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
revsdd said:
Honestly - you seem more worked up than most of us.
Click to expand...
Equally honestly,over the years I have heard many people raising a stink about some if the more inane (feel free to add an s in the middle of that word if you wish) things Christian leaders have said in public.
 
paradox3 said:
A motion in regards to the Vosper review is to be considered next week by South East Presbytery. . . stay tuned.
Click to expand...
All motions directly concerning the Vosper review were defeated.

One motion passed which is related to South East Presbytery pursuing further discussion about essential agreement.
 
GordW said:
Equally honestly,over the years I have heard many people raising a stink about some if the more inane (feel free to add an s in the middle of that word if you wish) things Christian leaders have said in public.
Click to expand...
Certainly United Church people get far more worked up about Franklin Graham and the Christmas shoe boxes than about Gretta, who, in all honesty, barely seems to register with most of my parishioners.
 
paradox3 said:
All motions directly concerning the Vosper review were defeated.

One motion passed which is related to South East Presbytery pursuing further discussion about essential agreement.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update, I was wondering about the outcome of the Presb mtg.
 
Carolla said:
Thanks for the update, I was wondering about the outcome of the Presb mtg.
Click to expand...
Was told that the motions were defeated by a clear majority. A count of the votes was recorded but I have not seen any numbers. Gretta does not seem to have made a public comment yet.
 
paradox3 said:
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/928324dba8f52b79a022086b9/files/LEVAN_Plenary_Motions.pdf
Click to expand...
No wonder they were all defeated. I would say that as TOR COnf agreed to experiment with new structures the motions were in fact all out of order. (and this may have shown one of the unexpected results of the experimental model, plausibly even a weakness of the model in use--or perhaps a strength depending on one's point of view) THe authority and power to act (or not act) no longer reside with the PResbytery.
 
It looks like actually one motion in five parts with several "whereas" sections. The motion was in order as I see it, since Part 1 is simply a request that Toronto Conference transfer power back to Toronto Southeast Presbytery - although I'm not clear if the approval of General Council would be required to do that. That could have easily been amended if so. Parts 2-5 are all essentially conditional on Toronto Conference doing what's requested in Part 1. Were I a member of Toronto Southeast Presbytery I'd have voted "no" although I concede that I don't like the idea of oversight not being within the Presbytery. But this motion is too much of a reaction to one specific situation and doesn't really look at the wider issue of polity and proper exercise of the oversight function, which is why I would have voted "no.'
 
Is this all forensic, or legal in the matter of exploring alien things ... the only way to learn something new ... or Nous!

Under church laws of limitation of knowledge ... a crime against the BS! Could cause psyche and Sophie to implode ... leaving us knowing little ... then isn't that the plan of overlords?
 
GordW said:
No wonder they were all defeated.
Click to expand...

One of the motions was not defeated. This is the one which passed:

"That Toronto Southeast Presbytery host a colloquy within the next year on the topics raised by this current examination of the Reverend Vosper’s position: what “essential agreement” to the Basis of Union means in our current context, the unfolding development of Christian Theology and the future mission of the Christian tradition in Canada. It would be the intention of this colloquy for the presbytery in particular and the United Church in general to engage in mutual and respectful dialogue on the current divergence of opinion on the above mentioned topics."
 
Is theo logy ... deo's logos an etude that someone needed assistance with ... as it was just too far out for those pined down under the pines ... all that was left was the whisper! Listen with concern when out there anis 'll come to yah when at first you started with a concern when carried away in the Shadows? Tis the nature of abstract thought ... can obscure and cause the passions to become obtuse!

But alas you can't teach that it is something learned individually through an isolated screwing over ... Jack being a rising pain as learning, Lucille if the female version ... coming and going in paired waves ... one up ... one down to go ...
 
Did you know there is sapient nature in pines as eprine ... a precursor to Serotonin and Dopamine? Either in excess can screw up various systems ... thus mental/emotional chimerii incidents in Synes ...

We really know little about the eternal vagaries of the bra-en ... really a defective boob until learning by pane of heaven ... if only we could take a Leer into the darkness of that sol ... non-literal extraction from Mac Beth? That darker second one ... yup Ur ...
 
paradox3 said:
One of the motions was not defeated. This is the one which passed:

"That Toronto Southeast Presbytery host a colloquy within the next year on the topics raised by this current examination of the Reverend Vosper’s position: what “essential agreement” to the Basis of Union means in our current context, the unfolding development of Christian Theology and the future mission of the Christian tradition in Canada. It would be the intention of this colloquy for the presbytery in particular and the United Church in general to engage in mutual and respectful dialogue on the current divergence of opinion on the above mentioned topics."
Click to expand...
Interesting. So they were received as five separate motions? That's not how I read it because of the singular"motion."
 
revsdd said:
Interesting. So they were received as five separate motions? That's not how I read it because of the singular"motion."
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's how I saw it, too, when I finally read it. It's in five parts though so maybe it was decided in session that they should be voted on separately?
 
Yes, they were voted on separately, beginning with motion #2 (asking if the Presbytery will move to suspend the GC proceedings).

The intention to vote on them separately was communicated in advance by the chair of Presbytery.

Technically speaking, Motions 1, 4 and 5 may have been withdrawn rather than defeated.

As I said earlier, the motion which passed does not directly concern the Vosper review i.e. attempting to delay/ suspend it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top