The Rev. Vosper Again

[Carolla]

The West WestHill group continues to meet monthly in Etobicoke - a move which I think put it back within the bounds of Toronto Conference. They gather in the late afternoon for discussion, music and a shared meal. There are folks who come from Cambridge, Milton, and Hamilton area as well as downtown Toronto if I recall correctly.

 

[paradox3]

The hearing will begin in September 2017.

 

[Waterfall]

The hearing will begin in September 2017.

and that hearing will produce another hearing for September 2018...and on and on....

 

[Mendalla]

And I thought governments moved slowly.

 

[paradox3]

and that hearing will produce another hearing for September 2018...and on and on....

Probably not another hearing within the church. There has been a statement made to the press (by Allan Hall) that there will be no further appeals after the hearing.

However, a civil case could be a possibility if Gretta's lawyers are convinced the United Church did not follow its own polity.

 

[paradox3]

I haven't talked to anyone from Applewood United for awhile ~ I'm pretty sure Applewood's Board cancelled the Westhill satellite relationship fairly quickly.

I think there was disagreement because West Hill claimed that Applewood was "open to their approach" while Applewood maintained they were just renting out space. At any rate the West Hill satellite changed location a while back.

 

[Jaebius]

Probably not another hearing within the church. There has been a statement made to the press (by Allan Hall) that there will be no further appeals after the hearing.

However, a civil case could be a possibility if Gretta's lawyers are convinced the United Church did not follow its own polity.

If it's but publicity that she craves she'll never give up.

 

[Mendalla]

If it's but publicity that she craves she'll never give up.

Even publicity hounds sometimes tire of the game or find other ways to play it. One can hope.

 

[paradox3]

The story is not finished yet so we will likely see more of it covered by the secular press.

 

[GordW]

Probably not another hearing within the church. There has been a statement made to the press (by Allan Hall) that there will be no further appeals after the hearing.

However, a civil case could be a possibility if Gretta's lawyers are convinced the United Church did not follow its own polity.

ALmost a certainty, given that those in Gretta's court have already been playing the "this is an improper process" card.

 

[paradox3]

ALmost a certainty, given that those in Gretta's court have already been playing the "this is an improper process" card.

What is your opinion about the process? As a "church geek" do you consider it to have been improper so far?

 

[revsdd]

What is your opinion about the process? As a "church geek" do you consider it to have been improper so far?

I know you directed this to Gord, but in my opinion (as one who would also probably be considered a "church geek") this process has been meticulously proper and fair.

 

[GordW]

What is your opinion about the process? As a "church geek" do you consider it to have been improper so far?

DIfferent but within the guidelines of our polity. I would agree with @revsdd

 

[paradox3]

@revsdd and @GordW

No concerns that the General Secretary overstepped her authority? Or that her ruling was out of line?

This seems to be the major concern from the Vosper camp although they may have other objections.

 

[revsdd]

@revsdd and @GordW

No concerns that the General Secretary overstepped her authority? Or that her ruling was out of line?

This seems to be the major concern from the Vosper camp although they may have other objections.

No concerns on my part. Especially since the Judicial Committee is satisfied that the General Secretary had that authority. As for the "Vosper camp" they have repeatedly shown ignorance of even basic aspects of United Church polity and history. Their objections as far as I'm concerned have no basis.

 

[paradox3]

@revsdd and @GordW

Would the United Church's dispute resolution process have been an option in this case? A requirement, even?

 

[GordW]

@revsdd and @GordW

Would the United Church's dispute resolution process have been an option in this case? A requirement, even?

Might have been an option, but I do not think it would have been productive (which matches what the Conference Interview Board report says in the majority opinion). It is my belief that we would have ended up in the formal process anyway.

 

[paradox3]

Might have been an option, but I do not think it would have been productive (which matches what the Conference Interview Board report says in the majority opinion). It is my belief that we would have ended up in the formal process anyway.

Agree with you that it would not likely have been productive.

But does not following this process leave the church open to criticism and legal action?

 

[BetteTheRed]

I rather think so, given that the General Secretary had to get involved to make a ruling. Looks more like a witch hunt.

 

[GordW]

Not at all from a polity perspective. THe informal process is never required. As for criticism...that is an equal-opportunity piece, flows whatever path one takes.

The GS was asked to make a ruling, which is part of what the GS is there for -- to rule on matters of polity when there is a question about them. In theory Nora could have ruled that there was no way to proceed (which would have been a sad state of affairs frankly--a faith organization needs a way to ensure that the leadership of the organization acts in a way that is in keeping with the beliefs and objects of the organization).

ANd really, as it turns out there were in fact grounds on standard effectiveness of ministry rather than belief. A minister who is not engaging with Scripture as foundational authority for the faith and who is not ensuring that the faith community is celebrating the sacraments can not be effective in Christian ministry. [however that was really only revealed as a result of the inquiry into theology]