Survey of UCC ministers

[Mendalla]

When it comes to ministry leadership, that whole "in essential agreement with the doctrine of The United Church of Canada," thing kicks in.

And, perhaps, that is where the problem lies. Essential agreement. Eliminate that, hold the clergy to the same doctrinal standards as the folks in the pews, and the Gretta problem goes away, does it not?

 

[chansen]

Chansen

You say no one reached out to Greta in all these years.

What do you base that assumption on? Your attendance at all her Presbytery meetings?

Gretta writing that no one from Metropolitan United ever contacted her, and Metropolitan United not disputing that at all.

I know from discussions with my minister that he has an unofficial support group of a half dozen ministers. People to share concerns, issues, get feedback...... I would think that most ministers have that type of support, that they create themselves from friends in ministry. When you work in a job whee you are the only one of a certain job , in a setting, you generally look for others to discuss stuff with.


To me the issue is not that a ministers ideas change over time. Of courrse they do. From reading, living, meeting, discussions, their own life journey. They may becime less ir more orthodox, The issue for Greta is , if she no longer can attest to the Christianity in our religion, then what are you doing here? With her current vocal stated beliefs, she would not be eligable for ordination. So is she eliglble to remain ordained?

Why are you asking me? Why isn't anyone sitting down with Gretta?

In fact, scratch that. Rev. Vosper has written about visiting and speaking to other UCCan congregations. Some literally have sat down with her. Interestingly, the congregation lodging the complaint was not one of them. Doesn't that just floor anyone other than me? That she actively goes out to explain herself to anyone who asks, yet a congregation that has never spoken to her, gets to initiate a review?

 

[chansen]

Well, to be a member in the UCCan, one has to be baptized, have made "a credible profession of faith," and been accepted as having done so by the congregational governing body.

If one is going to be on the congregational governing body, they need to be a member of the UCCan and the congregation, and they need to be elected to that role.

Someone's views on God may have changed since their baptism & profession of faith, and they may now be atheist. If their views are known to the congregation, and the congregation still elects them to the congregational governing body, then that is well within its right to do so.

When it comes to ministry leadership, that whole "in essential agreement with the doctrine of The United Church of Canada," thing kicks in.

Participation in other ways - including giving of time and resources - is up to the individual, member or not.

You guys are such victims of the changing demographics. It's not just young people who are abandoning faith - older people are as well. It's fascinating to watch, but you definitely have people who do not believe among your members. We know that just from Wondercafe. But what do you do? Do you actively alienate good people because they don't believe? Because that's what you'll do here.

To me, the answer is still to take the Gretta Vospers and anyone who even partly agrees with her, and have open, ongoing discussion about the nature of faith and God. Hell, rate congregations for how devout their beliefs are so no one is caught unawares. You already have a wide spectrum of beliefs. Embrace it, rate it, promote it. Use her. Bring this discussion out in the open. Don't be so bloody offended that someone else doesn't believe. If your faith is so weak that you need a closed system to reinforce it, you're halfway to atheism yourself.

 

[RichardBott]

Chansen wrote, " That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about if Rev. Vosper could convince you that she should stay with the doctrine as is."

Then I'd leave them be to do their thing.

To do that, they'd have to show me how they are in essential agreement with the doctrine of the UCCan. That is the line that would force me to leave if I felt I had crossed it.

That doctrine allows for a hugely wide range of belief in God.

Chansen wrote, "So reach out before a complaint is made. Why aren't people asking Metropolitan United why this was not done?"

There is no requirement for informal conversation. Is it what I would do? Yes.

 

[chansen]

Why isn't the UCCan smacking down Metropolitan United? They don't know her, haven't talked to her, yet they have lodged a serious complaint that will initiate a legal process could cost a person her job. Based on what they've heard in the news. Where would similar complaints with similar potential outcomes be acceptable? Where would similar complaints with similar potential outcomes be grounds for legal action against the complainant?

 

[Waterfall]

@chansen, I'm listening to your dialogue here and I'm actually surprised at the patience most are having with your flawed arguments....how long should one have to listen to your dialogue and still have to make a decision that it's not in the best of interest of the church? Or should the church just go on and on without making a decision?

And who really cares if this issue should have been addressed years ago? What's done is done. It's here now and it's being addressed, much the same as other issues that were neglected by the church.

 

[Mendalla]

Why isn't the UCCan smacking down Metropolitan United?

@chansen, that's been explained how many times now? Met's action was entirely in-bounds as far as the manual is concerned and therefore there is nothing to smack them down for. They had a concern and they followed process in doing it. For the United Church to punish them for doing that would create a problem in and of itself. Organizations cannot simply change their rules on the fly or "smack down" people who actually follow the manual. That actually opens them up to legal action, too. Everything that has been done so far has been within the UCCan manual per various manual geeks on this board. Yes, they may well need to change their rules but, for now, Gretta falls under the current rules and as long as those rules are followed, the UCCan is in the right here. If they let her go and she sues, part of their case is that they had rules, that she knew the rules, and that the rules were followed.

I think I now know why you're going the self-employed route. You'd go nuts working for a corporation like the one I work for. Policies and procedures don't seem to be your thing.

 

[RichardBott]

Does it ever happen that franchisee A sends a complaint about franchisee B to head office, and head office investigates, and makes decisions about continuing the franchise with B, on the basis of that investigation?

They may do nothing. They may end the relationship. They may change the rules. But it's up to the company, not the franchisee.

If you're looking for "outside UCCan" analogies, this one is the closest I can think of.

 

[chansen]

I think I now know why you're going the self-employed route. You'd go nuts working for a corporation like the one I work for. Policies and procedures don't seem to be your thing.

LMAO. You have no idea how right you are. I don't care about formal rules at all. I care about doing the right thing.

 

[revjohn]

LMAO. You have no idea how right you are. I don't care about formal rules at all. I care about doing the right thing.

And Formal Rules and the right thing are always mutually exclusive?

 

[Waterfall]

LMAO. You have no idea how right you are. I don't care about formal rules at all. I care about doing the right thing.

And the right thing is to crucify the church and give the thief her freedom?

 

[chansen]

And Formal Rules and the right thing are always mutually exclusive?

No. Never said that and never inferred it.

I do think that the right thing here, is to do as Richard said he would do, and try to gain a better understanding before subjecting the church to a review. The open offer is there on Rev. Vosper's website. When you act against someone based on what you perceive is their opinion, without even *trying* to talk to them and understand them better, I think that's wrong. Whether it is allowed by church policy or not.

 

[chansen]

And the right thing is to crucify the church and give the thief her freedom?

You've already convicted her. What has she stolen? Why is she so threatening to you?

 

[Waterfall]

You've already convicted her. What has she stolen? Why is she so threatening to you?

Nice twist, not going to fall for it.

 

[chansen]

Nice twist, not going to fall for it.

In all sincerity, fall for what? You are the one who called her a "thief". I asked, "What has she stolen?"

If you are going to call someone a thief, I think asking what makes her a thief, or at least a threat, are reasonable questions.

 

[chansen]

No. Never said that and never inferred it.

I do think that the right thing here, is to do as Richard said he would do, and try to gain a better understanding before subjecting the church to a review. The open offer is there on Rev. Vosper's website. When you act against someone based on what you perceive is their opinion, without even *trying* to talk to them and understand them better, I think that's wrong. Whether it is allowed by church policy or not.

Let me build on this and agree with the policy for a second. This policy is good in serious situations, perhaps where potential personal harm is taking place. Then there is no time for reaching out and discussion. Perhaps the police need to be called as well. Allowing this sort of complaint in certain circumstances is absolutely warranted, and I would not suggest the option be removed for this reason.

This was not an acute situation. If anything, it was festering, but not acute. No person was ever in danger. I simply maintain that it was a situation that called for discussion, not legal action. What could have been used to generate discussion and interest, is now a proceeding with no winners, and plenty of losers. And I think, assuming the available information is correct and Metropolitan United Church never even bothered to call Rev. Vosper, that they (or at least 10 of their number) are responsible for the fallout. I think they could have mitigated that by actually meeting with her, and still complaining if their worst fears ended up being justified.

 

[revjohn]

And the right thing is to crucify the church and give the thief her freedom?

I think it is time that we reign the rhetoric in a smidge.

In a nutshell this is an Employer (The United Church of Canada)/Employee (The Rev. Gretta Vosper) dialogue in which the Employee needs to satisfy her Employer that she is not undermining her Employer in any way.

There are elements which make this look different. Appearances can be deceiving and it is best that we make every attempt to not be deceived by what is going on.

Again, all any of us know at the moment is that Metropolitan United Church wrote a letter to the Executive of Toronto Conference. None of us have ever seen the letter and all we know about the content of the letter is how it was characterized for the Minutes of that meeting.

Post # 585 on this thread: http://wondercafe2.ca/index.php?threads/are-you-ready-to-rumble.1548/page-30 reiterates what "we" outside of the parties mentioned and the Executive of Toronto Conference actually know.

Nobody is being crucified.

This is not an inquisition.

Nobody is a thief.

And nobody needs to continue finding fresh hyperbole.

A proposal is before Toronto Conference which meets this coming weekend to decide whether or not the motion to reinitiate the review should be reconsidered.

Members of Toronto Conference should probably avoid discussing how they plan to vote and the rest of us simply do not get a vote.

 

[revjohn]

And I think, assuming the available information is correct and Metropolitan United Church never even bothered to call Rev. Vosper, that they (or at least 10 of their number) are responsible for the fallout.

This presumes that they actually did ask for a review of the Reverend Vosper and did not ask another question that the Sub-executive, in considering, felt was best answered by a formal review. When the correspondence was summarized it was not summarized as a request for a formal review. It was summarized as a question about what is/isn't in bounds.

The Reverend Vosper says nobody from Metropolitan approached her. That may be because the question to Toronto Conference Executive was not technically about her. It may be that the Reverend Vosper was simply lifted up as an example and that the result is no different than MPP Delaney asking the police for advice about a constant complainer instead of ordering Police to arrest her.

Hard to say when the contents of that initial letter still remain unknown to all who are commenting. If there had been something against the Reverend Vosper specifically I believe she would have made that known publicly.

In the end it is less about what Metropolitan asked and more about the answer that Toronto Conference gave.

I think they could have mitigated that by actually meeting with her, and still complaining if their worst fears ended up being justified.

Again, presuming that they asked for a review and not some other question that the Toronto Conference Executive thought the review best answered.

 

[GordW]

And, perhaps, that is where the problem lies. Essential agreement. Eliminate that, hold the clergy to the same doctrinal standards as the folks in the pews, and the Gretta problem goes away, does it not?

In theory perhaps. But then we have to get back to the question of what makes one an appropriate leader within a faith tradition (any faith tradition). If one denies or does not believe in the basic tenets of the faith I submit that person is not appropriate to be a leader. AS has been pointed out before, it is like wanting to be PResident of the local Legion (or Rotary or Lions or...) while refusing to agree to support the stated objectives of the organization.

 

[paradox3]

In theory perhaps. But then we have to get back to the question of what makes one an appropriate leader within a faith tradition (any faith tradition). If one denies or does not believe in the basic tenets of the faith I submit that person is not appropriate to be a leader. AS has been pointed out before, it is like wanting to be PResident of the local Legion (or Rotary or Lions or...) while refusing to agree to support the stated objectives of the organization.

Or as the Reverend Connie den Bok has suggested, serving pork chops in a vegan restaurant. And then discovering there are others who want to come and join up to eat pork chops.