The Rev. Vosper Again

[chansen]

They should hire her ;3

They bloody well should. She is just flat out better at it than they are. She can package a sound bite and she can get people to listen to her. She knows who to call to get press. They need people like that more than they need Jesus freaks. No one cares what the UCCan says, because it never says something provocative or interesting, and of course it's never timely. Put her in head office. Let her be the social justice voice of the denomination. She doesn't have to be a believer for that.

It won't happen, I know. But man, what an opportunity. Wasted like every other one I've seen pass you guys by.

 

[BetteTheRed]

It's over, I think. You can't defend atheism in the light of your ordination vows. She will face the same fate, I suspect, as the other atheist ministers. She's not new. The case is not new. It's called "heresy". We laugh about it. We don't really deal with it.

It might be an excuse for me to leave.

 

[revsdd]

As always, my general response is to roll my eyes and - YAWN!!!!!

It hardly surprises me that the Toronto Star has written an article worded in such a way as to be very sympathetic to Vosper. Nor does it surprise me that Vosper has offered an interpretation of the letter that doesn't exactly show much understanding of the Church's process.

In regards to Mendalla's comment I've said from the start that there will be no winners in this, and a lot of people who end up hurt.

I have to say though that her atheism aside, her basic lack of understanding of the polity of the United Church - which has been repeatedly shown in her public statements - was reason enough to review her effectiveness as a minister, because as clergy we're supposed to have at least a basic understanding of Church polity.

 

[revjohn]

It was irresponsible to start it, too.

On that you and I are going to disagree. She is in the employ of a Christian denomination. If she cannot, in good faith, advance the interests of that denomination then she should not be in a leadership position of a congregation.

While the analogy is rough one does not put foxes in charge of hen houses.

I think they know that whatever they decide, it's not going to go over well.

That is a given. Having seen enough of disciplinary hearings, having had to vote on the findings of disciplinary hearings I know that there never is going to be a result that everyone walks away from jumping for joy. Some, will obviously be pleased that their side prevailed. Others will be bitterly disappointed that their side failed. It is a given in any process that becomes adversarial.

I can see them putting this off for months more, and then years.

Which is you reading based on your presuppositions about how the church operates. You are an outsider making predictions based only on what you believe is the most appropriate decision to make. You are ignorant of the processes in play and you are ignorant of the way we think on the inside.

This has been painfully slow to watch.

It is not, all things considered, unusually slow. If only because the Church writ large is dealing with elements that rarely get inserted into the Disciplinary Review Process.

While challenges to decisions made by the General Council Executive Secretary do happen this is the first time that it has happened with respect to whether a fitness review can be called.

It took the Judical Committee a year to debate among themselves whether or not the Reverend Vosper's appeal had any merit and should be heard. A long time? Yes it was. The Judicial Committee is more concerned with doing the job rightly and not doing the job quickly. This is because their decision will impact similar decisions in the future so it is important to do a thorough job and not a rush job.

Once the green light was given for the review to happen it took Toronto Conference Executive some time to decide how best to proceed because this challenge, was going to be unique and the Reverend Vosper's penchant publicity every i was meticulously dotted and every t just as meticulously crossed. Everything would have been vetted with legal counsel anyway. That there is significantly more steps and more correspondence in this particular case means more time spent being careful.

The bid to have Toronto Conference reconsider was so procedurally sloppy that Toronto Conference Could have laughed at it and ruled the request out of order.

Toronto Conference did no such thing. They actually worked with West Hill to reframe the request so that it was not procedurally sloppy and so that it must be dealt with by the Conference Plenary.

That was the Conference where there was a real concern that quorum would not be met so no vote could happen regarding West Hill's motion, or any other agenda item for that matter. They fought to reach quorum and the motion to reconsider failed.

So the review happened. It also took a while why? Because instead of giving her a small panel of some of the members they decided to sit her down with every member of the Conference Interview Board. The result was that she failed to convince the committee that she was a good fit for The United Church of Canada. In their own summary they said had she come before them to be ordained at this point in time their answer would have been no.

That is telling in The United Church of Canada where we lean more towards "Yes" and "Not Yet" rather than "No."

Because the various courts and agencies of the Church are making sure that there is so little grounds to protest they are ensuring that all hands are on deck when deliberations are being had and when decisions are being made.

Maybe something changes in the interim. Maybe nothing does. But I don't see any motivation for them to move forward. I see plenty of motivation for them to stall and make excuses.

Stalling and making excuses can eventually become part of a labour code violation. If there comes a point where the various courts and agencies of the Church can be shown to not actually be attempting to make progress it becomes workplace harrassment. Moving forward slowly is frustrating to all observers. Making sure that everything is done properly and strongly enough to face the inevitable challenge of bias that the Reverend Vosper has now telegraphed. Because there is no way she doesn't appeal should her case fail and I am doubtful that even if she is ultimately successful that she will not launch a civil complaint.

At some point, the same voices that called for Rev. Vosper's removal will get impatient. That might provide the impetus to move forward.

The Reverend Vosper has her detractors. That is not going to change until she recants or is removed. The Reverend Vosper is not going to recant and she is not going to willingly walk away.

It is worth repeating that while there have, for quite a while now, been voices calling for the Reverend Vosper to be removed the letter to Toronto Conference which is considered the catalyst for this review did not ask for the Reverend Vosper to be removed. The Reverend Vosper was lifted up as an example of a conundrum.

It was in the discussion about this correspondence that someone at Toronto Conference Executive made a motion which directed a question to the General Council Executive Secretary and launched this circus into being. So Toronto Conference Executive wins the right to be thought of as the body which initiated the review because they were not obligated, even with the response from the General Council Executive Secretary to initiate the review process.

And this is why West Hill ultimately appealed to the plenary of Toronto Conference to reconsider the decision made by the Executive.

Even with the results of the Conference Interview Board in hand it was within the purview of Toronto Conference Executive to say that this was enough. They decided to support the findings of the Conference Interview Board and made a petition to General Council Executive to deal with handling the review. There is nothing now that Toronto Conference can do to hurry the process along or abort it.

General Council has its hands full with implementing Remits and all that goes along with that and they have set deadlines that are rapidly approaching for a lot of that work to be readied. None of it can be completed until the Remits passed have been enacted by General Council 43 which is scheduled for August 2018 in Oshawa.

Because changes are being made to the Basis of Union the Judicial Committee will be involved in that also. The members of the Judicial Committee are, for the most part professionals. Some are clergy who have Pastoral Charges that they are responsible for. Some are lawyers and judges (retired and active) who have obligations to be elsewhere. All of the work of the Judicial Committee is happening on the time of volunteers. And right now those volunteers are being worked pretty hard on other things.

The timing sucks.

It always does.

Now more than ever simply because by going to the media and trying this repeatedly in the court of public opinion only forces the various courts called to handle pieces of the puzzle to be most cautious and careful.

If the Reverend Vosper wanted a speedy resolution she would not have forced the issue to avail itself of so many extra hoops. It is an interesting observation that for every additional challenge the Reverend Vosper has chosen to add to the process she has failed each and every time. She is wearing out her welcome by making some truly boneheaded plays. Strategically she is sinking her own boat.

Attacks the first openly gay Moderator of The United Church. That doesn't play to the friends and allies of LGBT et al. It certainly will not play to theological conservatives because if you force them to choose between a gay Christian and a non-Christian they are going to wind up more Christian than non.

Decides to paint Richard Bott with homophobic colours because he associates with Cruxifusion. Friend Bott has quite a large fan base within the Denomination. She gets more press, that doesn't mean she gets more love. Trying to take him down a notch forced those who may have supported them both to choose. I would be surprised that if he wound up on the short end of the stick in that power play.

And now the Reverend Vosper goes for broke suggesting that the reason why it is taking so long is because we cannot find enough impartial individuals to form a review panel. Even if they can find somebody who hasn't heard of her. Even if? This is a big denomination and outside of Southern Ontario she is not well known at all. Clergy have heard of her because it is our business to know what is going on inside the denomination and to read the various bits of paper or emails that land in our desktop or on our desk.

The review will happen.

Her fate, with respect to employment and standing within The United Church of Canada will depend largely upon the answers that she gives before the Review Panel.

If those answers are not radically different from the ones given before the Conference Interview Board there is little reason to expect that a different conclusion will be reached.

 

[revjohn]

I have to say though that her atheism aside, her basic lack of understanding of the polity of the United Church - which has been repeatedly shown in her public statements - was reason enough to review her effectiveness as a minister, because as clergy we're supposed to have at least a basic understanding of Church polity.

Amen.

 

[paradox3]

Toronto Southeast Presbytery also had a motion on the floor to attempt to block the process. It was defeated at the Plenary and led to the colloquy that @Carolla talked about upthread.

Technically there were 6 related motions and they were all defeated with the exception of the one to host a colloquy. We discussed all the details here on WC2 when this happened. Possibly even on this very thread.

 

[GordW]

Depends on whose labour laws the church falls under. Ontario abolished mandatory retirement but if the church falls under Federal labour laws, then they might still have it.

Well....
One is not required to retire at 65. One is required to start drawing pension at 71. I believe that you can not both be drawing pension and also contributing to pension/building pension credit at the same time. I have heard it claimed that the church therefore requires your status to change to retired supply at 71, which means you need to be re-appointed every year instead of being in a call without term. SOme would say that is enforced retirement, even with the option to seek appintment.

 

[chansen]

On that you and I are going to disagree. She is in the employ of a Christian denomination. If she cannot, in good faith, advance the interests of that denomination then she should not be in a leadership position of a congregation.

While the analogy is rough one does not put foxes in charge of hen houses.

She isn't a fox.

Wait...that came out wrong.

She isn't trying to destroy the church. She may help save it. What you have is not sustainable. She is going about it differently than most of you would, and her lack of belief is more in tune with the beliefs of the population than your denomination is. Certainly, she is positioned better than the average Cruxifusionist to speak to Canadians in a way that doesn't cause eyes to roll.

That is a given. Having seen enough of disciplinary hearings, having had to vote on the findings of disciplinary hearings I know that there never is going to be a result that everyone walks away from jumping for joy. Some, will obviously be pleased that their side prevailed. Others will be bitterly disappointed that their side failed. It is a given in any process that becomes adversarial.

It's just a case where no decision probably results in less pain than any decision. Both long and short term.

Which is you reading based on your presuppositions about how the church operates. You are an outsider making predictions based only on what you believe is the most appropriate decision to make. You are ignorant of the processes in play and you are ignorant of the way we think on the inside.

This has been painfully slow to watch.

It is not, all things considered, unusually slow. If only because the Church writ large is dealing with elements that rarely get inserted into the Disciplinary Review Process.

While challenges to decisions made by the General Council Executive Secretary do happen this is the first time that it has happened with respect to whether a fitness review can be called.

It took the Judical Committee a year to debate among themselves whether or not the Reverend Vosper's appeal had any merit and should be heard. A long time? Yes it was. The Judicial Committee is more concerned with doing the job rightly and not doing the job quickly. This is because their decision will impact similar decisions in the future so it is important to do a thorough job and not a rush job.

Once the green light was given for the review to happen it took Toronto Conference Executive some time to decide how best to proceed because this challenge, was going to be unique and the Reverend Vosper's penchant publicity every i was meticulously dotted and every t just as meticulously crossed. Everything would have been vetted with legal counsel anyway. That there is significantly more steps and more correspondence in this particular case means more time spent being careful.

The bid to have Toronto Conference reconsider was so procedurally sloppy that Toronto Conference Could have laughed at it and ruled the request out of order.

Toronto Conference did no such thing. They actually worked with West Hill to reframe the request so that it was not procedurally sloppy and so that it must be dealt with by the Conference Plenary.

That was the Conference where there was a real concern that quorum would not be met so no vote could happen regarding West Hill's motion, or any other agenda item for that matter. They fought to reach quorum and the motion to reconsider failed.

So the review happened. It also took a while why? Because instead of giving her a small panel of some of the members they decided to sit her down with every member of the Conference Interview Board. The result was that she failed to convince the committee that she was a good fit for The United Church of Canada. In their own summary they said had she come before them to be ordained at this point in time their answer would have been no.

That is telling in The United Church of Canada where we lean more towards "Yes" and "Not Yet" rather than "No."

Because the various courts and agencies of the Church are making sure that there is so little grounds to protest they are ensuring that all hands are on deck when deliberations are being had and when decisions are being made.

It appears that the procedures are not extremely well know, especially for her lawyer. That's not unexpected. And if they want an airtight decision, they should be doing some handholding. Good on them for that.

Stalling and making excuses can eventually become part of a labour code violation. If there comes a point where the various courts and agencies of the Church can be shown to not actually be attempting to make progress it becomes workplace harrassment. Moving forward slowly is frustrating to all observers. Making sure that everything is done properly and strongly enough to face the inevitable challenge of bias that the Reverend Vosper has now telegraphed. Because there is no way she doesn't appeal should her case fail and I am doubtful that even if she is ultimately successful that she will not launch a civil complaint.

You could say that she is devoted to her congregation. She very much appears to be, and they are fans of her. They are fighting this alongside her.

The Reverend Vosper has her detractors. That is not going to change until she recants or is removed. The Reverend Vosper is not going to recant and she is not going to willingly walk away.

It is worth repeating that while there have, for quite a while now, been voices calling for the Reverend Vosper to be removed the letter to Toronto Conference which is considered the catalyst for this review did not ask for the Reverend Vosper to be removed. The Reverend Vosper was lifted up as an example of a conundrum.

It was in the discussion about this correspondence that someone at Toronto Conference Executive made a motion which directed a question to the General Council Executive Secretary and launched this circus into being. So Toronto Conference Executive wins the right to be thought of as the body which initiated the review because they were not obligated, even with the response from the General Council Executive Secretary to initiate the review process.

And this is why West Hill ultimately appealed to the plenary of Toronto Conference to reconsider the decision made by the Executive.

Even with the results of the Conference Interview Board in hand it was within the purview of Toronto Conference Executive to say that this was enough. They decided to support the findings of the Conference Interview Board and made a petition to General Council Executive to deal with handling the review. There is nothing now that Toronto Conference can do to hurry the process along or abort it.

General Council has its hands full with implementing Remits and all that goes along with that and they have set deadlines that are rapidly approaching for a lot of that work to be readied. None of it can be completed until the Remits passed have been enacted by General Council 43 which is scheduled for August 2018 in Oshawa.

Because changes are being made to the Basis of Union the Judicial Committee will be involved in that also. The members of the Judicial Committee are, for the most part professionals. Some are clergy who have Pastoral Charges that they are responsible for. Some are lawyers and judges (retired and active) who have obligations to be elsewhere. All of the work of the Judicial Committee is happening on the time of volunteers. And right now those volunteers are being worked pretty hard on other things.

The timing sucks.

It always does.

Now more than ever simply because by going to the media and trying this repeatedly in the court of public opinion only forces the various courts called to handle pieces of the puzzle to be most cautious and careful.

If the Reverend Vosper wanted a speedy resolution she would not have forced the issue to avail itself of so many extra hoops. It is an interesting observation that for every additional challenge the Reverend Vosper has chosen to add to the process she has failed each and every time. She is wearing out her welcome by making some truly boneheaded plays. Strategically she is sinking her own boat.

Attacks the first openly gay Moderator of The United Church. That doesn't play to the friends and allies of LGBT et al. It certainly will not play to theological conservatives because if you force them to choose between a gay Christian and a non-Christian they are going to wind up more Christian than non.

Decides to paint Richard Bott with homophobic colours because he associates with Cruxifusion. Friend Bott has quite a large fan base within the Denomination. She gets more press, that doesn't mean she gets more love. Trying to take him down a notch forced those who may have supported them both to choose. I would be surprised that if he wound up on the short end of the stick in that power play.

And now the Reverend Vosper goes for broke suggesting that the reason why it is taking so long is because we cannot find enough impartial individuals to form a review panel. Even if they can find somebody who hasn't heard of her. Even if? This is a big denomination and outside of Southern Ontario she is not well known at all. Clergy have heard of her because it is our business to know what is going on inside the denomination and to read the various bits of paper or emails that land in our desktop or on our desk.

The review will happen.

Her fate, with respect to employment and standing within The United Church of Canada will depend largely upon the answers that she gives before the Review Panel.

If those answers are not radically different from the ones given before the Conference Interview Board there is little reason to expect that a different conclusion will be reached.

Rev. Vosper didn't try to slow the decision - she tried to stop the process entirely. There is a difference between dragging your heels on something to delay it, and legitimately trying to stop something and incurring delays in the process.

And if the United Church can't convene a panel inside of the year 2017, what are the chances they will be able to do so in 2018? 2019?

People are complaining about the use of the word "indefinitely", but that's what this is. When someone postpones something and doesn't give an end date for that postponement, that delay is "indefinite". To make it not "indefinite", just define the length of the delay. It's that simple.

I missed the part about what she apparently wrote about Richard Bott. Does anyone have a link?

 

[revjohn]

She isn't trying to destroy the church.

That is a matter of opinion. What is agreed upon is that she expects the church to change to accommodate her. And the change that she requires demands that the Church fundamentally change. It is not the responsibility of the Church to dance to her tune. Since it is the Church that pays her the church gets to pick the tune that she must dance to.

She is not interested in dancing to the tune that the Church has selected.

The Church is not obligated to change what it wants to give her what she wants.

She may help save it. What you have is not sustainable.

There is no evidence that what she is offering is. One would think that if Atheists valued the organizational benefits that come from organized religion then Atheism would have organized much sooner. It is true that some Atheists are organizing now. There is enough room in the marketplace of ideas for Theism and Atheism to compete openly. Theism is not required to fund the organization of Atheism.

If she wants to back another horse, if she wants to ride another horse then she should acquire that other horse rather than demanding that the denomination bankroll that other horse for her.

She is going about it differently than most of you would, and her lack of belief is more in tune with the beliefs of the population than your denomination is.

What data are you using to support that notion?

Certainly, she is positioned better than the average Cruxifusionist to speak to Canadians in a way that doesn't cause eyes to roll.

You'll forgive me if I don't put much stock in your assessment of what the average Cruxifusionist are able to communicate

It's just a case where no decision probably results in less pain than any decision. Both long and short term.

There are ways to properly stop the process. Some have been tried without success. The process cannot be neglected and any good will come out of it for anyone. That would not be a vindication for the Reverend Vosper and it would not be clarification on the matter.

It appears that the procedures are not extremely well know, especially for her lawyer. That's not unexpected. And if they want an airtight decision, they should be doing some handholding. Good on them for that.

There isn't enough work legally generated by The United Church of Canada to enable lawyers to be familiar with the minutia of our polity. This is an adversarial process at this point and despite that the Church is making sure that there is no reasonable chance for an appeal to be had based on their failure to disclose process or procedure.

Hopefully enough mistakes have been made previously that we are not up to repeat them or create new ones. Time would tell.

You could say that she is devoted to her congregation.

At least those whom didn't leave yes, that is fair comment.

She very much appears to be, and they are fans of her. They are fighting this alongside her.

Which happens in almost every disciplinary review. Rare is the time when entire congregations are opposed to their clergy and when that happens both find ways out of the pastoral relationship without it needing to proceed to a disciplinary review. This prevents both the clergy and the congregation from acquring reputations that they are difficult to work with.

Rev. Vosper didn't try to slow the decision - she tried to stop the process entirely.

Agreed. Her intent was to stop. Failing in that intent has facilitated delay after delay.

There is a difference between dragging your heels on something to delay it, and legitimately trying to stop something and incurring delays in the process.

Agreed. Nobody is dragging their heels. It is relatively new ground so nobody is running headlong over uncharted ground.

And if the United Church can't convene a panel inside of the year 2017, what are the chances they will be able to do so in 2018? 2019?

Actually they are much better for 2018 provided nobody decides to challenge any of the implementation processes. There was some objections to timelines for implementation voiced during the GC 42 recall earlier in the fall. I don't think anybody is going to the ramparts over the timeline which means that the Judicial Committee will not have to contend with anything like that which would actually be time sensitive.

People are complaining about the use of the word "indefinitely", but that's what this is. When someone postpones something and doesn't give an end date for that postponement, that delay is "indefinite". To make it not "indefinite", just define the length of the delay. It's that simple.

I understand the difference. The language employed by the Communications Chair leads me to conclude that it will not happen before the end of the year. Pastorally speaking deciding to hold the review in the run up to Christmas would be the worst of poor timing especially if it winds up telling a congregation just before Christmas that their minister is being removed. I could see a January start to the review.

I missed the part about what she apparently wrote about Richard Bott. Does anyone have a link?

I think we actually discussed some of it in this thread let me rummage around and see what I can dig up.

 

[Luce NDs]

In the air or Eire of rational versus irrational ... could a split be divine, mental, secular ... or just in essence a ghost of something that the blind cannot see when a great power gave us the power of observation ... but we don't!

The Greta Event in Fredericton collected comments from attendees; the general impression was that most allowed that Gretta was allowed her vision under freedom of press, speech, belief and movement ... even if some people objected to her personal freedoms ... but that they should have theirs.

his may overlap with another string in which rational and irrational stuff should get this together rationally... to keep emotional humanity from chasing its ass right off the globe because of hate for the alternate ... that in a rage some can't see!

Reminds me of the lyrics of the legend of The Lucky Auld S'N ... that may transiently be son of God (a mystery) or son of man ... that is mostly a myth ... as it appears they will Passover too ... self-destructive demiurge?

As an outsider looking in .. this appears some ridiculous way to exercise Christianity in self and the other self ... 3rd person narrative? We wouldn't listen would we?

Then is the air of science being an ability to observe as ... with eyes wide open ... what is the potential conclusion to those that will not listen to the still small voice buried in the crude human narrative that might is improvement over ancient intelligence and wisdom. It might be noted that Roman antics put down both psyche and Sophia ... as eastern crap that composes philosophy when ontological rights are better ... emotionally speaking!

The chaos in church is mostly between the rational and irrational ... and again we cannot gather reason as many say it is evil ... like the tree of knowledge is mythical ... tis all in the head (i.e. abstract, or imaginary ... right)?

 

[Luce NDs]

OSH-ite ... project a left brain onto the right mind ... and would something be lost in the bi-cameral transposition in to the zone where a dark spot of reception has been proposed by neurologists ... those trying to make some logic out of the complex actions of neurosis?

See the recent Observer on the imagination of the abstract projection ... sometime labelled as dark and shadowy as sub-con science ... a prescient thing that requires painful cultivation? Some never grasp such faint cognizance as a white elephant ... blanc mange ... versus Grey Matter? Tis an interesting and well compiled narrative from various sources ... the undergo ds would support it ... authorities ... not likely so!

 

[revjohn]

While the blog post from the Reverend Vosper was kicked around a great deal I could see nowhere that we actually bothered to link to it.

This is what I found:

richard bott Archives - Gretta Vosper

 

[Luce NDs]

If the church cannot get their fiery emotions (irrational) together with observation (science and vision) ... this sense of society will die ... and come from elsewhere.

I am often baffled by the words teach my children ... and the drive to keep people in the dark ... when so excluded you can look at institution with a different sense ... isn't that a divine split? Something could come out of it than this powerful urge that ... some should be extremely better off than others. It is a subject taught by schools of economics for rising CEO's! Thus financial institutions are the Runes of broken pieces ... the bread of life ... (to toss in a mental process/thought on communion).

Some ministers I know say that God is all about communication and powers wish dark isolationism ... but the masses can't see that either ... the role models teach the desire to put someone down ... equitably?

I was taught by one minister in an ethics course that no student should think critically ... thus the crisis for reason to be and a great host gives up on the concept ... almost like martyrdom ... suicide in numbers?

The impression may be fudged as El Mere ... the enemy of some rabid attribute in the Cos Mo' logical Constant .. an enigma that is constantly cranked ... comic-Allah as some take word to be firm when it evolves as outlined by derivation studies!

Hoo Dahth unque it so as a process of unknown Q ... a mythic source? Some say primarily because they don't wish to know ... as consequence of some weird conditioning ...

 

[Delightful Life]

The UCC seems to not know really what it is all aboot...seems to be scrambling to figure it out...how to deal with declining sales...
Gretta comes along...and forces the UCC fires to figure out what it is all aboot?

g_d works in mysterious ways indeed

Ps. Yeah UCC look into hiring or finding skilled persuaders perhaps weapon grade

 

[BetteTheRed]

Quite frankly, we're in such a mess with the Comprehensive Review, the contentious one order of ministry remit, that our resident atheist has dropped down the importance list, I think. Real 'mourning' feel at Presbytery last night, I thought, and I wasn't even there, except for flitting in and out helping with catering, scooping Luther resources, etc.

 

[paradox3]

Quite frankly, we're in such a mess with the Comprehensive Review, the contentious one order of ministry remit, that our resident atheist has dropped down the importance list, I think. Real 'mourning' feel at Presbytery last night, I thought, and I wasn't even there, except for flitting in and out helping with catering, scooping Luther resources, etc.

We need a Sad button.

 

[chansen]

While the blog post from the Reverend Vosper was kicked around a great deal I could see nowhere that we actually bothered to link to it.

This is what I found:

richard bott Archives - Gretta Vosper

Where's the part where she paints Richard Bott in homophobic colours?

As for Cruxifusion, they did accept money from the homophobic Community of Concern. We went over this last year how I considered that a mistake, and that the CoC website signed off with a piece titled, "Cruxifusion....It Continues".

I see where she mentions Cruxifusion, but I don't see any references to Rev. Bott being homophobic. Maybe I missed it. Rev. Vosper does not mention the CoC connection or their endorsement of Cruxifusion. That I'm aware, I'm the only person who has pointed out the endorsement and you're the only person to inform the Internet of the financial connection.

 

[revsdd]

Something that as far as I know hasn't been mentioned in the discussion about the article is this from Gretta about the formation of the panel:

“Even if they were to find a United Church member who had never heard of me, as soon as the issues were shared, the individual would very likely have a strong opinion.”

Isn't that actually the whole point of establishing the panel? So that people can examine the issues and come to an opinion?

So basically she's saying that even someone who was completely unaware of her and her views and so was totally unbiased would find against her once they were familiar with the issues. Which actually says something about what even she sees as her untenable position.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Having a strong opinion doesn't necessarily mean a negative one.

I think that the United Church of Canada is not 'owning' Gretta very well. She is absolutely a product of their faith formation and christian education system, as are all of the progressive members of our congregation. If you're going to open the pandora's box of "Think for Yourself", you ought to take responsibility for what emerges?

 

[chansen]

So basically she's saying that even someone who was completely unaware of her and her views and so was totally unbiased would find against her once they were familiar with the issues. Which actually says something about what even she sees as her untenable position.

She worded it badly, but if you read the United Church Facebook comments, a number of your member completely lose it when they hear the word "atheist". It's their dog whistle. They lose their collective s**t over the word.

There is nuance to the way Rev. Vosper uses the word. She does not use it the way I do. Your members instinctively react to the word. She is asking that people listen to her and understand why she uses that word, and instead she often runs into a wall of Fox News viewers.