The Rev. Vosper Again

[chansen]

I am not sure how helpful it is to be discussing any motivation of someone else who is not part of this community.

I'd be happy to discuss it there, but....

 

[Pinga]

I understand. As an admin at that group I ask that there be time given for the mods to review the situation. @ChemGal is also an admin there.

 

[ChemGal]

Looks like I should be heading over to facebook ...
Just getting up now and eating some food.
I feel a bit bemused when Gretta is brought up, how much she works some up.
My beliefs tend to flip between agnostic vs. fairly traditional, but the last church I went to actually has lots of influence from her and it doesn't bother me. I can attend a service that is less religious? not sure of the best word here and still inject my own thoughts into it.
Different beliefs exist. If people don't like the diversity that exists within the United Church I don't see that as being Gretta's fault.
I understand some of the issues like what @paradox3 has discussed in the past, but that's not what I'm hearing from the loudest voices.

 

[chansen]

I understand some of the issues like what @paradox3 has discussed in the past, but that's not what I'm hearing from the loudest voices.

This. Your loudest voices are not the intelligent ones.

 

[GO3838]

But if Gretta makes a blog post, all hell breaks loose. I don't get it. Because people explode over her, she gets more attention. She gets more attention, she gets more support. Her rabid opponents in the United Church are amazingly useless at opposing her. She could never get the support she gets without her detractors.

And this is what I have said all along, too. She plays the martyr, and gets national attention.
If the UCCan would just walk away and take the limelight with them, this drama queen wouldn't have a thriving environment to play the martyr. General Council did the right thing in settling and walking out of the limelight. Now, if only everyone else would do the same:
-if only the United Church Observer magazine (now called "Broadview") would stop printing articles about her
-if only people would stop discussing her on Facebook and other public forums (although I can understand that West Hill members may need to talk about it to move on, but they could have facilitated private discussions that's for them alone.)

So I'm pledging that this is the last time I'm posting on any "Vosper" threads on Wondercafe2, because I feel there's been enough attention given to her. There are so many wonderful UCCan clergy that are more deserving of my attention.

And so many clergy all over the world who, when feeling honest doubts, would never capitalize on those doubts and try to make money off them by writing books and soliciting national press about those doubts.

 

[chansen]

If people have thoughts, and people find those thoughts interesting, they can absolutely write books about them and profit from their work.

The attention Rev. Vosper gets is due to Christians. Atheists don't seem to care nearly as much. Because Christians love to be outraged over her, they consume any bit of reporting of her. News organizations love this, and send people to interview her, which gets Christians riled up, and the cycle repeats. Gretta Vosper is a news item because Christians make her a news item. It's incredible to watch. United Church types are embarrassed and outraged. Christians in general are outraged.

Church leaders can literally sexually assault a child, and not generate the same outrage. That says something about the people who are outraged.

 

[paradox3]

Church leaders can literally sexually assault a child, and not generate the same outrage.

Sadly, this is true.

 

[chansen]

Yeah, I have a knack for pointing out sad realities.

People love me at parties.

But it does go to show just how f***ed up the Gretta screamers really are.

 

[paradox3]

General Council did the right thing in settling and walking out of the limelight. Now, if only everyone else would do the same:
-if only the United Church Observer magazine (now called "Broadview") would stop printing articles about her
-if only people would stop discussing her on Facebook and other public forums

Just a point of clarification. The former Toronto Conference settled with Gretta, not General Council. But I agree, a wise decision was made. The United Church Observer seems to thrive on controversy. I saw little point to the most recent article about Vosper. Everything had pretty much been said already.

 

[chansen]

The United Church Observer seems to thrive on controversy.

Every news organization and magazine thrives on controversy. No one wants to read, "Everyone in the United Church Happy, Content"

 

[paradox3]

Every news organization and magazine thrives on controversy. No one wants to read, "Everyone in the United Church Happy, Content"

There is that.

It will be interesting to see if the rebranded Broadview format is successful.

 

[revjohn]

Sadly, this is true.

As a former officer of former courts historically known as Presbytery and Conference, I can state that this is not at all true.

What is different is media attention. The outrage is still there.

And here is the "newsworthy" angle to the discussion: Clergy abusing anyone with their power, it is old news. We have so many examples of clergy behaving badly and other clergy trying to cover up those sins that nobody is really surprised that it happens. At most, there might be a surprise that the clergy person we thought of as being so morally upright had us fooled. Those of us who have been duped are more prone to shamed silence than vocal outrage.

Clergy, particularly Christian clergy, not believing in Christian scripture, doctrine or anything else traditionally and explicitly Christian is still something of a rarity so it gets attention.

I've known Shawn (highlighted above) since I was in Seminary (he was ordained some years before I was. I know his history in ministry, I know some of his personal ministries and because we are connected as friends on Facebook in other groups and personally I know what he is currently going through in his life.

Shawn is not theologically right of centre. Shawn is theologically left of centre. He would be closer to the Reverend Vosper theologically than I would be. That Shawn is, to state mildly, sick of the Reverend Vosper and her opinion should speak to the Church more loudly than Greg Smith-Young (also highlighted above) being pleased that the denomination reiterates a Trinitarian perspective.

The thread in question was mentioned in several other facebook threads. I am not a part of this particular group because of serious differences with members in it some years ago.

For the record, as an Admin on the WC2 facebook page (formerly WC facebook page) we had an issue with a member who censored responses to his posts. Eventually, that member decided to leave the group only to ask for readmission 35 seconds later. Since I had talked with him about removing him from membership for deleting posts that others had made I talked it over with the two other Admins at the time and we decided not to readmit him.

Part of the issue with FB as a conversation platform is that it does give members of groups the right to censor voices who may raise a legitimate critique of points because threads are not tied to the group so much as they are tied to whoever starts the conversation.

 

[chansen]

I've known Shawn (highlighted above) since I was in Seminary (he was ordained some years before I was. I know his history in ministry, I know some of his personal ministries and because we are connected as friends on Facebook in other groups and personally I know what he is currently going through in his life.

Shawn is not theologically right of centre. Shawn is theologically left of centre. He would be closer to the Reverend Vosper theologically than I would be. That Shawn is, to state mildly, sick of the Reverend Vosper and her opinion should speak to the Church more loudly than Greg Smith-Young (also highlighted above) being pleased that the denomination reiterates a Trinitarian perspective.

I'm sorry Shawn is going through problems. Attitudes like his give other people problems. There are legitimate supporters of Rev. Vosper, and above that image there was another reply by Shawn telling her to "STFU!" Classy.

That I'm aware, the agreement was one of the last acts of Toronto Conference. Am I correct? So now there isn't even anyone to go after other than Rev. Vosper and the GC. The review cost plenty of money that would have been better put to other uses. To continue the review would have cost more money that the Church was unwilling to spend in secular courts after a split decision in their own review, explaining to a secular judge how yes, they tolerated Rev. Vosper's atheism for years, amounting to a tacit approval, but suddenly they don't approve any more and she has to go. That is a lot of time, effort and money, with no guaranty of the outcome. There should have been action years ago, but there was not. And now this is the situation.

Why can't the Church just come out and say that? Since when is the honest and straightforward explanation not allowed and not the best one?

The throwaway statements about how the Church is still Trinitarian does nothing positive. It frustrates people, because it's obviously not entirely true as Rev. Vosper is still here and she has significant support throughout the denomination. That alone freaks people out, and lying about it by essentially ignoring their existence makes it worse. It clearly drives Shawn and others like him up the wall.

Can the United Church just do the right thing, just this once, and without breaking the confidentiality agreement, please explain the general problem and why ignoring Rev. Vosper and waiting out her retirement is the best option for everyone.

 

[revjohn]

Attitudes like his give other people problems. There are legitimate supporters of Rev. Vosper, and above that image there was another reply by Shawn telling her to "STFU!" Classy.

As Shawn is a colleague whom I respect we have had several conversations over the years about some of his conversational choices. I'm of the opinion that his attitude has harmed him more than it has harmed any other. That really isn't on topic at present.

That I'm aware, the agreement was one of the last acts of Toronto Conference. Am I correct?

I suspect that it was one of the last acts taken by Toronto Conference Executive although there would have been a large number of actions required by the transfer of responsibility from the old system of governance to the new. Part of that reality is that we tend not to grandfather processes. If you start under the rubrics of the old system you stay with rubric until you complete it. Which would have been difficult in this case because the court of responsibility would no longer exist by the time the review had been completed. Had it not dragged on as long as it did (and I suspect that all parties involved contributed to that delay) Toronto Conference would have existed to take action on the recommendations made by the review.

So now there isn't even anyone to go after other than Rev. Vosper and the GC.

Not quite true. There is no one in conflict at the moment. GC was never in conflict with the Reverend Vosper. Toronto Conference Sub-Executive was. In the previous system of Governance Clergy are responsible to their respective Presbyteries. Toronto Conference under approval from GC was engaged in an Effective Leadership exercise which transported some Presbytery responsibility and oversight to the Conference level. Some of those pieces clearly did not translate well and that means that the disciplinary action undertaken by Toronto Conference Sub-executive was probably missing certain oversight pieces that should have existed long before a review was called for.

Unless somebody spills the beans we will never know for certain.

Having been an officer of the court responsible for receiving and acting upon ministry reviews I know that if there was no attempt by Presbytery to direct/correct problem clergy prior to discipline that secular courts viewed that as faulty process and would rule against the Church.

Which is why, I believe, we saw some elements in this particular case which one doesn't normally see in normative disciplinary reviews. Of course, the theological complaint which gave rise to the starting of this particular review lends some difference to the whole course of events so it is difficult to say for certain that secular courts would have found the Toronto Conference to be grossly negligent in their oversight.

I suspect that it was too close to call and the Sub-Executive rather than putting more of the Conference monies on the line decided to cut losses.

That the Reverend Vosper was also not certain of prevailing in the struggle suggests to me that there was too much on the line for her to risk as well.

No room for a win-win. Plenty of room for lose-lose. Nobody was certain of victory so both parties minimized their losses and both parties agreed to be quiet about it. I don't expect that to change. I'm sure non-disclosure was something both parties demanded.

The review cost plenty of money that would have been better put to other uses.

Yes and no.

The review would cost plenty of money. Most of it is budgeted because on average there are 85 disciplinary hearings taking place across the Church in any given year. That this got the most attention doesn't necessarily mean that it cost the most money. Since the judicial committee was being approached to form the review panel there is the possibility that it would require flying somebody from the other side of the country and having to put them up for the duration. That would have been the only strain on the proceedings from a financial angle.

To continue the review would have cost more money that the Church was unwilling to spend in secular courts after a split decision in their own review, explaining to a secular judge how yes, they tolerated Rev. Vosper's atheism for years, amounting to a tacit approval, but suddenly they don't approve any more and she has to go.

Yes and no.

The review only has the power to make recommendations. Toronto Conference Sub-executive would have been responsible to enacting the recommendations so any court action would have been against Toronto Conference Sub-executive rather than the review panel. I suspect that Toronto Conference has sums of money set aside for legal challenges. Canadian courts do not settle for outrageous sums like American courts do so any award to the Reverend Vosper would have been fiscally manageable even if Toronto Conference asked General Council for assistance in paying the damages.

The shared expense in this matter is not unusual. In some instances where clergy are under disciplinary suspension, congregations are responsible for continuing to pay that salary as well as the salary of clergy appointed as substitutes. In that event, the Pastoral Charge asks Presbytery for financial assistance and Presbytery asks Conference for assistance. It rarely breaks anyone's bank, it has been known to stretch it uncomfortably.

That is a lot of time, effort and money, with no guaranty of the outcome. There should have been action years ago, but there was not. And now this is the situation.

No argument there. Earlier courts and officers dropped the ball big-time. Making it that much more difficult for the current officers and court to set things right.

Why can't the Church just come out and say that? Since when is the honest and straightforward explanation not allowed and not the best one?

The denomination won't say that because that is not something the denomination controls or actually has any authority over. Even under our new system of governance General Council has no oversight of clergy. That function has been passed to the Office of Vocation and I am not sure at present how they will be handling the discipline aspect moving forward. I'm not sure how the Pastoral Oversight visitations will be handled moving forward.

I do know that under the old system Pastoral Oversight was less desirable than a root canal. I could get clergy willing to do the work in Erie Presbytery. Try sending a three-person clergy team into a pastoral charge in turmoil. The automatic assumption of the congregation is that the clergy is going to get away with murder because his or her colleagues won't side with the congregation about anything.

Which means that the Pastoral Oversight piece which is critical to early intervention simply wasn't happening as needed. As a result we spent more time putting out fires than teaching fire prevention.

The throwaway statements about how the Church is still Trinitarian does nothing positive.

Respectfully, your atheism fails to understand how the statements fall upon theological ears. There has been significant angst about what the Reverend Vosper not being disciplined means to theological perspectives to the right of hers (which I submit is most in the denomination, not a whole lot out there left of hers that is for certain).

It frustrates people, because it's obviously not entirely true as Rev. Vosper is still here and she has significant support throughout the denomination.

The Reverend Vosper has support. Deciding that support is significant is difficult to do with any sincerity or fair-mindedness. What is obvious is that the Reverend Vosper never had any support anywhere near the numbers of those who could be labeled her opposition. And that opposition is not only to the theological right of centre. It was on the theological left as well.

The views of anyone or even several clergy persons in the denomination do not determine the doctrine of the denomination. That is a decision that (as was recently demonstrated) belongs to the totality of Pastoral Charges and Presbyteries. The remits for the addition to the Doctrine sections were historically the best response the Church has given and the overwhelming response was Yes, keep the original articles of faith and add to them the 1940 statement, the New Creed and the Song of Faith.

I suspect that given a choice most of our members would have been happy for the Reverend Vosper to keep her thoughts to herself. She chose not to (which is her right) and there was feedback of all kinds (which one had to expect) that the majority were neither impressed with the Reverend Vosper or supportive should not have been a threat to her. She pushed the issue as well as certain buttons which were not expressly theological.

It clearly drives Shawn and others like him up the wall.

What is driving Shawn up the wall is not likely theological. Nor is it my place to discuss it publicly. It is rather complicated.

Can the United Church just do the right thing, just this once, and without breaking the confidentiality agreement, please explain the general problem and why ignoring Rev. Vosper and waiting out her retirement is the best option for everyone.

The denomination can't because the denomination doesn't have responsibility for the Reverend Vosper or her oversight. Under the new system that oversight belongs to the Office of Vocation and to the best of my knowledge, they have nothing before them to act upon with respect to the Reverend Vosper.

Will they eventually? Who knows?

The Office of Vocation will be directing more attention to the ethical standards of ministry that the denomination has set for itself. Without reading through them again and refamiliarizing myself with the content there is possibility that some of the deficiencies in the Reverend Vosper's ministry that were identified by the Conference Interview Committee (her own testimony to questions put to her) will again rise to the fore (because she hasn't changed those practices I'm betting) and something new will happen.

I'm speculating obviously.

The Reverend Vosper hasn't gone away. Whether she has the appetite for more open confrontation with the denomination that doesn't want to dance to her tune remains to be seen.

Plus nobody in the OoV who is trying to learn new policies and procedures is dying to have a chance to get the first discipline action notched on their belt. Which is, for the most part a good thing. It is good that they aren't out looking for clergy to discipline, that sort of stuff unhappily just falls into your lap.

General Council, not part of the settlement, should not even know the details of the settlement if a non-disclosure agreement is in play formally or informally. So General Council has made the only statements it has the authority to comment on. The United Church is still a Trinitarian Christian denomination.

For the Trinitarian Christians who still call The United Church of Canada our spiritual home that is not a throwaway or meaningless declaration.

 

[paradox3]

The throwaway statements about how the Church is still Trinitarian does nothing positive.

For the Trinitarian Christians who still call The United Church of Canada our spiritual home that is not a throwaway or meaningless declaration.

Just wanted to add that in my circle (former members of Gretta's congregation at West Hill) the statements which have been made by the Moderator and General Secretary are very much appreciated.

 

[paradox3]

I suspect that it was too close to call and the Sub-Executive rather than putting more of the Conference monies on the line decided to cut losses.

That the Reverend Vosper was also not certain of prevailing in the struggle suggests to me that there was too much on the line for her to risk as well.

Completely agreeing with this summary of events.

And agreeing with Chansen here as well:

There should have been action years ago, but there was not. And now this is the situation.