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
crazyheart

crazyheart

Rest In Peace: tomorrow,tomorrow
The Rev. Vosper is petitioning the Conference Annual Meeting to overturn the decision of the conference executive and sub-executive to initiate a review.
www.torontoconference.ca

(FaceBook)
sacore:balloon_safe_annotation.png
 
I have read it... Not sure it is actually in order for the Conference as a whole to reconsider a decision made by the Sub Executive (because the vast majority of people in the discussion would not be able to reconsider a decision they were no part of making--so really they are just second-guessing), and even if it is declared in order to do so they have to get people from the Sub-Executive who voted FOR the motion originally to make the motion to reconsider. It should never even get on the floor., procedurally speaking.
 
Here's the thing. Greta and West Hill have created for themselves a "no lose" situation. If Conference denies the request it makes no real difference to the process but they can continue to claim "persecution." If Conference grants the request it becomes evidence that "most people in the United Church agree with us." Very clever move I think. Either way - they'll get publicity! I have to grant them - very smart move, regardless of their ignorance of our polity. Kind of like a move in a chess game. And I agree with those who are saying that this is entirely out of order for a number of reasons.
 
revsdd said:
https://www.torontoconference.ca/downloads/annual-meet-2016-resource-book-additional-pages.pdf

It's New Business (NB#1) on Page 11 of the document.
Click to expand...

Okay, point 2 sounds like the only one that really seems to stand a chance since it is questioning the basis of the review from a Manual standpoint. The other two are more along the lines of "we like our minister and don't like how this is being done" and don't really point out any actual procedural flaws in the process. However, I thought the review HAD been initiated based on a submission from another church in the presbytery or something like that?
 
revsdd said:
Here's the thing. Greta and West Hill have created for themselves a "no lose" situation. If Conference denies the request it makes no real difference to the process but they can continue to claim "persecution." If Conference grants the request it becomes evidence that "most people in the United Church agree with us." Very clever move I think. Either way - they'll get publicity! I have to grant them - very smart move, regardless of their ignorance of our polity. Kind of like a move in a chess game. And I agree with those who are saying that this is entirely out of order for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
What would Jesus do? IYO
 
Waterfall said:
What would Jesus do? IYO
Click to expand...

Talk directly to Gretta and either praise or rebuke her depending on how he felt about what she said. I doubt he would care too much for the UCCan's polity in the first place. He didn't seem too fond of organized religion, really. Tended to get in the way of seeing and relating to God. His "organization" boiled down to asking 12 people to go out and preach to the world and that was about it. The various church polities of today have little to nothing to do with Jesus that I can see.
 
Mendalla said:
Okay, point 2 sounds like the only one that really seems to stand a chance since it is questioning the basis of the review from a Manual standpoint. The other two are more along the lines of "we like our minister and don't like how this is being done" and don't really point out any actual procedural flaws in the process. However, I thought the review HAD been initiated based on a submission from another church in the presbytery or something like that?
Click to expand...

Even point 2 is problematic. First they have the reference wrong. It's a minor point, but it's Section J 9.2. There are many 9.2s in the Manual. Knowing the Section is helpful. The review was initiated, as we've discussed ad nauseum, after concerns expressed in some way through Metropolitan United Church in Toronto. Metropolitan United Church in Toronto is a part of the same Presbytery as West Hill United Church. If the concern expressed by Metropolitan included a signature from one of Metropolitan's ministers and.or one of its lay delegates to Presbytery, then the review is clearly appropriate under Section J 9.2. So their wording that "No members of Toronto Southeast Presbytery have raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of The Reverend Gretta Vosper" isn't actually accurate. It should probably read "No members of Toronto Southeast Presbytery are known by us to have raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of The Reverend Gretta Vosper." There's also the confusion caused by the fact that Toronto Conference (with General Council's blessing) is using a different governance model where much more is done by Conference that used to be done by Presbytery. I know this is the case with Pastoral Relations. It may also be the case with Pastoral Oversight. Thus, the decision by the Conference sub-Executive rather than the Presbytery.

Point 3 also refers to the covenant between Gretta and West Hill. This has been a sticking point for many of us, and where many of us have the most objection to Gretta's and West Hill's position. The pastoral covenant in the United Church is not between the minister and congregation. It is between the minister, the congregation and the Presbytery. We are all accountable to each other, and all ministers are accountable to the wider church beyond the congregation. That Gretta is liked at West Hill is a piece of the puzzle to be considered but no more than that, and is not sufficient grounds to say that her effectiveness can't be reviewed. That would be like saying that a teacher who's really popular with his/her students can't be reviewed even though the kids aren't actually being taught anything.
 
Mendalla said:
Talk directly to Gretta and either praise or rebuke her depending on how he felt about what she said.
Click to expand...

Probably true. Of course, the church acts today as "the body of Christ" in his absence, so in a sense, the review process is talking directly to Gretta with the decision being either praising or rebuking her.

Mendalla said:
I doubt he would care too much for the UCCan's polity in the first place.
Click to expand...

Again, probably true, only in the sense that I think the Christian church of any stripe today would likely surprise him, to say the least. Not that he would necessarily consider it unfaithful - but I'm not sure it's what he had in mind.

Mendalla said:
He didn't seem too fond of organized religion, really. Tended to get in the way of seeing and relating to God.
Click to expand...

Well ... yes and no. He participated in "organized religion." The New Testament tells us that he customarily attended synagogue, and he seemed to express respect for the office of the priesthood, if not for the way it was being conducted. I think it's probably more accurate to say that Jesus understood that the tendency and problem of organized religion was that it inevitably sought to codify one's relationship with God, so that it had to be lived out in a particular way according to a particular formula.

Mendalla said:
His "organization" boiled down to asking 12 people to go out and preach to the world and that was about it. The various church polities of today have little to nothing to do with Jesus that I can see.
Click to expand...

Largely true, although I do believe that Jesus expressed the expectation that there would be mutual accountability. "Love one another as I have loved you" gives both an expectation and a measuring stick, suggesting that there would have to be some way devised to assess how well the expectation was being lived up to.
 
The sticky thing here is that this is not just a review of Gretta - it is clearly seen by the congregation of West Hill United as a review of them as well. It is not even a congregation divided - perhaps it was at one time, but those there now seem pretty united in this fight. So, they are taking this like a review on them all, because that's effectively what it is.

I still maintain that what they are doing now, is something that should have been done years ago. As seems to be typical, the UCCan missed the boat. Now they don't just have a rogue minister - they have a rogue congregation. From all accounts, they are very pleasant rogues.

This particular question has to do with policy and procedure. I get that. But the overall situation is one that the UCCan fostered and allowed to grow into what appears to be a congregation of nice, thoughtful people who may have different beliefs, but aren't hurting anyone. And the thing is, it's 10 busybodies at Metropolitan United who initiated this whole mess, though if they hadn't, I'm sure the UCCan has a sufficient supply of busybodies elsewhere who would have stepped up to the plate. Online, it is the easily alarmed who freak out over the word "atheist" who are driving the online comments and anti-Gretta sentiment. These people are not yawning, they are frothing. And if the review proceeds, they will get what they want. Honestly, I'd hate to see them rewarded. I think they are jerks, and rewarding jerks while punishing nice people is never going to sit well with me. But then, I don't care that the nice people don't necessarily believe in God and the jerks do.
 
No one is saying tbey arent nice people....just that they need to stand together under a different umbrella.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top