UCC will
enter fully into studying the Reconciling document.368 Another stimulus for the UCC evangelicals to
respond in this area was
encouraged at the Faithfulness Today conference.
Concerning Andrew Stirling's position, he very wisely has
declined to comment officially in the
controversy (especially since it would be a conflict of interest
as a former moderator nominee to
either call for Phipps' resignation or publicly censure him).369 He has shown respect for Mr. Phipps by
providing his church, Parkdale UC
Ottawa, as a place where the Moderator could ameliorate the
controversy, and Lloyd Mackey believes
that this had great significance. Says Mackey,
"The ability of Phipps and Stirling to work out the arrangements
had its own significance. They respect each
other - and have a clear understanding of their theological
differences. [...] Stirling identifies without hesitation
with evangelical and orthodox perspectives, [athough] he and his
church are not part of either the [COC or the
NACC]. That is important in Ottawa [because it is] a very
political city. And Stirling did not want
the controversy to become politicized."370
Stirling even continued to move in this cautionary way at the
Faithfulness Today conference. Although
implications could be inferred because of his topic of the
Trinity, he gently announced a disclaimer
that the seminar was not "about the Moderator;" that he had been
working on this topic for some time,
and had planned to give and overview of it at the conference long
before the Moderator
Controversy.371
Responses: Supportive Clergy
"On the other side of the debate are United Church members
who support Mr. Phipps' views
and are prone to condemn the media, rather than the moderator for
the controversy."372 This attitude was also
expressed when the Ottawa
Citizen conducted a survey to determine how the Ottawa area
churches stood. It appeared that
they were divided on the controversy. Those who were concerned
commented in some form, while
many on the other side of the debate "refused to comment, and
some angrily condemned the
Citizen for its coverage of the debate."373 One
of the Moderator's Ottawa-area supporters is "[...]Peter Lougheed
of Kanata UC, who sees the
resurrection of Jesus as a spiritual rather than a physical event
and views Jesus as a spiritual guide
rather than the only way to God."374
The Observer has varied responses from clergy, both
opposed and supportive. Some
of the supportive responses are as follows: that the church has
chosen to be "sidetracked" by the
controversy instead of responding to the UCC mission mandate,375 that Bill Phipps merely uses different
wording,376 and that what appeared in the original article
was "not what Phipps said, but what
the journalist wanted to hear."377 Another UC minister
quipped in an on-line note that "the best I can do is fault him
for an early-term bad case of 'foot-in-
mouth' disease, and then get on with the rest of life."378
However, one UC minister was concerned pastorally about those who
have been hurt in the
controversy because they have not heard Phipps' views before.
Says Karen Ptolemy-Stam, ""For many,
these are views they've never heard before. It raises questions
for us of what happens between
theological school and the pulpit."379 A reply to
that concern often noted on the moderator response sites
is that it is not proclaimed because
it is not believed.380
This gap was discussed by Ernest
Howse, who had commented that clergy had "believed they were
guarding the peace and welfare of
the church, but who mistakenly believed that the peace was the
welfare instead of the paralysis."381 Thus, this theology
surfaced into the notice of the laity
with various controversies - which includes the New Curriculum,
the Issue and the current Moderator
Controversy. These responses are but a few of the ones available,
but they give a good cross-section
of the varied views even of Phipps's ordained supporters.
Responses: Supportive Laity
Some of the Moderator's lay support came in the form of
disagreement with the way
his theology was proclaimed, but otherwise they generally
backed Mr. Phipps. There were also
a sizable number of UCC lay people who supported Mr. Phipps and
his theology. The elders of Bloor
St. UC in downtown Toronto declared "We have heard similar
statements from our pulpit for the last
30 years [...] We do not wish to have some people tell others
what they should believe."382 This statement is not
surprising, since both controversial
former moderators, Ernest Howse and Bruce McLeod pastored
this congregation. Some are
applauding the Moderator for being 'fresh air' and catalyst of
dialogue (yet not realizing the cost).
Others focus more on Phipps' mission mandate for justice. Some
of the responses from the
Observer include: that Phipps' theology can "offer an
access point to [...] people [...] outside
[...] the church,"383
that "people like [the responder] feel
a lot less alone in [their] belief,"384 that "what matters is
people on earth,"385
that Phipps is God's gift to the
[UCC],386 that
traditionalists are arrogant because they
refuse to enter into "honest doubt and dialogue,"387
and that the moderator's statements are not
unique.388 Other responses include: that the Moderator
gave incentive for the study
of Reconciling and Making New,389 that [the
responder] is no longer in fear of being branded a heretic390 and that Bill Phipps has "sent us scurrying to
our Bibles."391 Some longer responses include: "
Already we can detect the fresh air.
Bill Phipps has started an exciting discussion. There can be no
losers in this debate."392 "Bill Phipps has got all thinking
theology and Christology, and as the
questions lead to more questions, we gain a deeper understanding
of God."393 "People are talking about Jesus and what they
believe at the after-church coffee
hour now, instead of about the w eather."394 Others believe
that the controversy reflects the glory of UCC diversity. This
diversity is also somewhat reflected in
the Moderator's own congregation, but apart from theological
disagreement from some, there is
general support.
Responses: Mostly Supportive- Phipps' Own
Congregation
Scarboro UC in Calgary knew that their pastor would be a
catalyst for controversy, as he had
promised in his letter to the Camrose General Council delegates.
In his statement he had correctly
perceived that "people are yearning for both a personal and a
social gospel,"395 and he proposed a major launch of his
mission mandate. This vision
was thoroughly supported by his congregation before his
nomination as Moderator. Says Judy
Chapman, (who is serving the Scarboro church in Phipps' absence)
"His social activism was a good
fit with ours. Ours became more so because of his. [...]
We're quite supportive of Bill. We're very,
very pleased he was elected moderator."396 Chapman also
said that the Scarboro congregation was quite aware that he would
"stir things up once elected."397
After the controversy started, there was somewhat of a
stir in his church, but because there
was a more personal element involved, there was support. Says
Doyle, "Outside, on the church steps,
members of the congregation rallied around the popular
minister."398 Some disagreed, such as parishoner Ken
Hodgert, who said "I might be a little
more traditional, [...] but I'm very happy with what he's doing
for our church. Rev. Phipps has woken
people from their comfortable pews."399 "Everybody loves
Bill,"says another parishoner, Ralph Garrett.400 "He's
stimulated our spiritual lives. [...]The answers are unknowable,
so why waste our energy? [...]Instead,
we should put our energy into making this a better world."401 Chapman also commented that "there is lots of
scriptural evidence to support
that Jesus is not God,'' said Chapman. [?]``Bill challenges us to
re-think what we believe and how we
will respond to the Gospel.''402
Some of his parishoners, were disturbed by the portrait of
Phipps that was portrayed in the
media. They thought that their pastor was being depicted in an
unbalanced way only on his theology.
Thus, Norma Bannerman wrote a plea to the editor of the
Calgary Herald with the support
and signatures of 112 other Scarboro UC parishoners. That letter
is as follows:
As members of the Rt. Rev. Bill Phipps' home congregation,
Scarboro United Church, we are disturbed
at the limited picture of this man that has been portrayed during
the recent controversy. While there has
been much talk about his political activism, and considerable
distortion of his theological beliefs, there has been
virtually nothing said about his role as a caring and
compassionate pastor, teacher and counsellor. Jesus said,
``The greatest commandment is love.'' Bill Phipps lives this.403
As was also shown in an earlier section of the paper, Bill Phipps
is a very caring pastor.
A longer response from another parishoner is available in full in
the appendices section.
Responses: Supportive - Phipps' Presbytery
and Conference
Although there were some in Phipps' presbytery who opposed
his remarks and called for
discipline, most of his colleagues urged calm and caution. Grant
Dawson, minister at Knox UC, was
among many who supported Phipps by defending his statements.
"Let's not become divisive among
people, Dawson said during an interview before the meeting.404 "It's people that
Christ cares about. Let's not
have any family fights [italics mine].''405 Bill Phipps greatly
believes in mutual respect, loyalty and friendship. Thus, when
Alan Schooley had reacted to his
statements to the Calgary Herald and his complaint to
Calgary presbytery, he was very upset.
Phipps wrote a letter to the Herald about this personal
and professional offense on his
integrity. Says Phipps, "With a colleague in ministry . . . at
least do me the courtesy of talking to me
personally before convincing his congregation of these serious,
unfounded accusations based on
newspaper articles."406
At a meeting of Calgary
Presbytery, (the governing council for the city's 34 churches),
representatives on a resolution from
Southwood UC that urged the presbytery to discipline the
Moderator. The presbytery voted to
exclude the media from the debate, instructed its chairman to
issue a news release,407 and they "solidly defeated that
resolution."408
Elinor Townend, President of Phipps' conference, (Alberta
and Northwest) was also supportive
of the Moderator, but was also concerned that the controversy was
a diversion from the UCC mission
mandate. Says Townend,
"In our church, we hope we can have open and honest discussion
about these issues,'' she said, noting that
there had already been some healing, and if people are willing to
talk about these issues there will be much
more. We're trying to get real with what the gospel says.
[...] We can debate these theological issues
like the divinity of Jesus but it doesn't [sic] help us
live the gospel in the streets. That's what
Jesus was all about.''409
Townend says Phipps' statements have already attracted some
members back to the fold, and she
expects more to come. But she is concerned about the long-term
effect the dissident group may have
on the church. "A small group may use (church) court processes,
which won't be helpful. It's too bad
[because] it takes up time and energy from other things.''410
Other supportive presbyteries and
conferences
Some presbyteries have publicly shown their full support for
the moderator, while others have
declared that while they theologically do not entirely agree,
they support his ministry and actively pray
for him One presbytery, that of Woolastock, declared a
commendation for Mr. Phipps concerning
his "integrity and fortitude that he has displayed while the
debate has raged."411 They, like other presbyteries (such as
Valley)412 have upheld him "and the entire church in
prayer, trusting that the Spirit which
changes, renews and reforms us all will do so again in the days
to come."413 Valley presbytery (in the Maritime
conference) declared that it their
"desire and intention to uphold him in prayer at this time of
controversy. [...] We are asking God to grant you
wisdom and courage in proclaiming the message of Christ's passion
for the world; to grant conviction amongst
your hearers and partners in mission; and to comfort you in the
darker moments of your personal trial and the
testing of our national church. [...] You are not alone [...]."414
These are very warm sentiments indeed, for the Moderator does
need intercessors.
General Council Executive
The General Council had a difficult task before them
concerning a response to the many e-
mails, letter, faxes, telephone calls, and presbytery responses
regarding the moderator's comments.
They took four days to intensely focus on the concern in
November. When they declared their
intention to not dissociate the Moderator because he was still
within the accepted boundary of
essential agreement, they wisely acknowledged the important
pastoral concerns. Part of their
response was:
"We acknowledge that there is pain in the body of Christ. We
express gratitude to the many people of the
United Church who, regardless of their personal positions, have
offered their prayers for our church and for
our Moderator. We express our concern for our Moderator in light
of the stress, accusations and personal
criticisms that have been directed toward him. We also recognize
the stress and the demands that have been
made on church leaders in this time. We call upon members and
adherents, in keeping with our tradition and
ethos, to listen to and to respect the varying understandings of
faith within this United Church of ours."415
Part of their response to the controversy included a badly needed
clarification of the Moderator role,
an explanation of celebrated diversity within the various
theological statements, such as the
following:
"The Executive of General Council affirm the doctrine of the
United Church as set forth in the two basic
documents, the Basis of Union (1925) and the Statement of Faith
(1940) and expressed further in such
documents as the "New Creed" (1968, as further revised in 1994),
"The Lordship of Jesus" (1978) and the
Authority and Interpretation of Scripture (1992), recognizing and
celebrating the diversity of interpretation of
these official statements and documents within the membership of
The United Church of Canada."416
The response also included recommendations on what could be done
with the controversy (including
encouragement of congregational study of the document
Reconciling and Making New),
practical decisions concerning who to direct further complaints
toward , and that an effort would be
made to disseminate the resolution as widely as possible within
UCC domain - the presbyteries,
colleges, UCC web page and the like.
The Moderator was also affirmed for his 'unique skills that
he brings to the job and the
contribution he will be able to make to the church."417
However, Bill Phipps was advised to temper his comments on the
divinity of Jesus Christ. "[The] [...]
executive meeting reaffirmed the church's traditional doctrinal
beliefs while saying that Phipps -- like
all others in the 720,0000-member church -- has a right to
express his personal views. "418 Thus, as an
individual within the UCC, he was given the
freedom of his own beliefs, however as a leader, he had to
ameliorate the comments and the effect
caused by them. Since Phipps has a pastoral heart, he has been
working hard in this area.
Plea for Diversity: Diversity of Gifts and
Understandings
Bill Phipps also pleas for diversity with mutual respect.
Although all do not agree in the UCC,
his pastoral concerns about the controversy are apparent. Says
Phipps,
"Our body needs all its members. The heart and soul of our church
has many voices, each of which is important
and to be respected. All of us are part of a common life we
share around the table of the one whom God sent
that we may have life. As Moderator, I urge each of us to
contribute what we have of faith, energy, service
and hope. The world yeans for the Gospel embodied in Christ
Jesus."419
Douglas Miller of Brampton believes that "the [UCC] has
always had ministers and members
at opposite ends of the theological stance. The image of the
rainbow illustrates one light creates
diversity. [...] Let's all continue together in our church. The
moderator was wrong when he suggested
[in an interview with Gail Reid] that conservatives were somehow
not as acceptable as liberals."420 Another UCC member
commented that "[the] diversity
of theological opinion is the glory of the United Church. In my
view, its is its principal justification for
existing as a denomination. In its diversity, the [UCC] embodies
the idea that the Christian
community consists of those who believe that God is love, and
that people should love one another -
and who also believe that these absurdly simple theological
principles, taught by Jesus, should govern
the way they live."421
Although some seekers have called
and have shown an interest to coming to the UCC422
many seekers also are looking for certainty.423 Says Ron
Graham,
"[Some spiritual searchers are looking for certainty. It's like
climbing a mountain to seek advice from a guru.
[...] The pilgrim finally reaches the top and poses the question:
who is the true Jesus? If the answer is, 'we're
debating that,' [...] people will look somewhere else. What
Phipps signals is that, at the very top, the church
doesn't [sic] know what's true. People might go to something more
traditional [...] or leave."424
In mid November, the Moderator called for tolerance from his
critics, claiming that the "church
has a place for all of us."425 Phipps had been asked to
resign (by John Trueman of COC,426 Alan Schooley and
Glenn Wynn of Calgary,427 Orleans
UC in Ottawa, Grace UC in Cobden, Zion UC in Pembroke,
Harris-Steeves Memorial UC in
Moncton and members of Central UC, Brandon 428
and others, such as Don Anderson, who began a legal inquiry
against him429 which was later denied. Others have
dissociated themselves from him,
including Shawville UC, Devine St UC. Sarnia, and
Dominion-Chalmers UC Ottawa,430 and many others positively defended the
orthodox faith during the start
of the controversy.431
However, even before the General
Council defended him and said that "rarely, if ever do we use
doctrine to exclude anyone from the
circle of belonging [which is evidence of the Congregational
roots]"432 Phipps defended himself, saying that he will
not resign, despite the controversy
over his theological views. Said Phipps, "I'm not going to
destroy people's faith. If one moderator can
destroy people's faith, it's not all that deep."433 [However,
Phipps' plea for diversity can partly out of a desire to maintain
diversity and a call to mission
(perhaps his own attempt at apologetics?)] The moderator
expressed this concern in the following
statement: "The church has a choice. We can take up all our time
sniping at each other, when what
Jesus calls us to do is heal the broken world, which knows us by
the way we act toward each other.
Who's going to be interested in us if all we do is snipe at each
other?"434 Is this really diversity?
Graham Scott is concerned that although the Moderator is
acclaimed for his unique gifts, that
of social concern and a sensitivity to human suffering, that
others in the UCC are not given that
opportunity. For example, many leaders in the Renewal groups
have gifts in the area of apologetics.
His argument is clearly shown in the following quote:
"Mr. Phipps and the Executive of General Council speak of
diversity in the United Church, but the national
and conference staff positions are almost 100% filled by one type
of Christian - Mr. Phipps' type. It seems to
us that those who control the levers of power in the [UCC] are
committed not to diversity but to uniformity -
the uniformity of denying or doubting the universal faith as
articulated by virtually all Christians of all times
in all places. We therefore suggest that they think twice before
issuing denials of the universal faith, which
others, such as renewal group leaders, may be better able to
articulate and defend. We suggest that Mr. Phipps
and his friends seriously consider the theological and other
gifts of those evangelical ministers and laypersons
whom they have marginalized for so long."435
Another concern in this context is that of mutual
respect. Is it person-respecting,
understanding one's dignity and giving that person a sense that
they are not only listened to, but also
heard? Is it Christocentric in a loving understanding
that unites all as believers in Christ
? Or is it just postmodern tolerance for anything but absolutes?
The first example could be mutual
respect at its best, the latter at its worst. Mark Fearnall
warns what could happen when faith in
mutual respect leads to its conclusion. Says Fearnall,
"Unfortunately, [...] this belief in mutual respect
and complete tolerance can and does go farther. It can lead to
the judgement and exclusion of those
who have exclusionary views. [...] The new openness [could] be
based on not regarding anything as the
truth [...] beyond critical discussion."436 Thus, there
is an actual intolerance - which John Trueman comments on.
Says Trueman, "Ever since 1988
there has been [...] a lack of freedom in the [UCC], [in the
form of] ongoing harassment of orthodox
[UC] clergy and laity at the hands of some presbytery executives.
[Thus] if this Moderator would use
his 'unique gifts' to bring peace and justice to the [UCC],
that would surely be a liberating act. It
would also demonstrate pastoral concern, an admirable quality in
any moderator."437
What is Essential Agreement?
Throughout the controversy, there have been responses from a
great number of clergy that the
Moderator is not in essential agreement with the 20 Articles of
the Basis of Union. The main
argument that they used was a 'confrontation of opposites' and
that two radically different ways of
looking at God could not be reconciled. Others sought the
meaning of what essential agreement is,
and that it is part of the UCC's Congregational heritage.438
Emmanuel College church history professor Phyllis Airhart sheds
light on this situation by explaining
what this concept is:
"Members of the small but mighty Congregational contingent to
Union talks had clung strenuously to their right
to meet God on their own terms. Steeped to their roots in
dissent, they were convinced [that] written creeds
were un-biblical and must never be used to test one's
faith. This wasn't [sic] doctrinal 'looseness' on
their part. It's just that faith for them was above all a
'living experience', and they feared that candidates for
ministry might pay lip service to another era's expression of
faith without ever having to figure out what it
meant for them now. The other two denominations were used to
putting certain questions about belief to
would-be ministers (although the Methodists [...] also set great
store on spiritual experience). It took over a
year, but all three finally agreed: instead of having to comply
with a written statement, candidates for ministry
could interpret their faith face-to-face with a committee
which would decide if it fell within acceptable
boundaries. That's how the [UCC] ended up with that odd
phrase, 'essential agreement' - especially
around discussion of the seventh article [in the Basis of Union]
on Jesus."439
Thus, when Mark Fearnall asked the Moderator the question "Do
you feel [that you are in] essential
agreement with the Basis of Union?" he was encouraging a
re-examination of the controversy with the
very roots of the UCC.440
In the Sister Churches:
Clergy
Most of the responses that have been more readily available
from sister churches are not in
agreement with Bill Phipps' theology, and some question whether
ecumenical work such as the
National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches may be
indeed possible. Others
question the Moderator's epistemology, and whether Phipps uses
faith and reason together.441 Thus, it is an
important matter to address between
interdenominational leaders so that any misunderstandings may be
clarified. In some cases, the
Moderator has done this, particularly with one of the
examples below. For the purpose of
brevity, only the Presbyterians, Evangelical Lutherans and
United Church of Christ will be covered,
since comments from other denominational pastors have been
sprinkled intermittently throughout the
paper. One response came from Stephen Kristenson, the Bishop of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church
(Synod of Alberta and the Territories). Part of his letter is as
follows:
"I am writing as a concerned friend as well as the bishop of a
synod with which your church has several shared
ministries. When you make public statements that contradict the
clear teaching of the Christian church, its
scriptures and creeds, it calls into question the basis upon
which we work together in those shared ministries.
[...] You, and your church, will be in my prayers as you meet the
days ahead. [...] I am enclosing a letter I have
sent to our congregations so that you will know how I am dealing
with the considerable fallout we are
experiencing as people react to your statements. Our shared
ministries, with which you are very familiar, are
at risk if we cannot agree on a clear proclamation of the
Christian faith. [...]"442
In that letter that was sent to the evangelical Lutheran
congregations was a consideration of examining
each and every shared project between the two denominations.
Within this concern was a warning that
"until there is a clear sense of where the United Church of
Canada is going in regards to its confession as a church
body, we will review on a case by case basis each shared ministry
to ensure that no member of our church involved
in such a shared ministry will have to wonder if they in good
conscience can continue that involvement because of
theological concerns." 443
In a shared ministry, two or more Protestant denominations
agree to share the costs and
resources in ministering to a particular area. "The Lutheran
synod and UCC's Alberta conference
share two such ministries (in Norman Wells, NWT, and Slave Lake,
AB, where the Anglicans are also
involved. The UCC also shares another eight to 10 ministries with
Lutherans in another synod in
northern BC.
What was the Moderator's response to Kristenson's reaction?
Phipps said "it was unfortunate
the letter was sent without consultation with him or others in
the [UCC] and said he hopes that shared
ministries would not be put in jeopardy because of news reports
about his comments. Church
representatives were to discuss shared ministries between the
four major Protestant denominations
(Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian and United) at a conference in
January in Grande Prairie."443 "I hope when they
sit down face to face, he will
have a better understanding of what I have actually said and we
will have a better understanding of the
import of his letter.''444 However, Kristenson was
not acting on this own when he wrote that letter, he was under
pressure for clarification from those
in his church. Also, the Moderator said that he had not received
expressions of concern from other
Canadian denominational leaders.
Presbyterian Harris Athanasiadis believes that credit should
be given to the Moderator for his
honesty about what "he believes and what is important to him,
[like] justice. [...] On this issue, we
must applaud him."445 Athanasiadis
discerns that Mr. Phipps is extremely perceptive regarding sinful
motives and actions within the
surrounding culture. Says Athanasiadis,
"His is not a basic reaction to this reality, which he rightly
calls sin, and he has some very deep reflections.
Concerning the reality of poverty in Canada, "as elsewhere in the
world, Phipps perceives the rule of powerful
financial and corporate institutions as well as governments in
representing their own interests rather than those of
the most vulnerable citizens of society. Unfortunately, Phipps
seems unable to relate the basic issue of justice to
some of the deeper affirmations of the gospel which must
undergird justice [like the divinity of Jesus and the bodily
resurrection]. [However], we need to struggle, as Phipps does,
with the reason and ground upon which we hold
any belief."446
What kind of Jesus does the Moderator offer? Athanasiadis
believes it is a 'barebones' Christ, that
is a holy man and a model."447 Athanasiadis also
believes "that there is no half-way point about the resurrection,
[...] and that for those who have
witnessed such transformation in themselves or others, Christ is
no phantom of the imagination."448 It takes courage to
have faith. It takes courage to
struggle to understand and articulate our faith with intelligence
and integrity. However, Athanasiadis
believes that "watering down the faith to make it more
acceptable [...] shortchanges this struggle
which is necessary for all who seek a deeper spiritual
foundation for their activism in this
world. [Yet], let us affirm Phipps' vision of justice but [...
] through the inspiration and
empowerment of the living Christ. [...][italics mine]"449
Craig McCreary, a United Church of Christ minister in the
US raised doubt about the
empowering centre of the Moderator. Says McCreary, "I have my
doubts about Mr. Phipps' doubts.
I doubt that moral energy can long be maintained without
religious intensity that comes from feeling
that one has an ongoing personal relationship with God [...] I
find that moral energy comes not from
what I know St. Paul says about being known and loved."450 Edith Humphrey also said something similar in
her keynote address at the
Faithfulness Today V conference, that it is not Rene Descartes' I
think therefore I am that makes us
who we are, but "we are loved, therefore we are."451 However, Phipps has stated, especially in his
address to Metropolitan UC
in London,452 that he
indeed does feel
loved and in connection with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps
it would be a good idea to pray
that this aspect of his faith is deepened.
In the Sister Churches: Laity
There have been many responses from lay people in the other
churches, some s upportive and
funny (such as a reference of the Moderator "being the guy who
killed the Easter Bunny"453 and others seem hurt
and defensive. Some have
responded to the moderator response sites, speaking out, but not
in love. Others included the Issue
from the 1988-90 controversy. Some called Phipps a
non-Christian,454 others a Unitarian, and a myriad of other names
that I shall not mention.
There is one thing to note in this section. Name-calling is
not good apologetics, nor does
it respect the person it is aimed toward.455 Mr.
Phipps has stated that he hates it when others burn effigies in
protest marches.456 Are not some of the vehement responses
a form of burning an effigy?
Says Phipps, "One of the things I hate when I go on marches and
demonstrations and stuff, is that
they've decided to burn an effigy. I hate when I go on marches
and demonstrations and stuff is that
they've decided to burn an effigy. It just turns my stomach."457 The Moderator did address the problem of
hate-mail when he was
interviewed by Gail Reid before the controversy even started. He
had said, "I don't [sic] think I should
be called the anti-Christ. I don't [sic] think that's
dialogue."458 Good apologetics is like good dialogue in the
sense that there must be a loving
attitude and respect.
Other lay people have been confused about Phipps' comments,
especially since they do not
understand the basics of essential agreement, the flexible
boundaries of the UCC, and the diversity of
the church. Others have 'tarred and feathered' the whole
UCC because of the
controversy, and have essentially written 'Ichobod' on the
denomination. Others have
snidely remarked that the UCC is living up to certain negative
stereotypes.459 Is this a reasonable response? It does not
seem to be a constructive one.
Yes, it is clear that there is some confusing theology, but this
does not mean that the Moderator's
beliefs (in this area) are entirely normative for all of the UCC.
Nor does it make Bill Phipps the
enemy. For a normative theology (within a continuum), the Basis
of Union and the 1940 Statement
of Faith are still the official guidelines, although there are
also the newer less clear
statements. There is hope for the UCC, so do not write off
what God is not finished with
yet.
Romans 8:28 - All Things Work to the Good to
Those Who Love
God
Many people in the UCC are noting that God is working
through this controversy
and is turning it to his glory. The Moderator has said many
times that he is excited by the increase
in dialogue about Jesus, as is many UCC clergy and the renewal
groups. Allen Churchill responded
near the start of the controversy that "while he was concerned
about Phipps' comments, he was happy
that, in Ottawa at least, the subject of Jesus was on everybody's
lips. He expressed the belief that God
was using the Moderator's seemingly damaging comments for good -
especially in the light of the
upcoming Billy Graham mission."460 The Ottawa-
area leaders who are preparing for this mission believe that
"there is no arguing with Phipps'
contention that discussion about Jesus is part of good evangelism
- although they might question his
'methodology.'"461
Mackey believes that this
preparation may indeed help the UCC "play a significant role in
the preservation of the nation [by
preparing hearts]"462
Dialogue: The 'Guttenberg Net'
Another positive aspect of the Moderator Controversy is that
the internet has been available to
help struggling UCC people encourage each other. Brian Wilkie
'coined' the phrase "Guttenberg Net"
on November 21, 1997, when she compared the impact of the
Guttenberg printing press in the
Reformation, with the potential of the internet now. He also
commented that he prays "that the
internet might do as much for this generation!"463 It is clear that for many UCC ministers
scattered in rural and urban
pastoral charges throughout the country that the internet and
e-mail have been a very important 'life-
line' for them. One group of young UCC pastors were discussing
their frustrations, fears and
loneliness at the dinner following the Faithfulness Today
conference. Throughout the this intimate
time of fellowship, e-mail addresses were exchanged, and
encouragement was given.464
Moderator web pages (or sites) were created where people
both within and outside the UCC
could respond to the controversy and encourage each other. One
of these was from Mark Fearnall in
Shawville QC, and another from Tony Copple in Kanata, ON. Tony
Copple's site was created in
November 11, 1997, and he has continued to collect information
from many of the newspapers,
responses to his site, sermons, essays and interviews.465 Copple reports that "initially the feedback
came as a result of the site being
mentioned by journalist Bob Harvey."466 Copple also
advertised his site467
in a nation-wide e-mail broadcast
to many UCC leadership and other interested people. In this
promotion, he proclaimed his desire to
preserve as much of possible all the dialogue and responses that
have been generated by the Moderator
controversy. It appears that Copple has done this well, for even
this paper is directly influenced by
this internet site. The dialogue yet continues in a more
positive way, as was seen at the Faithfulness
Today conference. As to what will happen next, God only
knows.
Conclusion
It is clear that the Moderator controversy has created a
massive shaking in the UCC, and that
God is clearly turning it around to his glory. Many of the
theological issues raised are not new, thus
an inquiry into Church history may be advised concerning how this
has been dealt with in the past.
There is no need to repeat past mistakes, yet neither do we need
to start all over again. The
Moderator's comments have raised more and more questions
concerning core doctrines, and even
many of his responses have raised even more. It could be a
voyage of discovery when the
pastoral issue of healing the church's woundedness has firmly
taken root. This has begun through
nation-wide visits by Bill Phipps and in increased response to
the renewal groups, who have all been
concerned for the wounded clergy and laity. Another concern was
raised intermittently throughout the
paper, and that is, that the Moderator and the UCC are in urgent
need of prayer. It is clear that the
Rt. Rev. Phipps has doubts, and needs prayer for his faith
journey. Yes, Bill Phipps has faith, for
this is quite clear from his testimony. He also does have a
prophetic call to social justice, and an
awareness in this area that is very discerning. It is very
possible that he may have (as Graham Scott
said above) a divine call to call Canada to justice. This is
necessary, however, not at the expense of
core aspects of the Christian faith. As a pastor, Mr. Phipps is
articulate, and compassionate. It is
understandable why his church has flourished, and yet, with a
deeper grounding in the profound
mystery of our faith, it is clear that there is so much more that
could be gained in Christ! Therefore,
to conclude, Augustine, like Albert Schweitzer on the historical
Jesus, gives us a proverb that reminds
us how powerful the Gospel is, but also how orienting ones own
presuppositions are. Said Augustine,
"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you
like, it is not the [full] Gospel you
believe, but yourself."468
endnotes
1. John Asling. Prophet in a Baseball Cap: An
Interview with Moderator- Elect Bill
Phipps. United Church Home Page
www.uccan.org.story17.html. August 21,
1997.
2. Alan Schooley in Gordon Legge. "Calm urged in
church strife." in The
Calgary Herald. City News. p. B 2. November
19, 1997. (Calgary:
Southam, 1997).
3. Gordon Legge. "Tough times old hat for Phipps."
in The Calgary
Herald. News. p. A 1. November 22, 1997.
(Calgary: Southam, 1997).
- His opponents call him manipulative, friends see
him as politically skilled)
4. A comment by an unnamed United Church minister.
5. Steven Chambers. This is Your Church:A Guide
to the Beliefs, Policies
and Positions of The United Church of Canada.
(Toronto: United Church
Publishing House, 1993 Third Edition). p. 13.
6. A comment by an unnamed United Church minister.-
many evangelicals left
after 1988-90 which was also the cause of UCRF
dying.
7. Don Anderson. E-mail - concerning Marion Best's
source of the 5%
conservatives.
- based on paid subscriptions to their publications and NACC
congregations only - based on
paid subscriptions to their publications and NACC
congregations only.
8. Gordon Legge. "Tough times old hat for Phipps."
9. Carolyn Pogue-Phipps in Ibid.
10. Bill Phipps in Ibid.
11. Ibid. -He also worked in a Sunbeam
factory.
12. Ibid.
13. Asling. "Prophet in a Baseball Cap"
14. Royal Orr. "Bill Phipps Elected Moderator."
August 1997.
www.uccan.org/gc36/story16.html - He was at
Trinity-St Paul's for
nine years (replacing a former pastor of mine
- Bob Watt).
15. Gordon Legge. "Tough times old hat for
Phipps."
16. Ibid.
17. Royal Orr. "Bill Phipps Elected
Moderator."
18. Asling. "Prophet in a Baseball Cap. "
19. Gordon Legge. "Tough times old hat for
Phipps."
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid. - 'nearby' is relative to
Albertans - the mountains are
over an hour's drive from Calgary).
22. Mary Beard in Ibid.
23. Bruce Miller in Ibid.
24. Carolyn Pogue-Phipps in Ibid.
Interview with
Bill Phipps. on The Pamela Wallin
Show. CBC Newsworld.
January 21, 1998. Transcript by Laurie-Ann
Zachar March 16, 1997.
26. Royal Orr. "Bill Phipps Elected
Moderator."
27. Ibid.
28. Tony Copple. Intoduction to his moderator
site.
www.igs.net/~tonyc/mod.html
29. John Trueman. "Prophet in A Baseball Cap?"
30. Asling. "Prophet in a Baseball Cap."
31. Steven Chambers. This is Your Church:A
Guide to the Beliefs,
Policies and Positions of The United Church
of Canada. (Toronto:
United Church Publishing House, 1986 Second
Edition). p. 63.
32. Asling. "Prophet in a Baseball Cap."
33. Bill Phipps in Ibid.
34. Bill Phipps in Ibid.
35. In abiding in Christ and being empowered in
the Holy Spirit.
36. Mat. 5:43, 19:19, 22:39, Mk 12:31, 33, Lk.
10:27, Rm. 13:9, Gal.
5:14, Jam. 2:8.
37. Asling. "Prophet in a Baseball Cap."
38. Bill Phipps in Ibid.
39. This refers to Phipps' defense of himself -
calling for mutual
respect.
40. John Trueman. "Prophet in A Baseball Cap?"
editor John Trueman. in
Concern. 9709 Vol.VIII No. 6
September 6, 1997. p. 7.
Concern Internet Newsletter Archive.
41. Bill Phipps in Gail Reid. Fellowship
Newsletter. "Conversing
with the Moderator." in Fellowship
Magazine. December
1997 (Toronto:1997)
http://www.igs.net/~tonyc/mod0.html
42. Royal Orr. "Bill Phipps Elected
Moderator."
43. Royal Orr. "Bill Phipps Elected
Moderator."
44. John Hoover in John Trueman. "Prophet in A
Baseball Cap?"
45. Ibid.
46. Alberta Report. September 1, 1997. p. 37. as
cited in John Trueman.
"Prophet in A Baseball Cap?"
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Gordon Legge. "Tough times old hat for
Phipps."
50. Mary Beard in Ibid.
51. Ibid.
52. Asling. "Prophet in a Baseball Cap."
53. Margaret Leahey-Bailey. "Church extends hand
to Christmas sufferers:
Phipps' sermon for those who get little cheer
out of festive season." in
The Calgary Herald. Religion Page. H9.
Friday, December
7, 1997.
54. Royal Orr. "Bill Phipps Elected
Moderator."
55. A comment by an unnamed United Church
minister.
56. Allison Monroe. "Views reveal fault lines:
While some salute
moderator, others think he should resign." in
The Calgary
Herald. Opinion Article, Religion and
Spirituality Page. p. J7
November 8, 1997.
57. Asling. "Prophet in a Baseball Cap."
58. Alison Monroe. "Views reveal fault
lines"
59. Ed McCaig comment in Small Voice archive
about UC confusion-unable
to find exact reference at this time. It was
approx. 1984 - 1987.
60. David MacKenzie. "Re: Response to Bill
Phipps." E-mail to Tony
Copple's Moderator Site. November 13, 1997.
http://www.igs.net.~tonyc.mod.modlet16.html.
61. Pamela Wallin. Interview with Bill
Phipps.
62. Bill Phipps in Ibid.
63. John Trueman. Statement by Dr. John
Trueman, President of
Community of Concern [regarding Bill
Phipps]
October 31, 1997.
64. Ann Marie Hall. "Holier than thou?" in
The Calgary
Herald. Opinion. Letters. p. A18.
November 5, 1997. (Calgary:
Southam, 1997).
65. Allison Monroe. "Views reveal fault
lines."
66. Bill Phipps. "Response to Ann Marie Hall's
letter Holier than
Thou?" in The Calgary Herald.
Letters. . p. J7
November 20, 1997. (Calgary: Southam,
1997).
67. Many responses talk about this, but
especially Mark Fearnall in his open
letters.
68. Steven Chambers. This is Your Church
Edition 2. p
21.
69. Ibid. p. 21.
70. Bill Phipps. Statement. October 29,
1997.
www.uccan.org.newsreleases.971029.htm
71. United Church of Canada General Council
Executive. General
Council Executive responds to Moderator's
Interview with the Ottawa
Citizen. November 1997.
http://www.uccan.org.NewsReleases/gcresponse01.htm.
72. David B. Marshall. "Doctrinal disputes not
new: Crises of doctrine are
nothing new to the United Church, writes
Prof. David Marshall of the
University of Calgary's department of
History." in The Calgary
Herald. Opinion. p. A 13. November 18,
1997. (Calgary:
Southam, 1997).
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid.
75. Ibid.
76. Bob Harvey. "Moderator's beliefs divide
United Church."in The
Kitchener-Waterloo Record.
(Ottawa:Southam, November 11,
1997.
77. This is concerning Howse (mid 1960's), and
the New Curriculum. My
own mother left for seven years and pulled me
out of the Sunday
school.
78. Victor Shepherd. Response to Bill
Phipps. Sermon preached
in Streetsville United Church, Mississauga
ON, January 1998.
79. Krysia Lear. "Is Jesus the only way to God?"
in Fellowship
Magazine. Editor's Note. March 1997.
Vol. 15 No. 1. (Toronto:
March 1998). p. 7-9. This is mentioned also
by Muriel Duncan. "Plain-
speaking his faith." in The United Church
Obeserver.
Church section. Vol. 61. No. 5. December
1997. 28-29.
80. This is my own assessment of Bruce
McLeoed after meeting
him in a sociology of religion class at U of
T.
81. A comment by an unnamed United Church
minister.
82. Bob McClure quoted by Muriel Duncan. "Plain
speaking his
faith."
83. Bruce McLeod in Leslie Scrivener. "United
Church moderator draws
controversy for views." in The
Toronto Star.
Toronto Star Faith And Ethics Reporter.
Toronto: October 29, 1997.
84. Bruce McLeod in Ibid.
85. John Ambrose in McLeod in Ibid.