The Rev. Vosper Again

[Waterfall]

I guess I'm surprised that making a decision either way becomes problematic. It seems more problematic without one.

 

[Mendalla]

I guess I'm surprised that making a decision either way becomes problematic. It seems more problematic without one.

Doing nothing and just leaving her be was an option until they set out on this course of action. Now that those wheels are in motion, it is no longer one. They must decide to keep her or DSL her, there's no default anymore. Their ideal scenario at this point is West Hill ups and leaves, joining the CUC (not sure how easy that would be, though I'm sure CUC and UUA has processes in place) or Oasis or something, taking Gretta with them. She'd be DSL'd by her own hand if that happened and they could just move on to their half-arsed attempts at changing the church.

 

[revjohn]

chansen]
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.

What evidence are you resting that assessment on?

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]

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.

I think that is a fair assessment. That said, the general direction of most church courts in the past three years has not been to minimize or limit God language so much as it has been to explicitly use more God language. A phenomenon which has been observed all across the country as court after court is taking steps to distance themselves from what the Reverend Vosper has been advocating.

I expect, that should the review determine that she is to be placed on the DSL there will be some noise. I doubt that there will be an exodus out of the Church for most who support her. Primarily because that is a huge sacrifice for any to make and when push comes to shove I don't think many are prepared to make that sacrifice for her beyond the congregation at West Hill.

I expect, that should the review determine that she is not to be placed on the DSL there will be slightly more noise. I doubt it will trigger a mass exodus from the Church, there may be some who consider it to be the proverbial last straw.

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

I disagree with you. A no decision actually ramps up noise on both sides as each will claim the failure as further proof of everything they are critical of the denomination for. The denomination will be united in slamming itself it will not become more united between the camps. No decision will actually translate into worse outcomes than either decision.

That's why I think there will be more delays, whether due to more recusals or "scheduling conflicts".

This is more of your imagination than anything else. I am sure it is more informed than my observations since I have actually participated in similar drama.

It is in the best interests of the UCCan to not move forward at all, even though they say they have committed to this.

No, it isn't. Events are in motion that cannot be stopped. Not without the Reverend Vosper claiming that she and the Denomination were in a staring contest and the Denomination blinked. Not without those already critical of the diminishment of Christian thought inside the denomination claiming that they saw the Church yet again, choose to ally itself with those who are hostile to the Gospel. A decision pisses off one camp for certain. No decision pisses off both camps equally and it is more likely that each group increases in their hostility towards the other.

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.

They didn't actually refuse to halt the proceedings. That is a mischaracterization of the proceedings.

They were asked to rule on an appeal launched by the Reverend Vosper to declare that the ruling made by the Executive Secretary General Council was out of order according to the Basis of Manual of The United Church of Canada.

Had they ruled that way then yes it would have stopped the review proceedings. They were not ruling on the review itself. They were judging whether the ruling that leads to the review being called was in order.

They determined that it was in order by refusing to hear the appeal.

A petition to the Toronto Conference Plenary to revisit the decision of the Toronto Conference Executive could have stopped the review process.

There was insufficient support at that Conference. Heck they barely had enough delegates present to vote on anything.

The Conference Interview Board examined her for the better part of two days and that resulted in a 19-4 decision against the Reverend Vosper.

Recommendations from the Conference Interview Board went back to Toronto Conference Executive and they agreed with most of them and petitioned General Council Executive to take responsibility for the review.

The busiest court at this time in The United Church of Canada is the General Council Executive because of all the work that came out of the Comprehensive Review. 8 Remits calling for significant reorganization of how we gather to make decisions, How we fund the Church moving forward, How we manage the Clergy moving forward among other things are incredibly huge pieces and there is considerable squabbling within the various courts of the Church about whether we are moving to fast in implementing change.

In that context the Reverend Vosper is small potatoes. She has not been suspended from ministry, she has not had any privilege restricted in any way. So the review is not of the highest priority. Indeed, the only reason it has gotten to this level of involvment is because of a leadership experiment in Toronto Conference where personnel matters are dealt with at the Conference level first rather than the Presbytery level elsewhere.

Optically Toronto Conference calling for a review of one of their own clergy and setting the review panel would be horrible. To avoid those horrible optics they can only go to a higher court and the only court above Conference is General Council. Which really highlights an administrative flaw in their leadership experiment. With the reorganization of the Church and the implementation of the Office of Vocation this flaw will be addressed.

For now we live with what we have.

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.

Well, in this thread you are currently the expert in delivering wishful thinking so you might be right.

Of course, once January 1 hits the timetable for implementation of the changes begins to accelerate and there will be less pressure on the Judicial Committee because they will not be in a position to rule on whether or not the implementations should proceed and it isn't their place to say how they will proceed. Which means they will be less busy. It is also true that those in ministry have an administrative lull beginning the end of January until the beginning of Lent (which is not that busy a season) so there will be more opportunities in the Winter to convene a Review Panel.

At what point would the delays be considered too much?

That depends on a number of factors. If for example the Reverend Vosper had been suspended from ministry there would be greater urgency in getting the Review underway. If she was being restricted in any way then there would be greater urgency because both of those realities are punitive. She is not subject, at the moment to any suspension or restriction. With no punitive measures in play, a delay in the review does not represent significant harm.

One could argue that the weight of the review hanging overhead has potential to pose a significant mental health risk. Nobody has advanced that argument to date in an effort to speed up the process.

How far is Rev. Vosper from retirement?

No idea. Not that it matters much anyway. She cannot retire and stop the proceedings. If she died they would stop. Retirement doesn't stop a review.

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?

Once the review is initiated delays become a critical concern. Since the review hasn't actually begun there are not guidelines in play that say the review must happen in such and such a period of time. Again, there are no restrictions on the Reverend Vosper's ministry so there is nothing punitive in play against her. Since a review is imminent she may not be allowed to accept a new call but that hasn't been made public if it is a restriction that is in play.

If the UCCAN is not acting in good faith then she has an argument for the delay taking so long. I don't see anything that points to bad faith acticity.

 

[paradox3]

I believe the decision from Toronto Conference was that Gretta could continue her ministry at West Hill (while the review is pending) but not accept a call elsewhere.

It will surprise me a great deal if she seeks to leave her base of support at West Hill.

Interesting to hear @revjohn that her retirement would not stop the review. But it makes sense.

 

[revjohn]

Interesting to hear @revjohn that her retirement would not stop the review. But it makes sense.

This comes as a surprise to most people who take a strict employment view of ministry.

We are not employees of the congregation so much as we are members of Presbytery. As members of Presbytery, we covenant with the Presbytery and a congregation to provide ministry. Presbytery agrees to exercise oversight. The Pastoral Charge agrees to reimburse the clergy for ministry.

When we retire we may choose not to serve any congregation and yet, we remain members of Presbytery and as such are subject to discipline by Presbytery if we fail to observe protocols which governed our behaviour while in active ministry.

This is why when Bob Ripley declared that he was now an Atheist he received a letter from the Executive Secretary asking him to consider how he could continue to bill himself as a minister within The United Church of Canada and also claim to be an Atheist. Bob Ripley, understanding that his stance does have potential to impact upon the Church decided he would ask to be placed on the DSL and forgo identifying himself as a minister of The United Church of Canada. He can call himself a former minister all he wants.

It is most likely that if Bob Ripley had refused to put himself on the DSL and continue to identify as a minister within The United Church of Canada, as well as, an Athiest that he would have been subjected to a Review himself.

Mr. Ripley seems to understand, in a way that the Reverend Vosper somehow cannot understand that the terms Athiest and Minister of The United Church of Canada are in conflict with one another.

I suppose that the Reverend Vosper could ask to be placed on the DSL voluntarily and that has the potential, I believe, to end the review on the technicality that the Church does not review the fitness for ministry individuals who are already discontinued from service save for those instances where members who went on the DSL voluntarily ask to be removed from that list and returned to active ministry.

One of my ministry mentors, The Reverend Bruce Aitken, placed himself on the DSL voluntarily in protest in the mid 90's. We talked about what that would mean at some length. Ten years later he asked to be reinstated into active ministry so that he could transfer to another denomination. We voted him back into active ministry to wave him goodbye and wish him productive ministry elsewhere.

I am not certain that a voluntary application to the DSL can interrupt a disciplinary review. Since the disciplinary review has not yet started it is a grey issue.

Mind you, as much as the Reverend Vosper does not want to be placed on the DSL I expect she is that much opposed to putting herself on the DSL voluntarily. She becomes less of an oddity if she is an Atheist former minister and as a result probably gets lets media attention.

 

[chansen]

What I don't see people understanding here is that "atheist" is a word that could accurately describe more of your ministers than just Rev. Vosper. She just has the audacity to use the word. There are other reasons she is under review, such as sacraments, and I get that, but the "atheist" thing is going to drive a wedge. And maybe many of you want to get rid of the atheists in the United Church. It certainly looks that way. People who don't believe in a literal God, but instead use language of metaphors to describe what they believe, are atheists whether they want to use the word or not. They might be better labelled "Christian atheists", but once they don't believe there is a power acting or at least observing, that's what they are.

Going forward with this review will drive a wedge. This is not really about one minister, but about a place for honest non-belief in the church. Some people think there is room for them. I think others are embarrassed or scared about what tolerating non-believers will do, and scared of it spreading. I hate the idea that an ugly faith would be preferable to a well intentioned lack of faith. You can push back on the "well intentioned" part, but I do think Rev. Vosper's intentions with her congregation and her advocacy are good. I think she is going to make removing her difficult, and she has the support of her current congregation who seem to want to keep their minister and their church, so she has the right to defend her place. I hope she stays because she is part of what makes you guys different from what I consider are brain dead denominations who just believe....because. I think a tolerance for non-belief at least allows people to think, and if they leave faith because of it, they don't lose their connections with it.

 

[paradox3]

So we are back to literal vs. metaphorical understandings of God, are we? We have had this conversation countless times already. I am here to tell you that as a person of faith (not an atheist) I have never believed God to be an old man in the sky.

We have also had many nuanced conversations about what clergy believe after seeing the results of Richard Bott's survey.

When it comes to a wedge being driven, I couldn't agree with you more. Is the review really about one minister? Yes and no.

It is interesting that you are so confident about Rev. Vosper's intentions. Back in the day, I knew her quite well in real life and I can only guess at what motivates her.

 

[revjohn]

What I don't see people understanding here is that "atheist" is a word that could accurately describe more of your ministers than just Rev. Vosper.

Which may be many or it may be few. Which is why the best way forward is to complete the review. It makes plain what is considered in bounds and what is out for ministry within the United Church.

She just has the audacity to use the word.

If she wasn't constantly trying to redefine what she means when she uses it then you might have a stronger point.

There are other reasons she is under review, such as sacraments, and I get that, but the "atheist" thing is going to drive a wedge.

Which speaks to how good a fit she is as a minister. The United Church of Canada expects its clergy to support its mission. Atheism is antithetical to that mission and her refusing to administer the sacraments is just one way that she has demonstrated she is opposed to the work of the denomination.

And maybe many of you want to get rid of the atheists in the United Church. It certainly looks that way. People who don't believe in a literal God, but instead use language of metaphors to describe what they believe, are atheists whether they want to use the word or not. They might be better labelled "Christian atheists", but once they don't believe there is a power acting or at least observing, that's what they are.

First and foremost. The only people who actually deserve the title Atheist are those who choose it for themselves. They don't need anyone to out them if they aren't interested in outing themselves. This is not a hunt for Atheists to push out nor has it been a hunt for suspected Atheists.

Going forward with this review will drive a wedge.

Not going forward also drives a wedge.

This is not really about one minister, but about a place for honest non-belief in the church.

No, it really is about one minister. And the issue is honest non-belief in ministry and whether or not that conflicts with what is required of United Church clergy. So far of the 23 individuals routinely charged to examine potential clergy from Toronto Conference 19 were of the opinion that they could not recommend the Reverend Vosper if she was at the beginning of her ministry and seeking to be ordained. 4 thought otherwise. We had no problem with them including their dissenting opinions in the report.

Some people think there is room for them. I think others are embarrassed or scared about what tolerating non-believers will do, and scared of it spreading. I hate the idea that an ugly faith would be preferable to a well intentioned lack of faith. You can push back on the "well intentioned" part, but I do think Rev. Vosper's intentions with her congregation and her advocacy are good.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, right? Residential Schools began with good intentions. What is not really a matter of concern is what are her intentions. What actually is a matter of concern is whether or not she can support the mission and ministry of the denomination. Not celebrating the sacraments points to no.

I think she is going to make removing her difficult, and she has the support of her current congregation who seem to want to keep their minister and their church, so she has the right to defend her place.

Yes we have heard you mention that before. I'm sure you remember hearing us say, "So what?" She does have the right to defend her position. The Church is in no way obligated to change how it operates to accommodate her.

I hope she stays because she is part of what makes you guys different from what I consider are brain dead denominations who just believe....because.

We are not forcing her out of the denomination. At most, we are removing her from a role. We find that necessary because she is not doing what we expect our clergy to do. Pure employment issue.

I think a tolerance for non-belief at least allows people to think, and if they leave faith because of it, they don't lose their connections with it.

Again, the review removes her from her role. It does not remove her from the Church. Connections can be maintained even if her role is changed.

 

[chansen]

Which may be many or it may be few. Which is why the best way forward is to complete the review. It makes plain what is considered in bounds and what is out for ministry within the United Church.

If she wasn't constantly trying to redefine what she means when she uses it then you might have a stronger point.

"Atheism" is simply not believing in the existence of a god or gods. If you God is the result of people trying to express their relationship with the unknown, for example, that's non-belief. That's a form of atheism. People don't like using the word because theists have been trying to make "atheism" a bad word and "atheists" bad people, and polls show they have largely succeeded.

Which speaks to how good a fit she is as a minister. The United Church of Canada expects its clergy to support its mission. Atheism is antithetical to that mission and her refusing to administer the sacraments is just one way that she has demonstrated she is opposed to the work of the denomination.

It's not a point in your favour that the ceremonial distribution of wine and crackers is more important than how the minister supports and has the support of their congregation.

First and foremost. The only people who actually deserve the title Atheist are those who choose it for themselves. They don't need anyone to out them if they aren't interested in outing themselves. This is not a hunt for Atheists to push out nor has it been a hunt for suspected Atheists.

People who don't believe in God are atheists. They could be fans of Jesus, and just not believe.

Not going forward also drives a wedge.

It does, just not as big a wedge.

No, it really is about one minister. And the issue is honest non-belief in ministry and whether or not that conflicts with what is required of United Church clergy. So far of the 23 individuals routinely charged to examine potential clergy from Toronto Conference 19 were of the opinion that they could not recommend the Reverend Vosper if she was at the beginning of her ministry and seeking to be ordained. 4 thought otherwise. We had no problem with them including their dissenting opinions in the report.

The bigger picture is a message to any other minister who comes to a similar conclusion as Rev. Vosper to just shut up about it if they know what's good for them and their congregation.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, right? Residential Schools began with good intentions. What is not really a matter of concern is what are her intentions. What actually is a matter of concern is whether or not she can support the mission and ministry of the denomination. Not celebrating the sacraments points to no.

Residential Schools began with Christian belief in a Christian education.

Yes we have heard you mention that before. I'm sure you remember hearing us say, "So what?" She does have the right to defend her position. The Church is in no way obligated to change how it operates to accommodate her.

I think it would be better if the church did accommodate. I think the Church has to accommodate, or die.

We are not forcing her out of the denomination. At most, we are removing her from a role. We find that necessary because she is not doing what we expect our clergy to do. Pure employment issue.

You're attempting to force an entire congregation out. This will also be a shot across the bow to any clergy who are sympathetic toward Rev. Vosper and agree with her. This is a delegitimization of any members who agree with Rev. Vosper.

Again, the review removes her from her role. It does not remove her from the Church. Connections can be maintained even if her role is changed.

Who would consider staying after such an action? Come on, John.

 

[chansen]

And it seems my previously-approved comment was deleted from the Observer article, demonstrating that the Observer has learned a thing or two from the United Church head office.

 

[paradox3]

And it seems my previously-approved comment was deleted from the Observer article, demonstrating that the Observer has learned a thing or two from the United Church head office.

Oh? Which Observer article is this? Can you provide a link and explain more about your deleted comment?

 

[chansen]

I linked to it on Monday, when my comment there was submitted and went live an hour or so later:

The Rev. Vosper Again

Here's the direct link:

No date yet for Vosper hearing

My comment was basically that I didn't understand how they had zero people for the panel, but had identified people for the panel. No one replied to the comment that I'm aware.

 

[paradox3]

Curious that the Observer would have approved your comment then deleted it. They always preview the comments before posting them AFAIK.

 

[chansen]

They did. Took a short time for it to go live. I'm guessing an hour, but I wasn't refreshing constantly to see. I went back a while after submitting and was surprised it was up so fast.

 

[paradox3]

They did. Took a short time for it to go live. I'm guessing an hour, but I wasn't refreshing constantly to see. I went back a while after submitting and was surprised it was up so fast.

Maybe someone goofed in putting it up? I have only submitted comments a few times but I don't think they ever appeared before the next business day.

 

[chansen]

It was up for three days, then died. It pulled an inverse Jesus.

 

[paradox3]

It was up for three days, then died. It pulled an inverse Jesus.

Sure would be interesting to know why it came down after 3 days. I doubt any kind of conspiracy but you never know.

 

[Ritafee]

This thread confuses me.

Gretta Vosper has a 'paying' job ... with a job description that she does not agree with ... but she wants to keep her 'paying' job?

Public schools are always required to follow the set curriculum. - true or false?
When teachers are teaching science the science curriculum which they must follow does not include creationism. - true or false?
If teachers are teaching science the science curriculum which they must follow does include evolution. - true or false?
When students are learning about evolution they cannot get a passing grade unless they 'believe' in evolution.- true or false?
There is no harm in teaching creationism in government funded schools. - true or false?

 

[Luce NDs]

This thread confuses me.

Gretta Vosper has a 'paying' job ... with a job description that she does not agree with ... but she wants to keep her 'paying' job?

Public schools are always required to follow the set curriculum. - true or false?
When teachers are teaching science the science curriculum which they must follow does not include creationism. - true or false?
If teachers are teaching science the science curriculum which they must follow does include evolution. - true or false?
When students are learning about evolution they cannot get a passing grade unless they 'believe' in evolution.- true or false?
There is no harm in teaching creationism in government funded schools. - true or false?

Then the bible ends in revolutionary tome on really weird vision of Johns ... common aspirations suffered by people scared to hell with things attached to their psyches ... improperly! It says over 250 times that we are to fear not ... anything and everything?

You can't escape that vast eternal thingy ... even if infinity in non-comprehendible to the para dime ... what the powers would allow the poor as investment on a wholly dollar ... tis Ahriman ... po' exchange for the support! Thus the give 10% conspiracy as a scheme ...

 

[chansen]

Someone messaged them.

Sure would be interesting to know why it came down after 3 days. I doubt any kind of conspiracy but you never know.

Someone reported it. It had already been reviewed and approved. I made some crack about the "identified" panel members being identified from a police lineup. That's all it's going to take to offend some humorless dolt, somewhere.