Response to this Site

November 15,16, 1997

***********

    From: JRSKI@STORM.CA ("JRSKI")
    To: aj624@freenet.carleton.ca
    Subject: REV. PHIPPS
    Date: Sat, 15 Nov
MAY I BE PERMITTED TO ADD MY VOICE TO THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE COMMENTING ON REV. PHIPPS' DIOLOGUE. I AM SOLIDLY BEHIND WHAT HE HAS SAID. I FIND THAT MY INITIAL REACTION WAS THAT HE CRYSTALIZED MY THOUGHTS.HIS OPINIONS,AND THOSE SHARED BY OTHER LIKE THINKING MEMBERS,HAVE RAISED MY HOPES INTO THINKING THAT THERE IS INDEED A PLACE FOR ME ONCE AGAIN WITHIN "OUR" CHURCH. BRAVO!!!!!!!!

REGARDS

JRSKI 

***************


Sent: 	November 13, 1997 3:51 PM
From: 	HollisMACK@aol.com
Subject: 	Re: Response to Bill Phipps
Dear Tony:

I was forwarded a copy of your commentary about the Moderator, and I just wanted to note one thing: I was a Commissioner at General Council, and I can assure you that (1) I did NOT vote for Bill Phipps, and (2) I knew precisely why I did not vote for him.

When Bill stated in his pre-election interview that Jesus is "a window to God" (note the indefinite article) "one of the most important windows we have", it became quite obvious to the discerning that he is more Unitarian than Christian.

In some respects, this came out more clearly during the interview than perhaps it even did with these articles- which concentrate more on his disbelief (to my mind) than on what he actually DOES believe.

In any case, you now have some evidence that the vote taken in Camrose was not unanimous- although certainly for Bill to win (as he did) on the first ballot meant that he secured a significant amount of votes. 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 other moderators combined!"

I hope this man's words end up being prophetic. In the meantime, enjoy your Alpha program...

God's blessings in Christ Jesus...

(Rev.) David MacKenzie (Glenavon, SK) 

***********

From: 	Don Anderson[SMTP:basicsof@inasec.ca]
Sent: 	November 15, 1997 11:24 PM
To: 	Copple, Tony
Cc: 	mfearnall@sonetis.com
Subject: 	marian best
'Thunk' while shovelling after reading today's (November 15) paper and Marion Best's comment that only 5% of the United Church are represented.

It resulted in leaving a message with Bob Harvey about the possibility of an article (possible entitled) "PEOPLE OF THE LIE". It had never occurred to me before that Marion Best, or anyone else for that matter, could seriously believe that only 5% of United Church people believe that Jesus Christ is God, so either the 'conservatives' (as referred to in the article) or General Council are the people of the lie.

I proposed to Bob Harvey that (while I couldn't speak for others) if it could be credibly established that only 5% of us within the United Church believed that Jesus Christ is God, that we would be people of the lie, appealing to a fictitious mass of people we believed were bypassed and not represented by the courts of the United Church. I suppose most of us would concede the church wished to go in that direction and disassociate ourselves from the church - that while we might understand ourselves to be leaven within a larger whole (supported by THE BASIS OF UNION) if the church really wanted to go that way it could, just we could not go with it. The debate would be over within the church, though we ourselves would still 'bend the knee' elsewhere to Jesus Christ as Savior, Lord, and God who has made the difference within our life.

However, if the figures are otherwise (as the 'conservatives' and Reginald Bibby's report believe) then General Council would be people of the lie, themselves deceived by their own misperception of reality. This would explain Marian Best's letter of disavowal and disassociation from the unitrends report as incredulity and not deception. If those who believe that Jesus Christ is not God could really believe that the figures were otherwise would there be a similar response as suggested above, or minimally a justice response to the misrepresentation of our conciliar system?

The debate, while specifically {about} the person of Jesus Christ, is at the same time {comparing} the figures each position represents within the United Church of Canada.

The figures would make reference to several decisions in our history - part of the difficulty in reciting our history is that I have not kept a 'list' of all the things that have happened (some things you forgive in the proper sense, seeking reconciliation with those involved; and some things you simply forgive knowing that the purpose of forgiveness is reconciliation and that forgiveness is not an end in itself, but that this one isn't ready to be reconciled yet though you need to make a formal statement about what's inside), so it is not possible to call up a complete history.

{I} questioned where Marion Best could ever get a figure of 5%, and came to the conclusion that the only source could be the 35000-40000 persons who signed the Community of Concern petition nine years ago (40000/800000 = 5%); however there were 1350000 members back then, not 800000. Also, that is only indicative of those who were prepared to sign on a different question, not all persons concerned and not this question. (Interesting to note that 1500 or 1/3 of the clergy signed that petition, though their concern was different from the lay - the issue for the clergy was 'practising' not 'orientation'; we've never had 1/3 of the clergy agree on any petition before that!)

Any comment as to where that figure of 5% could come from?

(Rev) Don Anderson

*****************

From: elliston@nbnet.nb.ca
Subject: Re: Why don't ministers teach ideas like Mr. Phipps?

Some do!

Why do many never repeat what they have been taught in theological colleges?
THEY DON"T BELIEVE IT THEMSELVES.
When receiving an education people judge for themselves what is reliable.
Theological schools raise questions.
They do not provide truth.
Theological schools probably don't claim to be "Christian" either. They claim to be theological schools.

Elliston