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
Interestingly enough I got an email this afternoon from someone asking if I could visit a friend of theirs in hospital. The person in hospital is technically still a member of West Hill United Church but left many years ago and just never bothered transferring anywhere and has never settled in any other church. But although the family want a visit from a United Church minister they don't have any interest in a visit from Rev. Vosper because they want someone who will actually pray with their family member (that was the way the email was worded.) As a neighbouring minister (sort of, 15 minutes away, although farther from the hospital) I was seen as an appropriate minister to ask.
 
Absolutely. Theism while dying is always a big thing... Just not a time for intellectual discussions about the nature of Godde.
 
revsdd said:
Interestingly enough I got an email this afternoon from someone asking if I could visit a friend of theirs in hospital. The person in hospital is technically still a member of West Hill United Church but left many years ago and just never bothered transferring anywhere and has never settled in any other church. But although the family want a visit from a United Church minister they don't have any interest in a visit from Rev. Vosper because they want someone who will actually pray with their family member (that was the way the email was worded.) As a neighbouring minister (sort of, 15 minutes away, although farther from the hospital) I was seen as an appropriate minister to ask.
Click to expand...
This is so poignant to read about. I find myself wondering if I might know the person in hospital. There were a few individuals who drifted away from the congregation without settling into another church home.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Absolutely. Theism while dying is always a big thing... Just not a time for intellectual discussions about the nature of Godde.
Click to expand...

In the end, nothing, to wit but wrinkles in space as hard shelled ... the ancients used them for supply of indigo ... a die substance and thus blue! Then there was the one in blue Jinns ... essence of the former nothing?

In the meantime to be betwixt ... I set in my assigned hole e place ... silently fired ... because I been told silence in the court ... an expression that the king is coming with a mystery ... dead to the world! A court of a differing kind ... alien space ... and we whistle through it at unknown speed .. without an edifice of reference ... tis abstract domain ...

Determinate, there are some that lie about in determined space ... that they are unfamiliar with ... sort of mystified for sure!
 
paradox3 said:
There has been a suggestion on another thread that we revisit the theology of Gretta Vosper. Here is the link to the Conference Interview Committee report. It is long and wordy but worthwhile reading.
Click to expand...

The whole report is long and wordy. The summation by the Conference Interview Committee is rather to the point.

TorontoConference Sub-executive minutes appendix A said:
Ms. Vosper told the Committee that she does not believe in a Trinitarian God. Instead, by ‘god/God’ she means what is created between people in relationships, but does not exist separate from us, and the construct is not divine. Ms. Vosper does not use the word ‘God’ because its use is a barrier to some people. She does not believe that Jesus was divine. He is not the Son of God. Jesus is not her Saviour. Ms. Vosper no longer calls herself a Christian. She does not believe that there is a Holy Spirit. Ms. Vosper does not believe that there is a God who calls anyone to ministry. Ms. Vosper does not administer sacraments. She does not consider scripture to be the primary source, but merely one source of information amongst many. She is no longer in essential agreement with the statement of doctrine of The United Church of Canada. Instead, Ms. Vosper said that her theology has evolved beyond the doctrine of the United Church.
Click to expand...

Which I have not read anybody saying is not a fair or accurate assessment of the Reverend Vosper's position.

paradox3 said:
If we are going to discuss her theological stance, let's talk about what she is actually telling the United Church these days.
Click to expand...


Indeed. That is where the conversation should be happening. Less bogey persons hiding in those weeds.
 
Is God beyond mortal understanding ... and thus the need for the wanderer if one is to follow an eternal need to learn about greater matters and energy that is at present cloudy ... appalling due to individual need to control ... this word of controlism ... was once understood as avarice ... chill'n were often involved in the battles ... poor chil'd ...

These we often burned in the conflict over Hoo won ... gamma-like competition ... dark ... Machiavellian ... something to dig into while carrying some light, lamp, or torch ... as part of the code of social enlightenment ... bogey's are the rear wheels in some traditions ... like railroading ... the Night Train to Geo Ghia ... House of the Rising ... tis another Dais ...

And still we don;t know much about encompassment ...

Some ancient powers fully believed the common folk (homogenic) shouldn't be taught anything ... ponder the reason for sustained naivete!

Tis a gross curio-sity ... all a SET-up ...
 
Gretta has been tweeting about the upcoming hearing. She is calling it a heresy trial.

Apparently prelims are this week with the hearing booked for Nov. 19 - Dec. 7.
 
paradox3 said:
She is calling it a heresy trial.
Click to expand...

Exaggerate much? It's not like she'll be tortured, then hanged or burned. In fact, I don't know how much getting DSL'd will hurt her. Even if she doesn't manage to start a non-UCCan congregation or switch to UU, I'm sure she'll make a decent income on book royalties, appearance fees, and so on. Gretta as a martyr is a sorry concept and she really needs to be careful how far she goes with it.
 
Comments are piling up on social media. There is the usual combination of:

1. Those who support her in her quest to evolve religion beyond belief of any kind.

2. Those who claim to support her but do not understand what she is, in fact, saying.

3. Those who do not support her ministry within the United Church.

Might be interesting to do a tally some time.

Agreeing with @Mendalla above and wondering when the secular press will pick this up. I noticed in one of her tweets Gretta has tagged two members of the press who have written about her in the past.
 
BetteTheRed said:
She's probably also eligible for a UCC pension, actually.
Click to expand...

The UU who introduced me to With or Without God wisecracked that the pension is why Vosper remained UCCan instead of switching to us. UUs don't have a denominational pension plan so ministers have to create their own using an RRSP or similar mechanism. I don't think that UU was being entirely serious, though.
 
Looks like Gretta is going to be creating a storm of tweets over the next several weeks.

She keeps talking about her "heresy trial" and has asserted that the review is about her congregation in addition to herself.

I appreciate this must be very difficult for her strong supporters at West Hill but the congregation is not being reviewed. Am I alone in thinking the appropriate pastoral response by Gretta would be to reassure them of this fact?
 
gretta vosper‏ @grettavosper 7h7 hours ago

Leading my last service before OUR #heresytrial. Because this isn't just about me. It's about my courageous and amazing congregation, too. Today's our Celebrated Lives service. @UnitedChurchCda

gretta vosper‏ @grettavosper 17h17 hours ago

Beautiful evening concert @WestHillUC this evening. Raising funds for the #heresytrial the @UnitedChurchCda has launched against me. Starts on Monday. #heresytrial2018 THANK YOU to all who support what we are doing. Time to build a world #beyondthebeliefsthatdivide
 
I can kind of see her point about the congregation, but only barely. If the current congregation is fairly closely aligned with her theologically, I could see them viewing her being removed as a punishment for them.

Really, though, it looks to me like she's trying to set herself up as an icon for all those in the UCCan who may be out of "essential agreement" or even a bit off the mainstream as a way of building some sympathy for her cause. Not so much her congregation in the literal sense, but in a broader, spiritual sense.

The one question that I wonder about: What happens if she "wins" (there are no winners in mess like this, but she'll definitely spin it as a win)? What if they reject the earlier findings and decide she can stay? That could produce a crapstorm as big as, or bigger than, if she gets removed.
 
Mendalla said:
I can kind of see her point about the congregation, but only barely. If the current congregation is fairly closely aligned with her theologically, I could see them viewing her being removed as a punishment for them.

Really, though, it looks to me like she's trying to set herself up as an icon for all those in the UCCan who may be out of "essential agreement" or even a bit off the mainstream as a way of building some sympathy for her cause. Not so much her congregation in the literal sense, but in a broader, spiritual sense.

The one question that I wonder about: What happens if she "wins" (there are no winners in mess like this, but she'll definitely spin it as a win)? What if they reject the earlier findings and decide she can stay? That could produce a crapstorm as big as, or bigger than, if she gets removed.
Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest, just from the standpoint of peace within the denomination, Gretta "winning" would be the best outcome. The usual suspects will grumble about it on Facebook, etc., but at the level of individual members of local congregations and the day to day work going on in local congregations, Gretta is largely irrelevant. I say that with no disrespect intended. I'm irrelevant to the bigger picture as well. If Gretta stays on at West Hill I suspect that there will be a few ripples but for the most part the United Church will carry on carrying on. There will, I suspect, be a much more passionate outcry if she's removed, and I think more people will leave the denomination if she's removed than will if she's not. Having said that, while the former option might cause less disruption than the latter option, what happens to Gretta either way will not be the be all and end all for the United Church of Canada.

The real question is, for me, whether the review board has the stomach to face the attacks they're going to face from Gretta's supporters if she's removed. Because that will be far nastier than if she's not removed.

I've said before that if it had been me I'd have preferred that (a) Scarborough Presbytery would have dealt with this mess years and years ago when the congregation split, and (b) that, given that Scarborough Presbytery didn't deal with it for whatever reason we had just waited Gretta out and let her retire from West Hill. However, this is where we are. If the issue is that she has to be in "essential agreement" with the doctrine of the United Church of Canada as outlined by the various statements in the Manual (1925 20 Articles of faith, 1940 Statement of Faith, 1968 A New Creed as amended since and the most recent A Song of Faith) then I can't honestly see any way that she can be declared in essential agreement with any of them.

But what do I know. Regardless of the outcome I suspect that my ministry will go on essentially unchanged, although I think I will have lost some respect for the processes of the United Church if in the end, after all this, the final decision is to just let it go and basically say that Toronto Conference was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top