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
Reems of print ... endless tracs of words and we don't yet know where they came from except the middle ground meddling with the ends ... and the ends dissociate saying you are with us or agin stuss ... and there the spit Ba'aL stuck ...

Black mum Ba is a dark sole song about bottom lines ... and Midnight rangers ... that man in a white suite ...

Jesus is a just metaphor as all essences alter as falling upon stones ... expansion and contraction causing spalling and spoor! This is often tallus at the bottom of the heap ... and extracted string from a hard pile as pounded down by those escaping the Kahn ... and old word for 'inn' ... perhaps gothic viscera ... a dark place for the creature on night to hang out ... or inwards if by mutuality in general continuum! Thus it goes ... with the middle of the Pi (torte) be'n a simple point from which to ex Pan 'deh ... thus Lexan from de Lexus ... all in continual flux ... Chi Xus did you see that flasher?

Might 've bin an Eve Angel -ist blowing out missals ...

The spark has been laid ... waiting for the candle placement in the Lamp ... some rubbing to do later for the stretch ...
 
paradox3 said:
Yes, like all terms with imprecise definitions, these ones are only helpful to a point. After that they seem to hinder more than help authentic conversation.
Click to expand...

Let's face it, broad definitions of "progressive Christian" like hers essentially make chansen and I Christians, even though neither of us claim or even want that label. "Progressive" sure, but why include "Christian" if Christ isn't actually part of the definition?
 
There are, I have discovered, a lot of differences between how "progressive Christian" is understood in Canada vs say the United States. I have a lot of American friends and colleagues from my doctoral cohort that I remain in touch with who would call themselves "progressive Christians" but their version of "progressive Christianity" most certainly includes Jesus at the centre and I have no problem claiming agreement with them. But in Canada I can't associate with the so-called "progressive Christian" movement because it's become so tightly tied to Greta and her beliefs, or lack thereof.
 
Christians a definitely hard to define as their God is as all essences ... hard to grasp as mere wisps ... things above the pool of mental gatherings ... an unconscious matter or maybe even antimatter ... nonetheless dark because someone stated eons ago that this is something we shouldn't know as common folk or heathen 've myth! Ethan, or heh there ... Hebrew sign for space ... as good as apostrophe ... derived from the yin-yang ... and it all spins!

A grand metaphor larger than d'rum PET ... destructive beast in the WH? There will be nope*ace ... maybe due to the motive burning sense due to what can be hidden in a string of word ... threads of sancti monis madness ...

Crazy Love?
 
revsdd said:
There are, I have discovered, a lot of differences between how "progressive Christian" is understood in Canada vs say the United States. I have a lot of American friends and colleagues from my doctoral cohort that I remain in touch with who would call themselves "progressive Christians" but their version of "progressive Christianity" most certainly includes Jesus at the centre and I have no problem claiming agreement with them. But in Canada I can't associate with the so-called "progressive Christian" movement because it's become so tightly tied to Greta and her beliefs, or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

And then you have "Emerging" and "Emergent" Christianity which seem to be terms used down there but not much up here. The latter is more specific, generally referring to the movement led by Brian McLaren and various allies. The former is broader and seems to almost be synonymous with "progressive Christianity".
 
Continuing my conversation with a current West Hill member who I knew reasonably well back in the day.

On FB today I said:

"Agreed that we have very different memories and perceptions of the visionworks process in 2004. Funny we don't even remember each other being at the table. I recall Scott acting as facilitator and scribe. He did many early drafts and I was pleased with the final product. It seems to me that some of the explanation you are providing could come from subsequent conversations. You have continued to engage with the document and find meaning in it over the years. I know there have been 2 revisions made which I imagine involved extensive discussion. Thanks for understanding my frustration with the board chair. No, I was not insulted by his comments. Frustrated and astonished, yes."
 
Hope this is not too confusing.

On FB I said next:

" About the hymns. Again you are talking about a time when I was no longer present at West Hill. During my time there, gretta was experimenting with changing up a few words here and there. More often she would omit certain verses which troubled her. The first new hymn written by Scott was featured at the CCPC launch in November 2004. I know there are many new ones in your repertoire now. Actually I have no problem with completely rewritten words to old favorite tunes. I only shared the Advent hymn story because it was a pivotal point of awareness for me."
 
Conversation continues. I remember this individual as a very nice woman with a wonderful singing voice.

Next FB post:

"If you had been present the evening of the handouts, I am sure you would remember it well. In terms of the trajectory of the congregation, you really don't need to explain to me where you have ended up. I get it. And I understand the congregation had "progressive" leanings back in the 90's and wanted to call a "progressive" minister. But we part company here in our understanding. The theological shift took place very slowly initially & its inception is hard to pinpoint. Gretta has often pegged it at a particular sermon she preached in 2001. Those evenings to explain progressive Christianity to the congregation did not take place until early in 2005. I discussed my concerns about the lack of transparency with her when I left the congregation. She carefully explained to me about moving people "one step at a time". She said "I regret that" a few times during that conversation. Sorry I still see the whole process as very top down. I know you have a different view."
 
Coming to the end. Thanks to anybody who might be reading along.

My final FB post of early today:

"Yes, many people were hurt. And from the sounds of things, not only those who walked away. I am very interested to know how you make sense of all the departures which took place. If everything was as participatory as you say, why did 2/3 of your congregation leave you? The attitude of gretta and the board at the time was that there are many other churches out there for anyone unhappy with WHUC. There are plenty of them, of course, but this thinking always struck me as quite callous. It is not exactly true that there are no alternatives for those who think like gretta. Unitarian Universalist congregations are available & welcoming in the GTA. Thanks for the conversation. It has been worthwhile."
 
Maybe some day I will put this all together in a more coherent blog somewhere. Not sure.

It took me about an hour to do those 4 posts today. Not too sure how many people will actually see them on FB. Hopefully my conversational partner will return.
 
Yeah, this sounds more and more like what happened at my fellowship as I described above. It was around that same time period, too, so before anyone outside WHUC really knew about Gretta. I first came across on WC and through one of our interim ministers who got me interested in reading With or Without God. I will say, that the opponents in our case were pretty heavy-handed as well. Instead of leaving, as you and others seem to have done, they fought tooth and nail and not always fairly. That's why ours ended with the minister going instead of the opposing members. Still, perhaps those of us who sided with the minister could have played our hand differently, too. I never saw the parallels before but your descriptions are making them clearer.
 
Mendalla said:
You know, it's too bad she took the approach she did. There was definitely some middle ground you could have landed on.

That said, I am guilty of having supported a minister who perhaps also went too far in trying to remake a congregation in her preferred image (in the opposite direction, away from a strong humanist history towards a more spiritual path). She ended up leaving but it took two interim ministers to put the pieces back together before we could call another settled minister. At the time, I was a strong supporter as was the board, but in retrospect, it's uncomfortably similar to the WHUC situation. And I wonder if I was on the right side.
Click to expand...
Where did the idea of shifting the focus come from in the first place, do you know?

Ironic that this happened in the UU world, isn't it?

And yes, the situation sounds remarkably like West Hill's.
 
paradox3 said:
Where did the idea of shifting the focus come from in the first place, do you know?
Click to expand...

I was still fairly new and not that plugged in yet when she started so I'm kind of missing that piece. She got a huge majority of support from the congregation, I know, with only some anti-clerical types who didn't want a minister at all voting against IIRC. Whether the search committee (which is not a committee of board but reports directly to the congregation) felt we needed the shift or whether it was her and the board after she came in, I am not sure. She was a bit eccentric spiritually herself, raised Jewish but in Tennessee so that she was influenced by Bible Belt spirituality to some degree, at least in terms of how she wanted worship to happen. So perhaps it came from her and she just sold the board on it. As I said, I liked the direction myself and, once I switched from editing the website and newsletter to serving on worship, I wholeheartedly supported and encouraged her approach.
 
revsdd said:
There are, I have discovered, a lot of differences between how "progressive Christian" is understood in Canada vs say the United States. I have a lot of American friends and colleagues from my doctoral cohort that I remain in touch with who would call themselves "progressive Christians" but their version of "progressive Christianity" most certainly includes Jesus at the centre and I have no problem claiming agreement with them. But in Canada I can't associate with the so-called "progressive Christian" movement because it's become so tightly tied to Greta and her beliefs, or lack thereof.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the observations oh wise revered elder

A lot of this adult world is just Sooo bizarre

T'underbay Angelic,
Inannawhimsey
 
Thanks P3 for sharing your posts. I am, as usual, impressed & appreciative of your fair recounting of events & ability to engage those with difference. I'm sorry things unfolded in this manner for you and so many others.
 
Carolla said:
Thanks P3 for sharing your posts. I am, as usual, impressed & appreciative of your fair recounting of events & ability to engage those with difference. I'm sorry things unfolded in this manner for you and so many others.
Click to expand...
Kudoes to paradox3

Opportunly Random,
Inannaehimsey
 
The schism continues .. to allow a place for the light to shine through between the dark nutz ... alternates in life maqon space? Did you know maqon is space in the dirty Hebrew word? Archaic linguistics ... one has to give it rhume to expand ... tis very ambiguous tongue ... leading to Arab Script as counter to capital block let Urs ...

The dry English will not accept this except in the form of drippy mysts ... Duo*yah bibliographic? Forerunner of J'Aimes as liked well for a term of time ... it will change as fold learn about the unknown ... if you like it!
 
Carolla said:
Thanks P3 for sharing your posts. I am, as usual, impressed & appreciative of your fair recounting of events & ability to engage those with difference.
Click to expand...

I want to echo Carolla's sentiments.

Your reasonably objective view from inside has been incredibly helpful in helping to understand just how we find ourselves in this place.

Mendalla's observations about a similar struggle and wondering about whether or not he was on the right side in a conflict also help to flesh out a very real and very human reality which is ignored when it becomes a talking heads discussion about what should or shouldn't have happened.

I also have to say that the longer the process has gone on and the more discovery that has been made public about the Reverend Vosper's participation in the mission and ministry of the denomination the more difficult it has been for her to keep support from eroding. Conversations all around the Church in the circles I move in are hearing those who were somewhat supportive verbally recant that support. I am aware that others elsewhere are doubling down on the support bit.

Which is why the details of the settlement become so critical.

To be perfectly candid I don't think either participant is going to come up smelling roses when the details finally do see the light of day.

In various threads where the Reverend Vosper has been discussed revsdd and myself have quoted Gamaliel when he was asked about whether or not the apostles should be made to shut up about the Resurrection of Jesus. He responds to the rest of the Jewish leadership at the time by saying, "If it is of God then you cannot stop it. If it is not of God you do not have to worry about stopping it."

Sadly, thanks to Christendom the Church got a taste of power and has embraced the wisdom of flexing muscle rather than extending grace.

Some Churches saw the folly in exercising brutal power over opponents and grew wiser.

Those who are most outraged about the settlement are probably among those who still wax nostalgic about the Church having power over others and a willingness to use it because the settlement subverts a punitive possibility.

I confess, I am stymied by the brakes being applied so late in the process after so many extended delays.

My experience in the denomination has nothing to compare this event with.

That said I am aware of a number of disciplinary processes that resulted in civil litigation and the bodies of oversight in the UCCAN do not have a terribly good track record when going to court for disciplining clergy. What winds up being the downfall of the various courts of oversight is not the verdict reached so much as it is a failure to exercise discipline in the way we have said we would.

It could be argued that by failing somewhere along the way that the verdict might have been different. It has never been proven that this is actually the case. What has been proven is that the various courts of the Church failed to treat the ministry personnel fairly and that results in wrongful dismissal where dismissal has been the end result.

I imagine I would be a lot more comfortable knowing the details of the settlement. Not being a member of any of the participating bodies I'm not entitled to know. Speculation is all I can offer and that is based on events prior to this and how they have played out.

So, speculating wildly, Toronto Conference agrees to settle because that spares them a wrongful dismissal suit. You cannot do the right thing the wrong way. Those elsewhere who advocate that this is exactly what should have happened demonstrate that they are not fit for leadership and their Christian witness is poor.

Also speculating wildly, the Reverend Vosper and West Hill take the settlement because the writing is on the wall and pushing further is self-injurious. Here rumour shapes the discussion. Rumour is that the Reverend Vosper is unwell. No idea if that is true or not and if it is true no idea in what way she is unwell. A Ministry Fitness Review is hell for individuals in good physical/mental/emotional condition. For those who are struggling the review can be a killer. Literally even. The Reverend Vosper could defy all odds and buck the trend of decisions against her and prevail. Doing so could also ruin her physically/mentally/spiritually. It would be a Pyrrhic victory at best and nobody with half a mind would settle for that. West Hill United Church appears to be in a bit of a financial pickle due to some physical plant maintenance issue. Currently, they are paying upkeep on a building while entertaining costly repairs to the same, are they also paying to rent the location they currently worship in? With roughly 80+ folk supporting the Pastoral Charge can they afford the initial expense of seeing their minister on disability leave?

So, for the Reverend Vosper and West Hill United Church can they actually afford an attempt to win? Would it be just as costly in the long-run as a loss?

Bear in mind this is speculation based on observation of previous disciplinary processes being challenged.

Settlement leaves everyone wondering what is right. Which will piss folk off who need to know. Statements from the Denomination and the Moderator continue to emphasize that they expect Ministers to provide Christian service. So that is nothing new either. Settlement doesn't destroy anyone and at the end of the day whenever a court of The United Church of Canada feels discipline is warranted it does so hoping for a reconciliation not a destruction.

Those disappointed that nobody paid with a pound of flesh in all of this need to up their humanity along with their Christianity.
 
I thought I would like to give my impressions of Gretta Vosper and her situation from afar.......
Firstly, I have met her personally, when she was on a tour of progressive Christianity here in Australia.

I liked her -she came across as warm and sincere. But I did have a few issues with her -to me - radical Progressive Christianity.

Because of her engaging personality, there is, in my view, a possibility that many will be swept up by their admiration of her to the detriment of their own critical thinking when it comes to matters of faith.
It also concerns me that she appears to have shown little tolerance for those that don't support her views. It concerns me as we're beginning to see the same thing happening here in Oz.

I visited my former church, after a period of absence, and, apart from the Bible readings, it seemed more like a political and humanist rally than church. The minister -equally charismatic with a huge personal following- , also shows little tolerance to accommodate differences of faith views in the congregation.

Perhaps many believe that for the church to have a future we have to emphasise the politics and quietly dump the theology?

The minister at my present church is progressive, but the services are more traditional, as he accepts that faith is a journey and our beliefs can differ from his. We also have had sermons given by congregation members who have a more traditional and conservative view of faith.

It does seem to me that there is a certain amount of arrogance in not allowing folks to think for themselves, and feel free to do so.
We are called to follow Jesus -not the minister - no matter how much we may like a minister personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top