The Rev. Vosper Again

[chansen]

If they do, perhaps they should find it at home. It isn't the role of the Church to be comfortable.

Many churches have made that abundantly clear to many people.

Okay then, they should ask her. Perhaps they will now.

Charming. Metropolitan United could have invited her over for coffee. Other churches have had her by to speak. Met wrote a letter with the intention of getting her formally reviewed instead - no personal contact at all.

 

[Jaebius]

Charming. Metropolitan United could have invited her over for coffee. Other churches have had her by to speak. Met wrote a letter with the intention of getting her formally reviewed instead - no personal contact at all.

They should have. I consider it an error on their part that they didn't. I take it we have that in common. Thing is - who cares? Neither of us is UCCanada. Best to let them settle things in-house.

 

[chansen]

I like to think that I can lend a small voice to the online discussion. I think there are things that need to be said, that some people in the UCCan can not or will not say, even if they "essentially" agree with me. I don't care if people don't like what I write, and I clearly don't care of people call me an atheist.

 

[chansen]

Actually, we don't hold a more congregational model of governance than "other churches." We hold a more congregational model of governance than "some other churches." Many others are far more congregational than we are.

Quite suddenly. Since 1925 in fact. That's only 91 years. Suddenly. Very suddenly.

For a group that couldn't put together anything in support of certain topics of the day, I thought you were too congregational and that was the reason. Now, I understand not so congregational that you can't act against a congregation. That's all.

Actually, we don't know if that's the line. That's what the review will determine.

It's certainly a line that initiated a review.

As to the first part of your quote, marriage is an act of worship and in our polity congregations have sole discretion over acts of worship, with only a few exceptions - such as sacraments. There's nothing the denomination can just "do" about that. It would require a remit which would be controversial - not so much because of same sex marriage but because people would wonder where else in the worship life of the congregation the denomination would suddenly choose to interfere. As to the second, see my reply above.

Really. That's why it would be controversial.

Could be.

To young people looking on, I'd suggest the optics do suck. You're not different. You're just a church.

Individual members of a United Church congregation don't have to care for them or participate in them. United Church congregations are expected to make them available. Many who are not even church goers find something about them meaningful.

I clearly don't get the big deal about sacraments.

Some do. "A lot" is relative, and I'm not aware of people in the pews having been specifically surveyed about this. I'm only aware of Gretta having made claims for which she has no evidence.

I misspoke here. I think there is quiet support for Gretta, but looking around, it's always the same few voices supporting her - mostly one person at the FB group.

Hopefully that's true. They're welcome. And if they come to my church they'll hear some Jesus talk.

And I'm sure they can tune it out. And I'm sure many people do, and just enjoy the balance of the experience. And I think that's fine. Maybe you do as well, which is why I don't know why this is such a big deal.

I think for a person or people to be concerned about something that may very well have an impact on them is not being "a textbook 'busybody.'" So we disagree.

What impact?

No doubt we have a few strident folk out there. Of course Gretta herself has engaged in deceitfulness and unsubstantiated claims throughout this process.

Like I said before, both sides have engaged in it. Gretta has exaggerated. The anti-Gretta side have been downright nasty. And are rarely taken to task over it.

My own concern really is that she's effectively declaring herself unaccountable to the denomination that all of us agreed to be accountable to when we were ordained. She wants to be a free agent. She can't be a free agent and be a United Church minister at the same time. It just doesn't work.

She insists they helped her get to where she is. And when it comes to being a United Church minister, a lot of things apparently aren't working. What the hell is the problem with trying this? What did you say, "If it's not of God, it won't last?" I think that's ridiculous, but what's wrong with giving her some rope? That's what they've been doing all this time, and when she seems to be not drowning, now they yank it back. I really think they expected her to fail, but they can't afford for her to succeed.

 

[GordW]

[QUOTE="BetteTheRed, post: 119150, member: 47"I absolutely believe that Gretta is where she is today because that's an absolutely valid place, not saying a guarantee, of how this particular denomination trained its children, confirmed its young people, then ordained its young women; it was a trajectory that not everyone followed, but which is absolutely logical. You might not like the change, but your church fermented it. Seriously, any denomination that can, by remit, FFS, approve the Song of Faith, and then argue that there are edges? I continue to find it hugely ironic that this particular review was initiated by Metropolitan United, as if we get to choose the edge of the envelope to which our experience takes us.[/QUOTE]

Just because this is one possible result of a path does not mean that the result keeps you in the same group as others on the path. As has been stated repeatedly before, no one is denying anyone the right to believe what he or she believes (or forcing him/her to believe what she/he doesn't believe a the case may be). We are simply trying to determine what the criteria for being in a leadership position in a Christian denomination, accountable to that denomination's theology and polity and heritage are.

THe SOng of Faith is still unabashedly Christian and speaks of a God that Gretta appears to not accept. You could not, for example affirm the Song of Faith (and the other faith statements that are a part of out doctrinal heritage and present reality) and say, as Gretta did in a church in Thunder Bay a decade ago, that there is no place for Jesus in Progressive Christianity. I fail to see how you could affirm A Song of Faith and deny the important place sacraments have in our life as a denomination.

When has the United Church ever said there are no edges? WE have not been great at naming what they may be. We have argued about what they are. But it has always been known that there are edges.

 

[revsdd]

@chansen -

I've never been in favour of the review. It's a bad idea for several reasons. And my advice from the start has been the advice of the rabbi Gamaliel in Acts: "If it's not of God it won't succeed but if it is of God it can't be stopped." I'm fine with that approach. But I do understand why some feel that a review is necessary and I do believe that if and when it happens she has to be removed. Which I don't think will work to anyone's benefit and which I do feel will leave a lot of people hurt.

And it is having an effect on others in the United Church. Gretta is the new poster-child of the United Church. The media loves her. Others are developing their impression of the United Church from Gretta. My own congregation has found our neighbouring Presbyterian friends unwilling to engage in joint youth programming because of Gretta. There is an impact.

As for same sex marriage - yes, I believe it would be extremely controversial for the denomination to legislate on the issue not because of same sex marriage per se but because of the perceived implications for further encroachment into things that are congregational matters. I believe that many congregations that strongly support same sex marriage would oppose the denomination legislating it for that reason. Seriously - the United Church by and large isn't hung up on same sex marriage, but you seem hung up on thinking that we are. In my current and former Presbyteries I'd guess that I could count on my fingers the number of ministers and congregations who flat out won't perform same sex marriages. Even among the Cruxifusion clergy that you're so suspicious of I'd guess that the majority don't have any problem with it.

Your problem is that you keep speaking about the United Church as if you actually know something about the United Church, while ignoring or refusing to accept what those of us who do know about the United Church tell you about the United Church.

 

[chansen]

Well, for starters, I was told there was no connection between the (anti-same-sex-marriage) Community of Concern and Cruxifusion, before finding out that the CoC partly funded Cruxifusion and many members moved over from the old group to the new. So I'm not always told the entire story, either.

 

[revsdd]

Well, for starters, I was told there was no connection between the (anti-same-sex-marriage) Community of Concern and Cruxifusion, before finding out that the CoC partly funded Cruxifusion and many members moved over from the old group to the new. So I'm not always told the entire story, either.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "connection." I know the history - better than you do quite frankly - and I'd say that there's no connection between the Community of Concern and Cruxifusion. CoC dissolved and left some money for helping start up Cruxifusion. There wrre no conditions and no quid pro quo. Cruxifusion is in no way "connected" to CoC. CoC doesn't exist and the two organizations have very different ideas and priorities. Also, most of the CoC people (and certainly the leadership) I knew 20+ years ago were in their 70's and 80's then. They're certainly not around. Anyway, you know very little about either the United Church or Cruxifusion (with which I have no connection aside from being a part of their Facebook page, by the way) but you do have a tendency to speak as if you're an expert on both, usually citing the sort of anecdotal and unsubstantiated evidence for your beliefs that you usually criticize or mock people of faith for. Curious.

 

[chansen]

I bring up things I find out about or find interesting or curious. I don't pretend to know everything, but if you think that the CoC partly funding Cruxifusion, and among the last CoC website entries being titled "Cruxifusion... It Continues", is in any way congruent with the argument that they are not connected, then I'm afraid I can't offer anything else. Like you say, I don't know as much as you do, but what I do know, and what I've brought forward, I think most people would immediately recognize as a connection. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[chansen]

@chansen -

I've never been in favour of the review. It's a bad idea for several reasons. And my advice from the start has been the advice of the rabbi Gamaliel in Acts: "If it's not of God it won't succeed but if it is of God it can't be stopped." I'm fine with that approach. But I do understand why some feel that a review is necessary and I do believe that if and when it happens she has to be removed. Which I don't think will work to anyone's benefit and which I do feel will leave a lot of people hurt.

Here I'm in complete agreement. Except the removal part. It won't work to anyone's benefit. The people who will be most happy will be the biggest jerks among your ranks.

And it is having an effect on others in the United Church. Gretta is the new poster-child of the United Church. The media loves her. Others are developing their impression of the United Church from Gretta. My own congregation has found our neighbouring Presbyterian friends unwilling to engage in joint youth programming because of Gretta. There is an impact.

To me, that's more their problem than yours. They're painting with that wide brush I've been accused of using. Maybe they stole it from my workshop. Surely, you have the ability to speak to people and calm their fears that you're a raging atheist, capable of eating a medium-sized toddler. I doubt you could down a full-term infant, even.

 

[revsdd]

I bring up things I find out about or find interesting or curious. I don't pretend to know everything, but if you think that the CoC partly funding Cruxifusion, and among the last CoC website entries being titled "Cruxifusion... It Continues", is in any way congruent with the argument that they are not connected, then I'm afraid I can't offer anything else. Like you say, I don't know as much as you do, but what I do know, and what I've brought forward, I think most people would immediately recognize as a connection. Maybe I'm wrong.

It's a bit like saying that if I were to win the lottery I'm connected to the OLG. I suppose in a way I am, but I owe them nothing.

 

[revsdd]

Here I'm in complete agreement. Except the removal part. It won't work to anyone's benefit. The people who will be most happy will be the biggest jerks among your ranks.

Do understand - I don't think the review was a good idea, so I'm not advocating for her removal. I simply think that if the process goes forward it's the only reasonable outcome. A non-theist cannot be found to be in "essential agreement" with a denomination which has four statements of doctrine - all of which are overtly theistic. If she's not in "essential agreement" then she cannot be effective as a minister, because to be effective means at least in part to teach and promote the faith of the church. What being effective does not mean is being loved by your congregation. In fact, ministers being loved by their congregation sometimes becomes a major problem.

 

[chansen]

It's a bit like saying that if I were to win the lottery I'm connected to the OLG. I suppose in a way I am, but I owe them nothing.

No, it's not. The CoC did not select Cruxifusion to give money to by picking ping pong balls from rotating plexiglass drums.

 

[chansen]

Do understand - I don't think the review was a good idea, so I'm not advocating for her removal. I simply think that if the process goes forward it's the only reasonable outcome. A non-theist cannot be found to be in "essential agreement" with a denomination which has four statements of doctrine - all of which are overtly theistic. If she's not in "essential agreement" then she cannot be effective as a minister, because to be effective means at least in part to teach and promote the faith of the church. What being effective does not mean is being loved by your congregation. In fact, ministers being loved by their congregation sometimes becomes a major problem.

Perhaps you're right on this point. Which is why they should find an excuse to quash the review. Before it turns into an uglier fight than it already is.

 

[revjohn]

Interesting.

Not the Proposal from West Hill it is full of inaccuracies but mostly on the technical side.

The response to the Proposal interests me.

It isn't surprising that Toronto Conference has worked with legal counsel to correct West Hill's inaccuracies and present a proper procedural motion to the Court. That kind of thing happens all the time.

What I find interesting is a) All of the Delegates to the Toronto Conference Annual General Meeting will be asked to Reconsider the 2016 decision to reinstate the review process which was only put on hold because of the appeal and not the 2015 decision to initiate the review in the first place and, b) if all of the Delegates to the Toronto Conference AGM refuse to reconsider that is a loud collective voice saying that they agree with the decision made by the Sub-executive or, c) if all of the delegates to the Toronto Conference AGM decide to reconsider they will then be asked a second question about whether the review should or shouldn't be reinstated.

That is going to change the discussion going forward. Nobody is going to be able to say that the decision was made by a few.

Interesting times.

 

[revsdd]

No, it's not. The CoC did not select Cruxifusion to give money to by picking ping pong balls from rotating plexiglass drums.

It is "a bit" in that there was nothing requested and there's no indebtedness, since CoC doesn't exist anymore. Hey. They closed up shop and they had money. They had to do something with it. Giving it to a group focussed on Christ-centred ministry is not unreasonable. But there are few if any similarities between the two groups- and I have familiarity with both. My guess is that most of the former leadership of CoC would actually be quite unhappy with Cruxifusion. But you won't believe me because on this issue you choose to promote some sort of conspiracy theory.

 

[chansen]

It is "a bit" in that there was nothing requested and there's no indebtedness, since CoC doesn't exist anymore. Hey. They closed up shop and they had money. They had to do something with it. Giving it to a group focussed on Christ-centred ministry is not unreasonable. But there are few if any similarities between the two groups- and I have familiarity with both. My guess is that most of the former leadership of CoC would actually be quite unhappy with Cruxifusion. But you won't believe me because on this issue you choose to promote some sort of conspiracy theory.

Some members and some money moved from the failed group to the new group. The failed group wrote on their website how Cruxifusion was somehow the continuation of their work. And you're maintaining there is no connection between the groups. There is literally nothing I need to add.

I am suspicious of Cruxifusion. They seem to want to take the UCCan down a more Jesusy road, when Canada is going in the opposite direction. I see then as a polarizing influence at a time when we don't need more polarization in general, and the UCCAN in particular wouldn't benefit from it.

 

[Jaebius]

Some members and some money moved from the failed group to the new group. The failed group wrote on their website how Cruxifusion was somehow the continuation of their work. And you're maintaining there is no connection between the groups. There is literally nothing I need to add.

I am suspicious of Cruxifusion. They seem to want to take the UCCan down a more Jesusy road, when Canada is going in the opposite direction. I see then as a polarizing influence at a time when we don't need more polarization in general, and the UCCAN in particular wouldn't benefit from it.

So you're against polarization but in support of the one openly-atheist UCCanada minister.

 

[chansen]

That move is one step in the direction of secular society which is what Canada is repidly becoming. Cruxifusion promotes a more vocal belief in God and Jesus, in a denomination known recently for more metaphorical understandings and rejected by other churches. Cruxifusion would see the UCCan be more like other churches and result in a greater devide.

 

[Jaebius]

That move is one step in the direction of secular society which is what Canada is repidly becoming. Cruxifusion promotes a more vocal belief in God and Jesus, in a denomination known recently for more metaphorical understandings and rejected by other churches. Cruxifusion would see the UCCan be more like other churches and result in a greater devide.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but Cruxifusion isn't working for polarization within Christianity.