The Rev. Vosper Again

[paradox3]

Freethought Radio: Heresy Trial

Worth a listen.

Gretta is saying quite clearly that "god is a metaphor for other things" and that "god is not real". She is promoting the idea that religious communities as we know them need to give way to secular communities.

There is some information about the upcoming hearing as well. WHUC has been granted intervenor status and will be allowed to call one witness. The first week will be for opening motions and will determine how the hearing itself will proceed. Gretta indicates that the hearing may explore the reasons she was found "unsuitable" or may move directly to the issue of how to deal with her as "unsuitable."

My apologies if I am not paraphrasing accurately. I am going from my notes but was not able to write down every single word.

Interested in the thoughts of others who give this a listen.

 

[Luce NDs]

Worth a listen.

Gretta is saying quite clearly that "god is a metaphor for other things" and that "god is not real". She is promoting the idea that religious communities as we know them need to give way to secular communities.

There is some information about the upcoming hearing as well. WHUC has been granted intervenor status and will be allowed to call one witness. The first week will be for opening motions and will determine how the hearing itself will proceed. Gretta indicates that the hearing may explore the reasons she was found "unsuitable" or may move directly to the issue of how to deal with her as "unsuitable."

My apologies if I am not paraphrasing accurately. I am going from my notes but was not able to write down every single word.

Interested in the thoughts of others who give this a listen.

Metaphorical God an unreality ... sounds like the old argument between existentialism and essentialism ... one being physical and the other a simple essence of passion that hasn't calmed down yet! Thus the intangible word calm-passion ... an additional allegory as bloody foolish-ism! Is passion in the extreme foolish and discourced in biblical terms ... so common folk won't understand? Tis all left w'nting ...

Without the essence where'd we be? The OZ NG carries on ... non govern mental ... i.e. wild thoughts!

 

[BetteTheRed]

See, my problem with having a problem with "Godde as a metaphor" is that is exactly how I ease myself into the religion of Christianity, and in fact, how God has been described to me by Christian ministers who are not currently under threat of DSL.

 

[chansen]

There are likely dozens of other UCCan ministers who subscribe to the "God as metaphor" approach. If they are not speaking up now, those are the people protecting their pensions. Rev. Vosper saying these things out loud, is the opposite of protecting one's pension.

 

[chansen]

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 would suspect a lot of people will feel very personally rejected if Rev. Vosper is removed. Such a move would impact them directly if they are part of West Hill, and "only" personally if they are like-minded with Rev. Vosper.

But the "kick her out" group sounds a lot like the "lock her up" group in the States. There are some unhinged, Fox-News-watching characters still in the UCCan. Don't count them out when it comes to potential reactions.

 

[Luce NDs]

I would suspect a lot of people will feel very personally rejected if Rev. Vosper is removed. Such a move would impact them directly if they are part of West Hill, and "only" personally if they are like-minded with Rev. Vosper.

But the "kick her out" group sounds a lot like the "lock her up" group in the States. There are some unhinged, Fox-News-watching characters still in the UCCan. Don't count them out when it comes to potential reactions.

Thus wild Nous crap ... comes as chit and piles of po' lier Ms. understood word ... or how it roves about ...

Does allow an abstract to draw from ... shadow Box 'n? We tend to fight IT ... knowledge of that Yet-heh beyond us ... the glowing persona as a dream of virtue? Just doesn't go with powerful characters ...

You've heard of rovers here and about ... even in Eire? Ethereally afloat as esters ... compounds causing shifts in stable modes and moods ...

 

[revjohn]

To be perfectly honest, just from the standpoint of peace within the denomination, Gretta "winning" would be the best outcome.

For quiet I expect. For peace? Nope. Gretta winning means retribution against all who have unfairly persecuted her.

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.

This. Not a word about her here on the Rock. Which is just a smidge less than she was mentioned in Erie Presbytery of Hamilton Conference the last three years I served there.

I say that with no disrespect intended. I'm irrelevant to the bigger picture as well.

I think that is fair comment about most of our clergy. I also think that is as it should be if we are following a servanthood model rather than the sage on a stage model.

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.

Just as it has every day since the review was called for.

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.

I expect you are right about that.

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.

Just like any other day in the church.

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.

No doubt.

I can't honestly see any way that she can be declared in essential agreement with any of them.

Nor I.

Are you aware of any who have argued that her positions are in essential agreement?

I've waited for somebody to try and make that case for the most parts I hear, "Not essentisl agreement again . . ." The tone typically dismissive and then either nonsense or crickets.

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.

Same save for the loss of respect.

I have a history of disagreeing with decisions made by various courts of the church. One more disagreement would be nothing new and not represent a dangerpus straw on a camel's back.

If a good argument can be made for essential agreement then it should be made. If a bad argument for essential agreement is made it should not be rewarded.

 

[Luce NDs]

For quiet I expect. For peace? Nope. Gretta winning means retribution against all who have unfairly persecuted her.



This. Not a word about her here on the Rock. Which is just a smidge less than she was mentioned in Erie Presbytery of Hamilton Conference the last three years I served there.



I think that is fair comment about most of our clergy. I also think that is as it should be if we are following a servanthood model rather than the sage on a stage model.



Just as it has every day since the review was called for.



I expect you are right about that.



Just like any other day in the church.



No doubt.



Nor I.

Are you aware of any who have argued that her positions are in essential agreement?

I've waited for somebody to try and make that case for the most parts I hear, "Not essentisl agreement again . . ." The tone typically dismissive and then either nonsense or crickets.



Same save for the loss of respect.

I have a history of disagreeing with decisions made by various courts of the church. One more disagreement would be nothing new and not represent a dangerpus straw on a camel's back.

If a good argument can be made for essential agreement then it should be made. If a bad argument for essential agreement is made it should not be rewarded.

Thus agreeable dissent, or disentering agreement ... that we don;t really understand anything and everything encompassed by the term eternal? Thus the caldron brews ... like spruce beer ... from the tree and all ...

 

[paradox3]

I struggle to understand how big an issue Gretta really is for the church. From the letters to the Observer and online discussions it seems like a significant one. She has garnered a good deal of support from across the country and around the world through her writing and speaking engagements. The hearing presently in its preliminary stages is obviously important to her personally and to her congregation.

Former members like myself are watching with interest. Many others are curious.

For most in our denomination, though, I wonder. She seems to fly surprisingly under the radar even in this Presbytery.

Agreeing totally with @revsdd that the old Scarborough Presbytery dropped the ball on this one.

 

[paradox3]

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

For several years it seemed to me this was exactly what was happening.

The interest in her seemed to peak after her first book in 2008 although she continued to be invited to speak at conferences, etc. Her second book in 2012 caused barely a ripple and was not even actively promoted by her publishers.

In 2013 her identification as an atheist and her open letter to the moderator in 2015 ensured she got back into the public eye. My personal opinion is that she would not have been content to be left alone. After all, she is seeking to reform our denomination and beyond with her ideas about secular post-Christian communities.

 

[revsdd]

For several years it seemed to me this was exactly what was happening.

The interest in her seemed to peak after her first book in 2008 although she continued to be invited to speak at conferences, etc. Her second book in 2012 caused barely a ripple and was not even actively promoted by her publishers.

In 2013 her identification as an atheist and her open letter to the moderator in 2015 ensured she got back into the public eye. My personal opinion is that she would not have been content to be left alone. After all, she is seeking to reform our denomination and beyond with her ideas about secular post-Christian communities.

Generally I agree with you. It's very hard to ignore someone who's so obviously pushing so hard not to be ignored. It requires discipline that obviously wasn't there. But I still think it would have been better if we had been able to do it.

Having said that, I can understand why it was hard to ignore her. Once the media caught on there was a sense to some people anyway that she was rapidly becoming the public face of the United Church - and, somehow, the church eventually felt it had to say: "Hold on. She is one voice. She may be one of us - but she is not us."

 

[chansen]

Rev. Vosper wrote what a lot of people were thinking. A lot more people within your ranks are upset by the presence of non-God types. Rev. Vosper provides a voice in your denomination for those who have come to similar conclusions but do not wish to leave the church, for various reasons. Turfing her will reinforce the idea that the United Church is a club restricted to those who believe in the existence of a being for which there is no evidence. Just like every other brainless church.

If the goal is to step in line with all the other churches in town, this is what needs to be done. Rev. Vosper needs to be DSL'ed, and the "(D)" for "Disciplinary" tacked on to make sure people know they took action. Eventually.

I still hope that you guys are better than this. That the length of time it has taken the UCCan to get to this point is indicative of an unwillingness to fire a woman who has the support of her congregation and a point of view that is not unique to herself in the UCCan clergy, and certainly not the membership. Her views are clearly not demonstrably wrong, and are arguably far more plausible than the beliefs she is asked to agree with.

But this is a club for believers. It exists to create more believers and perpetuate the belief. It has really, really sucked at that for a long time, but that's the general idea. Maybe if you turn back the clock! Gee, I wonder what other groups look longingly at the 1930s, 40s and 50s and want to go back there?

 

[revsdd]

Gee, I wonder what other groups look longingly at the 1930s, 40s and 50s and want to go back there?

Actually, pretty much every service and community organization on the go. Talk to your local Lions Club about their membership now vs their membership 50, 60, 70 or 80 years ago. The same people who aren't going to church aren't involved with those groups either.

Lions, Legion, Oddfellows, Masons, Rotary, etc., etc., etc. It's across the board.

Here's the opening couple of paragraphs of a story about the problem of service clubs from a local newspaper:

"Signs pointing to the work of service clubs can be spotted throughout the region. On arenas, charitable centres, popular annual events, fundraising drives and, quite literally, club insignia posted on signs at city and township limits. Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary, Kin and Optimist are just a few. But in recent years, membership in these voluntary non-profit organizations has been dropping with so many demands on people's time. "

Churches are facing many of the same problems. At least some of it is related to the fact that we have a far more transient population. People don't develop the same deep roots in their community, and the same relationship with its community infrastructure - service clubs or churches. They no longer "join." With busy lives raising children they don't want to give up one of their few free nights to go to a meeting or one of their few free morning to attend a church service. My daughter's in high school now and I can't believe how busy I've become driving her here and there and everywhere to do this and that and some other thing and trying to make it all fit together with my work schedule. I don't have a choice about going to church on Sunday morning but I can understand why people just don't want to wake up on Sunday morning and get ready to go out.

 

[paradox3]

Rev. Vosper wrote what a lot of people were thinking.

Yes, that seems to be the case. What we don't know is how many people were thinking that way.

 

[chansen]

Churches are facing many of the same problems. At least some of it is related to the fact that we have a far more transient population. People don't develop the same deep roots in their community, and the same relationship with its community infrastructure - service clubs or churches. They no longer "join." With busy lives raising children they don't want to give up one of their few free nights to go to a meeting or one of their few free morning to attend a church service. My daughter's in high school now and I can't believe how busy I've become driving her here and there and everywhere to do this and that and some other thing and trying to make it all fit together with my work schedule. I don't have a choice about going to church on Sunday morning but I can understand why people just don't want to wake up on Sunday morning and get ready to go out.

But it's not that they are unwilling to go out at all, it's just that there are more possible things to go out and *do*. Our skiing addiction takes up every winter weekend and holiday, sacrificing any work around the house, all wintertime event invitations, everything. We do it because we love it. It defines us. I thought people were Christians because they loved God, and it defined them.

Churches are literally in competition with all the other options a family can choose. The threat of eternal damnation no longer works. Look at how even most Christians here just roll their eyes at blackbelt and unsafe. When that hook isn't working, what's left after loving a being who doesn't talk back so much, if you're a liberal Christian and don't believe that being is a sadistic jerk? I'd argue the sense of community, both within the church and in the area. I really doubt it's the music, but that's just me. And that's what Rev. Vosper still seems to have.

But the groups who really want to go back to the middle of the last century are the conservative groups, both religious and political. Maybe there is a future for the United Church. I don't think so, but if there is one, I don't think you're going to find it in more rigid enforcement of beliefs, reminiscent of days gone by. In a polarizing, black-and-white world, here is the opportunity to do something grey.

And do you guys know grey.

 

[paradox3]

When that hook isn't working, what's left after loving a being who doesn't talk back so much, if you're a liberal Christian and don't believe that being is a sadistic jerk? I'd argue the sense of community, both within the church and in the area. I really doubt it's the music, but that's just me. And that's what Rev. Vosper still seems to have.

Agreed that Rev Vosper offers that sense of community. And the music, too.

But I don't think this is the question before the church courts.

As for alternatives, there are quite a few of our congregations with liberal/ progressive mindsets. There is simply no consensus about what it means to be a "progressive" Christian. Gretta offers one way but I note she is saying she "no longer identifies as a Christian" and she has "moved beyond United Church doctrine".

For those who have stepped off the Christian trajectory into post-Christian thinking, there is always Unitarian Universalism.

 

[GordW]

Gretta offers one way but I note she is saying she "no longer identifies as a Christian" and she has "moved beyond United Church doctrine"

ANd I do not understand how one can read statements like these and then wonder why the church questions if the speaker is still fit for membership in the Order of Ministry

 

[chansen]

For those who have stepped off the Christian trajectory into post-Christian thinking, there is always Unitarian Universalism.

Is that what it's going to be? Let's DSL(D) Rev. Vosper, alienate those who agree with her and all of West Hill, and just point them in the direction of the nearest Uniterian Universalist denomination? Because in the case of West Hill, that's 18km away in The Beach neighbourhood.

 

[chansen]

ANd I do not understand how one can read statements like these and then wonder why the church questions if the speaker is still fit for membership in the Order of Ministry

I don't understand how one can say they believe the doctrine and still be taken seriously at all.

 

[revsdd]

The interesting thing about Gretta is that if her views were so wildly popular and widely shared then presumably West Hill United Church would be attended by more than 80 people - which is their number which they submitted to the United Church for the last statistical report. Especially given that they offer a rather unique ministry which probably gives them a pretty wide catchment area and pretty much exclusive rights to the whole secular humanist with a spiritual dimension crowd. Certainly a bigger catchment area than most churches. But they get 80 people. And presumbly, if her views were so wildly popular and widely shared, people who loved "With Or Without God" would have been waiting anxiously for her next piece of work. And yet, as I understand it, her book "Amen" was nowhere near as popular. It's ranked way below With Or Without God in all of Amazon's book lists, for example.

So I do wonder: is she really all that popular and are her beliefs really so widely shared, or do people (including the media) simply have a natural curiosity about a self-proclaimed atheist in a Christian pulpit, but without really buying into her beliefs in any big time way.

Just a question.