The Rev. Vosper Again

[Luce NDs]

I asked some people that condemned me for attending the Vosper Event in Fredericton what they knew of her; they answered that she was an atheist and couldn't add much to that to build on the integration of what isn't known about God .. tis a vast field of unknown ideal ... like the archaic Hebrew God ... that may be just another poorly known word of affliction ...

Through history atheists have been related to:

1. agnostics
2. those who question
3. skeptics
4. scientists who ask such non-sense
5. visionaries regarding dark unknowns

Alas some would rather not know as it disrupts the stagnant pool ... thus bugs in the system .. to agitate the fish into wondering what's that for? Maas disturbance ... by baiting those out of the dark ends of the pool? Some call it evil trolling ... to find out 'Y' those people believe that way w/o question ...

I really attended to see what kind of people were there ... and how they responded ... it was a positive experience that I'm not allowed to talk about as it is classed as heresy and treason to question authority, at least in some circles!

One should carry a spark at all times to assist in bringing levity in heavy dark places ... generally affiliated with the human unknown ...

 

[revsdd]

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.

People on Facebook are not necessarily representative of the broad spectrum of people in the United Church. I have no doubt that it will be possible to find a panel of open-minded people who will give her a fair hearing and will listen to her explanation of what she means by "atheist."

As for her use of "atheist" she uses it in honour of an atheist in Bangladesh who was murdered by a person of faith - don't actually remember which faith. Maybe that was mentioned in the article. I've not read it too closely. I've known it for some time.

Her atheism is very much nuanced - as I, myself, have acknowledged in the past. She has never actually said that she doesn't believe in God - she has said that she rejects the traditional understanding of of a supernatural and interventionist God. She has not, to the best of my knowledge, been able to define or describe coherently what she does believe about God. She has at times in the past (please don't ask me to cite a specific source because I don't actually keep a running list of Gretta articles and interviews) said things about her beliefs having put her outside the United Church and even outside of Christianity. That in itself is problematic for one who wants to be a Christian minister within a Christian denomination.

In any event, for me the problem isn't so much her use of the word "atheist." I get what she means by that. She has little understanding of polity. She seems to have displayed poor pastoral care skills toward many who left West Hill. (As I've said in the past I serve a neighbouring congregation - although in a different Presbytery, WHUC is less than a 15 minute drive from my church) and from time to time we get "refugees" from West Hill (who love their church and can't seem to settle anywhere else so they church hop when they go to church at all) who have told me that they felt abandoned by Gretta, judged by her and even mocked by her because they disagreed with her. She does not fulfil the responsibilities of her calling (neither does her congregational leadership fulfil their responsibilities in this regard) by providing for regular celebration of the sacraments. That's just three areas off the top of my head which make her an appropriate subject of a review, her "atheism" set aside.

To the best of my knowledge, being popular with her present congregation and being regularly in the media spotlight is not one of the requirements of a United Church minister.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

If you own a chain of Steakhouses and one of your chefs becomes a vegan, you have to make a choice. Fire the chef or have one of your locations serve no meat. Don't know why the two representatives of the steakhouse have not noticed that almost all of their steakhouses no longer serve meat. Yet they continue to insist they are a chain of steakhouses. Tofu is not steak.

The public know the difference, and just stop eating there.

 

[chansen]

She has not, to the best of my knowledge, been able to define or describe coherently what she does believe about God.

Neither have many of you here! How many times have I been told that United Church members don't believe in the God I don't believe in? What the hell is a Trinity?!? You guys are impossible to pin down.

She has at times in the past (please don't ask me to cite a specific source because I don't actually keep a running list of Gretta articles and interviews) said things about her beliefs having put her outside the United Church and even outside of Christianity. That in itself is problematic for one who wants to be a Christian minister within a Christian denomination.

There are Christians here and all over Canada who would place the entire United Church outside Christianity.

In any event, for me the problem isn't so much her use of the word "atheist." I get what she means by that. She has little understanding of polity. She seems to have displayed poor pastoral care skills toward many who left West Hill.

I assume that people hop congregations because they disagree with the new minister all the time. This time may have been excessive. The time to address that was when it happened. Not when a stable congregation is achieved. The damage is done. And I see no evidence that it was done out of malice, but out of honesty. People react badly to ministers questioning God. They are going to be offended by that alone.

(As I've said in the past I serve a neighbouring congregation - although in a different Presbytery, WHUC is less than a 15 minute drive from my church) and from time to time we get "refugees" from West Hill (who love their church and can't seem to settle anywhere else so they church hop when they go to church at all) who have told me that they felt abandoned by Gretta, judged by her and even mocked by her because they disagreed with her.

What do we have on her mocking her own congregants? Serious question.

She does not fulfil the responsibilities of her calling (neither does her congregational leadership fulfil their responsibilities in this regard) by providing for regular celebration of the sacraments. That's just three areas off the top of my head which make her an appropriate subject of a review, her "atheism" set aside.

Okay, so she doesn't provide sacraments. That's one substantiated thing by my count.

To the best of my knowledge, being popular with her present congregation and being regularly in the media spotlight is not one of the requirements of a United Church minister.

Being popular with her present congregation is a pretty significant thing given that her suitability for ministry is being questioned. That people who she does not minister to have initiated a review of her suitability for ministry against the wishes of the people she does minister to, is a remarkable twist.

 

[revjohn]

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

As you point out, she is savy. She knows that to flat out call Richard a homophobe is going fail the moment he turns around and demonstrates that the allegation is not only absurd it is demonstrably false.

So she begs the question and connects the dots.

Bott had only sent it to his own Facebook friends and two Facebook groups to which he belonged, one of which is Cruxifusion, a group on the extreme right wing of the United Church.

You may not read it the way that those inside the United Church would read it. That said your opinion of Cruxifusion born out of more than a little ignorance and all the assurance that a google search can provide leads you to conclude that Cruxifusion is "right-wing" and yes, you did claim that Cruxifusion was a new COC shell because of the money we received and nothing else.

By painting Cruxifusion as extreme right wing Vosper is intentionally hoping that there will be a lot of large brush painting going on.

We are by no means "right-wing" and we are by no means "extreme". Those two words, which she will never bother to prove are buzz words intended to communicate that Cruxifusion is no different from American Christian Fundamentalism. The only people who would read that phrase in the UCCAN and not leap to the conclusion that Cruxifusion belonged to Christian Fundamentalism and carried all the baggage that goes with that would be people who actually have a clue about who Cruxifusion is and what Cruxifusion is up to.

And you have already intimated that Cruxifusion was deeply involved in the call for a review because you decided to cross reference the names of the individuals making motions and the memberlist of a facebook page. And that only because you are convinced that Cruxifusion is no different from Christian Fundamentalism because of the money donated by the COC.

Whether she was ultimately successful in attempting to remove Bott as an obstacle has nothing to do with the fact that she did attempt to tar him with a brush that does push folk outside of what the UCCAN rank and file deem is "acceptable."

Again, she doesn't need to directly attach the label homophobe to him. She simply needs to place convenient dots for folk to connect that lead them to that conclusion and she gets that effect and the ability to say, I said no such thing when called on it.

It is a very clumsy and obvious rhetorical strategy.

 

[chansen]

Cruxifusion *is* the right-wing of the United Church. Relative to the UCCan, you guys are "right wing". I think everyone understands that Cruxifusion is not anti-LGBTQ, and this differentiates them from the Community of Concern. Cruxifusion is not, however, without skeletons in its closet.

If you want a connection, Lawrence Nyarko was one of two who tabled a motion that lead to the review, and he is a Cruxifusion member. Those are just facts. Yes, I cross referenced them because I was curious that the right-wing of the United Church might be acting against the left wing. Why would that be wrong to do? Better yet, why am I the only one (that I know of) to make that connection?

It is also a fact that Cruxifusion accepted money from a known anti-LGBTQ group CoC. As is this, from the CoC site before it shut down and disbursed some funds to Cruxifusion:

This is on Cruxifusion, but no one in the United Church says anything because everyone is afraid of offending someone.

Rev. Vosper pointed out Rev. Bott's connection to the "right wing" side of the United Church. Rev. Vosper is "left wing" Even "extreme left wing" of the church. And I don't think she would have a problem with that.

Cruxifusion has slightly tainted roots, but apparently no lingering anti-LGBTQ agenda. I don't see Rev. Vosper saying they do.

 

[chansen]

Somehow I missed this in my multi-quote above.

People on Facebook are not necessarily representative of the broad spectrum of people in the United Church.

Because old people don't have Facebook?

If that's not it, then I don't agree. Especially when the "atheist" dog whistle works on some ministers, who will spread that bias. This appears to be one more time when you guys are telling me that you're "not that kind of Christians".

I have no doubt that it will be possible to find a panel of open-minded people who will give her a fair hearing and will listen to her explanation of what she means by "atheist."

I don't have a lot of faith (ha) that enough of your members understand that they do this and react out of hand to a word.

In a way, I hope you can get such a panel together. I also hope it never happens. The United Church is more interesting with Rev. Vosper in it. Imagine a future where the United Church is more boring than it is now.

 

[revjohn]

Cruxifusion *is* the right-wing arm of the United Church. Relative to the UCCan, you guys are "right wing".

I am going to disagree with that. The group promotes the idea that Jesus Christ is central. Everything the group has done supports the centrality of Christ which does not make us right wing. It puts us in line with the doctrinal standards of the Denomination and that makes us moderate.

If we are speaking in relative terms then right-wing would be those groups which rigidly conform to all doctrinal positions while leaving precious little room for variation. That is not Cruxifusion. Which is evidenced by the fact that we do not enforce any particular Christology. While members of the group will disagree with the Christological understandings of one another we do not make any one Christology the litmus test for participation.

Right-wing groups tend to do just that.

Left-wing groups tend to do pretty much the opposite. Whatever appeal to doctrine they might make it would not likely be one which limited expression of God/Jesus/ or the Holy Spirit.

I think everyone understands that Cruxifusion is not anti-LGBTQ, and this differentiates them from the Community of Concern. Cruxifusion is not, however, without skeletons in its closet.

Then you think wrongly.

If you want a connection, Lawrence Nyarko was the one of two who tabled a motion that lead to the review, and he is a Cruxifusion member.

I remember the discussion in Mendalla's Christendom thread. It wasn't skeleton or smoking class level when you first shared it. revsdd pointed out that he belongs to the fb page while not being a member of Cruxifusion.

And as others have pointed out. Nothing in the UCCAN happens just because one member wants it to.

So, for argument's sake. Let us imagine that Cruxifusion had actually hatched a plan to take out the number one enemy in the UCCAN (we didn't but just imagine we did). One of us can make a motion. We need somebody to second it so we need a second member involved. And then we need to capture the majority of votes in the appropriate forum. In this case the Toronto Conference Executive you would need 9 votes to carry a motion did you find 9 Cruxifusion members on the Conference Executive?

 

[revsdd]

What do we have on her mocking her own congregants? Serious question.

I'm not going to get into this with you in any great detail. I've already said ad nauseum that if I'd had my way we'd have taken the Gamaliel approach - if it's not of God it won't succeed and if it is of God it can't be stopped. But I don't have control over the thing. I'm just pointing out that there are certainly reasons to review her beyond her atheism - and actually even if there are concerns about pastoral failings years ago, those are still valid. The real issue is that none who felt badly treated have raised any formal complaint. But there's no statute of limitations. As to your question, I didn't say there's external corroboration. What I said was that I have personally spoken to people (maybe half a dozen?) over the last couple of years who used to belong to WHUC who have popped into my congregation on a Sunday "who have told me that they felt abandoned by Gretta, judged by her and even mocked by her because they disagreed with her." I am not aware of anyone having put their names to those concerns or having made a formal complaint. I've just had the conversations informally. Whether you believe me or not is of no concern to me whatsoever.

On the Cruxifusion issue, by the way, you and @revjohn are both correct. Cruxifusion is "right wing" as far as the United Church goes. To say otherwise is ludicrous - although the Cruxifusion Facebook group (which is my only connection with the group) is surprisingly theologically diverse and includes people who would never have associated with any of the other "renewal" movements. On the other hand, I believe revjohn is correct that Gretta makes her "extreme right wing" comment not to place Cruxifusion on the somewhat unique United Church spectrum but rather in the full understanding that many who hear her aren't especially familiar with the theology of the United Church (but rather just lump all Christians together) and will then automatically associate Cruxifusion with evangelical fundamentalism.

By the way, the reason that Facebook membership of any group including the UCCan group is not necessarily representative of the denomination is because the United Church has over half a million members and adherents, over 3500 ordained ministers, over 300 diaconal ministers and over 200 candidates for the ministry according to the most recent statistics. I don't think the Facebook numbers come close to that.

 

[revjohn]

That people who she does not minister to have initiated a review of her suitability for ministry against the wishes of the people she does minister to, is a remarkable twist.

All things considered. No, it is not.

The review was initiated by the body which is responsible for her oversight. It isn't the first time this has happened and it will not be the last.

In some instances a disciplinary review is automatic whether anyone wants it to happen or not.

For example, any clergy person convicted of sexual abuse, will automatically be subjected to a disciplinary review. It will not happen until the convicted clergy person has served the sentence imposed upon them by the courts and this because there is no way they could defend themselves at any Church review while they are incarcerated. If the Church is aware of a criminal investigation proceeding they may table a motion to initiate a review pending the outcome of the investigation and trial and they may suspend the minister in the meantime.

The point being that disciplinary reviews do not require congregations to be unhappy with their clergy to happen.

 

[revsdd]

The point being that disciplinary reviews do not require congregations to be unhappy with their clergy to happen.

As I've pointed out before I'm aware of at least one instance in Alberta some years ago now (I suspect you know the case I'm talking about, John) in which a minister was removed in spite of the fact that the congregation had taken a vote that showed a large majority in support of the minister not being removed. The congregation does not decide these things. They have a voice and can express their opinion, but the decision is not theirs.

 

[Luce NDs]

As I've pointed out before I'm aware of at least one instance in Alberta some years ago now (I suspect you know the case I'm talking about, John) in which a minister was removed in spite of the fact that the congregation had taken a vote that showed a large majority in support of the minister not being removed. The congregation does not decide these things. They have a voice and can express their opinion, but the decision is not theirs.

In other words authority rules ... often with a s sense of tyranny ... a Rome antic perspective ... and leaves some of the lesser folks bouncing and dancing as Robin Hood ... a character of the forest?

Then there is the church in the wildwood rite ...

 

[revsdd]

In other words authority rules ... often with a s sense of tyranny ... a Rome antic perspective ... and leaves some of the lesser folks bouncing and dancing as Robin Hood ... a character of the forest?

Then there is the church in the wildwood rite ...

No, not with a sense of tyranny. That's insulting to those (including from time to time over the years, me) who have worked in the courts of the church, who have had to exercise responsibility, who have had to hold people accountable and who have sometimes had to exercise discipline, or play a role in doing so. With a sense of responsibility, understanding that the role of a minister goes beyond simply the particular pastoral charge they're called or appointed to, and recognizing that their ultimate accountability is not to that pastoral charge but to the wider church through the Presbytery.

 

[Luce NDs]

No, not with a sense of tyranny. That's insulting to those (including from time to time over the years, me) who have worked in the courts of the church, who have had to exercise responsibility, who have had to hold people accountable and who have sometimes had to exercise discipline, or play a role in doing so. With a sense of responsibility, understanding that the role of a minister goes beyond simply the particular pastoral charge they're called or appointed to, and recognizing that their ultimate accountability is not to that pastoral charge but to the wider church through the Presbytery.

Oh ... I 've experienced and observed differently ... flat out the base mire on the topic is well rounded ... even twisted ... allowing one has to have desire and intelligence to deal with complexity ... some just go by roué ... the law ...

 

[chansen]

All things considered. No, it is not.

The review was initiated by the body which is responsible for her oversight. It isn't the first time this has happened and it will not be the last.

In some instances a disciplinary review is automatic whether anyone wants it to happen or not.

For example, any clergy person convicted of sexual abuse, will automatically be subjected to a disciplinary review. It will not happen until the convicted clergy person has served the sentence imposed upon them by the courts and this because there is no way they could defend themselves at any Church review while they are incarcerated. If the Church is aware of a criminal investigation proceeding they may table a motion to initiate a review pending the outcome of the investigation and trial and they may suspend the minister in the meantime.

The point being that disciplinary reviews do not require congregations to be unhappy with their clergy to happen.

But this isn't like that at all. This is Metropolitan United Church, writing a letter, questioning if they have to condone atheists as members if atheists are allowed at West Hill. This is Met being unhappy with West Hill. Which turned into a review of West Hill's minister. Who has never spoken to anyone at Met. And Met has never asked Rev. Vosper to speak to them to better understand her.

This review was sloppily initiated. They are trying to clean it up to make it stick, but its reason for existing is one congregation not liking another congregation and wanting to make sure they don't have to accept West Hill type of people.

 

[revsdd]

Oh ... I 've experienced and observed differently ... flat out the base mire on the topic is well rounded ... even twisted ... allowing one has to have desire and intelligence to deal with complexity ... some just go by roué ... the law ...

Respectfully - since you are not a minister and since we are discussing the discipline of ministers, I submit that your experiences are your experiences, but that they are irrelevant to the question at hand - which is the manner in which ministers are held accountable to the wider church and the motives of those who are called to the various disciplinary functions within the church.

 

[Luce NDs]

Religion is a sloppy area of digging ... like lignin in poor coal mining regions ... poverty will ensue to support the rich ... it is a rule in reality! Thus Rae Legion of the dipping of 40 swine ... aD hoch ... as whatever serves at the time? A good lyre will do ...

Corruption is to be expected on both sides ... a duplicity or just Ka Duceus ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Respectfully - since you are not a minister and since we are discussing the discipline of ministers, I submit that your experiences are your experiences, but that they are irrelevant to the question at hand - which is the manner in which ministers are held accountable to the wider church and the motives of those who are called to the various disciplinary functions within the church.

Thus the public congregation doesn't count as we people to respect as well ... a funny thing in my sense of levity ...

Church will alter to another base! Alien ground of faith ...

 

[revjohn]

As I've pointed out before I'm aware of at least one instance in Alberta some years ago now (I suspect you know the case I'm talking about, John) in which a minister was removed in spite of the fact that the congregation had taken a vote that showed a large majority in support of the minister not being removed.

That would be the case of the Reverend Ted Wigglesworth and his removal from the Bashaw-Mirror Pastoral Charge I take it?

My understanding in that case was that a complaint from some members of the pastoral charge had been filed so it isn't really parallel. Mind you the complaint focussed on Wigglesworth being a 'traditionalist' which isn't actionable by any court of oversight.

 

[revsdd]

That would be the case of the Reverend Ted Wigglesworth and his removal from the Bashaw-Mirror Pastoral Charge I take it?

My understanding in that case was that a complaint from some members of the pastoral charge had been filed so it isn't really parallel. Mind you the complaint focussed on Wigglesworth being a 'traditionalist' which isn't actionable by any court of oversight.

I didn't say it was parallel procedurally. I said that a large majority of the congregation (something like 70% if I recall correctly) expressed a desire for him to remain as minister and the Presbytery still removed him. I offered the example not as a parallel to the Gretta situation but rather in response to the idea that if a minister has the support of their congregation that's all that should matter - when in fact the church is not bound either by precedent or by polity to simply rubber stamp the opinion of the congregation, but rather acts independent of the congregation in matters of discipline.