The Rev. Vosper Again

[Northwind]

Not according to Jae, which is what derailed us upthread.

I know. That's one reason why I'm not part of that denomination anymore.

 

[Jaebius]

Not according to Jae, which is what derailed us upthread.

To be clear, I responded to a comment of @BetteTheRed

 

[Mendalla]

Actually, you said the following in response to my response to that comment:

Respectfully Mendalla, I disagree. I see it as a pastor's job to feed her or his flock well. As such, only good, wholesome, nutritious foods should be fed. Those shepherds who feed otherwise should be kept out.

And that is what I was more or less referring to.

 

[Jaebius]

So, no role to encourage thinking, teach them how to learn, learn from them as they learn from the pastor? Just spoon-feed them the doctrine? That may be the Baptist way but even in my day, it was not the UCCan way.

I think that's a false dichotomy Mendalla - challenge thinking vs. feeding sound teachings. An artful preacher can do both.

 

[Jaebius]

Actually, you said the following in response to my response to that comment:



And that is what I was more or less referring to.

Why is that the derailment as opposed to that which you said which I then responded to?

 

[Mendalla]

I think that's a false dichotomy Mendalla - challenge thinking vs. feeding sound teachings. An artful preacher can do both.

It depends on how he is feeding the sound teachings. If they are fed as "ideas to consider" you are correct. More than one teaching can be sound. If they are fed as "the one right way" then my dichotomy is no longer false because there is no need for thinking any more. You are expected to accept them as written.

Why is that the derailment as opposed to that which you said which I then responded to?

I never accused you of derailing anything so why are you arguing? I simply said that we derailed by discussing your idea, not that you derailed it. And, really, it's not that much of a derailment. Ultimately, the discussion is about the fitness of a minister and, to some degree, the "fencing the pulpit" is about that as well.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I think it's about more than the fitness of a minister. Gretta wouldn't get away with self-identifying, loudly, as an atheist, in any other congregation besides this one, I don't think. I think this situation has arisen from the relationship between a congregation and a person. I think this is the nuance that is missing, a lot, and I don't see the Review Committee reaching out to the congregation.

 

[paradox3]

I think it's about more than the fitness of a minister. Gretta wouldn't get away with self-identifying, loudly, as an atheist, in any other congregation besides this one, I don't think. I think this situation has arisen from the relationship between a congregation and a person. I think this is the nuance that is missing, a lot, and I don't see the Review Committee reaching out to the congregation.

Can you explain this a little further? I am not following your train of thought at all.

 

[Mendalla]

I think this situation has arisen from the relationship between a congregation and a person.

Except, as has been explained by the revs many times, a minister's relationship isn't just with the congregation. There is a relationship with Presbytery/Conference as well and through them to the church as a whole. You are not a congregational church even if WHUC and Vosper try to behave like you are.

 

[paradox3]

nope.it is not appropriate (or feasible really) to have that large a body making the final determination on one individual so GC43 would not be voting on the disposition of Gretta's case. The hearing will be held, GCE will make the determination and any appeal will likely have to go to the civil courts (I think the Judicial Committee is now out of the picture, someone may correct me if I am wrong).

West Hill's website explains that Judicial Committee has been tasked with performing the review which will take place in September 2017.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Except, as has been explained by the revs many times, a minister's relationship isn't just with the congregation. There is a relationship with Presbytery/Conference as well and through them to the church as a whole. You are not a congregational church even if WHUC and Vosper try to behave like you are.

Fair enough, but would this situation have arisen in another congregation? If it wasn't one that was moved this way, do you think Gretta would have dragged them? If the "distance from the theistic god" is the problem, why is it all focussed on Gretta?

 

[Jaebius]

Fair enough, but would this situation have arisen in another congregation? If it wasn't one that was moved this way, do you think Gretta would have dragged them? If the "distance from the theistic god" is the problem, why is it all focussed on Gretta?

It seems to me that Rev. Vosper wants it all focused on her. My perception is that she revels in publicity. The more attention she gets, I think, the happier she is.

 

[Mendalla]

Fair enough, but would this situation have arisen in another congregation? If it wasn't one that was moved this way, do you think Gretta would have dragged them? If the "distance from the theistic god" is the problem, why is it all focussed on Gretta?

The letter that prompted the inquiry came from another congregation so I suspect (but obviously don't know) that it is because her writing and general public persona likely brought attention from outside. A minister who simply preached UU-ish sermons and used watered-down theistic language without making a public show of it might fly under the radar unless it caused an upset internally. Not to say that this hypothetical minister would be any more right or wrong than Gretta, just that they might not get noticed or might get written off as a stray flake rather than incurring disciplinary action if they were. Rather like speeding but only at the rate others are speeding. If you don't call attention to your speeding by going faster than the flow of traffic (going 130 when everyone else is going 120), you likely won't get ticketed.

 

[GordW]

Fair enough, but would this situation have arisen in another congregation? If it wasn't one that was moved this way, do you think Gretta would have dragged them? If the "distance from the theistic god" is the problem, why is it all focussed on Gretta?

In part because she is a very public face, in part because the church universal has almost always found it easier to blame things on the minister than n a congregation (though normally that plays out where there is conflict between congregation and minister),and in [though this is a minor piece I suspect] part because one of the roles of the minister in congregational life is to remind them what is and is not "kosher" in terms of adhering to denominational polity and practice.

If Gretta was in a congregation that was not willing to follow her (and it is arguable that much of WHUC was NOT willing but chose to leave the congregation instead of fighting it) one or both of two things would have happened years ago:
1) they would have accepted her offer to leave
2) a letter would have been written to Presbytery asking for further action (terminating the Pastoral Relationship, a 363 review, potential discipline)

 

[Mendalla]

(and it is arguable that much of WHUC was NOT willing but chose to leave the congregation instead of fighting it)

This is one aspect of it that I have always found interesting - that people left rather than putting up a fight. In my UU congregation, when the minister upset the humanist status quo, she was the one who ended up leaving (which then prompted some of her supporters to leave in solidarity, many of them never returning).

 

[paradox3]

There are many reasons why people left rather than put up a fight. It would make an interesting case study of organizational behaviour.

I am mindful that the review which is underway is focused on Gretta's theology, not her leadership style.

She did mention yesterday on CBC radio that she made a "pastoral error" in dealing with her congregation.

 

[paradox3]

If Gretta was in a congregation that was not willing to follow her (and it is arguable that much of WHUC was NOT willing but chose to leave the congregation instead of fighting it) one or both of two things would have happened years ago:
1) they would have accepted her offer to leave
2) a letter would have been written to Presbytery asking for further action (terminating the Pastoral Relationship, a 363 review, potential discipline)

The offer to leave was only made to the Board. The congregation as a whole knew nothing about this.

You are right. Such a letter never happened for a variety of reasons.

This is where I believe some of the responsibility for the whole fiasco rests on our shoulders. The old Scarborough Presbytery can also be criticised for its actions/ lack of action.

 

[paradox3]

Fair enough, but would this situation have arisen in another congregation? If it wasn't one that was moved this way, do you think Gretta would have dragged them? If the "distance from the theistic god" is the problem, why is it all focussed on Gretta?

Hard to say if this situation could have arisen in another congregation. There are many factors involved in the story and many perspectives on the sequence of events which unfolded.

 

[paradox3]

If Gretta was in a congregation that was not willing to follow her (and it is arguable that much of WHUC was NOT willing but chose to leave the congregation instead of fighting it)

Not only arguable but accurate. Gretta's estimation is that two-thirds of the congregation ultimately left. She didn't say anything about numbers on Ontario Today this week but offered something of an explanation for the departures.

 

[Lastpointe]

Thats interesting paradox3. I had no idea the majority of the congregation left. Surprising,