The Rev. Vosper Again

[Mendalla]

But the idea remains that you somehow keep her and the congregation under the UCCAN umbrella, while making some sort of distinction the Jesus believers can use to say she isn't a UCCan minister when other Christians tease them about her.

But if you create a status within the UCCan that essentially allows a congregation to operate outside the normal policies and processes of the church (e.g. presbyterial oversight), then you're going to have a long list of congregations wanting that status. Right wing churches opposed to ordaining and marrying LGBT people, other variations of progressive, even mainstream churches that have a standing grudge with presbytery. You're really opening a can of worms if you give WHUC and Gretta some kind of concession that lets them slip out of the usual structure of the church. In the end, by going that route you're probably going to force the UCCan become congregational to some degree even if it stays together. And I know not all UCCan folks on here want pure congregationalism. I'm happy being in a congregational church, but I know that having another level of oversight can be valuable when things go south in a congregation such that not everyone wants pure congregationalism.

 

[paradox3]

Our model of oversight did not stop this situation from arising in the first place.

I think that Toronto Conference did the right thing when it finally acted as it did. But it seems to be taking a fair bit of flak for its decisions to date.

 

[revsdd]

What @chansen is really suggesting is that the UCCan follow the road my Unitarian and Universalist forebears did and loosen the ties to that "church universal". In the case of the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America, the end result was Unitarian Universalism, which is quite explicitly not Christian (and, in fact, the AUA was already becoming fairly strongly humanist anyway).

No disrespect to the UUs intended, but I believe it was a great tragedy that the Universalist Church of America chose to join the Unitarians and ended up as the UUs, only because the UCA had a distinct but explicitly Christian theological perspective that's well represented throughout church history, but that really has no denomination of any significance now representing it.

 

[Mendalla]

No disrespect to the UUs intended, but I believe it was a great tragedy that the Universalist Church of America chose to join the Unitarians and ended up as the UUs, only because the UCA had a distinct but explicitly Christian theological perspective that's well represented throughout church history, but that really has no denomination of any significance now representing it.

I actually agree somewhat. The classical universalist Christian perspective is one that has kind of gotten lost in UU'ism (in fact, Univeralism was openly attacked at one point by some of the old school humanist Unitarians in my church who had been around pre-merger). Forrest Church and others have tried to bring it back to the fore but have also put a new, less theistic, slant on it (universality of spiritual truth rather than universality of grace). In my own congregation, I have been a voice for a universalist perspective of sorts (that kind of falls in between the two perspectives) at times as have some of our other more theistic members, but it has been a bit of a losing battle here. One member who described as Universalist gave up and went back to the UCCan (she was actually talking about trying to start a UU congregation in her new home after leaving London a few years ago but not sure if that happened or not).

 

[revsdd]

I actually agree somewhat. The classical universalist Christian perspective is one that has kind of gotten lost in UU'ism (in fact, Univeralism was openly attacked at one point by some of the old school humanist Unitarians in my church who had been around pre-merger). Forrest Church and others have tried to bring it back to the fore but have also put a new, less theistic, slant on it (universality of spiritual truth rather than universality of grace). In my own congregation, I have been a voice for a universalist perspective of sorts (that kind of falls in between the two perspectives) at times as have some of our other more theistic members, but it has been a bit of a losing battle here. One member who described as Universalist gave up and went back to the UCCan (she was actually talking about trying to start a UU congregation in her new home after leaving London a few years ago but not sure if that happened or not).

As much as @chansen wants the UCCan to become like the UUs, I could actually see the UCCan becoming more of a home for Christian universalists. I believe that there are a lot of Christian universalists and I think UCCan doctrine is sufficiently open to allow for a rich expression of that perspective. The problem is that the battle for now is more between Gretta and her sympathizers and those (both "conservative" and "liberal") of a more orthodox theological perspective. I'd count myself among that more "orthodox" group, so can't lead the Christian universalist revival if you want to call it that, but I'd be much more sympathetic to the UCCan moving in that direction than I would be to adopting Gretta's perspective as a viable alternative to orthodoxy.

 

[Mendalla]

I believe that there are a lot of Christian universalists and I think UCCan doctrine is sufficiently open to allow for a rich expression of that perspective.

My sense when I look back on my UCCan days was that a lot of the folks I knew were tacit universalists. They didn't really think anyone would go hell and that Divine Grace was universal, but they might not have said it in those terms or called themselves "universalist". I was certainly both unitarian and universalist well before I was UU. So, yeah, I could see it playing well in the UCCan and it definitely fits.

 

[BetteTheRed]

You and I are at opposite ends on this issue. I do not believe that an atheist belongs in the pulpit of a Christian church. You do.
I also believe young people, as they get older, will be returning to faith at an alarming rate in the future.

Really, why? It has been my personal experience that an orthodox faith gets harder and harder to hold on as you get older. If the kids are starting with nothing, what's going to swing them back?

I've found this whole episode an embarrassment to the church. I used to talk with some pride about the breadth of belief in the UCCan, which I'm not currently doing, nor am I as openly advertising my own a-theism. If they hadn't let themselves be provoked (and I don't think anyone will argue that Gretta can be provocative), they wouldn't have found themselves in this divisive position. It certainly isn't adding to UCCan membership, and I've heard the concurrent argument that the entire West Hill congregation shouldn't exist, either. "They" should be UUs, according to this position.

 

[Waterfall]

Really, why? It has been my personal experience that an orthodox faith gets harder and harder to hold on as you get older. If the kids are starting with nothing, what's going to swing them back?.

Just off the top of my head, could be anything: spiritual revival, war, a whole generation that feels something is missing, realizing science doesn't address certain issues in ones life, loss of hope, etc.....

 

[Jaebius]

By your beliefs, her gender disqualifies her from the same position, so I think we can safely discount your opinion on this one.

To be clear, the belief statement of we Fellowship Baptists is meant to cover only we Fellowship Baptists. I believe that a case for including women in leadership can be made using sound biblical hermeneutics, and have had no problems in working with women who are pastors in other denominations.

 

[Mendalla]

"They" should be UUs, according to this position.

Because, from everything I have read, they are in all but name. I see little to no difference between them and a lot of UU churches. Maybe a bit "churchier" than the fellowship movement congregations, but certainly quite like an older, more traditional UU church like First Hamilton.

And, if the UCCan wants to hoe that row, they are welcome to do it, but I do not think that you can pretend that that is Christian in anything but the absolute broadest sense.

 

[revsdd]

I suspect that if we had a UCCan congregation that wanted to follow the teachings of the Pope on everything then we'd say that they should probably be Catholic and no one would question that. If we had a UCCan congregation that refused to baptize infants and would only baptize adults then we'd say that they should probably be Baptist and no one would question that. I think that what's being said isn't that the folks at West Hill aren't welcome in the United Church or shouldn't be allowed in the United Church - it's a comment on the incongruity of a group of people who clearly seem to believe in the basic tenets of the Unitarian Universalist Church but who want to remain in a church whose basic tenets they clearly don't believe in. Understand that I'm not saying that the congregation and its members should leave - I'm just saying that their position is a bit incongruous. And they were basically left alone until Gretta started essentially demanding that the United Church and its Moderator start adapting their practices and rituals to match hers. That's what the Charlie Hebdo letter was all about. To paraphrase - "I don't pray like that because I don't believe in that kind of God and so I think you should do things the way I do them." As I've said before, once she started taking her beliefs out of her own congregation and using a publicity stunt like an open letter to argue for changing the church's practices, she had to expect a pushback.

 

[paradox3]

It certainly isn't adding to UCCan membership, and I've heard the concurrent argument that the entire West Hill congregation shouldn't exist, either. "They" should be UUs, according to this position.

I have yet to hear anyone suggest the entire congregation should not exist. Perhaps this gets bandied about on FB, I don't know. I have noticed that a lot of comments are made on social media by individuals who don't fully understand the situation. Ditto for the letters to the editor in newspapers.

What we don't know is what will happen to the West Hill congregation if Gretta is removed. I suspect many people will leave. Maybe even most people will leave. But I don't think everyone will leave.

And of course, there might be a certain contingent who would see fit to return. Hard to predict.

 

[paradox3]

Because, from everything I have read, they are in all but name. I see little to no difference between them and a lot of UU churches.

Vosper would have no argument with this. Or at least she had no argument with this idea when I discussed it with her over a decade ago.

The main difference I see is that UUism is not seeking to reform the Christian church whereas Gretta seeks to reform the United Church from within.

 

[revsdd]

Vosper would have no argument with this. Or at least she had no argument with this idea when I discussed it with her over a decade ago.

The main difference I see is that UUism is not seeking to reform the Christian church whereas Gretta seeks to reform the United Church from within.

To some extent from within, in the sense that she is still within. But she chooses to advocate for the reforms she wants through publicity stunts and media releases rather than by actually using the processes of the church. If she wants to try to change the doctrine and practice of the church there are ways of doing that that actually engage the church rather than her simply being a lone wolf venting to whatever reporter is willing to listen at any given time, and apparently trying to either guilt or shame the church - and not always honestly.

 

[Mendalla]

Vosper would have no argument with this. Or at least she had no argument with this idea when I discussed it with her over a decade ago.

The main difference I see is that UUism is not seeking to reform the Christian church whereas Gretta seeks to reform the United Church from within.

Actually, I suspect that the intention of many of the original Unitarians (in America, there is another whole Unitarian history in Europe) back in the 18th and 19th century was to reform Christianity. Certainly, if you read addresses and sermons from that period, they are presenting their vision of Christianity based on their understanding of scripture (the key thing to keep in mind is that during this period, this was very much a Christian theological movement not unlike progressive Christianity today). The non-creedal, humanistic Unitarianism that split away from Christianity and ultimately merged into modern Unitarian Universalism was largely a 20th century development.

 

[paradox3]

Actually, I suspect that the intention of many of the original Unitarians (in America, there is another whole Unitarian history in Europe) back in the 18th and 19th century was to reform Christianity. Certainly, if you read addresses and sermons from that period, they are presenting their vision of Christianity based on their understanding of scripture (the key thing to keep in mind is that during this period, this was very much a Christian theological movement not unlike progressive Christianity today). The non-creedal, humanistic Unitarianism that split away from Christianity and ultimately merged into modern Unitarian Universalism was largely a 20th century development.

Interesting to read about the history of UUism.

Is it fair to say that present day Unitarian Universalism is not seeking to reform the Christian (or any other) church?

I have the impression UUism offers an alternative to various world faiths while encouraging individual members to draw on a variety of sources (religious, philosophical, etc.)

 

[Mendalla]

Is it fair to say that present day Unitarian Universalism is not seeking to reform the Christian (or any other) church?

Right. We are a religion unto ourselves and, while we certainly work with kindred spirits in other faiths (including in the UCCan), our goal is promote a pluralistic society based on democratic principles, mutual respect and social justice, not change other faiths.

 

[revjohn]

The fact that the United Church 'left Gretta Vosper alone' for so long gives the perception that the call for review was made in retaliation.

Only to those who are ignorant of the facts so far. Which would be a great number only because the chief source of information thus far has been the Reverend Vosper herself and she skews information.

What is known is that Toronto Conference recieved a letter. That letter did not call for a review. It asked how it was possible for an athiest to be a minister in the United Church among other things.

Toronto Conference Sub-executive had a discussion and out of that discussion was a query to the General Council Executive Secretary.

The General Council Executive Secretary considered the question and outlined a process which could provide Toronto Conference Sub-executive with a solution to their query.

Toronto Conference Sub-executive informed the Reverend Vosper that they intended to use the process outlined by the General Council Executive Secretary as a review of her fitness (though fit is probably closer to intent).

The Reverend Vosper appealed the process and that appeal was denied.

West Hill United Church sent a proposal to Toronto Conference asking for Conference to reconsider the decision of the Sub-executive to review the Reverend Vosper. The motion to reconsider failed.

The Reverend Vosper was examined by the Conference Interview Committee which is thesame body which examines and approves candidates for ministry. The CIC by a vote of 19 - 4 concluded that if the Reverend Vosper were seeking ordination today they could not approve her for ordination. The CIC recommended that Toronto Conference request the General Council to conduct a formal review. That has yet to happen.

Unlike other denominations the UCCAN does not believe that the Moderator is beyond critique. So criticism of the Moderator is not automatically a disciplinary offence.

Whether one agrees with the Reverend Vosper's critique or not she does have the right to offer it so her critique alone would have been insufficient for formal disciplinary mechanisms.

The letter may be seen as symptomatic of a greater concern. Namely whether or not she supports the mission of the church. The CIC is convinced that she doesn't.

It will be up to the formal review to make a definitive conclusion.

Maybe the Christian response would be to let her continue to minister at West Hill and give her another church as well.

Ummmmm. No.

Not when the concern has been raised that she does not support the mission of the denomination.

The appropriate Christian response is to investigate and not act on rumour. Which is what the CIC was tasked to do. They put the Reverend Vosper where every clergy hopeful must stand and they examined her no differently than they would any candidate. Based on the Reverend Vosper's answers they reached a conclusion.

The chief criticism is that the process doesn't allow for clergy to change their minds.

Which is facile.

Change is acceptable so long as it facilitates the mission of the Church. Clergy are not expected to stagnate. Contrary to the argument put forward by the Reverend Vosper her atheism is not the logical conclusion of education that she has received.

Otherwise everyone would be where she finds herself to be now and it is clear that everyone doesn't.

Given the interfaith/intercultural relationships that the United Church seems to be working on, maybe there is wiggle room to rebrand West Hill as 'a partner' of the United Church of Canada.

Leaving aside, for the moment, that West Hill is not being closed by the United Church it remains a member of.

Should the congregation disband and reform as the first congregation of something new partnerships are theoretically possible. Provided the missions of both entities are in harmony.

It is worthy of note that the partnerships we have recently entered into are with denominations which may be thought of as liberal in their own particular contexts they tend to be slightly more conservative than we are.

To be sure they are interested in our social justice ventures and what they might learn from us one thing they are not interested in is being seen as less Christian.

It would appear that for our part we are interested in learning from them how to be more devout and less shy of being seen to be more Christian.

Could a partnership with West Hill accommodate that? If it could they would likely be an acceptable mutual ministry partner.

If not we might be able to work on some interfaith cooperation without a mutual ministry agreement.

Using the Lund Principle "that churches should act together in all matters except those in which deep differences of conviction compel them to act separately."

That would theoretically be possible. I doubt that West Hill would leave the denomination and then think we could be besties.

Those who leave in anger tend not to want anykind of association.

 

[revjohn]

This isn't about the Charlie Hebdo letter.

Agreed. Right or wrong criticism of the Moderator is not a disciplinary matter.

This is about optics. The Metropolitan United letter was definitely about optics. So, fix the optics.

Disagree. The Metropolitan letter was clearly about substance. What does it mean to be a member of the UCCAN? If the UCCAN defines as Christian how can does an Atheist advance Christian mission?

I appreciate your perspective that it is only an optic problem. From Metropolitan's perspective it is clearly one of substance and they identify atheism and Christianity as being different substantively not just optically.

If it is only an optics issue why would you not identify as a Christian rather than an atheist?

 

[revjohn]

I suspect that had the church ignored that particular letter to the moderator, Gretta would have done something further to provoke a response from the denomination.

The Church has, as a matter of fact, ignored the letter at least as catalyst for discipline.

It probably examined the letter as symptom of thought.

It would seem that self-identification as atheist is more catalyst than anything else.

Not having an actual verbatim of discussion just the question and answer to General Council Executive Secretary suggests that the Sub-executive has made that the focal point.