The Rev. Vosper Again

[paradox3]

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?

I would say that Gretta's theology has attracted the like-minded over the past several years and she has developed a strong base of support. It wasn't always this way, of course, back in the days of the congregational split.

 

[paradox3]

@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'...

I don't see any reason to criticize the Board at Met for their letter. I read it as a very fair request for clarification about a timely issue in our denomination.

 

[revjohn]

Actually Metropolitan is not saying so much as they are asking.

They point out correctly that ordination and membership protocols do require a profession of a Christian faith.

I'm sure that the use of the term "monitor" is being understood as oppressively as possible. I doubt that is their intent but since it has been decided to cast Metropolitan as the nefarious "them" it is only fair we take every opportunity to demonize them.

How else would we expect a dialogue to happen?

Apart from that after laying out their assumptions and confusions they ask for clarification regarding the values and core beliefs that frame membership.

This allows Toronto Conference to either affirm that their assumptions are correct or incorrect. It also allows Toronto Conference to offer additional information which might clear up their confusion.

If Toronto Conference did any of that I don't think we know.

They also ask for clarification on implications regarding the core values and rights and privileges of membership.

Again this allows Toronto Conference to affirm those assumptions or correct those assumptions as well as spell out what privileges and rights can be extended to those who can not or will not make a profession of Christian faith.

Nowhere does the letter from Metropolitan dictate terms.

The letter advances assumptions (which are not wild if one actually reads the Basis of Union), asks if their assumptions are accurate (which they are) and asks about implications when core values are not shared.

Nowhere does the letter demand that atheists be hunted down, rooted out or persecuted.

Nowhere.

Any such reading cannot be justified by the actual text of the letter. It has to be imagined and anyone imagining that needs to own it for themselves rather than trying to dump that on Metropolitan's doorstep.

I would be interested in knowing if Metropolitan actually got the clarification they asked for.

I am also mildly curious how Toronto Conference Sub-executive took these requests for clarification and transformed them into a formal review.

There are some dots missing from where I sit.

Those dots might exist in the body of a response none of us have seen as of yet.

Again the decision to call a review is an action of the Sub-executive of Toronto Conference and not one of Metropolitan.

I wonder how Metropolitan is coping with the venom directed their way. I wonder if they ever thought they would go from being thought not Christian enough to entirely to Christian for comfort as fast as they have.

Once an oppressed corner of the Church they have now finally arrived as the face of the new oppressors.

Be careful what you wish for right?

 

[chansen]

Actually Metropolitan is not saying so much as they are asking.

They point out correctly that ordination and membership protocols do require a profession of a Christian faith.

I'm sure that the use of the term "monitor" is being understood as oppressively as possible. I doubt that is their intent but since it has been decided to cast Metropolitan as the nefarious "them" it is only fair we take every opportunity to demonize them.

How else would we expect a dialogue to happen?

Clearly, the way you get dialogue to happen in the UCCan is to initiate a review of their minister. You don't go to the minister with your questions as a first step, so much as you summon them to a series of committees.

Apart from that after laying out their assumptions and confusions they ask for clarification regarding the values and core beliefs that frame membership.

This allows Toronto Conference to either affirm that their assumptions are correct or incorrect. It also allows Toronto Conference to offer additional information which might clear up their confusion.

If Toronto Conference did any of that I don't think we know.

They also ask for clarification on implications regarding the core values and rights and privileges of membership.

Again this allows Toronto Conference to affirm those assumptions or correct those assumptions as well as spell out what privileges and rights can be extended to those who can not or will not make a profession of Christian faith.

Nowhere does the letter from Metropolitan dictate terms.

The letter advances assumptions (which are not wild if one actually reads the Basis of Union), asks if their assumptions are accurate (which they are) and asks about implications when core values are not shared.

The letter isn't really asking questions. It's asking the Conference to act against non-believers, and allow them to act against non-believers. The questions are more loaded than Lindsay Lohan.

Nowhere does the letter demand that atheists be hunted down, rooted out or persecuted.

Nowhere.

Not hunted down. Just be denied membership, specifically in their case.

Any such reading cannot be justified by the actual text of the letter. It has to be imagined and anyone imagining that needs to own it for themselves rather than trying to dump that on Metropolitan's doorstep.

I would be interested in knowing if Metropolitan actually got the clarification they asked for.

I am also mildly curious how Toronto Conference Sub-executive took these requests for clarification and transformed them into a formal review.

Well, yeah. How did this go from, "We don't like the proliferation of atheists among us," to, "Wow, let's take a closer look at Gretta Vosper?"

There are some dots missing from where I sit.

Those dots might exist in the body of a response none of us have seen as of yet.

Again the decision to call a review is an action of the Sub-executive of Toronto Conference and not one of Metropolitan.

I think the letter is an excuse to initiate the review, which some have wanted to do for a long time. It doesn't have the wording you would expect to initiate a review of a minister, such as, say, naming the minister. It names her church as a place crawling with atheists, and really asks if they have the mechanisms in place to deny atheists membership at Metropolitan United. They simply want the tools to keep atheists out. They may be more surprised than anyone that their letter was used by the Conference to start a review.

Reading it more carefully now, I'm not nearly as upset with Metropolitan United. They're just scared of atheists. I don't think they tried to start the review.

I wonder how Metropolitan is coping with the venom directed their way. I wonder if they ever thought they would go from being thought not Christian enough to entirely to Christian for comfort as fast as they have.

Once an oppressed corner of the Church they have now finally arrived as the face of the new oppressors.

Be careful what you wish for right?

West Hill and Gretta Vosper have taken a lot more venom than they have given out. Every time her story is told in Christian publications, she and they get pummeled. In the UCCan Facebook group, it is pretty one-sided against Gretta. Way more UCCan ministers have come out against her than for her. Metropolitan United is very much in the majority here, so no need to play the pity card for them.

You are correct that they are not to blame. Reading that letter carefully, there is nothing in it that suggests a review for fitness to ministry is being proposed. The letter suggests that Met wants to make sure they have the ability to refuse atheists membership. Any action beyond confirming or denying that is more the prerogative of the reader than the author.

 

[revsdd]

I'm sure that the use of the term "monitor" is being understood as oppressively as possible. I doubt that is their intent but since it has been decided to cast Metropolitan as the nefarious "them" it is only fair we take every opportunity to demonize them.

If I read it correctly, the sentence is as follows: "As a growing congregation we are mentoring new members ..." Not monitoring. I think the intent of the letter is to understand what it is that they're "mentoring" members into.

 

[chansen]

Correct. They are "mentoring" new members. They want to make sure they can mentor them away from non-belief.

 

[revsdd]

Correct. They are "mentoring" new members. They want to make sure they can mentor them away from non-belief.

That's correct. Like it or not, that's pretty much the goal of the church.

 

[chansen]

Certainly gives me a hobby. For now, at least.

 

[BetteTheRed]

That's correct. Like it or not, that's pretty much the goal of the church.

Hmmm....that's not what I see as the goal of the church. I see the goal as to work in community to find, help and heal the Christs among us.

As a process-type thinker, "belief" is not something I think I can force, coerce, etc., nor do I think it particularly necessary (as a very head-driven intellectual, not very possible, either). I think from praxis (trying to live lovingly with all the neighbours you come across) comes faith, in my case, a very strong faith in the ultimate benevolence (at a macro, not individual level) of the universe. Belief has nothing to do with it, really, from my worldview.

 

[revsdd]

Hmmm....that's not what I see as the goal of the church. I see the goal as to work in community to find, help and heal the Christs among us.

As a process-type thinker, "belief" is not something I think I can force, coerce, etc., nor do I think it particularly necessary (as a very head-driven intellectual, not very possible, either). I think from praxis (trying to live lovingly with all the neighbours you come across) comes faith, in my case, a very strong faith in the ultimate benevolence (at a macro, not individual level) of the universe. Belief has nothing to do with it, really, from my worldview.

Fair enough. We disagree.

By the way - mentoring is neither forcing nor coercing.

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

Of course, Metropolitan wanted to see some action taken. If I wanted to omplain about my neighbours, but avoid direct confrontation, I would have written exactly a letter like that.
Let say, my subdivision has protective covenants, but the neighbours keep growing their grass too long and have businesses which they are not supposed to. Easiest way is pretending not to be sure and send out a request about" let me know how many inches should the lawn be, in order to comply with these rules". And by the way, mentioningthT the grass is too high next door....

 

[Luce NDs]

I am forced to shed a tear of sadistic nature about closed hearts and souls in what metaphorically and metaphysically covers an eternal topicality!

Isolated folk just don't get community like sects that are all encompassing and thus entangled ...

 

[paradox3]

Of course, Metropolitan wanted to see some action taken. If I wanted to omplain about my neighbours, but avoid direct confrontation, I would have written exactly a letter like that.....

It is entirely possible that too much is being made of this letter from Met. While it seems to have been the catalyst for action by Toronto Conference, it may well be a case of "the straw that broke the camel's back." Does anyone think this is the first piece of correspondence Conference has received about the situation?

 

[paradox3]

You are correct that they are not to blame. Reading that letter carefully, there is nothing in it that suggests a review for fitness to ministry is being proposed. The letter suggests that Met wants to make sure they have the ability to refuse atheists membership. Any action beyond confirming or denying that is more the prerogative of the reader than the author.

Well I don't know about refusing atheists membership, but I agree the letter did not call for a review of anyone's fitness for ministry.

You were making some very different assumptions about the letter from Met back in the spring, Chansen.

 

[chansen]

The Toronto Confrench meeting minutes referenced a letter from Met as the reason to initiate the review. And no one from Met had talked to Rev. Vosper or anyone from West Hill. It looked ludicrous.

Now, having read the letter multiple times, they just want to stop the propagation of atheists within their church and the denomination. You could even argue that they aren't concerned about West Hill, as long as West Hill doesn't become contagious.

This has gone from a suspicion that Met are a bunch of busybodies, to Toronto Conference looking for an excuse to start a review, and settling for a rather poor one.

 

[paradox3]

The Toronto Confrench meeting minutes referenced a letter from Met as the reason to initiate the review. And no one from Met had talked to Rev. Vosper or anyone from West Hill. It looked ludicrous.

Yes, we are hearing this lament from Gretta and WHUC these days. As catchphrases go, "Dialogue not discipline" is a pretty good one. But we don't know what the result of more dialogue might have been. Perhaps Gretta's perspective would have been made more welcome in the United Church . . . I assume you think this would have been the outcome.

On the other hand, more dialogue with her and her congregation might have resulted in the review taking place years ago.

 

[revjohn]

It looked ludicrous.

What looks ludicrous in hindsight are the conclusions jumped to that have no basis in fact.

Though certainly not as ludicrous as insisting on some new conspiracy now that the old one is smoldering ruin.

Now, having read the letter multiple times, they just want to stop the propagation of atheists within their church and the denomination.

That conclusion isn't supported by the text of the letter either. It is a a figment of your suspicious mind.

They are asking clarification on process and protocol.

Particularly those processes and those protocols which are the privileges of membership. Protocols and processes which do not target atheists alone.

To enter into the discernment process for ministry one needs to be a member of a congregation. The United Church of Canada understands membership to hinge on a credible profession of the Christian faith. Devout Jews would find that problematic as would devotees of Islam. Which is fair. Doesn't mean we are anti-Semitic or Islamaphobic.

Atheists could still participate in the congregationsl mission as adherents. If they so choose. In fact several colleagues report that such is the case in their context. I understand that is only anecdotal and proves nothing. If you are going to pass off your imagination about Metropolitan's motivation as truth my anecdote should trade at par.

 

[revjohn]

Of course, Metropolitan wanted to see some action taken.

Of course they did and they outline that action in the letter.

In summary, "Please answer these questions for us" and "When might we expect an answer?"

Those are the only actions Metropolitan asked. None of the questions is directly answered by the review.

The review cannot be laid at Metropolitan's feet. At least not by anybody who values justice or fairness.

The review is the burden of Toronto Conference Sub-executive.

If Metropolitan is to be criticized it should be for something they have done not something somebody else has done.






If I wanted to omplain about my neighbours, but avoid direct confrontation, I would have written exactly a letter like that.
Let say, my subdivision has protective covenants, but the neighbours keep growing their grass too long and have businesses which they are not supposed to. Easiest way is pretending not to be sure and send out a request about" let me know how many inches should the lawn be, in order to comply with these rules". And by the way, mentioningthT the grass is too high next door....[/QUOTE]

 

[revjohn]

Clearly, the way you get dialogue to happen in the UCCan is to initiate a review of their minister.

Or you ignore the proper avenues for discussion and offer truly boneheaded critique of the Moderator online.

You don't go to the minister with your questions as a first step, so much as you summon them to a series of committees.

If the clergy in question has produced public statements which are not in keeping with the mission and ministry of the Church there is little need to have a private conversation first.

Not to mention that if you are an oversight body private meetings will always be interpreted as coercive.

Public meetings, even where the public might be limited ensure that there are witnesses who can speak to the events of the meeting and that offers everyone involved protection against outright fabrication.

The letter isn't really asking questions.

Yes. It really is. Read what it says. You'll find it differs from what you imagine it says.

It states the assumptions held by Metropolitan and how they arrive at those assumptions. Are they right or are they wrong?

If they are right how can congregations act differently and not be acting wrongly?

And if they are wrong then they no longer have to act on erroneous assumptions they have freedom to change their own practice.

Only Toronto Conference can give them definitive answers to those questions because only Toronto Conference exercises that level of oversight for zmetropolitan United Church.

It's asking the Conference to act against non-believers, and allow them to act against non-believers.

No they aren't. They are asking clarification. Does that put Toronto Conference in an awkward spot? I wasn't in the room I don't know that it does. You weren't in the room either so you know as much as I do about it.

Again without any correspondence from the Sub-executive we have no idea how they chose to answer the questions Metropolitan asked.

Not hunted down. Just be denied membership, specifically in their case.

They won't be denied membership. Membership, as it has been since June 10, 1925, requires a public profession of the Christian faith. Those who refuse to make that confession will not be offered the privilege of membership.

They will not be barred from meetings or worship services. They will not be allowed to vote for a new minister or get rid of the old one. They could have the vote extended to them as Adherents, about church finances.

They may not be eligible for some leadership positions which our Basis of Union restricts to all but full members. There will be other ateas where they could offer leadership.

Well, yeah. How did this go from, "We don't like the proliferation of atheists among us," to, "Wow, let's take a closer look at Gretta Vosper?"

Since it didn't even start where you imagine it did it is difficult to discern how it arrived where it did.

I know what the Metropolitan letter was asking and as mentioned earlier I don't know how it gets where it did. Some work has clearly not been shown.

I think the letter is an excuse to initiate the review, which some have wanted to do for a long time.

That is plausible I suppose if we know that members of the sub-executive were itching for a review.

They've had all the ammunition they needed to call a review whenever they wanted. The body of oversight wouldn't need a letter asking for one. If they believe the congregation is in disarray they can step in.

I've been called to do that twice for congregations that were behaving oddly. Nothing so serious as a review was ultimately necessary. There were some messes in need of cleaning.

It doesn't have the wording you would expect to initiate a review of a minister, such as, say, naming the minister. It names her church as a place crawling with atheists, and really asks if they have the mechanisms in place to deny atheists membership at Metropolitan United.

Your characterizations are pure, unadulterated ignorance. Metropolitan is no more responsible or accountable for your flights of fancy than you would be for theirs.

Again. No questions about how to deny. Questions are about assumptions based on the Basis of Union and public professions of faith.

They simply want the tools to keep atheists out.

No. They don't. They want clarification on membership privileges which includes leadership that has historically been reserved for those who have made a credible profession of Christian faith. Are those restrictions still in place or have they been lifted?

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]

[/FONT]
They may be more surprised than anyone that their letter was used by the Conference to start a review.

That could be.

I imagine they have bewildered by letters taking them to task for imagined slights than for anything they actually have done.

Being compared to the inquisition was probably a highlight.

Reading it more carefully now, I'm not nearly as upset with Metropolitan United. They're just scared of atheists. I don't think they tried to start the review.

Keep rereading it more carefully. Maybe eventually you'll get to the point where you are dealing with what they actually said instead of what you imagined and were offended by.

West Hill and Gretta Vosper have taken a lot more venom than they have given out.

That there has been any venom at all is something all parties involved should own up to. I expect those inclined to be venomous are simply looking for excuses to be ugly and as soon as one excuse evaporates they will invent another.

Metropolitan United is very much in the majority here, so no need to play the pity card for them.

Metropolitan might stand with the majority. They certainly not guilty of what has been laid upon their shoulders.

It is less a matter of pity and more a matter of fairness. You continue to paint them in ugly colours and primarily for things you have imagined not proven.

Is that a perk of being in the minority? No need to be truthful just make stuff up?

You are correct that they are not to blame. Reading that letter carefully, there is nothing in it that suggests a review for fitness to ministry is being proposed.

And yet you have blamed them. Even now with the letter in front of us and the word mentoring siting there in black on white some bizarrely read "monitoring" further attributing motive.

Screw them they belong to the majority and therefore are deserving of any mistreatment comes their way.

The letter suggests that Met wants to make sure they have the ability to refuse atheists membership. Any action beyond confirming or denying that is more the prerogative of the reader than the author.

The letter suggests no such thing. But since we have already concluded that the majority have no rights to fair treatment I suspect there is more abuse that can be heaped on them.

 

[Luce NDs]

Bone heads ... institutionalized locales?