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
Last week I think it was, there was a colloquy (church speak for panel discussion?) convened by Toronto Conference I think to discuss some related matters. I was broadcast - I wonder if it was archived for later access - I asked about that earlier. Will check.
 
In re Lignin is atheism an indeterminate amongst those that think they have God determined? Chaos continues ... to maintain the mystery ... thus the stir in terre ...
 
Pinga said:
I don't see anything in the article which states indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Well indefinitely just means that there is no date known at this point in time. The letter says that there is still some preliminary things that need to be completed. It doesn't set a new date.

Pinga said:
Where did the headline come from? Where does Gretta get her analysis from.
Click to expand...


That is an ongoing question. I suspect that most of it is wishful thinking at this point.

The letter sent to the Reverend Vosper is directly quoted in the article

Letter to Gretta said:
It is now clear that the panel will not be established in time to hold the hearing on the dates that you are holding in November 2017,
Click to expand...

And then a quote from our director of Communications

Mary Francis-Dennis said:
I understand the judicial committee executive has not finalized dates for the hearing,” Mary-Frances Denis said this week. “The parties are still working on a number of preliminary matters that need to be addressed, including finding dates that would accommodate everyone’s schedules.
Click to expand...

Which suggests to me that they actually have a panel ready to name they just need to work out scheduling.

I am mindful that the Disciplinary Hearing convened for Kevin Annett heard testimony for close to a month. I would expect as much testimony to be heard in this Hearing. So finding a way to clear a month for some who could be called to serve on the panel could be tricky.

Also the issue is not whether the panel is impartial so much as it is proving that it has not been lead by bias. I am not certain that secular courts would find fault in a Church proceeding simply because it could not ensure a balance between theists and atheists. So long as the decision is in compliance with the polity and processes of The United Church of Canada there would be little grounds for a secular court to even hear a complaint (depending on the outcome).

In matters where a decision has been made by the Church I am only aware of Secular Courts overturning the ruling when it was proven that the Church failed to abide by its own polity and process.

I have yet to see, anywhere, at anytime that any of the Ecclesial Courts involved in this matter have violated their own polity.

As a matter of fact, I believe, that the various Ecclesial Courts of the Church that have been involved to date can adequately demonstrate that they have actually bent over backwards to accomodate attempts by West Hill to stop the process which have demonstrated tremendous lack of awareness of how the various courts of the Church operate.
Pinga said:
sigh, crappy article in my opinion
Click to expand...

It is rather light on fact and heavy on speculation.
 
"Well indefinitely just means that there is no date known at this point in time. The letter says that there is still some preliminary things that need to be completed. It doesn't set a new date."

Science is like that compared to Rae lignification ... no connection and thus undefined! And those of radical religious perspective can't see change ... too much of an altercation of stuck thoughts! Then lignin is dark as in connections in cellular material ... some are ghostly ... as in ec lectric ... (an aberration)?

Isn't fixed thought on eternal stuff rather mindful speculation?
 
Hasn't it been over a year since the committee recommendation of DSL-D? Do I have that right? I remember it being September or October last year.

How does this take more than a year? Yes there are schedules to coordinate, but more than a year later they are still trying.

I openly wonder if they are going to wait to see if this goes away. Maybe people forget about it, or Gretta leaves of her own accord, or West Hill fails, or maybe there is just general grumbling like there always was and life goes on?

I appreciate how Rev. Vosper has been making the rounds of other churches, talking to them. Certainly, that will work to her advantage because in don't get the impression she is a divisive sort in person. Getting her in front of people will likely gain her more supporters, making removal even harder and more painful. The longer they wait...

And if a hearing really will take a month, that's a huge cost for all involved. I'm thinking they might stall indefinitely, indeed. Why would that not sound like the UCCan?
 
chansen said:
Hasn't it been over a year since the committee recommendation of DSL-D? Do I have that right? I remember it being September or October last year.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

It was fall of last year that the Conference Interview Board which ordinarily examines candidates hoping to be ordained or commissioned sat down with the Reverend Vosper and voted that she should face a disciplinary hearing. I think that they also reccomended that Toronto Conference Executive (who would ordinarily be tasked with putting the review panel together for a disciplinary hearing) ask General Council Executive to strike the review panel.

I do not think that decisions of this magnitude would be sent to a sub executive of General Council. They could but I think that opens the Executive up to criticism unnecessarily. GC Executive meets three times per year and this issue, in light of all the remit work we have been engaged in, simply isn't a priority.

The fact that the quote from the communications director references the Judicial Committee suggests that this work has gone to the absolutely highest level of decision making that The United Church has and if the members of the review are coming from that body then there is immediately grounds for protests (It was this body which upheld the ruling of the General Council Executive Secretary that allowed the review of the Reverend Vosper to happen in the first place).

chansen said:
How does this take more than a year? Yes there are schedules to coordinate, but more than a year later they are still trying.
Click to expand...

Beats me. I'm not privy to all of the communication that has been happening. Typically a review panel is made up of three. Since the Judicial Committee is involved they could literally come from anywhere in the country which means that if they are active in ministry they have to find somebody to watch their pastoral charges for the month or so that they will be absent.

Remuneration becomes a factor.

Who is reimbursing these individuals and who is reimbursing their replacements?

Lay members who may have been selected would need to inquire of their employers if they can get a month or so away (not vacation) and if all they are offered is unpaid leave will there be resources made available to them to off-set financial losses while they are away from work.

chansen said:
I openly wonder if they are going to wait to see if this goes away. Maybe people forget about it, or Gretta leaves of her own accord, or West Hill fails, or maybe there is just general grumbling like there always was and life goes on?
Click to expand...

This isn't going to go away now. With all of the energy that has already gone into the discussion it would be irresponsible to constantly put this off. The Reverend Vosper is not going to walk away, that would play as her surrendering and then she becomes one more former minister and less of a novelty.

chansen said:
Certainly, that will work to her advantage because in don't get the impression she is a divisive sort in person. Getting her in front of people will likely gain her more supporters, making removal even harder and more painful. The longer they wait...
Click to expand...

I do not know how many she has gotten in front of and whether that represents an uptick in her speaking engagements or a downturn. And while it could possibly swing some popular support her way the review panel will not be examining how "popular" she might be with any constituency within or without the Church.

Apart from that there is an understanding in play in which parties in Disciplinary Hearings, whether they be the complainant or the defendant keep quiet about the proceedings. The Reverend Vosper certainly does not abide by that. I suspect that is only so that she can claim at some later date that her refusal to respect that understanding caused Church members to be negatively disposed toward her case.

I don't know how one can argue that the well was poisoned against you when you are the one doing the actual well poisoning.

And lets be perfectly candid. There is no way this panel decides that she should be placed on the DSL and she refuses to appeal that decision as well. I fully expect that she will attempt, ultimately, to have this case heard before a secular court. Only if the panel or the various courts of the Church that have already been involved screw up process wise will she have grounds to have this case heard outside of the Church.

Since, she is not currently prohibited from serving the congregation of West Hill United Church and she is not being denied an opportunity to participate in the wider happenings of the denomination there are no grounds from which she can argue that she is being treated unfairly or that her livelihood has been hindered.

chansen said:
And if a hearing really will take a month, that's a huge cost for all involved. I'm thinking they might stall indefinitely, indeed. Why would that not sound like the UCCan?
Click to expand...

The process has been very slow. It has never stopped. It is very doubtful that it will stop now.

Numerous attempts by West Hill have been tried to bring a halt to the process and each of those attempts failed to gain majority support from the courts of the Church that they were tried in. I am mindful that it took the Judicial Committee almost a year to debate the merits of the Reverend Vosper's appeal of the General Council Executive Council's ruling. I am not surprised that the same body would take as long to name a panel and clear all the various hurdles that are pre-requisite to the actual hearing.

One consideration would be the location.

The hearings are not typically closed door affairs. Testimony will be given and heard publicly. Lawyers will be present to ensure that things proceed according to Church polity.

What will be different from a secular court hearing will be the absence of bailiffs to throw individuals out of court who interrupt the proceedings. And while I don't think that is a normative event I would expect it in this case. I expect that The Reverend Vosper is sufficiently bright enough to not act as her own advocate or designate anyone less than her counsel to represent her interests in the trial. If memory serves she has hired Clayton Ruby to represent her. I would also expect Cynthia Gunn our top legal counsel to be involved representing the Church, at the very least, as an advisor.

And to be candid, I think a month for this hearing is just a start. I would expect the defence to call anyone that it thinks can help to come and testify.
 
chansen said:
I appreciate how Rev. Vosper has been making the rounds of other churches, talking to them. Certainly, that will work to her advantage because in don't get the impression she is a divisive sort in person.
Click to expand...
Oh no? Don't forget she ushered in a complete congregational split back in the day. A long time ago to be sure but this is the reality.
 
I know that some in the UCCan think this is an important issue. I try to respect that. But honestly, this will do nothing for the church regardless of how it acts. It ends up looking stodgy and bureaucratic as it plods through the process while she plays the media like a fiddle. I cannot see an outcome to this on which the church comes out smelling like roses.

Someone in the church needs to recognize that this isn't just a battle in the church courts. It is a media and PR fight being fought in both traditional and social media. That's the battle they are losing regardless of how the courts, denominational and secular, throw down. Secularists and religious progressives aren't going to care what your courts say. If she loses, she becomes a "martyr". If she wins, she becomes a champion.

The church doesn't need a judicial committee and lawyers. They need a clear, media and Internet- savvy PR offensive that clearly demonstrates what is wrong with her and why the church's actions are justified.

Otherwise, any thought that this monkey will get off the church's back as a result of whatever church and secular court decisions are made is a pipe dream.
 
Maybe they put it off until she reaches retirement age. Will she have to retire at 65 or can she go on until 102 as long as West Hill wants to keep her?
 
Mrs.Anteater said:
Maybe they put it off until she reaches retirement age. Will she have to retire at 65 or can she go on until 102 as long as West Hill wants to keep her?
Click to expand...

Depends on whose labour laws the church falls under. Ontario abolished mandatory retirement but if the church falls under Federal labour laws, then they might still have it.
 
Mendalla said:
I cannot see an outcome to this on which the church comes out smelling like roses.
Click to expand...

You are right. There isn't. Which, frankly, is as it should be.

Like it or not this is now a disciplinary review and that offers the very real prospect of taking a life-time of service and saying "no thanks" in very stark terms. Whether or not it is the right decision to make it is going to be painful. There is no way that it could not be and to be perfectly candid the Reverend Vosper is guaranteeing that as many as possible get stung by this.

Mendalla said:
If she loses, she becomes a "martyr". If she wins, she becomes a champion.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment on if she wins. Your assessment on her loss is, at best, 50/50. She has burned through quite a bit of good will with some very ham-fisted attacks against officers of the Church. Make no mistake this may have been precipitated by finally declaring herself an Athiest the review will look at her career and if they call witnesses from that split at West Hill and they testify that she pastorally abandoned them or worse ridiculed them that is going to sink her fast.

I knew nothing about Kevin Annett prior to his Disciplinary Review, very few folk in the United Church did. What the review showed is that the biggest mistake the Church made was in not moving quicker to have Annett delisted. The harm he caused when he really should not have been in any pulpit is real and Courts and Officers of the Church did feel responsible for not being firmer, sooner.

It is quite possible that by the time this review wraps up we are going to be hearing a lot of previously quiet voices get a chance to speak.

I do not know that such will happen. I'm just saying don't be surprised if it does. Up till now the only voice telling West Hill's story publicly has not been candid about every step along the way.

Mendalla said:
The church doesn't need a judicial committee and lawyers. They need a clear, media and Internet- savvy PR offensive that clearly demonstrates what is wrong with her and why the church's actions are justified.
Click to expand...

I think we could use both. If forced to choose between the two I would go with the Judicial Committee and lawyers. The Church will not go on any kind of internet offensive simply because as the Employer that would constitute harassment and hand her an easy victory with a cash bonus to boot. If they decide to damage her they will do it in the review and let the reporters present reveal it later in the evening. The name of the game will be proving that she is unfit and they only have to convince the members of the review panel. They don't have to destroy her to accomplish that.

Mendalla said:
Otherwise, any thought that this monkey will get off the church's back as a result of whatever church and secular court decisions are made is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

Depending upon the outcome she may be a spectre which fades in time or she may be a conquering hero.

If she loses and is delisted she becomes a spectre which fades. She could rise up from time to time and make noise, a la Kevin Annett but her novelty will be gone and the press will turn to the next man bites dog story to come along.

I am not sure what happens if she wins. The Disciplinary Review process is emotionally scarring. Some come through it more thoughtful, others come through it very bitter and that doesn't bode well for continuing ministry.
 
Mendalla said:
The church doesn't need a judicial committee and lawyers. They need a clear, media and Internet- savvy PR offensive that clearly demonstrates what is wrong with her and why the church's actions are justified.
Click to expand...
WHEN has the United Church shown an *ounce* of traditional media or Internet media savvy? Rev. Vosper, think what you will about her, runs laps around the greater church when it comes to media savvy. They really could learn from her. They won't, but they could.
 
chansen said:
WHEN has the United Church shown an *ounce* of traditional media or Internet media savvy? Rev. Vosper, think what you will about her, runs laps around the greater church when it comes to media savvy. They really could learn from her. They won't, but they could.
Click to expand...
They should hire her ;3
 
revjohn said:
This isn't going to go away now. With all of the energy that has already gone into the discussion it would be irresponsible to constantly put this off.
Click to expand...
It was irresponsible to start it, too. I think they know that whatever they decide, it's not going to go over well. I can see them putting this off for months more, and then years. Maybe something changes in the interim. Maybe nothing does. But I don't see any motivation for them to move forward. I see plenty of motivation for them to stall and make excuses.

At some point, the same voices that called for Rev. Vosper's removal will get impatient. That might provide the impetus to move forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top