My mom has records from her home United church in New Brunswick which seem to say that no one paid for the construction of their building. It's an older church, and the records suggest that people from the community just volunteered the materials and labor to construct the building. My Grandfather helped put on the original roof. I wonder how many churches across Canada were constructed in such a way.
The Rev. Vosper Again
- Thread starter crazyheart
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
My mom has records from her home United church in New Brunswick which seem to say that no one paid for the construction of their building. It's an older church, and the records suggest that people from the community just volunteered the materials and labor to construct the building. My Grandfather helped put on the original roof. I wonder how many churches across Canada were constructed in such a way.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Probably lots if you go back far enough. So if the congregation built the building and bought the land, and it was held in trust by the greater church, what should happen when the greater church tells the congregation that evolved from the original congregation to leave the greater church? Under this scenario, the church profits from kicking an entire congregation to the curb.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Generally the congregation would have "bought the place" and/or "paid for land and construction." Which doesn't matter. All property of a United Church congregation is held in trust for the United Church of Canada. IE, the United Church of Canada "owns" the property. That's been tested through the courts in cases dating back to the 80's when some congregations tried to leave the United Church and "take the building with them" because of the gay ordination debate and decision. Wanna leave the United Church? No problem. Wanna take the building with you? Problem. That's part of the United Church of Canada Act. The law of the land. There are a handful of exceptions which wouldn't apply in the case of West Hill. Part of the deal you make as a United Church congregation. Part of the deal is also being subject to the oversight of the United Church and being a part of a three-way (as opposed to a two way) covenant. West Hill and Greta both seem to have some difficulty getting their heads around those basic principles of UCCan polity.
By the way, no one is telling or would tell West Hill United Church to leave. Some (even all) at West Hill might choose to leave because of disagreements with the denomination. That's their choice - as in the example above of conservative congregations, none of whom were told to leave. They simply disagreed with the denomination and felt they couldn't stay.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I figured that was the case with the building, but under the circumstances, a sweetheart deal might be the best solution, because to completely abandon them to the curb would be seen as harsh. The optics would be bad.
As for the West Hill the congregation, Gord seemed to think that a review of the congregation was possible. And it's pretty damn obvious that they are by now just as far removed from essential agreement as Gretta is. You have a congregation of mostly atheists. If you DSL Gretta, that's the next problem.
What if the congregation mostly decided to stay? Then they would be looking for another minister. So it stands to reason that they will look for someone with similar theology to Gretta. Who won't be acceptable to the church. Unless....they stay quiet? Is that the litmus test?
As for the West Hill the congregation, Gord seemed to think that a review of the congregation was possible. And it's pretty damn obvious that they are by now just as far removed from essential agreement as Gretta is. You have a congregation of mostly atheists. If you DSL Gretta, that's the next problem.
What if the congregation mostly decided to stay? Then they would be looking for another minister. So it stands to reason that they will look for someone with similar theology to Gretta. Who won't be acceptable to the church. Unless....they stay quiet? Is that the litmus test?
Roue's are rules are ruse ... considering the situation of when we should have plastic and learning mind-dead souls ... so the psyche could avoid the natural emotional trend ... thus the out-of-Eire attribute ... threshold to an internal cos Moes, or Moos!
I do love people that would allow some tolerance in the church regarding Saggasiez and PharaSeize ... droopy ginas as va*grant?
Granted it is a going thing ... unlike many mines ... that are concrete and not a bit of grace ... a' given ... like a' theos ... a persona from Grecian myth for ageism-related people that should've learned the difference of β (beta) and the Latin form ß which is equivalent as "S" that could lead integration if eX is added as something around the outside, or the thorn in your butt to contain it ... you've heard of Heiß ... first name Rudolph as an agent of God the Fuhrer ... an odd, particular emotional sort! Potentially bipolar and not aware of his cognizant dissonance ... conflict within!
I do love people that would allow some tolerance in the church regarding Saggasiez and PharaSeize ... droopy ginas as va*grant?
Granted it is a going thing ... unlike many mines ... that are concrete and not a bit of grace ... a' given ... like a' theos ... a persona from Grecian myth for ageism-related people that should've learned the difference of β (beta) and the Latin form ß which is equivalent as "S" that could lead integration if eX is added as something around the outside, or the thorn in your butt to contain it ... you've heard of Heiß ... first name Rudolph as an agent of God the Fuhrer ... an odd, particular emotional sort! Potentially bipolar and not aware of his cognizant dissonance ... conflict within!
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Well, if we consider the course of events, even not keeping quiet wasn't Greta's undoing. She had basically been left free to do and say her own thing. What got her in trouble was publicly attacking the moderator's prayer after a terrorist attack. Respectful dissent is allowed in the United Church - but attacking the moderator when the moderator is doing something that the vast majority of United Church members probably agrees with might be considered disrespectful rather than respectful dissent. My memory of her response was also that it came very close to a statement that "I'm right and all the rest of you are wrong and there's no middle ground and you need to get on board with me." A paraphrase, of course.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Now, I did tell @Pr. Jae that I'd give him a response about the reason for suggesting a directed course of study. I suggested four area could be covered. Three, I think are straightforward - pastoral care, because from the accounts I've heard from several people who left she didn't handle those who left West Hill very pastorally. United Church history and polity because her public statements have suggested that she's not very familiar with either, and since that's supposed to be part of the course of study for clergy, she should be. I also suggested doctrine.
Pr. Jae's point is that taking a course on theology or doctrine doesn't make one a Christian, and I agree with that. Greta's theological position, however, is rather nuanced. Frankly, she's not really an atheist. She just uses the word. She's basically said that. She uses it to distance herself from the traditional image of God; to reject the "supernatural, interventionist" God - but as far as I know she's been careful not to say that she doesn't believe in God in stark terms. To be honest, if I were still an atheist I'd be a little irritated by her, and probably accuse her of trying to sneakily trick atheists into coming to church and bring them to faith through the back door. But I'm not an atheist anymore, so, well, anyway. My purpose in having her take a course on doctrine would be not just to explore the formal doctrine of the United Church but also some of the less traditional Christian viewpoints out there. For example - panentheism, process theology and Christian universalism. I don't think her views are compatible with Christian universalism, but I sometimes have difficulty understanding how what she says differs from panentheism and especially process theology. It seems similar. So, why call yourself an "atheist." Why not proclaim adherence to or at least sympathy with one of those other expressions of Christian faith? I don't so much want to challenge her for being an atheist - because I don't think she really is an atheist. I want to challenge her perhaps for the disingenuousness involved in proclaiming herself an atheist when she isn't, and to get a clear understanding of why she doesn't subscribe to any of those alternative Christian viewpoints I described above. And I do understand that among some fundamentalist Christians those alternative viewpoints would be considered not Christian at all, but fundamentalist Christianity itself is only one subset of Christian faith.
If Greta could say that she would stop proclaiming herself an atheist - which is both disingenuous and not compatible with United Church doctrine - and if she could publicly embrace an alternative like panentheism or process theology, I think the whole problem would be solved. That would be my challenge to her, and I'd be interested in her response.
Pr. Jae's point is that taking a course on theology or doctrine doesn't make one a Christian, and I agree with that. Greta's theological position, however, is rather nuanced. Frankly, she's not really an atheist. She just uses the word. She's basically said that. She uses it to distance herself from the traditional image of God; to reject the "supernatural, interventionist" God - but as far as I know she's been careful not to say that she doesn't believe in God in stark terms. To be honest, if I were still an atheist I'd be a little irritated by her, and probably accuse her of trying to sneakily trick atheists into coming to church and bring them to faith through the back door. But I'm not an atheist anymore, so, well, anyway. My purpose in having her take a course on doctrine would be not just to explore the formal doctrine of the United Church but also some of the less traditional Christian viewpoints out there. For example - panentheism, process theology and Christian universalism. I don't think her views are compatible with Christian universalism, but I sometimes have difficulty understanding how what she says differs from panentheism and especially process theology. It seems similar. So, why call yourself an "atheist." Why not proclaim adherence to or at least sympathy with one of those other expressions of Christian faith? I don't so much want to challenge her for being an atheist - because I don't think she really is an atheist. I want to challenge her perhaps for the disingenuousness involved in proclaiming herself an atheist when she isn't, and to get a clear understanding of why she doesn't subscribe to any of those alternative Christian viewpoints I described above. And I do understand that among some fundamentalist Christians those alternative viewpoints would be considered not Christian at all, but fundamentalist Christianity itself is only one subset of Christian faith.
If Greta could say that she would stop proclaiming herself an atheist - which is both disingenuous and not compatible with United Church doctrine - and if she could publicly embrace an alternative like panentheism or process theology, I think the whole problem would be solved. That would be my challenge to her, and I'd be interested in her response.
Last edited:
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Which is your right, but not your call - since you don't belong to the United Church.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
No, but I read English pretty gud.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Gretta Vosper said:
Reference to belief in prayer to a supernatural, interventionist God as "idolatrous belief" is disrespectful to a church whose doctrines proclaim belief in a supernatural, interventionist God is disrespectful.
Asking the Moderator to lead the church in that direction is the suggestion that "I'm right - and you're wrong."
In fact the whole letter - as politely as it's written - reeks of "I'm right and you're wrong."
If she believes that then there are ways of making proposals to change the formal doctrine of the church, which would allow for a conversation and debate on the issue. Publicly challenging the moderator after such a horrible event, when I have no doubt that the Moderator summed up the feelings of the bulk of United Church members, and insisting that the church's formal doctrine is idolatrous and that the church needs to move in a different direction (which happens to be her direction) is not the appropriate or respectful way to go about it.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Actually, I think your point to Jae above is a good one, that Gretta probably isn't a true atheist, in that she may just be more of a deist. What I think she is doing with the atheist lable is pointing out just how despised that label is in the church, and pointing out that she does not believe in the God character from the bible.
As for her pastoral abilities with those who don't agree with her, we have nothing from her side of the story. We know how poorly Christians, even UCCan Christians, react to the word "atheist". We don't know that those situations were not simply the offended members picking a fight with her that they did not win. We certainly know that UCCan members are quick to play the "offended" card, so I don't think we can simply assume that Gretta's pastoral abilities are lacking in any way. She certainly gets top marks from her congregation today, who are obviously disappointed in not being heard in this entire review process. In a way, they are under review themselves. I think a lot more evidence gathering is necessary before we assume Gretta requires remedial classes in pastoral care.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
No. We can't assume that her pastoral skills are lacking. And we do need to hear her side. Which is why we have a review process.
Here we can only speculate based on what we've seen and heard. Based on what I've seen and heard I think some work on her pastoral skills would be valuable.
And the reaction, by the way, is not so much to the word "atheist" as to the incongruity of having a self-proclaimed atheist in a position which is supposed to be responsible, among other things, for teaching and preaching the faith of the church and for presiding at the sacraments of the church - which she doesn't do.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
The moderator's statement was tone deaf. Here are a group of non-believing satirists, who satirize Christianity as well as Islam, gunned down by a group of believers who used God as their justification. Invoking God in the response was just wrong. It wasn't a statement of support to the victims - it was a statement to make believers feel better about themselves. The Charlie Hebdo survivors weren't looking for more prayers. That was a moment when a more humanist approach with universal appeal would have been more appropriate, but when invoking God is all you know, I guess your hands are tied.
As for "I'm right and you're wrong", that's mostly what Gretta gets from the UCCan. Members and clergy. She's been under fire for years, so of course she is going to fight back some times. Overall, she has been quite restrained. But that statement from the moderator was wrong, and I'm glad someone from within had the temerity to say that out loud.
The only thing is Steven, I feel Rev. Vosper probably already knows about panentheism and process theology, yet chooses to call herself an atheist anyway. I appreciate the words of @chansen - "What I think she is doing with the atheist lable [sic] is pointing out just how despised that label is in the church, and pointing out that she does not believe in the God character from the bible [sic]." I feel that may be the case. If it is, she might just go on calling herself an atheist even after the courses you prescribe.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
We will disagree on the tone deafness of the Moderator's statement, which I think was the only possible response from a Christian church. As to "I'm right and you're wrong" - the United Church has an agreed upon set of doctrines which is relatively flexible - flexible enough to incorporate panentheism, process theology, Christian universalism and various ideas about the nature of Jesus. I don't think anyone's point is that the United Church must be right. The point is that this is where we are now. If Gretta disagrees there are channels and processes through which the church's doctrines can be challenged and debated. Gretta chooses not to do that because she knows she won't get her way. So, instead, she makes a public spectacle of her disagreement. Which actually strikes me as rather petulant. If she thinks the church should change its doctrine, let her write a formal proposal so that we can all debate it, rather than being mired in these never-ending online discussions that aren't going to lead anywhere - and often, as I'm sure you know - online discussions bring out the worst in people because of the lack of any face to face partner.
Anyway, I have a Canada Day funeral tomorrow that I have to work on, so probably won't be back into the discussion this afternoon.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
But again, that's not why she is being reviewed. She is being reviewed over "essential agreement".
And what if she does call herself an "atheist"? Why the hell should anybody care? At the end of the day, if you don't attend her church, I still can't see why it matters.
The UCCan let this happen. They gave her the rope. She didn't hang herself with it. Now you can just hear them in the background, muttering, "Damn damn damn...what do we do?"
I think you have to see where it goes.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
One last comment - which is why I said way back that after the required course of study there'd be a second interview, which would determine whether further action needed to be taken.
GordW
Church-Geek-Oramus
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Essentially the congregation pays for the land an building. Sometimes there have been times where grants or seed money have flowed from the wider church to assist with those initial costs. But Congregations are not separately incorporated bodies an so (as I have had it explained to me) they can not own the property outright. The legal corporation is the UCCan and so all property is held in trust for the denomination. Each congregation has a Board of Trustees and their names are on the title deed. However the property can not be disposed of (or, I believe mortgaged) without the permission of the Presbytery.