First religion you'd convert to?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Pure Land Buddhism or Conservadox Judaism.

A different form of hipster Christianity.

You're no fun.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thank you for the scare quotes around 'Bishop', BRTD. It's what the man deserves for driving his diocese into the ground. And I've been to church with him. Twice!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's like that openly-atheist United Church of Canada pastor who's getting breathless write-ups in hyper-liberal 'Christian' media lately. (Have you seen any of this stuff?) It sounds all peace and love and kumbaya until you read that attendance at her parish cratered by two-thirds after she removed the Lord's Prayer from the service, and still hasn't fully recovered despite the congregation becoming a mecca for the Ursula Goodenough set.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's like that openly-atheist United Church of Canada pastor who's getting breathless write-ups in hyper-liberal 'Christian' media lately. (Have you seen any of this stuff?)

I'm sure Gretta Vosper has provided counsel to countless many over the past 19 years. I'm sure they are thankful for her advice. I know you struggle to understand how an atheist can do that (often, dare you imagine it 'better' and for more humanist, dignified reasons than those who are devout) and why indeed so many atheists are attracted to 'professional ministry' or continue in it after their faith leaves them. Maybe you should actually go and 'see this stuff.'

I really would have much more sympathy for Vosper's way of doing things if it hadn't led to the near-collapse and subsequent decidedly anemic recovery of her parish, which indicates (to me) a strong objection on the part of most of her original parishioners to seeing this happen to their community. I don't in principle object to religious naturalism, not nearly as much as I used to anyway--it's valuable to have on the religious scene, and it provides a great deal to a great many people. A number of atheists--therapists, physicians, teachers, friends--have provided me with invaluable advice and comfort over the years and I really resent the implication that my lack of desire to see overtly (id est, non-Unamunoish) non-Christian entryism into Christian ministry indicates a lack of interest in or understanding of the important work that non-Christians and non-religious people do elsewhere. Would you have reacted this way if I'd said that it was inappropriate for a Christian minister to convert to Buddhism (or to have covertly been a Buddhist all along; I've read conflicting things about which is the case with Vosper) and turn her church into a zen-dō over the objections of a supermajority of the congregants?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's like that openly-atheist United Church of Canada pastor who's getting breathless write-ups in hyper-liberal 'Christian' media lately. (Have you seen any of this stuff?)

I'm sure Gretta Vosper has provided counsel to countless many over the past 19 years. I'm sure they are thankful for her advice. I know you struggle to understand how an atheist can do that (often, dare you imagine it 'better' and for more humanist, dignified reasons than those who are devout) and why indeed so many atheists are attracted to 'professional ministry' or continue in it after their faith leaves them. Maybe you should actually go and 'see this stuff.'

I really would have much more sympathy for Vosper's way of doing things if it hadn't led to the near-collapse and subsequent decidedly anemic recovery of her parish, which indicates (to me) a strong objection on the part of most of her original parishioners to seeing this happen to their community. I don't in principle object to religious naturalism, not nearly as much as I used to anyway--it's valuable to have on the religious scene, and it provides a great deal to a great many people. A number of atheists--therapists, physicians, teachers, friends--have provided me with invaluable advice and comfort over the years and I really resent the implication that my lack of desire to see overtly (id est, non-Unamunoish) non-Christian entryism into Christian ministry indicates a lack of interest in or understanding of the important work that non-Christians and non-religious people do elsewhere. Would you have reacted this way if I'd said that it was inappropriate for a Christian minister to convert to Buddhism (or to have covertly been a Buddhist all along; I've read conflicting things about which is the case with Vosper) and turn her church into a zen-dō over the objections of a supermajority of the congregants?

She's led the church since 1997. Congregations come and go for a variety of reasons, particularly in countries where Christianity is in flux and general decline. She has a congregation and from what I've read they are happy with her. Who is to say it would have been higher had she not been there? She is good for her congregation and they are the ones that matter.

The first article that I read about her specifically said that two-thirds of the congregation left in one fell swoop at one point. This strikes me as the sort of thing that most people would be willing to characterize as, at the very least, a serious error in responsiveness to the needs of the congregation as it then existed (as opposed to the congregation as it's existed since (ship of Theseus, et cetera), who, yes, matter too, and, yes, seem very happy with her). Granted, there are things that she could have done to cause this outcome that would have been good and even brave (taking a stand for some just but unpopular political or social cause, rooting out some sort of corruption within the parish), but 'de-Christianizing her Christian church' just doesn't strike me, as a Christian, as one of them, and I don't think it's fair to expect me to feel otherwise.