Thank God that we've gone beyond heresy trials and threats to life for non-conformist thinking and believing. Happily we no longer live in a conformist society, where you were at risk if you broke ranks with the authorized religion.

Cuius regio eius religio (Who rules, his religion) is dead in Canada, but unhappily not erased from the face of the globe. Not conforming to the authorized religion is hazard free in Canada. Not totally in USA. And certainly risky in Iran, China, and even in Russia.

So given the relative freedom of belief and practice, what is the point of heresy trials? In Canada, no point - waste of time and resources! In USA, political points can be made among right-wing elements if you have the pure Christian faith - especially in white Protestant fundamentalist circles. In Russia, you might get your church closed down if challenging the autocrats. In Iran you might land in jail or worse. In China, you are sent to "re-education" camps.

So in Canada, believers of whatever type can find their place and space, generally with no hazard. [Not taking into account Islamophobia or anti-semitism attacks by individuals and groups.] But faith-based people can gather together in communities or denominations - no longer to distance themselves from labelled other- or un-believers, but to share their faith commitments and deepen their understanding of the faith that blesses them. They identify foundational values, traditions, writings, and practices which are the marks of the faith they share in community.

Again, not to demonize others who don't share their convictions. But to strengthen, celebrate, and integrate the truths they share for living. No faith group today can forego the need to keep learning and discovering new dimensions of truth. We don't comprehend the Divine. We apprehend and discover more about the Holy as we gather and as we act together.

As part of their core values, faith communities understand that God creates diversity - - gender, ethnic, belief, educational, Christ embraces all Creation, and the Spirit prods us to cherish that diversity and respectfully love all people, whether they share our beliefs and practices or not.

So the United Church was faced with an ordained minister who proclaims to be an atheist - i.e. doesn't believe in the straw-person, judging, male, interventionist God or whatever version others actually hold; the Bible is just another book with no particular authority for faith-based living; faith statements have no particular merit or truth; and the sacraments are unnecessary empty rituals.

Ordination and continuing leadership in the faith community, however, was worth fighting for - though it could hardly be a call from (the non-existent) God.

I have noproblem with anyone holding these views. We are all at liberty to have ideas, to express them, and to argue that they are true.Doubtless there are members and adherents in the denomination who share some of these beliefs and continue to explore and discover new dimensions of truth as they participate in the life of the group.

But when the denomination proclaims that God is, the Bible is foundational, the sacraments point to divine meaning, Jesus' being and living reveals the Holy, and the Spirit loves into being all that is living - and a person ordained into a public leadership role by that community rejects it all except the ordination part, then it raises a fundamental question.

The question: is there a place for integrity in this scenario? Doesn't integrity call such a person to acknowledge: given what I have concluded and proclaim, I really am no longer authentically part of this particular community. Hence integrity calls me to move to another group where my thinking, believing, professional self-understanding, and acting are more closely aligned and affirmed?

The integrity question is equally valid for the faith community which is asked to express itself about and live by its values, beliefs, and actions. These are not static, but do evolve - as the history of the United Church clearly shows. But there are core beliefs and assumptions which are affirmed and upheld.

Of course, the community doesn't want or need a heresy trial to judge the person. But in love and pastoral concern for the person - without rancour - it must truthfully state that the community is not where the person has arrived and, as ordained minister within the group, they occupy a position not consistent with integrity. Not because it is "wrong" or "evil" or "criminal" or "heretical", but simply because the person's integrity demands a different home faith community where the minister can be affirmed in their beliefs and thoughts and ways of leading.

Unhappily, the agreement between The United Church of Canada and Greta Vosper is not public. Julian Falconer, lawyer for Ms. Vosper, is quoted: "Both parties took a long look at the cost-benefit at running a herecy trial." Understandable. The question arises, of course, about what is in the agreement. Speculation abounds; but no need to go there here.

The main issue that I am left with is: what is this agreement doing to "integrity" - Ms. Vosper's, the Church's?

Meanwhile, I continue to recognize that the faith community of which I am part - The UCC - is a fallible, flawed entity - a diverse community in ongoing need of God's redeeming grace in many ways - even as it pilgrims on to grow in the faithful proclamation of the Creator's Good News revealed in Christ, prodded by the Spirit to celebrate the Divine fierce and gentle love for the Earth and for the entire global human family. Love abides - the principal sign of God's presence in our world.