The Rev. Vosper Again

[crazyheart]

You know, if you could "Ignore" topics on this board based on keywords, I'd put "Vosper" on the list. This discussion is seriously played out IMHO and sheds more heat than light at this point.

Out of curiosity. how would the grass roots person and then poster get to know Gretta's story, if we

don't keep asking questions. If it affects the UCCAN , It affects all of us. Should only some know and

others not?

 

[Mendalla]

Out of curiosity. how would the grass roots person and then poster get to know Gretta's story, if we

don't keep asking questions. If it affects the UCCAN , It affects all of us. Should only some know and

others not?

Except it's the same questions and the same answers we've been hearing in thread after thread since the original WC. A new poster could search up any number of previous threads about her and get the same information they are getting here save for the bit about the conference appeal.

I'm actually now thinking we should merge this Vosper thread with the last one, sticky the merged thread, and request that all discussion of Gretta go in that thread. (And don't discuss this idea here. I'll start a thread on it in Council News & Business).

 

[Mendalla]

I'm actually now thinking we should merge this Vosper thread with the last one, sticky the merged thread, and request that all discussion of Gretta go in that thread. (And don't discuss this idea here. I'll start a thread on it in Council News & Business).

Started:

http://wondercafe2.ca/index.php?threads/gretta-vosper.2588/

 

[crazyheart]

okay

 

[revsdd]

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.

That's an interesting comment. It would actually be possible to review the congregation. Many congregations get reviewed. In my experience it's about as common as reviewing ministers, and sometimes the two reviews happen simultaneously. West Hill could be reviewed to assess whether they are "in a satisfactory state." That would be interesting. As I understand it, West Hill does not provide sacraments, but providing sacraments is an expectation of a United Church congregation. That in itself might make a review conclude that West Hill is not in a satisfactory state.

.. it's 10 busybodies at Metropolitan United who initiated this whole mess ...

On this I disagree. They aren't busybodies. They have a stake (much greater than yours) in how the United Church is perceived. And given how accountability works in the United Church, Gretta is accountable to the United Church, not just to West Hill United Church.

 

[chansen]

I am continually told here that the UCCan holds a more congregational model of governance than other churches, which is why the UCCan, as an organization, can not come out in favour of GSAs, mandate same-sex marriage availability across the denomination, or any of the other things I have half expected them to support, but didn't.

Now, suddenly, individual congregations are accountable to other congregations and the denomination. You can not be seen to embarrass the denomination by being an atheist, or by supporting an atheist minister. Okay, so that's the line. As a congregation, you can deny same-sex marriage, but you can't not believe in God and simply congregate to do good.

Considering the evolving beliefs of the Canadian population, the optics just suck.

As for sacraments, I'm sure many other UCCan members in many other congregations don't really care for them. A lot of them either vocally or quietly support Rev. Vosper and what she is doing. In many towns across Canada, you guys are the sane ones who don't typically go all dogmatic on people, so you're going to get people who would otherwise find themselves in a UU church if that was an option.

And I think that petitioning a governing body for the review and potential removal of a minister who is loved by her congregation, because you're embarrassed by someone who is well spoken and simply disagrees with you on the existence of something you can't demonstrate, is pretty much a textbook "busybody" - you're actively trying to break up another group because they may be enjoying themselves on something other than your terms. And when you read the online comments from within your own congregation, you start to see why SunNews had at least a few viewers who voted NDP. This move caters to the busybodies and the jerks, and while it is well within the rules and policy, I still consider it a mistimed effort that will alienate good people and young people in general. Like that's something you need to do.

 

[Mendalla]

I am continually told here that the UCCan holds a more congregational model of governance than other churches, which is why the UCCan, as an organization, can not come out in favour of GSAs, mandate same-sex marriage availability across the denomination, or any of the other things I have half expected them to support, but didn't.

The "more" is important here, though. They are not pure congregational like UUs or Fellowship Baptists and never have been. Presbyterial oversight is not a new thing even if there is a new model being tested in Toronto Conference. Ministers have always been responsible to multiple courts of the church, not just their own congregation. Gretta has to know that as much as anyone. It's not like they were congregational and then suddenly changed.

 

[chansen]

Absolutely, they are within their rights. I get that. But it's not like they *need* to do something. Not doing anything has proven to be well within their abilities, and their budget. And when doing something here rewards busybodies and people who literally write "Kick her out!!!!" on Facebook, and displaces an entire congregation who are happy and not hurting anybody, I object. I hate it when governing bodies cater to loud whiners and negatively impact good people. I always have. The whiners will always find something to whine about, but good people are hard to find.

 

[revsdd]

I am continually told here that the UCCan holds a more congregational model of governance than other churches, which is why the UCCan, as an organization, can not come out in favour of GSAs, mandate same-sex marriage availability across the denomination, or any of the other things I have half expected them to support, but didn't.

Actually, we don't hold a more congregational model of governance than "other churches." We hold a more congregational model of governance than "some other churches." Many others are far more congregational than we are.

Now, suddenly, individual congregations are accountable to other congregations and the denomination.

Quite suddenly. Since 1925 in fact. That's only 91 years. Suddenly. Very suddenly.

You can not be seen to embarrass the denomination by being an atheist, or by supporting an atheist minister. Okay, so that's the line.

Actually, we don't know if that's the line. That's what the review will determine.

As a congregation, you can deny same-sex marriage, but you can't not believe in God and simply congregate to do good.

As to the first part of your quote, marriage is an act of worship and in our polity congregations have sole discretion over acts of worship, with only a few exceptions - such as sacraments. There's nothing the denomination can just "do" about that. It would require a remit which would be controversial - not so much because of same sex marriage but because people would wonder where else in the worship life of the congregation the denomination would suddenly choose to interfere. As to the second, see my reply above.

Considering the evolving beliefs of the Canadian population, the optics just suck.

Could be.

As for sacraments, I'm sure many other UCCan members in many other congregations don't really care for them.

Individual members of a United Church congregation don't have to care for them or participate in them. United Church congregations are expected to make them available. Many who are not even church goers find something about them meaningful.

A lot of them either vocally or quietly support Rev. Vosper and what she is doing.

Some do. "A lot" is relative, and I'm not aware of people in the pews having been specifically surveyed about this. I'm only aware of Gretta having made claims for which she has no evidence.

In many towns across Canada, you guys are the sane ones who don't typically go all dogmatic on people, so you're going to get people who would otherwise find themselves in a UU church if that was an option.

Hopefully that's true. They're welcome. And if they come to my church they'll hear some Jesus talk.

And I think that petitioning a governing body for the review and potential removal of a minister who is loved by her congregation, because you're embarrassed by someone who is well spoken and simply disagrees with you on the existence of something you can't demonstrate, is pretty much a textbook "busybody" - you're actively trying to break up another group because they may be enjoying themselves on something other than your terms.

I think for a person or people to be concerned about something that may very well have an impact on them is not being "a textbook 'busybody.'" So we disagree.

And when you read the online comments from within your own congregation, you start to see why SunNews had at least a few viewers who voted NDP. This move caters to the busybodies and the jerks, and while it is well within the rules and policy, I still consider it a mistimed effort that will alienate good people and young people in general. Like that's something you need to do.

No doubt we have a few strident folk out there. Of course Gretta herself has engaged in deceitfulness and unsubstantiated claims throughout this process.

My own concern really is that she's effectively declaring herself unaccountable to the denomination that all of us agreed to be accountable to when we were ordained. She wants to be a free agent. She can't be a free agent and be a United Church minister at the same time. It just doesn't work.

 

[Jaebius]

I am continually told here that the UCCan holds a more congregational model of governance than other churches, which is why the UCCan, as an organization, can not come out in favour of GSAs, mandate same-sex marriage availability across the denomination, or any of the other things I have half expected them to support, but didn't.

Who's continually telling you that the UCCanada is more congregational than other denominations? It isn't. It may have churches that are more congregational than some others out there.

As for sacraments, I'm sure many other UCCan members in many other congregations don't really care for them. A lot of them either vocally or quietly support Rev. Vosper and what she is doing. In many towns across Canada, you guys are the sane ones who don't typically go all dogmatic on people, so you're going to get people who would otherwise find themselves in a UU church if that was an option.

Whether or not people enjoy the sacraments is hardly the most important thing about them though. A church shouldn't just stop giving the sacraments because some people don't really care for them. Rather, it should encourage its members to care.

 

[chansen]

Who's continually telling you that the UCCanada is more congregational than other denominations? It isn't. It may have churches that are more congregational than some others out there.

I recall the last time was over GSAs. If you're desperate, I'll look it up, but I don't really care to do the legwork at the moment.

Whether or not people enjoy the sacraments is hardly the most important thing about them though. A church shouldn't just stop giving the sacraments because some people don't really care for them. Rather, it should encourage its members to care.

Why? How do you encourage people to care about things they don't really believe in? That they couldn't even possibly bring themselves to believe in?

Churches on the more easygoing side of the spectrum are going to need some more flexibility, but this move only brings rigidity. Kudos to churches like yours, Jae, which have sewn up the "Believes strongly in even more improbable things than other believers" demographic. That's quite the feather in your cap, but we need the UCCan to be that place between atheism and Christianity in some areas. There are people who need it positioned there, and this makes sure the gulf that exists between the two points only gets wider and that any safe landing spot for those who wish to occupy that space gets less comfortable. Those calling for her ouster should be publicly rebuked, and very few centrists in the UCCan are doing a damn thing. Yeah, Rev. Vosper sometimes over-states her case. She exaggerates some of her points. But it's not like she's claiming her invisible friend told her what to do, so she has that going for her credibility. It has to be exasperating that there are people who "essentially" agree with her, but can not or will not say anything. As Richard Bott has been exploring, it's not 50%, but it's also not 0% who agree with her. But with everyone so scared of the word "atheist", someone has to stand up and ask why it's better to have busybody Christians who try to tear down congregations they don't like, instead of good atheists who contribute to their communities under the UCCan banner? But when Christians with more metaphorical interpretations are scared of being labelled "atheists", nobody will say anything. Of all the fights you guys need right now...

I hope Gretta does fight to the bitter end, if it comes to that. You guys deserve no less than a dogfight on your hands.

 

[Seeler]

Chanson said "... nice, thoughtful people who may have different beliefs, but aren't hurting anyone." and then "And the thing is, it's 10 busybodies at Metropolitan United who initiated this whole mess"

I wouldn't consider a UCC minister who goes on national TV and tells lies, exaggerations, misinterpretations about the church she works for as 'not hurting anyone'. And this whole mess was initiated by Greta herself about ten years ago when she wrote a mildly interesting book and realized how much she enjoyed the fame it brought her.

 

[chansen]

I think she has absolutely made some mistakes. I think the anti-Gretta side, including some ministers, are guilty of far worse rhetoric. She's fighting this battle mostly alone, with only her congregation, and a few scattered UCCan members, vocally behind her.

As for her "enjoying the fame", that's something you can't know. She has identified with how atheists are viewed and treated worldwide by the religious, and has come out as atheist in solidarity, assuming her own words can be believed. It's certainly not a good career move from someone who wants to keep a pension, and it's hardly making her a household name in Canada or bringing her riches.

 

[Jaebius]

I think she has absolutely made some mistakes. I think the anti-Gretta side, including some ministers, are guilty of far worse rhetoric. She's fighting this battle mostly alone, with only her congregation, and a few scattered UCCan members, vocally behind her.

Now you say "alone... only her congregation... a few scattered..." If memory serves correctly, before you've suggested that many in the UCCanada were supporting her. Why the change in tune?

As for her "enjoying the fame", that's something you can't know. She has identified with how atheists are viewed and treated worldwide by the religious, and has come out as atheist in solidarity, assuming her own words can be believed. It's certainly not a good career move from someone who wants to keep a pension, and it's hardly making her a household name in Canada or bringing her riches.

Don't know about that. Her book has sold fairly well, has it not? Not to mention speaking engagements etc.? When I saw her interviewed on CBC she surely seemed to be enjoying it.

 

[Jaebius]

Why? How do you encourage people to care about things they don't really believe in? That they couldn't even possibly bring themselves to believe in?

If they don't care about Christ, if they don't believe in Christ, how can they rightly claim to be followers of Christ? And if they aren't truly followers of Christ, do they belong in an organization of those who follow Christ? This isn't rocket science.

...we need the UCCan to be that place between atheism and Christianity in some areas.

We do? Why?

But it's not like she's claiming her invisible friend told her what to do, so she has that going for her credibility.

Okay. What she doesn't have going for her credibility is that she claimed she was in essential agreement with believing in the invisible friend and now that she's comfortably ensconced as a minister is claiming she doesn't. Was she lying when she claimed essential agreement? Is she lying now? Does not her denomination have a responsibility to know the truth?

But with everyone so scared of the word "atheist", someone has to stand up and ask why it's better to have busybody Christians who try to tear down congregations they don't like, instead of good atheists who contribute to their communities under the UCCan banner?

Atheist communities have no place being in a Christian denomination. If you atheists want to gather, knock yourselves out. But to do so under a Christian banner is blatantly dishonest.

 

[chansen]

Now you say "alone... only her congregation... a few scattered..." If memory serves correctly, before you've suggested that many in the UCCanada were supporting her. Why the change in tune?

I do think she has the support of many ministers, and from Richard Bott's exercise we may be able to extrapolate that there are hundreds of UCCan ministers who could easily label themselves "atheist" and not be re-defining a thing. But they don't speak up, and I'm guessing they don't because they don't want to bring this upon themselves. So in the public arena, Rev. Vosper is mostly alone. That said, she gets attention because she's interesting. She puts that attention to good use.

Don't know about that. Her book has sold fairly well, has it not? Not to mention speaking engagements etc.? When I saw her interviewed on CBC she surely seemed to be enjoying it.

I doubt it has sold enough to make her rich. I don't have sales figures, but I can't believe it's a life-changing amount.

And sure, if she is promoting ideas she holds dear, I bet she smiles when she talks about them. She's allowed to smile.

 

[Jaebius]

And sure, if she is promoting ideas she holds dear, I bet she smiles when she talks about them. She's allowed to smile.

I was responding to your, "As for her "enjoying the fame", that's something you can't know." She certainly seems like she's enjoying it to this outsider.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Chanson said "... nice, thoughtful people who may have different beliefs, but aren't hurting anyone." and then "And the thing is, it's 10 busybodies at Metropolitan United who initiated this whole mess"

I wouldn't consider a UCC minister who goes on national TV and tells lies, exaggerations, misinterpretations about the church she works for as 'not hurting anyone'. And this whole mess was initiated by Greta herself about ten years ago when she wrote a mildly interesting book and realized how much she enjoyed the fame it brought her.

This is where you and I might part company, seeler. "Lies, exaggerations, misintrepetations?"... I absolutely believe that Gretta is where she is today because that's an absolutely valid place, not saying a guarantee, of how this particular denomination trained its children, confirmed its young people, then ordained its young women; it was a trajectory that not everyone followed, but which is absolutely logical. You might not like the change, but your church fermented it. Seriously, any denomination that can, by remit, FFS, approve the Song of Faith, and then argue that there are edges? I continue to find it hugely ironic that this particular review was initiated by Metropolitan United, as if we get to choose the edge of the envelope to which our experience takes us.

 

[chansen]

If they don't care about Christ, if they don't believe in Christ, how can they rightly claim to be followers of Christ? And if they aren't truly followers of Christ, do they belong in an organization of those who follow Christ? This isn't rocket science.

Maybe they're fans of Christ. I don't know and I don't care. I don't worry about who is calling themselves a Christian and who isn't. It doesn't bother me in the least. Call yourself a duck for all I care - it's just a label.

We do? Why?

People need a place where they are comfortable. Some people aren't comfortable with rigid beliefs. Some people don't actually believe, but want a space and a community and a volunteer outlet to make a difference. Other churches already appeal more to the hard-core believers. The UCCan is more accommodating. At least, I'd like to see it as such.

Okay. What she doesn't have going for her credibility is that she claimed she was in essential agreement with believing in the invisible friend and now that she's comfortably ensconced as a minister is claiming she doesn't. Was she lying when she claimed essential agreement? Is she lying now? Does not her denomination have a responsibility to know the truth?

Maybe she agreed back then. And "essential" provides too much wiggle room to be worth anything. Maybe she can answer the question in the affirmative still. And if the denomination wanted to know the truth, they could simply ask her. Nobody talked to her. No one is interested in an answer, because they never asked her the question.

Atheist communities have no place being in a Christian denomination. If you atheists want to gather, knock yourselves out. But to do so under a Christian banner is blatantly dishonest.

You don't get to make that call. You don't even get to define what a Christian is. If she thinks she still belongs there, and the congregation obviously does, and no harm is being done, then I don't get the problem.

 

[Jaebius]

People need a place where they are comfortable.

If they do, perhaps they should find it at home. It isn't the role of the Church to be comfortable.

Maybe she agreed back then. And "essential" provides too much wiggle room to be worth anything. Maybe she can answer the question in the affirmative still. And if the denomination wanted to know the truth, they could simply ask her. Nobody talked to her. No one is interested in an answer, because they never asked her the question.

Okay then, they should ask her. Perhaps they will now.

You don't get to make that call. You don't even get to define what a Christian is. If she thinks she still belongs there, and the congregation obviously does, and no harm is being done, then I don't get the problem.

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]She has self-identified as being an atheist, and an atheist does not a Christian make. The choice of the Christian denomination the UCCanada is whether they want a non-Christian as one of their "Christian" leaders. That call is the UCCanada's to make (neither yours nor mine), and it seems they are now in the process of doing so.[/FONT]