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
chansen said:
The laity on Facebook and general Internet comment areas are, in general, less charitable towards Rev. Vosper than her fellow clergy are, with obvious exceptions.
Click to expand...

There are, "allegedly" quite a few lawyers and judges numbered among the laity of the Judicial Committee. That is also a rumour.
 
chansen said:
What's the implication of that?
Click to expand...

A possible implication is that those with legal backgrounds see the issue in black and white terms. I don't know that such is the case. That is part of the trouble with rumours. Little fact and less explanation.

Another possible implication is that Clergy who have some background in Church dispute understand that you cannot make dissent just disappear so you need to sometimes take a softer tack. Again, I don't know that such is the case either. I'm filling in gaps based on conversations with other clergies (from all over the spectrum) who may disagree on issues of Christology or the importance of doctrinal standards or even the meaning of Essential Agreement who still think some discipline is required.

There is also a possible implication that, just like other organizations, the longer you participate the more connected you become. Clergy are typically empathetic towards other clergy and their circumstance. It is only when there is a clear difference of opinion between actual clergy persons that you see them line up against one another.

Having been Presbytery Agent to deal with conflict on a pastoral charge more often than I would like I know that the minute I hear parishioners start ganging up on their clergy I am moving to stop that stampede. Intellectually I know that not all of my clergy colleagues are faultless. I also know that upset congregations begin to blame clergy for everything and that becomes a distraction.

And while I have invested time into stilling some roiling waters what becomes evident is that damage done is very hard to undo.

Clergy often find themselves face to face with other clergies on some task or another. It is easier to work in that circumstance if both aren't fingering the wounds left by the knives of the other. The laity generally doesn't have to get involved in Church work, especially the disciplinary/problem resolution phases of any problem. They are welcome to be a part and we are happy to have them along to help. They can't be compelled to participate.
 
I, indeed, meant "small c" conservative. Anecdotally, in our little City, 3/4 of the congregations are Affirming or in process. The one that isn't? Big downtown church supported by most of the lawyers/doctors who are UCCan.
 
chansen said:
Four months after the hearing was not-postponed-but-never-scheduled, when Rev. Alan Hall told the Observer, “We hope it would be sometime in the winter, this winter,” it seems to this skier that we're rapidly running out of winter.

Did anyone see that coming?

Any updates? My google search brought up nothing new.
Click to expand...

It was a skid ...
 
revjohn said:
Still seven days of winter left. Don't get ahead of yourself. The Church is known for . . . ummm . . . its ability to . . . well, move eventually.



Yes.

As soon as Hall uttered the words "We hope" that suggested to this observer of Church process that the hope was true even if what was hoped for was not particularly realistic.

Heck the only time the UCCAN does anything fast is when it is busy screwing something up.



I have contacts on the Judicial Committee. It would be inappropriate for me to ask them what is going on and where the process is at present. Since we no longer have face to face contact it would be even more inappropriate for me to ask them and them to respond via e-mail.

The most I "heard" and I wasn't soliciting information when the Judicial Committee was debating the original appeal was that discussion was intense, wide-ranging and too close to call. I also heard that in the division of make-up for the Committee (equal numbers clergy and laity) that the laity were quicker in coming to a conclusion to deny the appeal than were the clergy.

But that is really just a rumour and I have no way to prove that.
Click to expand...

God'sweals turn slowly ... no silly not squeals ... the church is too well greased! Allows for the skids and smudges ...
 
With GC over and done again, is there anything new on this front? I don't see anything from the UCCan since they hoped the review would happen "sometime in the winter. This [last] winter."

This was the comment from Rev. Alan Hall in the Observer. The proposed dates in November 2017 could not accommodate the schedules of those potentially involved, all were told.

The winter, very predictably, passed with no movement on the review. So did the spring. We are half way through summer. The church actually went through a restructuring faster than it dealt with Rev. Vosper. A group of ministers floored me by actually sending out a letter to the new Premier of Ontario in a timely manner, which is the sort of action the UCCan is not known for, but still nothing on Rev. Vosper.

My comment from last winter was that if it doesn't happen by this November, I can't see it happening at all. I understand it "has to happen", but this is obviously not a case of scheduling conflicts any more, but a case of willingness. There is no will to go ahead with this review by anyone who does not already have a huge bias one way or the other. Clearly, no one who qualifies to be on this panel, wants to be on this panel.

It would be amazing to know the conversations that are happening over this.

Does anyone know any more than this? Any dates being considered? And if they can't get enough to agree to sit, what the hell happens? Does this just hang up there like some Damoclean sword because no one thought to put a maximum wait time on these things? And if delay in dealing with an internal problem isn't embarrassing yet for the UCCan, at what point would it be? 4 years? 8 years?

Realistically, this is looking less likely every month.
 
So that's good, then
Because it all started because a few people were upset
Then it grew a la flame war
And then it became known to the Bureaucracy...who then, thankfully, isn't competent? Or who.had to try to save face or help.the brand or act on feelings?
No news is good news?
 
Didn't hear anything at GC about it. There were a few proposals regarding theology & 'essential agreement' meaning that seem to resurface periodically & were referred to a standing committee for 'study' and recommendations. Lots in the church are asking for changes ... so we'll see what happens. Patience ...
 
The problem for the UCCan is that the longer it drags on, the more it looks like stalling, esp. to those outside the church or unfamiliar with its processes. If they really are going to do something, they need to get moving. Waiting for the church to study "essential agreement" would be just putting it off further, which won't satisfy either her opponents or her supporters, though it would likely strengthen the hand of the latter since the longer they leave her in, the harder it becomes to justify taking her out. If Vosper is really that bad for the church, she should have been gone a lot quicker.
 
"Looks like"? They *are* stalling, but perhaps not on purpose. They can't get people to agree to be on a panel. Who wants to sit for this one?

You can blame GC for some of the delay. Ironically, this whole process started 3 years earlier, before the previous GC and I wondered aloud then about the timing. Anybody back then think it would drag on for more than 3 years?
 
chansen said:
I wonder if that's the end game. Wait her out until retirement.
Click to expand...

The downside of that approach is that no precedent gets set. A clear decision one way or another would provide guidance the next time. If they wait out her retirement, then the next time a minister's theology comes under scrutiny, they'll be muddling through again.
 
I know one of the ministers who participated in the original review. He was very upset and disturbed by the whole thing, and is NOT eager to talk about it. But he was also not one of the four dissenting views. Difficult time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top