crazyheart
Rest In Peace: tomorrow,tomorrow
You are all posting like removing Gretta from the church is a sure thing. Is it?
The Rev. Vosper Again
- Thread starter crazyheart
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Some of the revs seemed to think so upthread. It really isn't, though, but the alternative is less interesting to speculate about.
GordW
Church-Geek-Oramus
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
No it is not. It is a realistic possibility, but would not likely be the first step at any rate.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
It depends. If the issue is strictly theology and belief then, yes, I believe she will be removed. If somehow that isn't the primary issue considered I think Gretta has said enough to warrant requiring her to take courses on United Church polity and United Church history because in her public statements at least she's displayed a woeful grasp of both. From what I've picked up if the review looks at the entire tenure of her ministry and the course it's taken and how those who left the church were engaged by her as the theological disagreements escalated, there could also be suggestions that she needs to do some sort of program dealing with pastoral skills. Whether she'd be willing to do any of that is an open question.
There's also the possibility that the review will simply declare her effective and require nothing. I think that's unlikely (and, frankly, I think it would be a bit of a cop out) but it's possible.
How many Ministers, do you imagine, will leave the denomination should Rev. Vosper be found effective?
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Would we, however, largely be in agreement that this might very well be the best thing for the future of the UCCan?
There are shifts already occurring ... also in other denominations and numerations ... close to numina applications of titular assignments ... like names for stuff in organic chemistry!
The art of .. I forget the name theroff as in mortal sense we are not allowed such recall ... nomenclature as derived from gnomon?
The art of .. I forget the name theroff as in mortal sense we are not allowed such recall ... nomenclature as derived from gnomon?
revsdd
Well-Known Member
As I've said many times, I'd have preferred that the review not happen at all. At this time that would have been best for the denomination. But that cat's out of the bag. Since it's going ahead I think if nothing - absolutely nothing - is done, it makes a mockery of oversight and discipline. At the very least she needs to be called on her lack of knowledge of UCC history and polity and required to do something to demonstrate that she has a solid grasp of both.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Well, I won't. I can't speak for anyone else. I don't see why that outcome would be reason to leave.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I expect some to threaten that. Not sure they will. They have their pensions to think about, after all
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
They have their pensions to think about, after all
Years ago, when I read With or Without God, I remarked to another UU who had read it that Vosper sounded rather like she should be UU. They responded with a comment that she didn't want to give up her UCCan pension.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
I realize the sarcasm of your comment, but taking it back to Gretta -I expect some to threaten that. Not sure they will. They have their pensions to think about, after all
For what it's worth I've never believed that her benefits were motivating her desire not to leave. That just doesn't make sense. If she was concerned primarily about benefits she'd have chosen not to make waves. She probably could have expressed herself and her beliefs to the West Hill congregation as long as she wanted and nothing would have been done. But by choosing to be so public with her beliefs she's provoked (I believe deliberately) a confrontation. Why? The only thing that makes sense to me is that she believes what she says and she basically sees herself as the leader of a reform movement within the church - and she believes that the reform she promotes is necessary. I disagree, but in her own way I believe she cares about the United Church. I've never claimed otherwise. Some say she's a media hound who loves the limelight. She may be, but I still think that at the most basic level she sees herself as constructive and not destructive as her detractors claim. My belief about what her motives are is one reason I think this thing is tragic all around.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Thank you. I've made similar comments before here, and to media sites where people were citing her salary and her pension as reasons for her refusal to resign. I agree that makes no sense. If she wanted to protect her salary and pension, she would shut up and keep her comments to her congregants. It's such an obvious point, I can't believe it eludes so many.
Also agreed, for the most part. I'm not sure that she sees herself as a leader of a movement, but I can see why you might say that. Her media exposure is a product of the outrage sent her way, and it's a tool she uses the more pressure she feels she is under. But the thing that seemed to be the proverbial straw - the Charlie Hebdo statement rebuke - was really a good point that I could see other UCCan people making. Someone needed to say it out loud, and I'm glad she did, because it is a statement that will get noticed coming clergy. If the Centre for Inquiry says it, nobody cares. So it's not like she is saying things to deliberately provoke - I think she is doing some good with comments that are necessary for someone to make, even if they are not the comments the UCCan would want her to make.
One should be silent when speaking of God in the presence of people that have God fixed and well planted in a book! Even God states be still and listen ... in silence you might hear it ... alas we are exposed to turmoil and dissonance ... for a period of time to experience the other side of a great peace of God .. who still rests after the BIG Bang ... the lady in black abstract exhausted heh!
Yup, that was Hur ... opposing genre ... only soul accepted out there as the organic experience of wisdom gone wild ...
Such is life as normal ...
Yup, that was Hur ... opposing genre ... only soul accepted out there as the organic experience of wisdom gone wild ...
Such is life as normal ...
revjohn
Well-Known Member
crazyheart said:
I do not believe that when it comes to group decisions there is any such thing as a sure thing.
I will not bet on what the outcome will be. That said, I have an opinion on what the outcome should be. My membership and participation in the UCCan does not hinge on everyone sharing my opinion.
I have heard a tremendous amount of hearsay regarding just exactly how the process will be conducted. Some of what I have heard sounds reasonable. Some of what I have heard sounds dubious. I have no way of knowing how much of either actually represents the truth of the matter.
That the review will be conducted by the same body which tests clergy hopefuls for their suitability. It is a deliberately challenging process but it is not inherently hostile. Normally the questioning covers a number of questions given to candidates in advance which they in turn answer in advance and all questions and answers are explored and examined. This format could be followed though I expect the regular questions would need to be swapped out for something more appropriate to this particular context.
Following discussion with the Rev. Vosper the Conference Interview Committee team chosen for this task will submit a recommendation to the Sub-executive and the Sub-executive will examine the recommendation and then propose a motion. Off hand the motion will be one of three options: 1) The Sub-executive will recommend no further action (meaning the Sub-executive does no believe there is reason to take any further action to discipline the Rev. Vosper and she may continue unhindered in her ministry with West Hill, 2) The Sub-executive will recommend that the Rev. Vosper undertake a proscribed additional education project examining her place within the United Church of Canada and the course must be completed to the satisfaction of the Sub-executive. Deadlines will be set and if the Rev. Vosper fails to comply further disciplinary action may be taken and. 3) The Sub-executive may decide that the Rev. Vosper needs to be placed on the Discontinued Service List.
Bear in mind that even if action 3) is taken it would be theoretically possible for the Rev. Vosper to approach Toronto Conference at a future date and ask to have her name removed from the DSL so that she could return to ministry within the UCCan. I had a friend who voluntarily placed himself on the DSL and then some years later asked Hamilton Conference to remove his name from the DSL so that he could formally transfer to a sister denomination. (He needed a certificate of Good Standing from us to transfer with credentials rather than starting their process from scratch). Of course, since he was on the list voluntarily there was very little problem voting to readmit him, he still had to meet with the Conference Interview Committee to satisfy them he was still satisfactory as a minister.
And again, from having sat in the seat where such decisions are made I can tell you there is no joy in placing anyone on the DSL for disciplinary reasons just as there is always some sadness when a colleague petitions the Presbytery/Conference to place them on the DSL voluntarily.
Some volunteer to be placed on the DSL so that they can pursue some form of service elsewhere and while we wish them well in those endeavours it is hard to say good-bye to a trusted colleague.
Discipline, even when it is done properly and gently is never something that inspires dancing in the streets.
While I have been vocal in stating that I do not think that the fit between the Rev. Vosper and The United Church of Canada is a good one I cannot say that there is much to this whole process which has feel good written on it. And any success that can be found is one that has been paid for with a great deal of grief and heartache and the work of reconciliation doesn't end with a final conclusive vote on the matter. That represents a starting point for a lot of hard work.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Pr. Jae said:
None.
Simply because we are called to be workers approved by God and not workers who may or may not approve of, or be approvable by, the Rev. Gretta Vosper.
Some may claim that she represents a last straw in their decision to leave. That is simple correlation and not causation, they've had one foot out of the door one way or another for some time.
Likewise, should the Rev. Vosper be added to the DSL that will not be the reason for any Minister to leave the denomination. It may very well be their proverbial last straw they have been moving in that direction for some time also.
Decisions to leave a relationship are never simple and straightforward as any party makes them out to be.
Thus Uncertainty Prin.? Comes from the science of observation ...
crazyheart
Rest In Peace: tomorrow,tomorrow
West Hill's Voice in the review of Reverend Gretta Vosper
The Petition 2 Highlights 186 Comments 308 Signatures
The Petition 2 Highlights 186 Comments 308 Signatures
308 Signatures Goal: 300
We, the undersigned, having submitted our concerns regarding Toronto Conference's review of our minister, the Reverend Gretta Vosper, in which we explicitly noted the lack of deference given the covenantal relationship we have with her and Toronto Southeast Presbytery; we hereby further submit that we be provided the right to attend and to speak at the review planned for June 29, 2016. It is our understanding that the review committee is comprised of twenty-four members with four presenting questions. We submit that the Chair of our Board, Randy Bowes, be present at the review and that he be provided the right to speak. This is in keeping with the policies regarding the review of ministry personnel as found in the Pastoral Charge and Ministry Personnel Reviews procedures.
2
Highlights
The Petition 2 Highlights 186 Comments 308 Signatures
The Petition 2 Highlights 186 Comments 308 Signatures
308 Signatures Goal: 300
We, the undersigned, having submitted our concerns regarding Toronto Conference's review of our minister, the Reverend Gretta Vosper, in which we explicitly noted the lack of deference given the covenantal relationship we have with her and Toronto Southeast Presbytery; we hereby further submit that we be provided the right to attend and to speak at the review planned for June 29, 2016. It is our understanding that the review committee is comprised of twenty-four members with four presenting questions. We submit that the Chair of our Board, Randy Bowes, be present at the review and that he be provided the right to speak. This is in keeping with the policies regarding the review of ministry personnel as found in the Pastoral Charge and Ministry Personnel Reviews procedures.
2
Highlights