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
BetteTheRed said:
P3, do you think that the West Hill schism was inevitable, given the two directions that the congregation seemed to want to move in?
Click to expand...
No, I don't actually but I would not be surprised if you see it that way, given the press coverage of the whole fiasco and some of Gretta's own comments.

As they say, you had to be there. :)
 
Gotcha. I do understand that congregational dynamics, personalities, politics, are usually very much an 'inside' job.
 
Yes, the Board, and its meetings, can be a combination of very, very dull and very, very important. Was there some congregational apathy coupled with some 'motivated' nomination team work?
 
BetteTheRed said:
Yes, the Board, and its meetings, can be a combination of very, very dull and very, very important. Was there some congregational apathy coupled with some 'motivated' nomination team work?
Click to expand...
No, this does not capture the complexity of the happenings at West Hill.

Eventually the schism which took place included board members. But I really can't comment further because I was not on the board at the time and they have all maintained confidentiality about their deliberations.

Several board members left the congregation with the rest of the departures in 2008 or so.

Honestly, in retrospect, there should have been a complaint made to the Presbytery. Ten signatures would have been enough but I cannot imagine the anguish that would have been involved in collecting them.

Just to be clear, the complaint would have been about Gretta's leadership, not about her theology. The current review is concerned with her theology AFAIK so this is all water under the bridge.

Mike Milne in the Observer is clearly missing something when he claims that Gretta has always had the support of her congregation. Maybe this doesn't much matter now but his comment is misleading.

Personally I will be pleased to see this resolved one way or another.
 
I will, too, although I suspect it will not be resolved in Gretta's favour, and there will be anguish from the remaining congregation. It's an issue that quite stirs up a couple of my clergy friends who are not normally easily stirred up.
 
It is also good to hear that while most of us were operating under the belief that nothing was happening and that the process towards the review had been stalled for whatever reason that mediation was being attempted.

While we likely will not know what the shape of that mediation was until the actual review gets underway it is important to know that mediation ultimately failed, proving that neither side was willing to move any closer to the other.

The review panel has been named and a timeframe has been set. There is a procedural end in sight.
 
revjohn said:
It is also good to hear that while most of us were operating under the belief that nothing was happening and that the process towards the review had been stalled for whatever reason that mediation was being attempted.

While we likely will not know what the shape of that mediation was until the actual review gets underway it is important to know that mediation ultimately failed, proving that neither side was willing to move any closer to the other.

The review panel has been named and a timeframe has been set. There is a procedural end in sight.
Click to expand...

The two handed extremes: right versus left to amuse the Gods of Ares ... so that the struggle continues until something stops ... cardiac arrest? Tis a medicinal expression like sacral things ... foundation of the spine ...

Some say it is a loo ember region! Others cannot see it for various obstructions of sight ... foggy visions?

Nebulous souls ....
 
revjohn said:
While we likely will not know what the shape of that mediation was until the actual review gets underway it is important to know that mediation ultimately failed, proving that neither side was willing to move any closer to the other.
Click to expand...

I noted that as well. I'm glad they kept it quiet. Mediation is essentially a negotiation and is better done out of sight and out of mind. That it failed is a bit sad. I always prefer mediated settlements to head-butting. Wonder who they brought in as mediator. Hopefully someone from as far outside as possible, maybe a professional labour negotiator or something.
 
chansen said:
What could the UCCan offer in terms of mediation?
Click to expand...

No idea, which is kind of the point of the process being confidential. Maybe a chance to retire voluntarily as Bob Ripley did rather than being forcibly DSL'd in return for, in essence, pleading "guilty"? As John says, some of that may come out in the hearings.
 
chansen said:
What could the UCCan offer in terms of mediation?
Click to expand...

Something other than a disciplinary hearing.

At the time of the interview by the Conference Interview Board the recommendation to move directly to a fitness review was premised on the notion that the Reverend Vosper would not submit to any kind of retraining. In the normal course of events the CIB has three potential responses to candidates for ministry. Yes, No and Not at this time.

The CIB said No rather than not at this time which would have given the Reverend Vosper opportunity to correct or clarify meanings that may have been misunderstood. The CIB gave a rationale for not suggesting further study/reflection which may have been valid given their read of events during the actual time spent with the Reverend Vosper. No answers are typically for those who have a truly deficient understanding of how the Church operates.

Agree with her or not the Reverend Vosper should not have a truly deficient understanding of how the Church operates, even given some of the procedural miscues that have arisen along the way she should have some understanding of how the Church operates and as such should not have been offered a flat no leading to the review. Remediation should have been offered and refused first.

The mediation attempts (just guessing since I know of none of their content) should have taken place before the review was called for. So that the Church would have known for certain whether the divide between the Reverend Vosper and the Denomination was actually irreconcilable. That the attempt at mediation happens late is far better than it never have happened at all even if it actually proves that the CIB read things with crystal clarity.
 
Mendalla said:
No idea, which is kind of the point of the process being confidential. Maybe a chance to retire voluntarily as Bob Ripley did rather than being forcibly DSL'd in return for, in essence, pleading "guilty"?
Click to expand...

Not likely on the table at this point. Voluntary DSL would have been an option long before a review was called for.

That said, there would have been a chance for some kind of settlement. I doubt that we would have needed a complete recant on her personal thinking. The CIB did reveal some practices at West Hill which do deliberately thumb their nose at the denomination. If those practices were an option and not the norm there would be less concern.

Mendalla said:
As John says, some of that may come out in the hearings.
Click to expand...

I would count on it happening. The Reverend Vosper has never been particularly shy about airing conversations had thus far. I suspect that the mediation was offered only on the grounds that the Reverend Vosper not disclose any of it while it was happening.
 
Interesting times ahead. I am also curious to know if WHUC and/ or Unifor has been granted intervener status. The article only mentions that the panel met to consider this.
 
paradox3 said:
Interesting times ahead. I am also curious to know if WHUC and/ or Unifor has been granted intervener status. The article only mentions that the panel met to consider this.
Click to expand...

Remains to be seen.

I think WHUC has a better chance of being granted intervener status than does Unifor. Especially since UCCAN clergy are not unionized and Unifaith (the designated Clergy and Clergy family branch of Unifor) has been very reluctant to actually produce any evidence for the figures they claim with respect to membership.

What I can be certain of is that they haven't reached enough clergy signatures to force a ratification vote since none has happened.

When the Union drive first took off I was getting annual mailings in St. Anthony, NL to sign up and force a ratification vote in Ontario. Once I moved to Ontario I got no mailings from the Unionizers and those that landed on my desk were typically for predecessors on the Pastoral Drive who asked me to file them under G.
 
revjohn said:
specially since UCCAN clergy are not unionized and Unifaith (the designated Clergy and Clergy family branch of Unifor) has been very reluctant to actually produce any evidence for the figures they claim with respect to membership.
Click to expand...

This alone should disqualify Unifor from being there. Unions should be given a voice when they are the certified bargaining unit but they are not in this case.

WHUC, on the other hand, has a strong interest in the outcome so I could see it.
 
paradox3 said:
Just to be clear, the complaint would have been about Gretta's leadership, not about her theology. The current review is concerned with her theology AFAIK so this is all water under the bridge.
Click to expand...

While the presenting question may have been about theology the review has also become about practice of ministry. Things like not offering the sacraments are about practice of ministry even when, as in this case, they grow out of a theological choice.
 
GordW said:
While the presenting question may have been about theology the review has also become about practice of ministry. Things like not offering the sacraments are about practice of ministry even when, as in this case, they grow out of a theological choice.
Click to expand...
In that case the review could get even more interesting.

Too bad a group of former members did not request intervener status. :)
Just joking because there is no such organized group.

OTOH if the panel looks at the history of WHUC, they will observe a large dip in membership approximately 10 years ago.

True enough, the congregation has rebuilt and continues to function in a time when other United Churches in the area are closing. They are, however, in serious trouble with their building. It is presently closed and the congregation is gathering elsewhere.
 
paradox3 said:
They are, however, in serious trouble with their building. It is presently closed and the congregation is gathering elsewhere.
Click to expand...

If she does get DSL'd and takes those who want to stick with her out of the UCCan into some kind of independent church or whatever, one wonders if there will even be a WHUC anymore. Will there be enough of a remnant to save the congregation and building, or will those left just merge with a neighbour?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top