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
GordW said:
]
Which says so little one wonders why it was even issued.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I think it says quite a bit. Pointedly even.

While Toronto Conference chose to roll-over. The Denomination is saying that it will be what it has always been.

What does that mean moving forward?

Remains to be seen.[/FONT]
 
I wonder if this is a largely administrative technique.

In that, Toronto Conference, knowing it was disappearing into a region, along with the presbytery, decided that it shouldn't carry forward this kind of crap to the new structure.
 
More cynically, the church doesn't want old dirt sullying the shiny new governance system so they are try to sweep it aside and forget about it.
 
revjohn said:
Disagree. I think it says quite a bit. Pointedly even.

While Toronto Conference chose to roll-over. The Denomination is saying that it will be what it has always been.

Click to expand...
To my eyes it looks like the Denomination is attempting to distance itself from Toronto Conference. Incongruous, really, when you consider the hearing panel must have okayed the settlement between Gretta, WHUC & Conference.
 
On the other hand, in labour relations matters, settlements are often made at the eleventh hour as the arbitration panel is already seated. In these cases the panel does not need to approve the settlements AFAIK. Was involved with one once (management side) and the arbitration panel simply congratulated the parties on settling the matter.

Sure wish I understood this process better. Also hoping that there will be some transparency about the agreement that was reached with Gretta.
 
It was one of the more strategic moves I have ever seen the UCCan make, and as such, deserves some respect, in an institutional sort of way.
 
Looked around your congregation, recently? Looked at mine? Grey and white. We can't afford to be disenfranchising anyone. Sure looks strategic.
 
paradox3 said:
Lots of speculation going on everywhere.
Click to expand...
In an information vacuum, speculation is rampant.

It could have been that Rev. Vosper had the UCCan over a barrel in some way. What it probably was not, was a completed review process. This was cut short, very short, for some reason. And the result is clearly in favour of Rev. Vosper, who gets to keep her position at West Hill and her standing as an ordained minister in the UCCan, with no obvious concessions on her part. Nothing about beliefs, sacraments or anything like that.
 
Actually, she's been extremely careful about the sacrament that matters to the larger church. She does not claim to baptize.
 
chansen said:
In an information vacuum, speculation is rampant.

It could have been that Rev. Vosper had the UCCan over a barrel in some way. What it probably was not, was a completed review process. This was cut short, very short, for some reason. And the result is clearly in favour of Rev. Vosper, who gets to keep her position at West Hill and her standing as an ordained minister in the UCCan, with no obvious concessions on her part. Nothing about beliefs, sacraments or anything like that.
Click to expand...
Definitely not a completed review process. This week was scheduled for preliminary motions with the hearing to start Nov. 17.
 
paradox3 said:
Definitely not a completed review process. This week was scheduled for preliminary motions with the hearing to start Nov. 17.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought, that it was scheduled over a much longer period of time.

So, my speculation is that the UCCan was looking at a protracted, costly battle that could get escalated to the courts, and decided it wasn't worth it. In an age where churches are trying to find and expel pedophiles, this always looked like a less noble effort that had to be consuming resources and stood to drive out good people.

Of course, this decision already has people saying they will leave. Those whose faith is threatened by something as sinister as an atheist minister, don't really have much of a faith. If your faith is so weak that you need validation at every street corner, anything will topple it. I will volunteer.

The UCCan is not like any other leave-your-brain-at-the-door church. Figure out how to celebrate that.
 
@chansen Your speculation could well be correct. We have very little to go on. What we know is a formal mediation process did not succeed but a settlement was reached at the eleventh hour, so to speak, avoiding an actual hearing. So while Gretta and her supporters are jubilant right now, I am guessing she had to make some concessions. We may get some clues from her behavior in the coming months. Or we may never know.

Yes, a few people are saying they will leave. I don't hear many people saying this and I am certainly not saying it.

Please be advised Gretta Vosper does not threaten my faith.

I am thinking right now about what I want to say publicly and where I will say it. Without Snoopy's doghouse :)

It has long been my contention that the changes at West Hill did not take place in an honorable or transparent fashion. History has been rewritten to some extent to be more palatable. West Hill's narratives going back to 2001 do not reflect my understanding of what actually took place in those early years. I was there from 2000 - 2005.

I also wish they could acknowledge that the community they now enjoy came at the cost of many faithful United Church members. The attitude was always that anyone not wishing to follow Gretta on her path could easily find a nearby congregation that would be more suitable. While this is true enough, it always struck me as more than a little callous. And not even in keeping with the values they espouse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top