I can kind of see her point about the congregation, but only barely. If the current congregation is fairly closely aligned with her theologically, I could see them viewing her being removed as a punishment for them.
Really, though, it looks to me like she's trying to set herself up as an icon for all those in the UCCan who may be out of "essential agreement" or even a bit off the mainstream as a way of building some sympathy for her cause. Not so much her congregation in the literal sense, but in a broader, spiritual sense.
The one question that I wonder about: What happens if she "wins" (there are no winners in mess like this, but she'll definitely spin it as a win)? What if they reject the earlier findings and decide she can stay? That could produce a crapstorm as big as, or bigger than, if she gets removed.
To be perfectly honest, just from the standpoint of peace within the denomination, Gretta "winning" would be the best outcome. The usual suspects will grumble about it on Facebook, etc., but at the level of individual members of local congregations and the day to day work going on in local congregations, Gretta is largely irrelevant. I say that with no disrespect intended. I'm irrelevant to the bigger picture as well. If Gretta stays on at West Hill I suspect that there will be a few ripples but for the most part the United Church will carry on carrying on. There will, I suspect, be a much more passionate outcry if she's removed, and I think more people will leave the denomination if she's removed than will if she's not. Having said that, while the former option might cause less disruption than the latter option, what happens to Gretta either way will not be the be all and end all for the United Church of Canada.
The real question is, for me, whether the review board has the stomach to face the attacks they're going to face from Gretta's supporters if she's removed. Because that will be far nastier than if she's not removed.
I've said before that if it had been me I'd have preferred that (a) Scarborough Presbytery would have dealt with this mess years and years ago when the congregation split, and (b) that, given that Scarborough Presbytery didn't deal with it for whatever reason we had just waited Gretta out and let her retire from West Hill. However, this is where we are. If the issue is that she has to be in "essential agreement" with the doctrine of the United Church of Canada as outlined by the various statements in the Manual (1925 20 Articles of faith, 1940 Statement of Faith, 1968 A New Creed as amended since and the most recent A Song of Faith) then I can't honestly see any way that she can be declared in essential agreement with any of them.
But what do I know. Regardless of the outcome I suspect that my ministry will go on essentially unchanged, although I think I will have lost some respect for the processes of the United Church if in the end, after all this, the final decision is to just let it go and basically say that Toronto Conference was wrong.
