Greta- something new-DKS posted on FB

[revjohn]

Do you agree, John, that the optics rather suck for those of us of a more progressive bent?

I don't speak for "progressives" simply because there is no standard definition of who or what a progressive actually is.

I will share that one of my beloved colleagues who is a brother in Christ to me has said he feels that the reverend Vosper has hijacked his Progressive Christianity. I think it also fair to say that if my brother was to place more emphasis on one of those two words it would be Christianity over and above progressive. That brother of mine is not alone among colleagues who do describe themselves as Progressive Christians within the UCCAN. I have heard the same claim of hijack made by several.

Is the reverend Vosper progressive? I don't know that either. It strikes me as being somewhat dishonest to suggest that atheism is somehow progressive theism. I have always though progress meant further along in the desired direction and not a new direction altogether. So from where I sit the reverend Vosper isn't making progress, as a matter of fact it feels more regressive in that the charicature of Christianity she routinely trumpets as the norm never has been the norm.

I do respect that to others she does represent progress and the question would then need to be asked progress towards what?

At this point in time there are a lot of unknowns with respect to the process.

We do know which congregation initiated the complaint. We do not know their motivation for doing so. We also know that Toronto Conference was not clear on how to structure a review where theology is the primary concern. Part of the reason for that is that the UCCAN as a whole so rarely faces complaints of this nature. It is not true that the UCCAN has never had a complaint of this nature. Friend Panentheism who did not make the switch from WonderCafe.ca to Wondercafe2 was subjected to a fitness review because of his theological views. He obviously was able to prove that his theology was still in essential agreement with the doctrine of the United Church because he was not placed on the DSL

Panentheism is a Process theologian and some would claim that makes him progressive yet he doesn't think that the Reverend Vosper's stance is credible.

Optics are often a result of who is painting the picture we prefer to look at.

At any rate this is where things go from here.

The judicial committee will hear the appeal, they can't not hear it. If they uphold the appeal everything else stops. If they fail to uphold the appeal the review will happen.

The ministry review will determine whether or not the reverend Vosper continues to be in essential agreement with the Basis of Union or not. If not I suspect that the Toronto Conference will give the reverend Vosper time to reflect on that finding and take steps to reconcile so that she may be found in essential agreement. Failing that Toronto Conference will most likely vote to have the reverend Vosper placed on the DSL.

What that looks like to me is Toronto Conference saying that in the UCCAN it is not "anything goes." Other optics will present themselves to other perspectives.

 

[revjohn]

How, John, is Gretta "poisoning the well"?

In a number of ways.

Most obviously in insisting that this review is without precedent. As a matter of fact all reviews of ministry personnel are without precedent meaning that we do not review one and then suddenly have a list of several other we must now subject to the same treatment.

All reviews are the result of a complaint being made.

As mentioned above in my response to Bette this is not the first time a minister's theology has been subjected to a review so insinuating that it is can only be attributed to ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. I'm in no position to suggest which is actually at play. I am in a position to know that unless you are reading the minutes of every court in the Church you will not be aware of how often clergy are subjected to a review nor for what reasons or even what the outcomes were.

I know of a colleague whose theology was the focus of a review simply because I know that colleague. I was not a colleague when it happened and if he never divulged that particular detail I might not be aware of it now.

My point being that the reverend Vosper is not in a unique position.

Claims are also being made that there has been no dialogue about this in the Church. If memory serves I actually parsed and analyzed a conversation carried in the Observer between the reverend Vosper and the reverend Den Bok about pretty much this divide. True it doesn't represent official formal dialogue in that it was between the reverend Vosper and a court of the Church. It was dialogue between the reverend Vosper, a colleague known to hold a decidedly contrary position to the reverend Vosper and it took place in that arms length instrument which is geared to the interests of the UCCAN.

Anyone else remember that or did I just dream that it happened?

Which is to say that some of the claims the reverend Vosper is making on her own behalf don't ring true. Of course I only say that because I am aware of things that others may not be privy to or understand in the context of a formal review.

Besides, the point I was making, was that she has been an atheist for what? A decade? And even a moderator, years ago, seemed to have no problem with it.

The Moderator of The United Church of Canada is a pastoral figure at best and a figurehead at worst. The position comes with no formal weight or authority outside of meetings of General Council or the Executive of General Council. Not that many in the Church are aware of that so I don't expect many outside of the Church to be aware of it.

Which is a big "so what?" as far as what a former or sitting moderator might think about anything.

Gretta would have an expectation by now that her lack of belief is tolerated in this setting.

If so then she operated out of ignorance. I cannot believe that the reverend Vosper was unaware of criticism about her public profession. It may be that she felt nobody would complain about it but to say that she expected her lack of belief to be tolerated by the whole of the Church is nonsensical.

Now, suddenly, it may not be. What changed?

A complaint was made against her. It happens to roughly 50 clergy in any given year for one reason or another. I'm sure many of them will allude that it comes right out of left field and catches them unawares. Some may even be honest in saying that.

Is it reasonable for Gretta to assume that her job is safe from any action against her for not believing?

No. I would not think it reasonable at all simply because The United Church of Canada, despite criticisms from our more strident brothers and sisters is still a Christian Church. Every time a proposal has gone to General Council to step away from a traditional Christian expression of faith it has been defeated. I was there the last time something of the sort came to General Council and not only did we defeat it we added more to the doctrine section than there was previously.

You would have to be willfully blind to not understand the message given in that.

And for those who are so blind the message is, The United Church of Canada is not getting rid of God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit any time soon.

That's how I read it. I could be wrong.

I appreciate that is how you read it. My read is vastly different.

As for who is wrong and who is right? At this point with nothing decided there is no way to tell which is which.

The fact that the reverend Vosper is granting interviews and sharing misinformation while waiting for the results of her appeal communicates to me that she is doing everything in her power to raise the spectre of bias against her. If she had a lawyer the lawyer would be telling her to shut up simply because her going public actually provides her employers with more ammunition about how she is not acting in their interests.

Up til now the court of public opinion has been very vocally in her camp. Save for some very confused atheists who think that if she really takes her atheism seriously and wants others to do likewise she should not be fighting to keep her job with a Church.

Should the day ever come that I find myself staring down a ministry review (and let me say that I did have a congregant accuse me of being a heretic once and she was every earnest--though ultimately very much mistaken about what constitutes heresy) I will not seek to have that review happen outside of the appropriate body for such a review. If I feel that I have been abused by the process then I will take the most appropriate action open to me at that time.

As one who has responsibility for exercising oversight of both congregations and clergy in Erie Presbytery I know the importance of clear communication and nothing in a review of any kind goes public until all parties involved have had a chance to vet the information and attest to its accuracy.

 

[BetteTheRed]

...

It was dialogue between the reverend Vosper, a colleague known to hold a decidedly contrary position to the reverend Vosper and it took place in that arms length instrument which is geared to the interests of the UCCAN.

Anyone else remember that or did I just dream that it happened?
....

I think I remember it happening on the CBC, Radio 1, dunno what program.

 

[revjohn]

I think I remember it happening on the CBC, Radio 1, dunno what program.

I was specifically referring to a conversation between the two reverends that was printed in the Observer. I am not personally aware of them having other conversations elsewhere.

The Reverend Vosper is not particularly shy or reticent in sharing what it is that she believes.

The only way that doesn't represent dialogue is if there is nobody listening at the other end.

That is not the case clearly.

Now one party who was listening has raised a complaint about what was heard.

Which brings us to here.

It isn't the Church brass initiating a complaint or trumping up some contrived excuse for an investigation.

It is people with certain responsibilities responding to what their responsibilities oblige them to respond to.

And, if I might also add, not seeming to be terribly pleased about being asked to do that.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I am only one person in the court of public opinion but I don't believe, when one digs underneath the semantics, that including Gretta makes the UCCan any less of a Christian church in essence. She has brought a few into community from the progressive end of the spectrum who otherwise might not be there, she has helped bring some healing to those harmed by religion in the past, she has helped some atheists to look at the benefits of being a church, she has challenged an antiquated system of doing things, she has even (to my surprise) been invited to speak in a Baptist church - she is looking for common ground with or without God (however, I feel God is very much involved anyway - no matter by what name one calls it) - at least with or without the antiquated version of what God is that both fundementalists and today's atheists do/ do not believe in.

If God is Love, and Gretta preaches Love - what's the issue? If she preaches about peace and social justice, what's the issue?

It is still rooted in a particular understanding of Christian values.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I feel Jesus was the kind of guy more interested in how we're taught to behave with others in the world, rather than enforcing rules regarding what to believe. Even the Biblical stories reflect that. There are some too uncomfortable with taking that all the way to the point of not mentioning Jesus, as a rule. The question for a Christian church is, what would Jesus think about that. Would he be gracious about not being named as a central character, or would he be happy about the community building and social justice? He sacrificed himself for that cause. His definition of faithful, it seems to me, was people believing living in a way that sees through the superfluous institutional rules and is just to and healing to humanity. Abstractly, it's still being done through Jesus, in his name, at the root of it, and UCCan provided the open door. Why shut it now?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

The phrase "don't cling to me, I have not yet ascended" keeps coming to mind.

 

[Luce NDs]

Is question noxious to the stoic ... and can't abide with emotions and thus change position?

If this happens will we be out of here or just defined as outlanders ... fringe populations? Is the grass greener on the edge of BS?

Greensleeves!

 

[revjohn]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/ration...t-clergy-colleagues-agree-on-many-things-but/

 

[crazyheart]

Thanks John

 

[revsdd]

I had a phone call from a parishioner today asking me about Gretta. In all the years she's been around I think that's only the third time a parishioner has brought her up. And I think in this case the curiosity wasn't so much about Gretta as it was how the new minister would respond to the question.

 

[Luce NDs]

Pathe; pain ... Oz; power ....

The power of pain to learn things beyond our mortal light ... in the darkness of the Shadow?

Thus the things hidden in the grey matter ...