The Rev. Vosper Again

[Luce NDs]

Tis a way to crack the windows of heaven ... mysterious port oles ... ancient as ... o' well!

Again it appears in adept ... unrighteous?

 

[paradox3]

Sorry, I never really understood where you were going with this.

No? You don't know your scripture very well in that case.

 

[Mendalla]

Arbitration is different from negotiation. In labour relations I am familiar with "arbitration hearings".

Here is one definition I found:
At its core, arbitration is a form of dispute resolution. Arbitration is the private, judicial determination of a dispute, by an independent third party. An arbitration hearing may involve the use of an individual arbitrator or a tribunal. ... One and three are the most common numbers of arbitrators.

It's still a two-sided matter that generally tries to find common ground so needs the respect and approval of both parties. Gretta's case is not seeking common ground. It is determining whether she is fit for ministry in the UCCan based on the by-laws of the UCCan. In that respect, I suggest it is a trial, not an arbitration. You don't get to choose your judge when you are on trial, though you may have a say in the jury. Your lawyer could appeal or raise points of order based on the issues with the judge, though.

That said, arbitration may follow if she is DSL'd and appeals to civil labour boards or courts, but right now it is, in essence, a trial.

 

[chansen]

No? You don't know your scripture very well in that case.

I get the "he who is without sin shall cast the first stone" reference, or close enough. This variant was just weirdly worded and I don't get where it's going.

 

[paradox3]

It's still a two-sided matter that generally tries to find common ground so needs the respect and approval of both parties. Gretta's case is not seeking common ground. It is determining whether she is fit for ministry in the UCCan based on the by-laws of the UCCan. In that respect, I suggest it is a trial, not an arbitration. You don't get to choose your judge when you are on trial, though you may have a say in the jury. Your lawyer could appeal or raise points of order based on the issues with the judge, though.

That said, arbitration may follow if she is DSL'd and appeals to civil labour boards or courts, but right now it is, in essence, a trial.

Yes, I think you were right when you compared it to a Supreme Court panel being formed. I wasn't trying to say it was an arbitration, just reflecting on how other such panels are formed.

 

[Waterfall]

I get the "he who is without sin shall cast the first stone" reference, or close enough. This variant was just weirdly worded and I don't get where it's going.

Doesn't matter it was added to the Bible in the 12th century...

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

Doesn't matter it was added to the Bible in the 12th century...

I think he meant my comment.
Chansen, you rightly pointed out that they don't seem to find people for the final judgement. Supposedly because they have too busy schedules.

 

[revjohn]

I don't understand this. No one has signed up, but panelists have been identified? Do they mean potential panelists have been identified but none have agreed?

For starters no review panel is subject to an open volunteer process, by which I mean, we do not put an open call out for just anyone to serve on a review panel.

Because the panel has to follow UCCAN policy and procedure to the letter, we cannot accept any who have deficits in this kind of knowledge and expect that the panel will not make errors along the way. So because the General Council was petitioned to undertake the review itself rather than leave it in the jurisdiction of Toronto Conference General Council Executive has tasked the responsibility for the review to the Judicial Committee which is, as far as the UCCAN is concerned, the body within the Church that is the most knowledgeable of our policies and procedures.

As has been noted we are looking at a potential pool of 45 members and we need 3 or 5 (we won't settle for 4 because then a decision could be split resolving nothing) members to agree to sit on the Review Panel.

Individuals have been approached and asked if they would serve. To date, none of those individuals have agreed to sit on the Review Panel and all of the communication we have from the Church (now Alan Hall and earlier Mary-Francis Dennis) points to schedule as being the primary hurdle which needs to be overcome.

I understand some people are going to complain about my next observation, but something isn't right here.

You not understanding is not a sign that something is not right.

There is no consistent message. There is nothing to indicate that anything is moving forward, or that it *can* move forward. "This winter" is a meaningless target when nobody appears to be working toward it. But they do "hope" it will be this winter.

The message actually is consistent. Of course, knowing the context of Church process helps to identify that as being the case.

The only issue for getting folk to agree to sit on the Review Panel has been when and for how long.

Again, the clergy on the Review have congregations that they serve. Will they be on payroll and absent for a month? That means that not only does their congregation have to pay them their salary while they are doing work for the wider Church but that the congregation will also be on the hook to pay for supply ministry while the clergy is serving on the Review Panel. No clergy are going to agree to put their congregation on that kind of a financial hook without having a better idea of what it means, and if they are halfway intelligent they will discuss this increased burden with the congregation before they agree. So it isn't just finding clergy willing to the work it is finding clergy who are willing to do the work and congregations that will foot the bill for their clergy being away for the duration.

Lay members of the Judicial Committee likely have careers outside of their Church service and they may not be able to be absent from those careers for extended periods of time without incurring personal penalties. Their employer might be willing to grant them unpaid leave provided they are gone for a short time. Their employer might also be willing for them to use vacation days in addition to an unpaid leave if they are going to be gone for a month or so. Not really any kind of incentive for our Lay members is it?

Apart from those concerns will be whether or not those who have served on the committee have participated in any public dialogue concerning the Reverend Vosper because as soon as the Panel members are named they will be subjected to a very deep search of any social media group they might belong to. If comments cannot be linked directly to them the fact that they participate in groups where any criticism of the Reverend Vosper has been raised will be enough for the defense to suggest that the Review Panel has a demonstrable bias against her. So even if all of the UCCAN clergies who participate or have ever participated at Wondercafe in both its incarnations were members of the Judicial Committee it would pose a definite optics problem even if we had never contributed directly or indirectly to a thread in which the Reverend Vosper has been discussed.

One of my closest friends is a member of the Judicial Committee and I know not to ask him about anything they have on their plate. I can ask him after the fact about the thinking that went on while in deliberation. And I have. He will think about it and give me what will be part of the public record. For example, we know that the Reverend Vosper appealed a decision made by the Executive Secretary General Council and that the Judicial Committee ultimately declined to hear the appeal. The minutes will say, publicly, that the Judicial Committee refused to hear the appeal and that will be a minuted motion moved by So and So, seconded by Such and Such. Carried.

The vote will not be recorded so it will not be known whether it passed by much or by little.

I still don't know whether it is by much or by little and to be candid it doesn't matter because the majority said "no" to the appeal.

What I do know is that there was some division of thought about whether or not the appeal should be heard and some of those who thought the appeal should be heard were not convinced that the Reverend Vosper's theological position merited that the appeal be heard so much as they felt the appeal should be heard because the Executive Secretary General Council introduced a new criteria by which effectiveness could be measured and that warrants further review in and of itself. And frankly, the Judicial Committee was not looking at who the Reverend Vosper was or what she believes or doesn't believe. They were looking at the decision that the Executive Secretary General Council made and whether it was sound. In the end, they decided that it was.

They could come right out and say they have 3-5 panelists waiting, trying to coordinate schedules. But they didn't. I don't think there is any appetite to be on that panel., and indeed people are likely trying to avoid being on that panel.

They could say it. It would not be true though. The rest of your comment is wishful thinking. I think it is fair comment that nobody has any appetite to serve on the panel. They become automatic targets for the Reverend Vosper and her supporters during the time the review is being conducted and depending on the outcome they are certain to be the targets of much criticism. Nobody would be trying to avoid serving on the panel because all know that the panel needs to happen. It cannot, at this date in time, not happen. If nobody from the Judicial Committee is willing to serve then General Council will be forced to second members of the Denomination who are not on the Judicial Committee but still have a similar skill set. What I expect has happened, at least in some cases, is that individuals selected have offered recusals because they do not want their participation to be seen as prejudicial.

I have been approached for several tasks within the denomination where I have felt it necessary to recuse myself for X or Y reason which I believed could reasonably demonstrate a bias for or against the individual I was to review in some manner. It is not uncommon. What happens then is that the body that approached you has to examine the recusal you offer and determine if it does reasonably demonstrate a prejudice one way or another. So far, my reputation for being fair-minded has trumped my recusals more often than not.

Given what I have had to say historically with respect to the Reverend Vosper it is a given that if I was approached I would recuse myself, point to participation on threads here and elsewhere and wait to see if the Recusal had merit. I suspect, in this instance, it would, not because I would be considered less fair-minded but because I have chosen to make comments publicly.

Any decision made against the Reverend Vosper would automatically point to comments made here by me and claim that because of a previous bias the decision is tainted.

That allegation is likely going to happen no matter who sits on the Review Panel, indeed the Reverend Vosper has already telegraphed that defense so they are not going to come to me simply because I have already participated in the public conversation.

 

[revjohn]

I doubt it. I'd think that court-wise this is more akin to the Supreme Court forming a panel to hear a case (in which the lawyers do not have a say) than jury selection (which they do). I'm sure someone with knowledge of the UCCan processes involved can confirm that impression.

This sums it up nicely. It is the responsibility of the General Council Executive to name the members of the Review Panel. Nobody has a right to challenge the choices though they do have a right to point to how the Review Panel may be biased more towards one position than the other.

I am not aware of any circumstance where any member of the Review Panel was accused by counsel for the Church of being biased towards the defendant. It is a matter of routine for the defense to suggest that members of the Review Panel are hostile towards the defendant.

 

[revjohn]

The difficulty in getting individuals to commit to sitting on the Review Panel is, in no way, a comment that the Review should not happen or that the members of the Judicial Committee are afraid to do the work that will be required. That is nonsense. If they were really afraid and thought the review shouldn't happen they would have decided otherwise back when the appeal was initially heard.

Their decision indicates that they felt there was a necessity to the process continuing and they most likely knew that they weren't done with that decision the moment they passed it.

Unless the Reverend Vosper is willing to recant or offer an apology of some kind for being extremely foolish in her use of language it would be very difficult for any Review to find in her favour. The most that could happen, with what we know of the steps taken to date, is that the Reverend Vosper be subjected to some form of remedial correction.

The Conference Interview Board, in their report to Toronto Conference Executive, suggested that the Reverend Vosper gave them no indication that this reconciliatory step would be accepted. Anybody else following this whole debacle see anywhere any kind of clue that the Reverend Vosper is feeling anything resembling repentance?

I see that she has dug her heels in. Which is her right to do.

It does not undo or alter what has already been revealed.

I expect that the Church would not call very many witnesses. They can rely on her own comments and maybe call members of the Conference Interview Board. Apart from that the fact that the Reverend Vosper has constantly turned to Social Media to plead her case is enough rope to build a very strong case that she is not serving the agenda of the denomination.

The Reverend Vosper will, no doubt, flood the proceedings with witnesses. And this is where the time will pile up because examination of the witnesses will follow the format of most criminal and civil trials. The Defence will call the witness to the stand and time will be used to build up the Reverend Vosper's actual effectiveness for ministry. The Prosecution will cross (can be short) and then the Defence gets summary examination where they can attempt to undo any damage that the Prosecution may have done. Next witness repeats until all witnesses are examined.

And since witnesses do not have to be a part of the proceedings from beginning to end they can actually fly in, at a moments notice, to testify.

And since it is not known how many witnesses will be called we cannot begin to guess at how long the process will take once started. Which puts part of the delay in the Reverend Vosper's hands. So long as she refuses to disclose how many witnesses she is going to call there is no way we can know how long the review might take. Bear in mind she is not obligated to reveal her hand at this point in time. Which is why there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty.

Which should not be interpreted as fear or reticence.

 

[revjohn]

Say you're in the pool of potential panelists ("PPP" for short). Do you want to be one of the five to make a decision here? Either way, a lot of people will be angry with you.

Again, the realization that you are bound to make some people unhappy probably is less of a factor than anything else. Individuals who acquire the skillsets necessary to make them top picks for such work are generally not popularity hunters. They are folk who understand that right decisions are ultimately more beneficial to the Church than are popular decisions.

What is generally missed in the consideration is just what it is that these individuals will be asked to sacrifice to do hard work for the denomination.

That said, we are reviewing 20+ clergy every year in the UCCAN and the outcome of those reviews is fundamentally no different than this particular review. Either the clergy, at the end, maintains their good standing which now comes with bruises, they are found somewhat lacking and will be required to subject themselves to the humiliation of remedial training or, they are found completely lacking and removed from ministry altogether.

Even when the answer is very clear about what the outcome should be most who sit on Review Panels understand that the decision they will be asked to deliver has the power to completely destroy a reputation built over many years of service. There is simply no way to rejoice about that. You can convince yourself that the decision you made was just and it was right. That doesn't provide much insulation against the life that is suddenly undone.

And yet, there are times when the responsibility that we have been given cannot be denied and we are called to participate in a process which is going to end painfully for some.

I have, as an officer of Presbytery and Executive been called upon to cast a vote which put a colleague on the DSL or prevented it from happening. It is the saddest duty I have had to perform outside of funerals for infants.

I am confident that the vote I cast was the right vote to make given the circumstances. So I can be confident that I did the right thing. It wasn't a happy thing.

 

[revsdd]

Doesn't matter it was added to the Bible in the 12th century...

It likely wasn't original, but there's strong evidence for it being much, much earlier than the 12th century - or at least we do know for sure that the story itself was around long before the 12th century.

There are 4th century references to it from Bishop Pacian of Barcelona and the theologian Didymus the Blind. Didymus actually began a discussion of the passage with the words "we find in certain Gospels ..." although he didn't specify which Gospels.

It's cited fairly extensively in the 5th century - by people such as Pope Leo the Great, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan and Augustine. Augustine actually suggested that the pericope had been deliberately excluded from some manuscripts as they were prepared by those who were concerned that it would be taken as a sign that Jesus sanctioned adultery.

 

[Waterfall]

It likely wasn't original, but there's strong evidence for it being much, much earlier than the 12th century - or at least we do know for sure that the story itself was around long before the 12th century.

There are 4th century references to it from Bishop Pacian of Barcelona and the theologian Didymus the Blind. Didymus actually began a discussion of the passage with the words "we find in certain Gospels ..." although he didn't specify which Gospels.

It's cited fairly extensively in the 5th century - by people such as Pope Leo the Great, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan and Augustine. Augustine actually suggested that the pericope had been deliberately excluded from some manuscripts as they were prepared by those who were concerned that it would be taken as a sign that Jesus sanctioned adultery.

I remember reading this and feeling quite disappointed that Jesus may not have actually said this. Regardless it still provides food for thought, but loses some authority if not from Jesus in some regards.

 

[revjohn]

I have, as an officer of Presbytery and Executive been called upon to cast a vote which put a colleague on the DSL or prevented it from happening. It is the saddest duty I have had to perform outside of funerals for infants.

I am confident that the vote I cast was the right vote to make given the circumstances. So I can be confident that I did the right thing. It wasn't a happy thing.

Some additional thought.

While the only reviews where I have been part of a panel are front-end reviews where individuals are seeking to be ordained I can say, with sincerity, that none of us reviewers have sat down with saying no as part of a planned agenda.

Since we have a ton of paperwork handed to us before the Conference Interview happens we already know how the candidate has answered questions and we may think that they need more time and/or work. In this regard, the actual Interview will either confirm this thought or correct it. I have never yet, been in a position where I felt I had to say absolutely not.

And for several years as a substitute on the Conference Interview Board, I was responsible for reading the files of every candidate though I would only ever get to interview one. When I moved up to the top of the Interview list I only ever got one file to review.

There were some candidates who gave me more concern than did others and my job, as a member of an interview team is to identify that concern with the rest of the team and find a way to address it constructively during the interview. Nine times out of 10 I am not the one asking the question about my concern. We decide who we think the question comes from ahead of time and we try to find the least threatening member to deliver it. Nine times out of 10 I am tasked with answering questions I won't necessarily care about the answers to.

I am happy that every student I have been asked to review was given an unqualified yes.

I only once recused myself from the task and that was because the candidate was from my Presbytery and I had worked with her before so I did not want my support for her to become a potential obstacle to her process. Conference E&S declared the grounds for my recusal insufficient and I did the job set before me of reviewing the candidate who was also a colleague. It was determined, during the interview that I should be the one to ask the tougher questions simply because the candidate would know that there was no personal attack motivating them.

Of course, she passed.

I have, as an officer with Erie Executive, Hamilton Conference Executive and West District Executive had to deal with recommendations from 11 Review Panels. 10 were clergy and 1 was a lay worship leader. I can remember all of them with some clarity. Even the first one which was almost 20 years ago.

The first one sticks out because the Review found definite reasons to place this minister on the DSL yet because the scope of the review was set so narrowly many members of the Executive felt they had to reject the findings of the Review. I voted against the Majority and asked, on a point of personal privilege to have my name recorded as being opposed. Just because I didn't want to wear regret sometime down the road.

Of the 10 remaining cases, only one came with recommendations for remediation. The rest were placed on the Discontinued Service List. No cartwheels, no rejoicing, just sadness that things got so bad it needed to come to this end. Given some of the circumstances, the decisions really were no-brainers. The most obvious was the individual, directed to undertake further studies who brought back a University Transcript with stunningly high marks. Probably would have gotten away with it save for the fact that the Instructor of the Course was on the Education and Students Committee and he couldn't remember the candidate as a student or awarding the candidate such a high mark. He asked for permission to check his files and it was discovered that this candidate had not only never enrolled in the remedial courses she was instructed to take, she forged a university transcript and signatures of university officials to cover it up.

Several of the clergies were near the end of what were thought to be promising careers. Once upon a time being placed on the DSL caused you to forfeit your pension. That has been changed since but it was difficult knowing that you were casting a vote which would end a career in ministry and cost that individual every sent of pension contribution over the years. Injury to insult.

What would be worse would be if the Church decided to never do anything and resort to a past way of dealing with problems. Cover it up and ship it out.

I may never be approached to do such work ever again or because I am new to East District and have been out of Conference for 10 years I might become busier in this regard because I don't know enough people to be biased about one way or another. Time will tell.

And if called then I will offer the Church my very best reasoning on whatever judgment I have to share in making. I will also want to know that my pastoral charge will be looked after while I am off doing work for the wider Church. So I would want to know when I will be needed and for how long.

It isn't like we have pools of clergy sitting around waiting to take a crack at ending a colleagues ministry. And those who might fit that description are most likely on the bottom of any call list.

 

[paradox3]

Thanks @revjohn for providing us with your perspective & experience. It is very helpful.

 

[Mendalla]

I remember reading this and feeling quite disappointed that Jesus may not have actually said this. Regardless it still provides food for thought, but loses some authority if not from Jesus in some regards.

Much of what is written about Jesus may be myth-making rather than history. In the realm of religion, it is myth, not literal truth, that matters. If it is consistent with his teachings, if it was he may have taught, if it is possibly a paraphrase of something he really said, then it still has the authority, me thinks. Jesus may have been a real person (I think so, BTW) but that doesn't mean everything written about him is "history" or "biography". There are people alive today who have apocryphal myths and legends being written about them.

 

[Waterfall]

Much of what is written about Jesus may be myth-making rather than history. In the realm of religion, it is myth, not literal truth, that matters. If it is consistent with his teachings, if it was he may have taught, if it is possibly a paraphrase of something he really said, then it still has the authority, me thinks. Jesus may have been a real person (I think so, BTW) but that doesn't mean everything written about him is "history" or "biography". There are people alive today who have apocryphal myths and legends being written about them.

So many things have changed when it comes to the Bible as we know it today. I used to think it was a Catholic thing that the protestant Bible didn't have the Apocrypha books, but it's not. Apparently it's Jewish and was included in most Bibles before 1881.

Mendella is there a way to move these threads about how the Bible has changed to a new thread if I create it in Religion?

 

[Mendalla]

So many things have changed when it comes to the Bible as we know it today. I used to think it was a Catholic thing that the protestant Bible didn't have the Apocrypha books, but it's not. Apparently it's Jewish and was included in most Bibles before 1881.

Mendella is there a way to move these threads about how the Bible has changed to a new thread if I create it in Religion?

Yep. Any mod or admin can do it.

 

[Luce NDs]

Much of what is written about Jesus may be myth-making rather than history. In the realm of religion, it is myth, not literal truth, that matters. If it is consistent with his teachings, if it was he may have taught, if it is possibly a paraphrase of something he really said, then it still has the authority, me thinks. Jesus may have been a real person (I think so, BTW) but that doesn't mean everything written about him is "history" or "biography". There are people alive today who have apocryphal myths and legends being written about them.

People would debate that too without a thought about discussion and dialogue being disgusted ...

 

[chansen]

Again, the realization that you are bound to make some people unhappy probably is less of a factor than anything else. Individuals who acquire the skillsets necessary to make them top picks for such work are generally not popularity hunters. They are folk who understand that right decisions are ultimately more beneficial to the Church than are popular decisions.

What is generally missed in the consideration is just what it is that these individuals will be asked to sacrifice to do hard work for the denomination.

That said, we are reviewing 20+ clergy every year in the UCCAN and the outcome of those reviews is fundamentally no different than this particular review. Either the clergy, at the end, maintains their good standing which now comes with bruises, they are found somewhat lacking and will be required to subject themselves to the humiliation of remedial training or, they are found completely lacking and removed from ministry altogether.

Even when the answer is very clear about what the outcome should be most who sit on Review Panels understand that the decision they will be asked to deliver has the power to completely destroy a reputation built over many years of service. There is simply no way to rejoice about that. You can convince yourself that the decision you made was just and it was right. That doesn't provide much insulation against the life that is suddenly undone.

And yet, there are times when the responsibility that we have been given cannot be denied and we are called to participate in a process which is going to end painfully for some.

I have, as an officer of Presbytery and Executive been called upon to cast a vote which put a colleague on the DSL or prevented it from happening. It is the saddest duty I have had to perform outside of funerals for infants.

I am confident that the vote I cast was the right vote to make given the circumstances. So I can be confident that I did the right thing. It wasn't a happy thing.

The problem isn't so much that people will be angry - it's that there is likely going to be a denomination-wide effect from either outcome. Those who support Rev. Vosper will feel alienated and second class, or those who oppose her continued ministry will be aghast at what they interpret as the continued backsliding of their church.

Both potential outcomes will have a worse effect than no decision at all.

That's why I think there will be more delays, whether due to more recusals or "scheduling conflicts". It is in the best interests of the UCCan to not move forward at all, even though they say they have committed to this. I understand that the judicial committee refused to halt the proceedings as a group, but large, almost anonymous groups are more bold than small ones. Given that the UCCan has experience in dragging things out, and the motivation to drag things out here, and a difficult task to move it forward at all, I don't see this happening this winter. *That* is wishful thinking.

At what point would the delays be considered too much? How far is Rev. Vosper from retirement? This is a Damoclean sword hanging over a number of people, including all of West Hill United, which would be wiped out by a DSL decision. As in the court system, how long of a delay is too long?