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
Metropolitan's letter was about Metropolitan members asking about West Hill being a congregation of atheists. It did not mention Rev. Vosper. It was about the optics of having an atheist congregation. I have to run out the door, but as a catalyst for action, it was low on specifics and high on concern about appearances.

Someone pull it up. I've posted an image of it somewhere.
 
Inukshuk said:
Maybe there is a way through this situation that will leave most of us satisfied? Being that hindsight is 20/20 - do you think that had the United Church offered Gretta Vosper a Christian/turn the other cheek response, immediately following her letter to the Moderator, that this mess would have continued to escalate?
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. Maybe the Christian response would be to let her continue to minister at West Hill and give her another church as well.
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. 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."
Click to expand...

Did you ever see a church group that could compromise known with the unknown and allow some balance between stoic and Uncertainty Theory ... being the church didn't wish the pagans to know anything different?

Thus we were stuck ... poked and prodded ... sometime skewered ... and roasted as po' lam instead of just as I am ... then someone demanded fixation by institutional pride! And what is said on hubris by the Harvard Business Review?

There is some reference to fall in the recall ...
 
chansen said:
Someone pull it up. I've posted an image of it somewhere.
Click to expand...


I remember seeing the scan.

I've tried looking for it several times to analyse but have had zero luck finding it.

Probably the only time I think Mendalla's idea of collapsing all Vosper threads together might have been helpful.

But o the pages we'd have to dig through.

At any rate memory suggests Rev. Vosper was only used as an example and there was no actual request by Metropolitan for a review to be conducted.

Which means the idea originated at the Sub-executive level and all outrage directed at Metropolitan for writing the letter is misdirected.
 
Does anyone know what is holding up the hearing? I am guessing there is some discussion taking place between Gretta's lawyers and the church's lawyers but who can know?
 
John, the review was initiated at Toronto Conference with direct reference to the letter. The letter that was about the optics of sharing a denomination with West Hill United.
 
chansen said:
John, the review was initiated at Toronto Conference with direct reference to the letter. The letter that was about the optics of sharing a denomination with West Hill United.
Click to expand...
Your perception. Many of us think it was not about optics.
 
chansen said:
John, the review was initiated at Toronto Conference with direct reference to the letter.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing that the letter is not a catalyst.

I am stating that as best I can remember the letter did not request a review it simply asked for clarification about how an Atheist qualifies to be a minister in the UCCAN.

That is not an optics question. It is a substance question. Could an Atheist pass the CIC? Could an Atheist even get to that stage? These are important questions given the UCCAN's identity as a Christian Church and the fact that only members in good standing are eligible to enter the discernment process and one criteria of members are those individuals who have made a credible profession of faith. This is where the substance comes in. To be ordained one must confess to be a Christian and that confession must convince others.

The Reverend Vosper managed that at one point in time and was ordained as was proper.

The Reverend Vosper does not manage it at present hence the CIC recommendations that she be removed from ministry.

chansen said:
The letter that was about the optics of sharing a denomination with West Hill United.
Click to expand...


No it wasn't. It was about shared values and specifically how to justify positions which are contrary to what the UCCAN holds as core values.

How Sub-executive goes from that to a formal review I am not sure. I know that they cannot offer an answer which embraces the conflict because they don't have the authority to change doctrine. If they offer an answer stating conflicting positions do not advance the mission of the church they are then obligated to address the conflicting opinion.

The review follows from discussion at the Sub-executive level. The Sub-executive needs to own that.

When the plenary of Toronto Conference (all clergy and lay Presbyters) were invited to reconsider that decision they discussed it and then politely declined. The plenary of Toronto Conference needs to own that and realize that by not reconsidering they lift the weight off of the Sub-executive's shoulders. They could have disagreed with the Sub-executive and changed the course of events they chose not to.

The Judicial Review saw nothing inappropriate with the General Council Executive Secretary's ruling.

The Plenary of Toronto Conference saw nothing inappropriate with the Sub-executive's ruling either.

There is optics in both of these events.

First, the criticism is that "most" or "many" agree with the Reverend Vosper and that she is being oppressed by a small but powerful cabal.

And yet every time the circle of decision gets wider the decisions remain unchanged.

That kicks the stuffing out of the "most" and "many" reducing it to "some" and "few".

Yet that is an optic which the Reverend Vosper cannot comprehend for some reason. It eludes most of her supporters as well.
 
paradox3 said:
Does anyone know what is holding up the hearing? I am guessing there is some discussion taking place between Gretta's lawyers and the church's lawyers but who can know?
Click to expand...

Toronto Conference Sub-executive referred the matter to General Council. The General Council Executive or Sub-Executive will need to convene to name the members of the formal review panel.

Lawyers will be involved with that.

The Reverend Vosper will also have a lawyer who will want access to amy evidence. Primarily the CIC report and anything the Judicial Review Committee may have written in support of their ruling.

They will want to run that by an employment lawyer to see if the Church has run afoul of natural law and if it has violated its own practices. This will allow them to advise the Reverend Vosper as to the strength of her claim and what is the most she can hope for.

Lawyers for the church will be doing the same.

Once the panel is named (I am thinking they would at least have to be commissioners to GC-42 or members of the GCE) since GC is now the court of oversight) both parties will agree to a starting date for the review.

Depending on witnesses called or the volume of evidence required the review will take hours, days, weeks or months to reach a conclusion.

Those recommendations would go to GCE or their Sub-executive for discussion and action.

And then I would expect an appeal following that. Which goes back to Judicial Review Committee.

So . . . while it appears to be incredibly slow from where we sit I expect the lawyers involved would say they are proceding cautiously.
 
The letter:
Scan-MUC-Letter-complete-1024x723.jpg
 
The interesting thing about this letter, which I hadn't noticed before, is its scope. It doesn't refer to ministers. It refers to "members, ordinands and practising ministers". Why did conference run with practising ministers? What does this mean for the membership of West Hill, which seems to be guiding GV's theology as much as the other way around?
 
BetteTheRed said:
The interesting thing about this letter, which I hadn't noticed before, is its scope. It doesn't refer to ministers. It refers to "members, ordinands and practising ministers". Why did conference run with practising ministers? What does this mean for the membership of West Hill, which seems to be guiding GV's theology as much as the other way around?
Click to expand...

Thing is, in the UCCan, as has been explained before, there is no "essential agreement" for members. The church is non-creedal for membership beyond simply professing a faith in God and Jesus (or so the revs have told us in various threads over the years). So it is much harder to come down on members who "stray" because you can't pin them down to any of the specific statements in the doctrinal documents. I could profess a faith in God and Jesus and sincerely mean it but I would have more problems trying to justify that my beliefs (pantheistic deity with Jesus as a largely mythological figure) were in "essential agreement" with the doctrine. But I've met the standard for membership, just not ministry.

On top of that, as I understand it, members are not under the discipline of conference or presbytery. They are under the discipline, such as it is, of the congregation.

So, for both reasons, the minister becomes the target because they can be interrogated on how they meet the standard for ministry and are under the discipline of presbytery or, under the model being used in Toronto, conference.

As for what it means for West Hill, that seems to be as much their decision as the UCCan's from what has been said. If they decide to walk away and work with Gretta to start some kind of independent progressive church (or maybe apply to become a UU congregation), the UCCan can't really stop them from doing that though the building and name would remain the property of the UCCan.
 
revjohn said:

Generally agree with your response.

Profoundly disagree with the application of these terms given the hyperbole.
Click to expand...

True enough. My brain was just having problems wording what I wanted to say and that's what it spewed out.:rolleyes:
 
@Mendalla, I absolutely understand that, but given the seriousness with which this letter is being taken, maybe it would have behooved Metropolitan United to have worded their letter a bit more carefully. If you don't think that the atheists in the pews aren't watching this with considerable interest, you'd be wrong, and so would 'they'...
 
BetteTheRed said:
@Mendalla, I absolutely understand that, but given the seriousness with which this letter is being taken, maybe it would have behooved Metropolitan United to have worded their letter a bit more carefully. If you don't think that the atheists in the pews aren't watching this with considerable interest, you'd be wrong, and so would 'they'...
Click to expand...

If you read the letter, they do not want atheist in the pews, not in theirs nor in others. They are talking about " monitoring their new members", so they want them to believe a certain thing, and definitively excluding anything smelling like atheism.
 
Exactly. Metropolitan United is saying that atheists be excluded from membership. They were not referencing Rev. Vosper - they don't want atheists taking over the pews. They don't like how West Hill looks, full of atheists. How can they turn away non-believers if West Hill is a United Church and is full of them?

Here's the key question: "Our current inquiry is related to West Hill United's atheistic/post-theistic beliefs that are in direct contradiction to our creed and professionnot faith and yet appear to be tolerated and permitted to propagate."

That's what I mean when I say it's about optics. They don't want non-believers, and they want clarification that they have denominational support to deny them membership. They are concerned that atheists are allowed to propagate to other congregations. They aren't freaking out about Gretta directly - they're worried that people who don't believe like her are allowed to mingle with congregations like theirs and have their atheism propagate. Here I was worried they were being busybodies, when they are really concerned about big bad atheists in their own pews.They're not busybodies - they're just scared of people who don't believe, in case they convince others.
 
Do A' theists have alien gods ... like Judeans that served unknown gods as collective (singularly) a social integral?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top