The Rev. Vosper Again

[revsdd]

Meanwhile, I get nothing. It's as if people know that I'm a nobody.

 

[Luce NDs]

Fear mongering within the social structure of a church meant to enlighten people that fear about their mortality?

Knowing that you are a nobody is ... like nothing .. as so the ethereal goes unnoticed ... eve in undetected if covered by a fabric ...

 

[Lastpointe]

Pinga

When you get things like this how do you respond?

I havent got any Gretta emails, but i got tons during the election

It always leaves me the dilemma. Reply to sender saying i dont support your position and this is why, or simly ignore

Facebook is the worst for stuff like this

 

[Jaebius]

Pinga

When you get things like this how do you respond?

I havent got any Gretta emails, but i got tons during the election

It always leaves me the dilemma. Reply to sender saying i dont support your position and this is why, or simly ignore

Facebook is the worst for stuff like this

When you get emails that you don't really want, it's best to just delete them.

 

[Pinga]

I respond dependent on who the person is.
In this case, I responded basically that I was not on that bandwagon and do not like the one-sided manipulation.
If someone is going to send out stuff that they should at least do an attempt to do a balanced approach.

I also put links in to wondercafe2 for offers to dialogue on the topic at hand.

 

[crazyheart]

Has any one seen Gretta's blog on Face Book? She is wily.

 

[Lastpointe]

What do you mean wily?

 

[Luce NDs]

Wile Y?

 

[Jaebius]

What do you mean wily?

 

[Luce NDs]

Some Christians are all about free wiles and not much thought and intelligence ... they believe it is something form the eternal the common folk shouldn't know ... the counter intuitive thought?

Tis mist by many ... only a passing fog ...

 

[crazyheart]

find it somewhat ironic that when G. Vosper drops off the attention of the people, SHE

brings it back to the front with blogs, interviews and Face Book. I didn't think

The United Church would carry out the business of Pastoral Relations in Face Book.

Yes, I think she is wily.

 

[GordW]

find it somewhat ironic that when G. Vosper drops off the attention of the people, SHE

brings it back to the front with blogs, interviews and Face Book. I didn't think

The United Church would carry out the business of Pastoral Relations in Face Book.

Yes, I think she is wily.

THe UCCan isn't posting anything related to this on FB. Gretta is. And to be honest some of the concerns sher raises about the experimental process I share. I have long been partly dubious about moving PR and Oversight work to Conference from PResbytery (even though I understand some of the logic).

OTOH, it is a very common tactic to attack the process when you have reason to believe that your argument on content is not going to win

 

[chansen]

http://www.grettavosper.ca/sea-change-in-the-united-church-of-canada-part-one/

I assume that's the blog post we're referring to.

The damning thing here is that no one complaining about her effectiveness as a minister has even seen her minister. It's all people complaining about being associated with her. They aren't worried about Gretta's congregation - they're thinking about themselves. Gretta could just as easily complain about being associated with some of them.

As for Gretta posting online, well, that's what she can do. It's her against an entire denomination. She should use every tool at her disposal, and if publicizing what's going on is good for her and bad for the UCCan, damn right she should shed some light on what's going on. If the UCCan doesn't like her posting about what they have done, what they are doing, and what letters they were reacting to, then they should not have reacted to them.

Interesting that the Metropolitan United Church letter didn't even mention Gretta's name, and yet it was the first thing referenced in the decision to implement the review. What that letter mentioned was West Hill, and it's more correct than Toronto Conference is, that the real problem, if it is a problem, is the entire congregation - not just Gretta. Because the UCCan can't deal with the optics of attacking an entire congregation, and perhaps doesn't even have the tools to do so, they want to pick it apart by removing the head.

I wish I had time to address the actual letters. I'm sure the UCCan is thrilled they were published. Because I know them, I've saved copies to my hard drive. They may waste more money on lawyers to get the letters taken down. I expect that will backfire spectacularly if they do.

Lost in all of this, is why did nobody think of trying to reach some sort of accommodation with Gretta and West Hill? This is the sort of thing you do when the congregation is against the minister, or they are badly split. If they DSL Gretta, then the next fight will be with the congregation. It's stupid, it's the last thing they needed to do, and all it does is appease busybody-church-lady types, which I suppose means it's right up the UCCan's alley.

Why can't there be some congregations that are non-theistic but associated with the UCCan? Surely others may want similar designations. Why the need to be a club that believes the unbelievable, first and foremost? Why allow something to grow, then try to tear it down when it fails to die? They could have worked something out, but it's that belief that even your kids are, by and large, no longer buying, once again getting in the way of a good thing.

 

[Jaebius]

Why can't there be some congregations that are non-theistic but associated with the UCCan?

How about because the United Church of Canada is a Christian denomination.

Surely others may want similar designations. Why the need to be a club that believes the unbelievable, first and foremost?

Clearly Christianity isn't unbelievable since a huge, growing number of people around the world believe in it. You may not feel that it should be believed in, but it is.

 

[Mendalla]

Why can't there be some congregations that are non-theistic but associated with the UCCan?

Because then they'd be in competition with us UUs?

More seriously, look at the quotes from the UCCan doctrinal documents below. Not even the Song of Faith leaves much room for ambiguity on belief in God given how much verbiage it expends on describing God in its opening stanzas. I continue to fail to see why the onus is on the UCCan to change into some kind of proto-UU'ism rather than on people to find a church where their beliefs fit in, which is what I did.

We believe in the one only living and true God, a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being and perfections; the Lord Almighty, who is love, most just in all His ways, most glorious in holiness, unsearchable in wisdom, plenteous in mercy, full of compassion, and abundant in goodness and truth. We worship Him in the unity of the Godhead and the mystery of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons of the same substance, equal in power and glory..,

We believe in God, the eternal personal Spirit, Creator and Upholder of all things.

We believe that God, as sovereign Lord exalted above the world, orders and overrules all things in it to the accomplishment of His holy, wise, and good purposes.

We are not alone,
we live in God’s world.

We believe in God:
who has created and is creating,
who has come in Jesus,
the Word made flesh,
to reconcile and make new,
who works in us and others
by the Spirit.

God is Holy Mystery,
beyond complete knowledge,
above perfect description.

Yet,
in love,
the one eternal God seeks relationship.

So God creates the universe
and with it the possibility of being and relating.
God tends the universe,
mending the broken and reconciling the estranged.
God enlivens the universe,
guiding all things toward harmony with their Source.

Grateful for God’s loving action,
We cannot keep from singing.

With the Church through the ages,
we speak of God as one and triune:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
We also speak of God as
Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer
God, Christ, and Spirit
Mother, Friend, and Comforter
Source of Life, Living Word, and Bond of Love,
and in other ways that speak faithfully of
the One on whom our hearts rely,
the fully shared life at the heart of the universe.

 

[chansen]

Clearly Christianity isn't unbelievable since a huge, growing number of people around the world believe in it. You may not feel that it should be believed in, but it is.

Sure. It's perfectly believable.

 

[Jaebius]

Sure. It's perfectly believable.

Millions around the world agree.

 

[chansen]

Because then they'd be in competition with us UUs?

More seriously, look at the quotes from the UCCan doctrinal documents below. Not even the Song of Faith leaves much room for ambiguity on belief in God given how much verbiage it expends on describing God in its opening stanzas. I continue to fail to see why the onus is on the UCCan to change into some kind of proto-UU'ism rather than on people to find a church where their beliefs fit in, which is what I did.

In this case, West Hill fits the people at West Hill fine. For whatever reason, they consider themselves UCCan members. What I'm saying is, could they not create some kind of internal separation to keep the whiners happy? They problem isn't Gretta. The problems are the complaints. Create a separate division of some sort, so that West Hill is now affiliated with the UCCAN, but not an actual United Church, and not bound by the same freakin' song.

This addresses the complaints, without tearing a congregation apart just to appease the sort of people who probably don't deserve to be appeased.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Nah, I can say the God-description part of the Song of Faith, and I'm not a theist. There's so much metaphor in there that it's kinda meaningless.

People who have grown up in the UCCan and find themselves non-theist don't like the idea of being booted out because our beliefs have reached a natural conclusion.

 

[chansen]

People who have grown up in the UCCan and find themselves non-theist don't like the idea of being booted out because our beliefs have reached a natural conclusion.

I think this hits the nail on the cross.

The UCCan has courted progressive Christian thought for decades. Some people progressed right out of literal belief, but they find comfort and meaning in belonging, and in some of the rituals.

What's happening here is that absolute jerks are trying to kick these people out, and I don't think that's nice. Now, I realize that I don't respect the beliefs that are motivating these people, but this just makes me respect them less.