The Rev. Vosper Again

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
chansen said:
But this isn't like that at all.
Click to expand...


The circumstance is quite different.

My point in bringing it up is that It is actually part of our polity that courts of the church with oversight responsibility are permitted to act when they feel there is sufficient cause.

Because all Pastoral Relationships are tripartite they depend on all three members of the Pastoral Relationship to be satisfied that all is in order. Ordinarily it is Presbytery, Pastoral Charge and Clergy together. In Toronto Conference while undergoing their effective leadership experiment certain Presbytery responsibilities have been pushed up to the Conference Level.

Metropolitan wrote a letter asking for clarification not discipline. We do not know if they got the clarification that they asked for. What we do know is that discussion happened at the Conference Executive level, a question was put to the General Council Executive Secretary for a ruling. The General Council Executive Secretary gave a ruling (Essentially agreeing that espoused theology does impact upon a minister's fitness to serve The United Church of Canada). This ruling then led to more discussion at Toronto Conference Executive out of which it was moved that the Reverend Gretta Vosper be examined because of the the theological positions that she champions.

Which is not sloppy. It is by the books so to speak and where there is no clear guidance under our policy clarification was sought from our Chief parliamentarian.

That ruling was challenged and ultimately upheld.

The examination was eventually held and the Reverend Vosper was found wanting.

Agree with it or not there has been nothing sloppy about the review, its initiation and the process followed to date.

Was the decision to review wise?

That is another discussion altogether. Both revsdd and myself would have opted to follow in the footsteps of Gamaliel if only to avoid the nastiness which would follow.

As is pretty typical when Toronto Conference Executive is about to act it failed to consult with some of the brighter lights of Hamilton Conference. I am sure Steven was as shocked as I was about that oversight.

That said, I am aware that Toronto Conference Executive did solicit opinion from at least one clergy person serving in Toronto Conference about the process. Ultimately they chose to move in a different direction and ask the Reverend Vosper to appear before the Conference Interview Board, a body which annually interviews candidates for ministry to discern their readiness and fitness for ministry within the Denomination.

Not having been a part of the conversation held by the Toronto Conference Executive (because minutes never include verbatim discussion) nor having heard from any who were in the room and a part of the discussion it is impossible to know what actually was a part of that discussion, other than, "can we examine the Reverend Vosper's theological convictions to see if they reflect those held by The United Church of Canada?" and "will we?"

Getting a positive answer to the first question they opted to provide a positive answer themselves to the second.

And because they are part of the Pastoral Relationship and not outside of it they are fee to do that.

Neither West Hill nor the Reverend Vosper should have been surprised by that ability.
 
revsdd said:
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
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

revsdd said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
Thus the psychic narrator is an imaginary wind or a Beta Breeze ... second wind? Happens after the breath of passion is exhausted ... time fore thought; prescient lyre flat out de ire ...

Is there more beyond that than circadian rhythm that can cause Dei sin some populations ... black icons?
 
he was theologically conservative, as was most of his congregation - which is why he was kicked out and they were ignored.- revsdd

How did that possibly happen in a church that is on such a wide spectrum?
 
There was a 53 page decision from Alberta Conference to back it up (that's as far as my first digging got me), so it was obviously not done lightly.
 
chansen said:
Is that code for anti-LGBTQ?
Click to expand...

Given the timeframe when it happened (late 80's) he was probably opposed to the ordination of "self-proclaimed practicing homosexuals," (I believe that's how church documents referred to it at the time) so in today's lingo, "anti-LGBTQ" would probably fit. However, there's more to being "conservative" than being anti-LGBTQ and I know a lot of people who would be thought of as "conservative" (including myself in some ways) who aren't anti-LGBTQ. Actually, some of the most theologically "conservative" people I know (firm believers in the Trinity, the resurrection, the incarnation, etc. are gay.) Suffice to say that Wigglesworth was a very public voice for that wing of the church and when opportunity presented itself in the form of a small number of his congregation making a complaint, the excuse to take action was grabbed and run with in spite of the fact that the large majority of his congregation agreed with him.

BettetheRed said:
There was a 53 page decision from Alberta Conference to back it up (that's as far as my first digging got me), so it was obviously not done lightly.
Click to expand...

I never said it was done lightly. I'm sure it was done with as much thoroughness and attention to proper process as Gretta's process is receiving. And the issue of why it was done isn't really important in this context. I'm simply noting that it was done in spite of the fact that he had the firm support of a large majority of his congregation. But that didn't matter. His Presbytery had the right to exercise discipline - and they did so in spite of the congregation's disagreement. So to those who say "you can't remove Gretta because her congregation supports her" - it's been done before (and I suspect there are other examples - this is one I know about) and can be done again.

Congregations might be willing to forgive a long time and beloved minister for lots of things but the church can still exercise discipline. I also know of one case of sexual misconduct in which the congregation wanted to keep the minister in their pulpit (long time and beloved, you know) and were really pissed off when Presbytery removed him and he was put on the DSL and they regularly petitioned for the decision to be overturned, even though there was no dispute about the facts.

Congregations don't have the final say and shouldn't have the final say for all sorts of reasons. (And please don't say I'm comparing Gretta's theological dispute with sexual misconduct. I'm only saying that there are lots of varied circumstances in which the church acts against the wishes of a congregation.)
 
A Google search for Rev. Wigglesworth brought up the following links:

Christianity.ca - Promise Keepers

Which lists him as the president of the "National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations". Which seems to be a United Church thing started by the Community of Concern, for the reason you suspect.

That Google search ("National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations") brought up:

The Renewal/Reform Groups Of The United Church Of Canada (which is an interesting read...for an idiot like me)

and

History - Cruxifusion

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
 
chansen said:
A Google search for Rev. Wigglesworth brought up the following links:

Christianity.ca - Promise Keepers

Which lists him as the president of the "National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations". Which seems to be a United Church thing started by the Community of Concern.

That Google search ("National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations") brought up:

The Renewal/Reform Groups Of The United Church Of Canada (which is an interesting read...for an idiot like me)

and

History

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Click to expand...

Have some levity ... you too live in an insane world ...
 
paradox3 said:
This is an interesting link. Financial resources were indeed handed over to Cruxifusion from the earlier renewal movements but the article states that no strings were attached to the money.
Click to expand...
Chansen insists on seeing strings on this issue. He's like a dog with a bone.
 
revjohn said:

The circumstance is quite different.

My point in bringing it up is that It is actually part of our polity that courts of the church with oversight responsibility are permitted to act when they feel there is sufficient cause.

Because all Pastoral Relationships are tripartite they depend on all three members of the Pastoral Relationship to be satisfied that all is in order. Ordinarily it is Presbytery, Pastoral Charge and Clergy together. In Toronto Conference while undergoing their effective leadership experiment certain Presbytery responsibilities have been pushed up to the Conference Level.

Metropolitan wrote a letter asking for clarification not discipline. We do not know if they got the clarification that they asked for. What we do know is that discussion happened at the Conference Executive level, a question was put to the General Council Executive Secretary for a ruling. The General Council Executive Secretary gave a ruling (Essentially agreeing that espoused theology does impact upon a minister's fitness to serve The United Church of Canada). This ruling then led to more discussion at Toronto Conference Executive out of which it was moved that the Reverend Gretta Vosper be examined because of the the theological positions that she champions.

Which is not sloppy. It is by the books so to speak and where there is no clear guidance under our policy clarification was sought from our Chief parliamentarian.

That ruling was challenged and ultimately upheld.

The examination was eventually held and the Reverend Vosper was found wanting.

Agree with it or not there has been nothing sloppy about the review, its initiation and the process followed to date.

Was the decision to review wise?

That is another discussion altogether. Both revsdd and myself would have opted to follow in the footsteps of Gamaliel if only to avoid the nastiness which would follow.

As is pretty typical when Toronto Conference Executive is about to act it failed to consult with some of the brighter lights of Hamilton Conference. I am sure Steven was as shocked as I was about that oversight.

That said, I am aware that Toronto Conference Executive did solicit opinion from at least one clergy person serving in Toronto Conference about the process. Ultimately they chose to move in a different direction and ask the Reverend Vosper to appear before the Conference Interview Board, a body which annually interviews candidates for ministry to discern their readiness and fitness for ministry within the Denomination.

Not having been a part of the conversation held by the Toronto Conference Executive (because minutes never include verbatim discussion) nor having heard from any who were in the room and a part of the discussion it is impossible to know what actually was a part of that discussion, other than, "can we examine the Reverend Vosper's theological convictions to see if they reflect those held by The United Church of Canada?" and "will we?"

Getting a positive answer to the first question they opted to provide a positive answer themselves to the second.

And because they are part of the Pastoral Relationship and not outside of it they are fee to do that.

Neither West Hill nor the Reverend Vosper should have been surprised by that ability.
Click to expand...

You are a very patient man, RevJohn! We have been over and over some of these issues so many times. The oversight of clergy in our denomination. The letter from Met. The review process itself. . . .

Much the same thing is happening over on FB right now. I think everyone is curious about the reasons for this recent delay.
 
revsdd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Previously Gretta called herself a non-theist and she has stated she sees very little difference between atheism and non-theism. She has also identified as a theological non-realist and I can't say I have ever troubled myself to figure this one out.

Gretta describes herself as a "soft" atheist, i.e. she sees no reason to believe in God. Not a "hard" atheist holding the opinion that God does not exist. You are right, there are many nuances to atheism. Ditto for agnosticism. Actually some of her writings come across to me as more agnostic than anything else.

Views of God aside, it bothers me more that she dismisses the centrality of Jesus to our faith.
 
At any rate, anyone pondering Gretta's fate needs to keep in mind that she declined to answer the Interview Committee when asked the essential agreement question.
 
Yes, but the point has been made that the beliefs that one might have at ordination and the beliefs one might have 20 years down the road are bound to be different. We're not doing random faith checks on clergy.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Yes, but the point has been made that the beliefs that one might have at ordination and the beliefs one might have 20 years down the road are bound to be different. We're not doing random faith checks on clergy.
Click to expand...
No, but the Vosper situation is much more complex than a "random faith check".

The church exercises its responsibility for oversight of clergy in a variety of situations. Even Bob Ripley (asked by London Conference to voluntarily DSL for his avowed atheism) has stated that the church has a "right and duty" to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top