The Rev. Vosper Again

[revjohn]

"Atheism" is simply not believing in the existence of a god or gods.

Yes. Most of us understand that to be the case. The Reverend Vosper is stating that she doesn't believe in the God called God. Which, on the face of it is not an Atheistic statement. There are more than a few different types of theism operating in the denomination and whether or not that makes anyone happy has never been an issue. The Reverend Vosper could have opted for any one of those labels. She chose Atheism.

Why?

One hopes for reasons other than the shock-novelty value.

One thing all clergy are agreed upon is that there are expectations placed upon clergy and celebrating the sacraments is one. Not celebrating the sacraments is not living up to the expectations.

People don't like using the word because theists have been trying to make "atheism" a bad word and "atheists" bad people, and polls show they have largely succeeded.

Yeah the argument is not that the Reverend Vosper suddenly became a bad person. The argument is that the Reverend Vosper, in expressing her Atheism is not serving the agenda of the denomination which ordained her.

It's not a point in your favour that the ceremonial distribution of wine and crackers is more important than how the minister supports and has the support of their congregation.

If that was the only issue it is not likely that we would be where we find ourselves now. She doesn't appear to be able to convince a roomful of people that she is willing to commit to the mission and ministry of the Church. That she hasn't been supporting the mission and ministry of the Church for some time now also becomes an issue.

People who don't believe in God are atheists. They could be fans of Jesus, and just not believe.

Sure they could. Are they fit to be ministers in the United Church? That is what remains to be seen.

It does, just not as big a wedge.

The size of the wedge just indicates the amount of pressure required to effect the split. It doesn't mean that pressure will not build and the split will not happen. And while a non-decision could be considered a small wedge it leads to increased pressure from both sides and it does not, in the end, do anything but delay the eventual split. If the wedge can be removed effort can be made to bring the sides together. As long as the wedge remains it will not happen.

The bigger picture is a message to any other minister who comes to a similar conclusion as Rev. Vosper to just shut up about it if they know what's good for them and their congregation.

That would be the lack of integrity option. Bob Ripley came to a similar conclusion and recognized that there was an honourable way to solve the conflict. He is now no longer in a position where he brings disrespect to the denomination and the denomination is no longer in a position where it would have to discipline him. He is not persona non-grata or public enemy number two.

Residential Schools began with Christian belief in a Christian education.

In as much as Christianity is the dominant religious expression in Euro-centric cultures yes, it was. The fact remains that the intention was good and it wound up being a disaster which should be enough to show that arguments for good intentions are not particularly compelling. The number of individuals who felt compelled to leave West Hill are also casualties of good intentions.

I think it would be better if the church did accommodate. I think the Church has to accommodate or die.

The Church already does accommodate, hence the variations on theism. The Church is not obligated to accommodate all differences, particularly those differences which are in opposition to the mission and ministry of the Church.

You're attempting to force an entire congregation out.

Not at all. If that were actually the case it could be easily accomplished. As revsdd has pointed out on several occasions given the lack of awareness of the congregation with regard to policies of the denomination it would not be out of order for a review of the congregation to be called. So far that has not happened.

This will also be a shot across the bow to any clergy who are sympathetic toward Rev. Vosper and agree with her. This is a delegitimization of any members who agree with Rev. Vosper.

The Church is well within its rights to decide what the Church stands for. Individuals who do not agree with that decision (as has happened in the past with other decisions) make decisions to stay or leave. Nothing new about that. We lost clergy and congregations in 1988 and following. Losing congregations now would be sorrowful but it would not be the end of the denomination.

Who would consider staying after such an action? Come on, John.

Speaking as one who was subjected to a targetted campaign to prevent me from becoming ordained in the first place I have, perhaps, a better window on how faith affiliation works. I was invited to sister denominations when others found out that I was struggling to be ordained within the denomination. I never thought of leaving and I never thought of quitting and I have never hidden what I thought or what I believe.

Nobody was interested in finding a way to get me tossed from the denomination. Keeping me out of leadership positions was enough of a goal.

I knew where in the Church I was not welcome and I knew where in the Church I would be made welcome.

And the campaign to keep me out simply couldn't cover all options. It forced me to go way out of my way. In the end, I proved myself fit for ministry and I was ordained.

And because I have been responsible for casting votes on decisions that have seen other clergy (also greatly beloved by significant portions of their congregations) placed on the DSL I understand, better than you, what congregations will endure as a result.

There is no guarantee that all at West Hill are prepared to follow her out the door if that is the result of the review. There will be in the congregation some who are more loyal to the building and facilities than they are to the clergy.

Now, if the Reverend Vosper is placed on the DSL there will most likely be an instruction that she is not permitted to remain as a parishioner of West Hill. Simply because that would become a very difficult obstacle for whoever follows in her wake (and most likely that is a minimum of 18 months with an intentional interim minister before they are allowed to call a minister of their own. She will not be barred from any other congregation of The United Church of Canada. I do expect that would be difficult, heck it is difficult for some clergy to stay away from congregations they served even when they chose to move on of their own accord.

Apart from St. Anthony, which I had no contact with for 10 years after I moved to another Pastoral Relationship I stay away from the congregations I have served so that I do not interfere in my successor's ministry. I always kept fairly close ties with my home congregation and I can go back there anytime I desire. And when I vacation in Ontario or visit over a Sunday I make my home congregation a priority and second priority is Grace United in Sarnia (which is usually a two drive because one of my best friends in ministry leads that congregation). I have other friends who are nearer that I will see as well they just aren't the top priority.

So yeah the Reverend Vosper staying at West Hill after being placed on the DSL would not work for anyone. That doesn't prevent her from attending where her close clergy friends lead worship.

 

[Ritafee]

A primary school teacher who left a class of 25 pupils in tears after she told told them Santa Claus did not exist has been fired ...

 

[paradox3]

A primary school teacher who left a class of 25 pupils in tears after she told told them Santa Claus did not exist has been fired ...

So do you think this parallels the Vosper situation?

 

[Ritafee]

So do you think this parallels the Vosper situation?

I think we could turn it into #1244 posts if we were so inclined.

 

[revjohn]

So do you think this parallels the Vosper situation?

Tenuous connection at best.

The teacher is not in the classroom to advance the fiction of Santa Claus so she is not attacking a tenent of her employer. Unless it is a school for Santas.

The teacher is also not in the classroom to deliberately upset the students so she is acting contrary to her employer in a duty of care consideration.

 

[paradox3]

I think we could turn it into #1244 posts if we were so inclined.

Sorry, I don't follow. Please explain a little more fully.

 

[revjohn]

Primary school teacher who told children: 'Santa does not exist' is fired | Daily Mail Online

If the reporting is in any way accurate it appears that the supply teacher demonstrated very poor classroom management.

I am mad at my students, how can I hurt their little feelings. Teaching fail.

The article also points out that the Supply teacher will not be allowed to teach at the Primary School but still has a contract with the agency that provides Supply Teachers.

Not really much of a firing after all.

 

[paradox3]

The teacher is also not in the classroom to deliberately upset the students so she is acting contrary to her employer in a duty of care consideration.

One could certainly look at the Vosper situation from a duty of care perspective. However the current review is about her theology & contibution to the mission of the church. Not about the pastoral care she did or did not provide.

 

[revjohn]

One could certainly look at the Vosper situation from a duty of care perspective. However the current review is about her theology & contibution to the mission of the church. Not about the pastoral care she did or did not provide.

The review will not likely be that narrow. When a clergy person is facing a potential discontinuation the whole of their ministry will be examined in some degree or another.

Pastoral Care is more than the odd visit or crisis support. In a Christian context, particularly the UCCAN which does reference the Sacraments and their necessity a refusal or negligence in providing the sacraments may very well be argued to be a failure to provide pastoral care. It will be balanced by successes in delivering pastoral care but in the neither of these pastoral care expressions are expendable.

Pastoral Care also comes into play in the schism experienced in the congregation as a result of changes made. Depending on who comes forward to speak on that the ability of the Reverend Vosper to deliver pastoral care to folk that she disagrees with also informs to her fitness.

Since the ruling that Christian ministers will be expected to be Christian the self-designation as Atheist becomes a rather glaring issue.

 

[paradox3]

The review will not likely be that narrow. When a clergy person is facing a potential discontinuation the whole of their ministry will be examined in some degree or another.

Really? I don't see how the whole of her ministry could be examined without delving into the congregational schism. I have not seen anything to indicate this will be the case.

How will anyone come forward to speak about her ability to deliver pastoral care to folk she disagrees with? I have heard mention of Gretta being able to call witnesses but she will surely call on her supporters from the current congregation.

 

[Ritafee]

So do you think this parallels the Vosper situation?

"... he was offering to the people of the streets he faced discipline from the appropriate court of oversight. For some reason, and quite contrary to policy and procedure, a ministry review of GeoFee was called and canceled before a consideration of GeoFee's fitness for ministry could be ascertained. In other forae, I have been critical of what is clearly a violation of Church policy." - revjohn

"For the Church to begin a fitness review and abandon it is poor leadership. That they stopped the review and prevented him from returning to his pastoral charge while at the same time prevented him from accepting any call in the Conference is also quite an abuse of authority." - revjohn

"The review will not likely be that narrow. When a clergy person is facing a potential discontinuation the whole of their ministry will be examined in some degree or another." - revjohn

 

[Luce NDs]

Hue Maas is like that ... NOS hites ... you're out ... something to mentally gnaw on ... like the bones of myth ...

Forae ... an attempt to Passover into the forest to examine the collective trees?

Twas and tis a matter of Logos ... logic personified, as a lark?

Santa Clause ... a healthy myth ... something to be supported like psyche ... some say a metaphor of the mental processing organ than is beyond desires ... thus out there like literature and the object thereof ... in so many word(s)!

Such myths can get their claws in you that they are literary devices as icons of something intangible ... mire ecce NDs ... like ecce homo ... common Eire?

 

[revjohn]

Really? I don't see how the whole of her ministry could be examined without delving into the congregational schism. I have not seen anything to indicate this will be the case.

Really. And yes, the congregational schism would become fair play.

Particularly because there was a theological divide.

How will anyone come forward to speak about her ability to deliver pastoral care to folk she disagrees with?

That would be a problem for those making allegations to deal with. All Clergy persons have a personnel file that resides in the Conference Office to which they are attached. Information is placed in that file from time to time. Indeed the clergy themselves can request for information to be provided in the file for future reference. I have done it on two occasions. Some of the information is relatively mundane, such as Clergy person X completed mandatory boundaries training on such and such a date or Clergy Person X completed specialized training for Y purpose on such and such a date.

Once upon a time an Executive Secretary of Hamilton Conference dropped a number of personal bombshells in a Conference Executive meeting when the Conference was looking for an individual with a certain profile. It was clear, to me at the very least, that somebody had read my file recently.

On another occasion, I received a call from a colleague wanting some advice on what to do in the event of a pastoral charge treasurer embezzling Church funds. My name had been suggested to him when he called the Conference Office. My experience was from a completely different conference so that material is in my file also.

I have heard mention of Gretta being able to call witnesses but she will surely call on her supporters from the current congregation.

She would be foolish if she didn't.

I also expect that she is going to call on clergy friends to function as witnesses, particularly when the theology comes under scrutiny. That will be interesting, to say the least. Much has been made of the "extreme right-wing" being opposed to her continued presence in UCCAN ministry. As if it has only been the "extreme right-wing" of the Church that has difficulty with her continued presence.

I am right of centre theologically speaking. I am not an extreme voice. revsdd is not extreme right-wing. Reverend Richard Bott is not extreme right-wing. Nor are past contributors Panentheism and revJamesMurray on the extreme right-wing theologically speaking. We have all been critical of the Reverend Vosper's stance none of us are part of any pitchfork and torch brigade.

At least as far as revsdd and myself are concerned we have made clear our thinking on the matter.

To say that the Reverend Vosper has absolutely no support would be quite laughable. To say she has a great deal of support across the denomination is equally laughable. It requires individuals to confuse support with popularity.

If the only element of the Reverend Vosper's ministry was the theology then there would be few witnesses that would be needed and the review wouldn't need to last much longer than a full day. Plus, the Conference Interview Board essentially did just that in the span of two days and they didn't need any witnesses because the Reverend Vosper is the only one who can authoritatively answer what it is that she does or does not believe.

Since the review was not started as a response to a specific complaint about the Reverend Vosper so much as it is the result of a legitimate question being asked that Toronto Conference Executive apparently could not answer the scope becomes far more universal.

 

[revjohn]

Another item to consider is that the UCCAN has an informal policy of "no surprises." This means that any attack from out of left-field would be considered bad faith activity. It is most likely that the Reverend Vosper will be informed ahead of time as to what material will be covered under the terms of the review so that she can prepare an adequate defence.

She knew what she was going to be facing when she appeared before the Conference Interview Board or, she should have known given the scope of the work the Conference Interview Board actually does.

That allows her to pick the best witnesses for her planned defence.

She will also know, at some point, who the Church plans to call as their witnesses so that her defence can prepare for that testimony.

In that respect the review follows pretty closely the rules of evidence that one would expect in any courtroom.

 

[revsdd]

At least as far as revsdd and myself are concerned we have made clear our thinking on the matter.

Thank you for that. I've rarely been accused of clear thinking. Are you angling for a Christmas gift or something?

 

[revjohn]

Thank you for that. I've rarely been accused of clear thinking. Are you angling for a Christmas gift or something?

Not from you. I couldn't wear the Punch Imlach hat you are so fond of.

See you at the next extreme right-wing luncheon?

 

[revsdd]

Not from you. I couldn't wear the Punch Imlach hat you are so fond of.

See you at the next extreme right-wing luncheon?

Punch won four Stanley Cups you know.

I have to pass on the luncheon. I hate to miss it, but I've been asked to join in a book burning of "With Or Without God." That's an opportunity I don't want to miss. After that's over we're going to pray in solidarity for those rock-solid Christians who can't even touch underwear-clad teenage girls without being persecuted for it. It's just a busy day.

 

[chansen]

How do you Christians get books to burn all the way through? Last time I tried to burn a bible there were still salvagable pages. Is it the Holy Spirit that encourages an all-consuming fire, or is it lighter fluid?

 

[Mendalla]

How do you Christians get books to burn all the way through? Last time I tried to burn a bible there were still salvagable pages. Is it the Holy Spirit that encourages an all-consuming fire, or is it lighter fluid?

I find soaking it in a bucket of gasoline for an hour helps. Use a very long stick to light it, though.

Now, if you were a high enough level cleric in D&D (and my old character Mendalla did get high enough), there's always the Flame Strike spell. It's the Dungeons & Dragons version of calling fire down from heaven.

 

[Luce NDs]

Thermodynamically ... furnace oil works better than gasoline ... gasoline is so nebulous!

Then my step-grandfather had great respect for damp-black in the kohl mines ... down deep eh!

Some say the pits of 'elle when they blew ...

And burning books destroys the evidence of previous myths that come to mine 'd ... a republican favourite ...