Greta- something new-DKS posted on FB

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
Tis a odd trick ... right? Then there's that left cross over ... an impact with the unconscious?

I've been struck by this fantasy ... to know nothing ... and thus often is how it is and the governing body would like eM to vote ... early before they know sw'at they're doing ...

But you can't say that officials don't like parroting or parody activities ... the consequence being unknown satyr ... a devil, other advocate ...
 
Mark (I think he's the principal - if that's what it's called!? - at Emmanuel College) did a great interview this morning on CBC - thought it was a well reasoned approach, and he didn't let the interviewer get away with creating a situation by mis-stating his words. He was pretty clear in saying the whole thing is a 'lose-lose' situation, and sad.
 
chansen said:
Is the sudden rush a product of trying to fit this review in before more power is given to the congregations as a result of the GC? That's a possibility, isn't it? Under a new governance model, would it be more difficult to get rid of her, so that's why they had to try to rush it through this year? Out of fear they couldn't later?
Click to expand...

General Council won't actually change anything. Assuming the recommendations of the Task Group are approved, all that will happen is that a remit will be sent to Presbyteries and congregations who will then vote and if approved (and that IS NOT a given by any means) it has to go back to General Council for final approval. The only thing rushed is that as I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong) this General Council might be reconvened to give final approval rather than waiting for the next General Council to deal with it. But it's not like General Council is going to vote and it will be done. So I don't think the timing of the review has anything to do with this proposal.
 
I would be extraordinarily surprised if anything about this whole thing was "timed". That is not a strength of the UCCan. Getting anything done is a challenge, timing is quite secondary.
 
"Timing" would suggest it was held back until just the right moment. This clearly isn't a "timing" thing, because they initiated this at the worst possible moment. I'm suggesting it wasn't so much timed, as it was rushed and not exactly thought all the way through.

As for the multiple Facebook threads, you guys have a much larger Fox-News-type problem than I realized. Some of the comments are just hilariously bad. For example, Gord tries to call a moratorium on Gretta discussion until there is something new released, and some asshat uses that thread to add, "Kick her out.....she doesn't believe in the Holy Trinity and should not be an ordained UCC minister..." Pinga responds, and you can feel the facepalm in her reply.

There are UCCan members allowing themselves to get whipped into a frenzy over a minister who is not their own. They have to get rid of her. I'm guessing these people are not nearly as passionate about, say, childhood poverty. The comments are of the sort you would associate with a right wing website.
 
I think @chansen has hit a big nail right on the head in his last paragraph. Theological squabbles are really a distraction from dealing with real problems and real issues, sometimes deliberately so, sometimes just because people find the more black and white world of "My view of God is better than your view of God" easier to deal with than the starving children, the wars, the aboriginal people's myriad issues, and so on. Why deal with the shades of grey in the real world when you can sit back in comfort and bash someone else's theology?
 
BetteTheRed said:
Which happens to be exactly Gretta's point. How you act is much more important that what you believe.
Click to expand...

I would suggest, though, that when you are dealing with religion and spirituality, INDIVIDUAL belief IS important to the extent that it underpins action for a religious person.What I'm questioning (and perhaps this is my UU'ism showing) is why uniformity of belief matters so much. If you are working towards the same or similar goals, then what is the point of enforcing uniformity of belief? Why is something like "essential agreement" so important when we UUs do perfectly well with a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning"?
 
Agreed Mendella. I have been trying to discuss that point on the facebook page, but it so sucks.

Anyhow, I have asked Metropolitan United Church to provide the logic and the letter that started this review in action, (or was part of it).

The minutes of the meetings can be found here, with the first reference on April 15th. https://torontoconference.ca/conference/executive/meeting-minutes

It is astounding to me that individuals do not see the logical consequences of the review based on the use of a word.
 
Mendalla said:
I would suggest, though, that when you are dealing with religion and spirituality, INDIVIDUAL belief IS important to the extent that it underpins action for a religious person.What I'm questioning (and perhaps this is my UU'ism showing) is why uniformity of belief matters so much. If you are working towards the same or similar goals, then what is the point of enforcing uniformity of belief? Why is something like "essential agreement" so important when we UUs do perfectly well with a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning"?
Click to expand...

Just to play devil's advocate, though, would a person who wasn't in basic agreement with the UU principles and who openly and publicly said so be welcome as a minister in a UU fellowship, and thus as a representative of UU'ism to the wider community. That's essentially the equivalent.
 
revsdd said:
Just to play devil's advocate, though, would a person who wasn't in basic agreement with the UU principles and who openly and publicly said so be welcome as a minister in a UU fellowship, and thus as a representative of UU'ism to the wider community. That's essentially the equivalent.
Click to expand...

Well, I was kind of playing devil's advocate on Bette's post so fair's fair.:D You are, in fact, correct.

As I am sure you recall from previous conversations on the subject, I am actually not a strong supporter of Gretta being a UCCan minister and feel that she really belongs elsewhere than the United Church. I am largely of the mindset, right or wrongly, that being Christian requires some kind of faith in, and engagement with, God and Jesus, not simply rejecting them as irrelevant and the UCCan is, at present, still a Christian church. However, I also do not think that confronting her and kicking her out of the pulpit really fixes anything.
 
To advocate even deeper ...
If we know the number of ministers that don't take godly language purely as truth ... and somewhat a parody of a distant truth ... many that are stone set on the way it is would find themselves in shaky companionship (meaning these people don't take the biblical truth as pure) too much human desire placed in the concept ... thus corrupting the divine flighty nature ...

This does allow for change as God learns too ...
 
If progressive Christians got through all the layers of symbolism would we be left with Gretta's view anyway? And so, why can't everyone belong - those who find meaning in the Christian symbolism and those who don't? There's still a common thread, which is, "Love one another"...and knowledge of who said it is the tie that binds us together, by extension.
 
If we were able to put all the wee sparks together would we form a greater light that could develop into Levité ... later construed as laughter that's beyond Cereous domains ... tha's here and now ... but few see the serious state we live in ... always on the edge of existence ... and are ignorant of it due to autonomous corrupt powers beyond us at the top ... and complete ignorance of sublime lesser things ...
The great escape continues ... as brain drain ... or as that bright Levite sated all goes down the Souer ... ain't that Somme thing as a franc explicit?
 
Pinga said:
Anyhow, I have asked Metropolitan United Church to provide the logic and the letter that started this review in action, (or was part of it).

The minutes of the meetings can be found here, with the first reference on April 15th. https://torontoconference.ca/conference/executive/meeting-minutes

It is astounding to me that individuals do not see the logical consequences of the review based on the use of a word.
Click to expand...


From those minutes:
*****
Members present
Bryan Ransom (President), David Allen (Executive Secretary), John Brown (Toronto
Southeast), Tom Clarke (Toronto Southeast), Brian Goodings (Northern Waters), Ann
Harbridge (Past-President), Anne Hepburn (Toronto Southeast), Sungmin Jung (South
West), Betty Lou McNabb (Living Waters), Lawrence Nyarko (diversity), Linda Parsons
(Living Waters), Catherine Smith (South West), Marg Smith (Living Waters), Linda
Thompson (Northern Waters), Hans van Nie (South West)


c) concern regarding ministry personnel: The Executive Secretary reported on concerns that have been raised regarding Rev. Gretta Vosper describing herself as an atheist. A letter from Metropolitan United Church was referenced as one of the responses. The Executive Secretary outlined various options to be considered. The Executive discussed what action it wished to take on this matter.

MOTION by Lawrence Nyarko/Marg Smith that the Executive of Toronto Conference request the General Secretary of General Council to outline a process for considering concerns that have been raised regarding the on-going status of an ordered minister, with a focus on continuing affirmation of the questions asked of all candidates at the time of ordination, commissioning or admission in Basis of Union 11.3.
​
MOTION CARRIED

The Executive directed that the minutes indicate that the motion was unanimous. The Past-President offered prayer.
*****

Very interesting. I imagine the prayer immediately following the motion went something along the lines of, "Oh Lord, we pray that this can we've been kicking down the road and have just now decided to open, is not labelled "Worms".
 
One thing that still sticks out to me in the above minutes, and the reason I posted the attendees, is that one of the two attendees who tabled the motion is Lawrence Nyarko. Everyone else is either representing a position in Toronto Conference or one of its presbyteries, if I have that right. Mr. Nyarko has "diversity" next to his name. That diversity appears to be limited to diversity of race, not of thought.

Also, Gretta wrote an update on her blog:

http://www.grettavosper.ca/dividing-the-church/

It seems that this review process was started with no attempts to talk to Ms. Vosper herself, or with any member of her congregation.

Think about that for a second. Toronto Conference initiated a review of the suitability of one of its ministers, without so much as consulting a single member of her congregation. It boggles the mind how they think this is the correct way to go about this.

Then read the comments at the end of her blog. The last voice when I wrote this, the one who says she is unsuitable to continue as a United Church minister, uses lines like, "The reality my dear is that being a minister in the United Church of Canada has certain requirements. .... Them’s the facts darlin’"

And it's not like this is the only example of such thought. Read the UCCan Facebook comments. The side that's against Gretta? Way too many of them sound like Rush Limbaugh listeners. What this is showing, is that the United Church still has a real ignorance problem, in much the same way that the rest of Christianity does. I know you guys like to think you're above that level of discourse in the United Church, but you're clearly not.
 
Decided to leave a comment on Gretta's blog, and it seems it went into a moderation queue instead of straight to her site.

I realize that she probably gets more than her share of hateful comments, but she should let them go up without delay. With the sort of opposition she gets, it's not like those posts would be hurting her.
 
Chansen, there was one negative, two from Stephen Booth, and the rest all positive towards her.
If you are going to call something out, at least do it with balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top