The Rev. Vosper Again

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
Pr. Jae said:
When it comes to theology, one's theory and one's praxis should go hand-in-hand. One cannot be a faithful servant of God if one doesn't believe in God in the first place.
Click to expand...
Then let God kick her out.

What? He can't? Or does God literally work through committees? Because I'm not aware of very many UCCAN committees that have appeared to be divinely inspired.
 
chansen said:
Then let God kick her out.

What? He can't? Or does God literally work through committees? Because I'm not aware of very many UCCAN committees that have appeared to be divinely inspired.
Click to expand...

The general argument is that the Holy Spirit inspires those who work in the church so, yeah, God literally works through the committee. Of course, as a pantheist, I believe we are all part of "God" so I guess I could actually say that "God" is doing the work of the church (except my understanding of God doesn't really work that way).
 
Mendalla said:
The general argument is that the Holy Spirit inspires those who work in the church so, yeah, God literally works through the committee in the case.
Click to expand...

Moreover, I believe that God has the ability to work through anyone he so chooses.
 
GordW said:
OTOH, the more noise the folks at West Hill make, the more they may open the congregation itself up to review as to whether it fits the definition and expectations of a UCCan congregation.
Click to expand...
Now the congregation isn't sufficiently gullible. It know that's the business you're in, but it still seems far-fetched to hold someone's lack of buy-in to things others insist without evidence, as a reason to turf them. I guess I just never really thought about it that way, that non-belief could be a good reason to expel anybody. But I guess if you're worried about non-belief spreading, you have to nip it in the bud before it catches.

Still, non-belief has already kicked the s**t out of your denomination. This is a case of non-believers finding a way to stay, so you're making sure they leave. Unhappy with the damage done by lack of faith, you're now going to make sure you maximize it. As an observer, this is fascinating to watch.
 
May the flames of emotion continue ... and we outlanders maintain wisdom as required in the muddied river of St IHCs ... a sacred thing unknown to the emotional polity!

Allows us a' post oily baffling ... as holes in the mist often are ... fence the animas out ... which is in when viewed from the perspective of warped Black Hole things ... the great Iris as Oz um nothing ... making up the zero integration ruse ... thus few are cranked an dis crewed on a slow bote to ... chi gnaw ...
 
If you're the UCCan, the time to announce a divisive decision like this is this afternoon. Everyone is thinking of the long weekend. The story will get buried. By the time people are paying attention to current events again, it will be stale.

They won't announce anything today, of course. They will choose the worst possible time to maximize the damage. It's what they do, and then members complain about how Gretta knows how to use the media, and won't say a thing about how their denomination is so inept at it.

I'd love to be wrong. I doubt I will be.
 
Although I don't know the details of the process Toronto Conference is using, it's possible (as Gord suggested above) that there are other parts of the process still to happen aside from one interview with Greta, and in any case I highly doubt that there's been a decision made yet. It's not a simple "yes or no, in or out" decision. There are a variety of possibilities in between.

Were I in charge of the thing (I'm not - phew!) I'd release a decision allowing her to stay in the pulpit pending completion of a course of study on United Church doctrine, United Church history, United Church polity and pastoral skills. The first three because Greta hasn't demonstrated a grasp of any of that in her public comments, the fourth because of the way the West Hill split seems to have been handled pastorally - which is to say that Greta doesn't seem to have acted very pastorally in her attitude toward those who disagreed with her. After completion of those courses, I'd require a second interview with her.

If Greta refused to do the required course of study, then she'd be demonstrating an unwillingness to abide by the discipline of the church, which would make her more subject to removal - but it would be her decision.

A colleague suggested recently (and I'm sympathetic to this) that if she's removed then the congregation (probably unwilling to stay in the UCC without her anyway) should be given the option of simply taking the building and continuing on as a Community Church - or at the very least renting the building for a nominal fee.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that the fit of the community style remits coming down the pipes?

Oh Danny Boy ... they call ... like belles tolling ... the only way to improve an institution ... bring it down to the Runes ...
 
revsdd said:
Although I don't know the details of the process Toronto Conference is using, it's possible (as Gord suggested above) that there are other parts of the process still to happen aside from one interview with Greta, and in any case I highly doubt that there's been a decision made yet. It's not a simple "yes or no, in or out" decision. There are a variety of possibilities in between.

Were I in charge of the thing (I'm not - phew!) I'd release a decision allowing her to stay in the pulpit pending completion of a course of study on United Church doctrine, United Church history, United Church polity and pastoral skills. The first three because Greta hasn't demonstrated a grasp of any of that in her public comments, the fourth because of the way the West Hill split seems to have been handled pastorally - which is to say that Greta doesn't seem to have acted very pastorally in her attitude toward those who disagreed with her. After completion of those courses, I'd require a second interview with her.

If Greta refused to do the required course of study, then she'd be demonstrating an unwillingness to abide by the discipline of the church, which would make her more subject to removal - but it would be her decision.

A colleague suggested recently (and I'm sympathetic to this) that if she's removed then the congregation (probably unwilling to stay in the UCC without her anyway) should be given the option of simply taking the building and continuing on as a Community Church - or at the very least renting the building for a nominal fee.
Click to expand...
Simply taking courses, though, isn't enough to give one Christian beliefs. The UCCanada might still have an atheist in one of its pulpits. As for the church, whyever should they be given the building they meet in for free? Let them buy it or rent it if they want to carry on as a non-UCCanada organization.
 
What is exactly wrong with not sucking up to, or getting sucked into fixed theology ... when God is much more extensive than how St Oics would like to have Jaired the ole boi?

Jae you certainly must expand your shadow psyche (GOOGLE it) to get into the ghostly ethereal stuff that goes on indeterminately ... counter to determinates down here in this emotional Maas we've created ...

Rome antics did way with the eternal and nothing singularities as indicated by Einstein in the electrifying relativity that came out of I=ER ... and the eternal made one ER' ... quite wind sore like ...

With manipulation your can come up with E=m x C^2 ... for square pages that do etudes on science presented in myths ... so the smart asses won't know we're meditating of greater's Tuff ... thus the cognizant grinding ... and rye flouring ... some say such Eros is dark ... but they are still burning things ...
 
revsdd said:
Were I in charge of the thing (I'm not - phew!) I'd release a decision allowing her to stay in the pulpit pending completion of a course of study on United Church doctrine, United Church history, United Church polity and pastoral skills. The first three because Greta hasn't demonstrated a grasp of any of that in her public comments, the fourth because of the way the West Hill split seems to have been handled pastorally - which is to say that Greta doesn't seem to have acted very pastorally in her attitude toward those who disagreed with her.
Click to expand...

If we're gonna hypothetically suggest Gretta has not acted pastoral in her public comments, then we have to also look at the UCCan ministers who have used social media as a soap box against Gretta, who were like Tea Party protesters compared to Gretta. If we're going to require a pastoral course for Gretta because of her public comments, then we have to include those other ministers as well.
 
Soap Box ministers that would wash their han's of genteel spirits involved in secular work?

Is that proud catharsis or what?

Han's: metaphor of Jahns, and common John's thoughts on the lighter handed ones ... those picking up loaded souls?

Sort of like air flowers ... orchid striations ... that's φ'η & Dan Di as Anna ... S'anna Anna being an arid wind ... best to keep a pot steaming for whetting the Eire ... ole word for poem I'z sole as a fishy legend to question thoroughly ... then to the Hebrew the soul was a particularly fishy thing in the dark deeps ... Shadow Domains?

Then what do we really know about the deeps of psyche ... a subtle nun-thingy?
 
chansen said:
If we're gonna hypothetically suggest Gretta has not acted pastoral in her public comments, then we have to also look at the UCCan ministers who have used social media as a soap box against Gretta, who were like Tea Party protesters compared to Gretta. If we're going to require a pastoral course for Gretta because of her public comments, then we have to include those other ministers as well.
Click to expand...

Except her public comments and social media activity isn't why Steven is suggesting a pastoral care course. If you read his whole comment, he is suggesting it because of how she handled members of her own charge who were unhappy with her ministry. Like @paradox3. If those other ministers have not caused major rifts in their congregations, it does not really apply.

revsdd said:
the fourth because of the way the West Hill split seems to have been handled pastorally - which is to say that Greta doesn't seem to have acted very pastorally in her attitude toward those who disagreed with her.
Click to expand...

Pr. Jae said:
Simply taking courses, though, isn't enough to give one Christian beliefs. The UCCanada might still have an atheist in one of its pulpits.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If they ask her to take courses, they are simply delaying the inevitable. Perhaps it will help her in handling her relations with the rest of the church, but it is unlikely it will lead to a moment of revelation where she "returns to God".

Pr. Jae said:
As for the church, whyever should they be given the building they meet in for free? Let them buy it or rent it if they want to carry on as a non-UCCanada organization.
Click to expand...

What the UCCan does with the church is really their problem. If I was in that Presbytery (which is the level of the church likely to get stuck dealing with that issue), I'd be cool with renting it to them at some kind of fair market value. I would not be happy if they got it for free or for a song, esp. if my own church was renting at commercial rates or something.
 
Mendalla said:
Except her public comments and social media activity isn't why Steven is suggesting a pastoral care course. If you read his whole comment, he is suggesting it because of how she handled members of her own charge who were unhappy with her ministry. Like @paradox3. If those other ministers have not caused major rifts in their congregations, it does not really apply.
Click to expand...
Seems I misread that bit. I thought Steven was talking more about the split in the denomination over her.

I would still suggest that some of the comments online from other ministers are grounds for complaints.
 
Pr. Jae said:
Simply taking courses, though, isn't enough to give one Christian beliefs. The UCCanada might still have an atheist in one of its pulpits. As for the church, whyever should they be given the building they meet in for free? Let them buy it or rent it if they want to carry on as a non-UCCanada organization.
Click to expand...
Mainly, it would be an act of goodwill toward someone who is being removed from her job, not because she is abusive or hurt anybody, but because she doesn't agree with the theological position of the denomination that the denomination had not started enforcing until now. They let the congregation get to this point. They ignored it so long, perhaps assuming it would die on its own like so many of their congregations which did profess belief (belief in God apparently not being an accurate predictor of the the viability of a congregation). This one didn't, it avoided closing, and now it's growing. As I've said before, the UCCan gambled, and they lost.

That simple act of goodwill may go a long way in convincing many UCCan members, spread across Canada and who also do not believe in God (much to the consternation of the more credulous leaders), that they really don't want to punish Gretta, as much as they want to make sure their ministers believe. Perhaps many of them will be more satisfied with that result than a more punitive one that also punishes the congregation for not believing. Gord already mentioned the possibility of reviewing the congregation next. If they did, I would be inclined to join the congregation at the last minute just so I could be in on that review. Could you imagine that? How badly that could go for the UCCan?

As it is, this is going nowhere good for the UCCan. If the purists get their way and Gretta is DSL'ed, her congregation disbanded and the building sold out from under them, there will be hell to pay. Gretta has quite a few admirers across Canada. If she decided to go to the UUs, that would be quite the shot in the arm for them.

I'm guessing Steven is close to the truth, and the committee will find some way to censure her symbolically, take some courses, and that's it. They know the courses won't change her because the courses can't convince her why she should suddenly start believing again. There is no demonstrable reason to believe, and what Gretta has shown is that you don't need to believe to be a good person. The church is holding an empty bag, and if they interview her again, that will just generate another round of media scrutiny. I'm thinking she will be allowed to continue, because the other options are just too messy.
 
chansen said:
Seems I misread that bit. I thought Steven was talking more about the split in the denomination over her.

I would still suggest that some of the comments online from other ministers are grounds for complaints.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to comments on the United Church of Canada Facebook page, that's a place I choose not to go. I personally haven;t seen public comments anywhere else from anyone that I think would be grounds for a review.

What I said about Greta's public comments was that in them she has shown pretty much no understanding of United Church doctrine, history or polity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top