Survey of UCC ministers

[chansen]

And yeah, I guess you could do that. I'm just saying that, in this case, in this denomination, I think that's wrong. First, they let her go on too long, and they let a community grow. They bet on her failing, she did not fail, and now they want to take their marbles home. Second, I don't think her presence is a bad thing. I think she has been marginalized and hidden when possible, when she could be promoted from within, along with others of different beliefs. You guys could use someone like her. There is open dialogue and common ground to be found.

 

[paradox3]

To stretch the vegan restaurant analogy a little further, at what point does it cease to be a vegan restaurant? How many pork chops need to be served before it becomes a cafe of a different description?

No one is denying said restaurant serves nourishing food.

 

[chansen]

To stretch the vegan restaurant analogy a little further, at what point does it cease to be a vegan restaurant? How many pork chops need to be served before it becomes a cafe of a different description?

Ask any vegan. The answer is, "One."

And if you are bent on remaining pure as the driven snow, great. But you're not pure. You're not the vegan restaurant. You've already got lots of pork chops. Maybe 5% of your fridge. One pork chop just dared to call herself a pork chop.

 

[Jaebius]

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.

I feel it goes deeper than that. If someone lacks faith, how can they have received a genuine call to ministry? And without such a genuine call, who are they truly serving.

 

[chansen]

Satan. Pretty sure it's Satan.

 

[revsdd]

Just to reiterate my position.

First, I'd have left the thing alone and let time and God sort it out. I don't think there will be winners coming out of this.

Second, if there needed to be a review - yeah, it probably should have been done when West Hill started to split apart years ago.

Third, I don't think it would be unreasonable, if we're going to review Gretta, to also review the current state of West Hill.

Fourth, I think that if the review goes forward, Gretta has to be found ineffective and removed. I just don't see any other reasonable outcome given our statements of doctrine and our expectations of ministers.

Fifth, I don't think that the United Church should allow itself to be defined by either the dismissive attitude of more fundamentalist churches toward us, or by the growing secular path taken by society as a whole. I believe that there is an important path to be walked between those two, and that the United Church plays a valuable role as a liberal and socially progressive voice for Christianity. chansen may not think our voice is loud or shrill enough, but that's largely because the attention is attracted to those who are the most outrageous. We do, however, learn from Scripture that God sometimes speaks through gentle whispers rather than raging fires or mighty earthquakes.

I do have to agree with a point Richard made. For all that chansen talks about discussing things with her informally, etc., etc., at times in the past handling things informally has resulted in a lot of legal costs and a lot of financial costs to the United Church for not following proper procedures. Like it or not, following proper procedures is important.

It's also worth noting, because chansen keeps bringing up Gretta's good relationship with West Hill, that she would not be the first minister to be removed from a congregation in spite of having the support of the vast majority of the congregation. Being effective, as I said several days ago, does not equal being popular.

For now, I think I'll bow out of the discussion. I think everything's been said that can be said, at least until we find out what decision gets made at Toronto Conference this weekend. Since I'll be at Bay of Quinte Conference this weekend, I've already expressed the desire that we live stream the discussion at Toronto Conference on to a big screen and sell popcorn to raise money for M&S!

 

[chansen]

I'm quite happy to agree with you on your first three points. Even on point one, I'll happily tap my foot while you wait for the response. Yes the review should have been a decade ago or more. And yes, if you're going to go this route, you've got to review the congregation as well. Otherwise, they'll just go looking for another Gretta, and you'll be back in a fight with them.

On four, I'd like to think there is a way around DSL'ing her. There is always a way.

And I agree that you should ignore the fundamentalists, and not simply follow secular society. I've never said you should not believe as a denomination. I think you could open yourselves up to more avenues and learn to coexist. Nothing much would change. You would have to acknowledge the existence of people who already exist in your organization, and their right to exist within it and advocate for their understanding of the world. You'd get a lot of John 14:6 thrown in your face. Big deal.

 

[Waterfall]

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


Nobody is being crucified.

This is not an inquisition.

Nobody is a thief.

.

It was an analogy comparing the situation to Barabbas and Jesus. If the United Church chooses to keep Gretta on, would she not have hijacked one of your churches with the UCC's approval and contributed to the fact that Jesus is of less importance?

 

[BetteTheRed]

It was an analogy comparing the situation to Barabbas and Jesus. If the United Church chooses to keep Gretta on, would she not have hijacked one of your churches with the UCC's approval and contributed to the fact that Jesus is of less importance?

It makes absolutely no sense as an analogy. It's needlessly divisive, and unkind to those who have come to believe as Gretta does; it is an absolutely logical place to end up, for someone brought up on the UCCan new curriculum of the 60s and educated in the seminary of the 80s, deeply imbued with feminist and process theologies. "Hijacking" one of our churches, as if there weren't FAR too many congregations sitting with far too few bums in the pews to keep them vibrantly alive. It costs the church as a whole nothing to keep West Hill where it is, and in fact, from a cash flow point of view (rather than the artificiality of property values), brings in yearly dues to Presbytery that trickle up to Conference and General Council.

 

[revjohn]

Just to reiterate my position.

First, I'd have left the thing alone and let time and God sort it out. I don't think there will be winners coming out of this.

Agreed.

Second, if there needed to be a review - yeah, it probably should have been done when West Hill started to split apart years ago.

Agreed.

Third, I don't think it would be unreasonable, if we're going to review Gretta, to also review the current state of West Hill.

Agreed.

Fourth, I think that if the review goes forward, Gretta has to be found ineffective and removed. I just don't see any other reasonable outcome given our statements of doctrine and our expectations of ministers.

On the fence. Most of us are assuming that the questions put to the Reverend Vosper will focus on essential agreement to doctrinal statements. If that assumption is correct I would concur with you, by claiming to be an atheist she takes a position of essential disagreement to our doctrinal statements. What if, for example those aren't the questions put to her but the Reverend Vosper is asked to revisit the vows undertaken at her ordination?

Those questions being:
1) "Do you believe in God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and do you commit yourself anew to God?
2) "Do you believe that God is calling you to the ordained ministry of Word, sacrament and pastoral care, and do you accept this call?"
3) "Are you willing to exercise your ministry in accordance with the scriptures, in continuity with the faith of the Church, and subject to the oversight and discipline of The United Church of Canada?"

Is it unreasonable to see any series of answers given as indicators that the Reverend Vosper is ineffective and ought to be removed?

I ask because I took vows at my wedding. If Kimberly ever doubted my committment to those vows asking me to make them again may not provide sufficient grounds for Kimberly to regret doubting my commitment.

Frankly, I cannot see the Reverend Vosper answering yes honestly to questions 1 and 2.

Fifth, I don't think that the United Church should allow itself to be defined by either the dismissive attitude of more fundamentalist churches toward us, or by the growing secular path taken by society as a whole.

Agreed. If anything the question is can we be true to who we say we are and not how true are we to the expectations of others.

I do have to agree with a point Richard made. For all that chansen talks about discussing things with her informally, etc., etc., at times in the past handling things informally has resulted in a lot of legal costs and a lot of financial costs to the United Church for not following proper procedures. Like it or not, following proper procedures is important.

Yes and no.

As soon as a court of oversight is involved there should be no informal conversation. In fact, all parties should keep quiet. Going public only serves to stir the proverbial pot. Get legal help if you think it is warranted, bring along an advocate to protect your interests. Other than that, talk with the review panel and nobody else.

Clearly Metropolitan, could have contacted the Reverend Vosper if their concern was her and her alone. We have no proof that such is the case.

For now, I think I'll bow out of the discussion. I think everything's been said that can be said, at least until we find out what decision gets made at Toronto Conference this weekend.

Well, the only thing that will be settled is whether or not Toronto Conference wants to reconsider the motion to reinitiate the review and possibly whether or not the review will still happen.

If the review process is allowed to remain standing then we will have to wait for the review to happen, recommendations presented to the Executive or Sub-Executive, and then a motion from either court.

I'm happy to wait until such time as there is actually a conclusion of some kind to talk further

Hamilton Conference has decided not to hold an AGM this year. I could still drive to Guelph for the Ordination service.

If I felt like it.

 

[revjohn]

It was an analogy comparing the situation to Barabbas and Jesus.

Which would work if we had comparables to either in play. The Reverend Vosper is no more Barabbas than she is Jesus and vice versa.

If the United Church chooses to keep Gretta on, would she not have hijacked one of your churches with the UCC's approval and contributed to the fact that Jesus is of less importance?

A number of points.

First, The United Church of Canada will not choose to keep Gretta on. Toronto Conference will be asked to reconsider a motion. It is a parliamentary rarity. It happens enough.

Depending on the result of that motion it will be the Toronto Conference of The United Church of Canada and not The United Church of Canada that will be taking action of one kind or another. The only thing the vote will answer is what Toronto Conference thinks should happen. The vote will not change the ruling given by the Executive Secretary of General Council, nor will it bind any other equal court (another Conference).

It will end this particular chapter save for the gnashing of teeth on both sides.

If the choice is made to reconsider the motion and stop the review The United Church of Canada is not approving anything. The Toronto Conference of The United Church of Canada will be saying that they do not believe there are reasonable grounds for a review at this time.

That is it. It still ends this particular chapter and there will still be gnashing of teeth on both sides.

Oh, and there will be no end of hot air and predictions of armageddon no matter what the final decision winds up being.

 

[Waterfall]

and no tables being overturned? Drat

 

[Waterfall]

It makes absolutely no sense as an analogy. It's needlessly divisive, and unkind to those who have come to believe as Gretta does; it is an absolutely logical place to end up, for someone brought up on the UCCan new curriculum of the 60s and educated in the seminary of the 80s, deeply imbued with feminist and process theologies. "Hijacking" one of our churches, as if there weren't FAR too many congregations sitting with far too few bums in the pews to keep them vibrantly alive. It costs the church as a whole nothing to keep West Hill where it is, and in fact, from a cash flow point of view (rather than the artificiality of property values), brings in yearly dues to Presbytery that trickle up to Conference and General Council.

\Needlessly divisive is calling the kettle black IMO, but hey whatever.
So you're saying because other churches aren't financially viable, that there is room for an atheist minister in the UCC?

 

[revjohn]

and no tables being overturned? Drat

That would be new theatre to me.

I still remember Budget discussion at Hamilton Conference AGM at University of Guelph in 1989 when somebody tossed a ream of flyers into the air. That was a great bit of theatre, alas most were still on a 1988 hangover and nobody wanted to go.

And I remember my first meeting of West District in 1998 when I thought the Chair was going to come to blows with another clergy person over the enabling motions. They gave me a whole seat but I only needed the edge!

Have yet to see any actual turning of tables or rending of garments.

 

[paradox3]

You've already got lots of pork chops. Maybe 5% of your fridge. One pork chop just dared to call herself a pork chop.

Agreed. We seem to have a few pork chops. 5% of the fridge.

But let the record show that it was chansen who first referred to G.V. as a "pork chop".

Imagine what this comment would look like taken out of context.

 

[Delightful Life]

It was an analogy comparing the situation to Barabbas and Jesus. If the United Church chooses to keep Gretta on, would she not have hijacked one of your churches with the UCC's approval and contributed to the fact that Jesus is of less importance?

It is still possible to be a vibrant theist even Christian and treat Jesus as the Way '-- loving ones neighbour as oneself never judging and holding that above all else
Just sombunall theists still need to think of Jesus as a 'real' person
And thats ok

(also remember that bit where Jeebus says that e there will be people who will do greater works than Him?)

Also the hijacking metaphor I dont think is.fair imho the only people who have a say in that would be her congregation. Hijacking implies stealing from some previous state.

 

[Pinga]

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

Hey chansen's, the last part asked and answered. People have asked metropolitan. They have no requirement to answer.

 

[Mendalla]

Agreed. We seem to have a few pork chops. 5% of the fridge.

But let the record show that it was chansen who first referred to G.V. as a "pork chop".

Imagine what this comment would look like taken out of context.

At least you're a Christian denomination. Can you imagine being called a pork chop in a Jewish or Islamic organization?

 

[Pinga]

So, about the survey results. Anyone surprised by the results?

 

[Delightful Life]

At least you're a Christian denomination. Can you imagine being called a pork chop in a Jewish or Islamic organization?

One muslims adventures in pork
Delightful observations including how pork has a strange smell (because ive been part of a porkBS all my life I never noticed that)

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/a-muslims-adventures-in-pork