In late January I interviewed Gretta
Vosper, the self-described “atheist minister” in the United Church of Canada,
about the unexpected decision by that church not to hold a hearing about her
suitability for ministry.
Since you can never say everything
that needs to be said in a short article, below find a transcription of our
conversation.
Were you surprised when you were offered the settlement?
Gretta: I was very surprised. We certainly didn't expect any action at that
point of time. I was totally convinced that, barring some miraculous
intervention, I would end up outside of the church. Every indication suggested
that that what was going to happen.
On the first day [of the hearing] there was someone present who had been
a mediator on a couple of previous occasions when we had tried to find a
settlement. He sought permission to try to do that again prior to starting and
a formal hearing panel. They agreed. He spent all day Monday [working at it].
I went home Monday night feeling it was entirely futile and a waste of
time and energy. [When we] came back on Tuesday something had shifted. I'm not
aware of what [it was]. My lawyer may know, but he hasn't disclosed that to me.
Were you surprised that all the charges were dropped?
Gretta: Yes. It was unexpected. There are a number of things that that the
church has the power to do when someone has been through a disciplinary review.
If that person is allowed to remain in their position, often there's a
supervisor given to that person so there is an ongoing relationship for a
period of time.
After [a period of time] there's another assessment of how the situation
is going. That supervisor can lift that supervisory requirement. But they [the
Toronto Conference] didn't even choose to do that.
John: So there is no monitoring?
Gretta: No. There’s no monitoring. And that surprised me as well. Because if the
if the church felt that the positions that I was espousing in my congregation
were antithetical to what the church does, then it would seem that they would
want to have someone fairly close to me watching. But that was a choice they didn't make.
John: Why do you think the settlement was offered?
Gretta: Part of me thinks that it may have been simply that the church had been
betting on my backing down because of the financial burden [the legal bills].
And so when we were there the first two days it was very, very clear we were
going to go the full length.
My husband and I had talked about that. We
understood the financial implications.
John: What have you paid in legal expenses?
Gretta: My legal fees have stretched to over $220,000. [Yet my husband and I]
felt it was extremely important. So we decided to move forward. The Friends of
Gretta Vosper [a fundraising initiative for her legal fees] was going to
continue to fundraise.
We felt that even if there was an outcome that was not in our favor, it
was important that the church go through that and make it very clear why [we
were doing that].
John: Why do you feel so strongly about this?
Gretta: Everything I teach
is consistent with the theological training that I received from the United
Church [at Queens Theological College on the late 1980s]. I just simply choose
to express it in a different way.
I choose to use everyday language in order to
share my beliefs and to engage the congregation, rather than speaking in
archaic theological terms and having to follow with a phrase about what I
really mean when I use that word.
It shouldn't be surprising if an individual who's trained in the liberal
church determines that that language is unhelpful and chooses to use different
language. And that's really what we do.
I was taught the Bible was a human
construction, and there is much wisdom in many texts, both ancient and
contemporary.
We don't privilege that text [the Bible] anymore [and] suggest it has an
authority beyond all other wisdom in the world. That's what I understood my
theological training to be teaching me. I would not have been able to
articulate that when I was at theological college, or even [for my first] few
years in ministry.
But really that's the challenge. If the Bible is not the authoritative
word of God for all time, why does it take such a central position in the
church?
John: So in terms of the settlement, are there any terms or things you need to
abide by or do?
Gretta: No. There are there are some things that were signed under a
nondisclosure agreement, which was a challenging thing [for me] to do.
Obviously, I'm not able to discuss those with you.
But there's nothing in that that influences what I am able to do, that
has any impact on [my ministry]. I am able to
function in ministry with all the rights and privileges that clergy have.
John: Why do you think the review was initiated?
Gretta: The review was instituted in 2015 because [the church worried]
there was going to be a huge breach in the relationships that clergy have with
one another, and that congregations [and individuals] have with the United
Church, if I was allowed to stay.
John: What response have you heard to the decision?
Gretta: I'm aware of at least one individual who has challenged her
congregation to consider ways to respond with vehemence against the decision.
But I know there are . . . many who are relieved. There are many who will not
say what their position is for fear of censure from the United Church.
John: It sounds like you see your battle almost as being a battle on behalf of
all progressive clergy in the United Church. Is that the case?
Gretta: Yes. That's true. And that certainly was the impetus for carrying on . .
. that ruling [against me, from the hearing] could have put all clergy at risk.
I think there has been a subtle steering of the denomination in a
conservative direction that has been ongoing probably for the last 10 or 15
years. I think there are some things the United Church has done in the past
[that are] at risk as a result of that.
The United Church generally has been a progressive church. So it's not
that I'm fighting on behalf of a small group of people in that church. But that,
you know, the social impact that the United Church has had around [things like]
LGBTQ, a decision made so long ago, that led the church and also challenged
communities around churches.
We've pushed policies around a number of things that put us on the
cutting and sometimes leading edge of progressive thought in Canada, [things
like] the conversation around Palestinians and the impact Israel and its policies
has on those people—something some people call a slow genocide.
The United
Church has made statements on that [issue] much to the distress of many of its
partners and members. It has not not faltered in that work.
But if it has, unfortunately, privileged and protected a very
conservative interpretation of doctrine. Certainly when I was at theological
college that was not being taught.
I was one of the few in my year who actually
had been raised with the new curriculum in the 1960s and so had never had a
supernatural judging Father God and who had never believed that Jesus had died
and risen to save me from m sins. I've never had any of that literal theology.
I was one of the few in my first year at the college who didn't have to
have my entire conservative theology deconstructed so that it could be put back
together in a in a much more contemporary way that was informed by critical
scholarship.
I was fighting on behalf of that voice of the United Church.
John: You are known as the atheist Minister. Is that a moniker you chose for
yourself or that has been applied to and how do you respond to it?
.
Gretta: Yes I did choose that myself. I took that label on and I was happy to do
so. I was doing it within a theological milieu and I expected that my
colleagues who are all theologically trained would understand what I meant by
that. That proved not to be the case.
A lot of the negative commentary that takes place about me [comes] from
colleagues who have chosen to interact exclusively with a caricature of who I
am and what my beliefs are and who have never had a conversation with me or in
fact read any of the things that I have written.
So they take that label in the
most negative way that they possibly could and they express their ire in
relation to that.
John: Do you think the Toronto Conference offered the settlement because they
just wanted this whole thing to be over? After all, it would have generated
more publicity that the Church may have wished to avoid.
Gretta: Yes, I think so. We had booked three weeks for the trial, so it would
have been three weeks of daily engagement. Then the decision coming down would
have made a big deal too.
John: How do you think others in the church view you through all of
this?
Gretta: There is this big, very big perception that I am
constantly sending out press releases and trying to get media attention. I have
not sent out press releases. I think my lawyer did a couple of times, including
one about the settlement.
But all of the interviews that I have given have
pretty much come as yours did, simply a request from someone who wants to know
what is going on and share it with the people that they write for.
John: The United Church is not officially saying anything about the
settlement to the media, except to acknowledge it happened.
Gretta: It confuses me a little bit that the United Church doesn't realize
how important this is. Interest in church and religion is dwindling. [But then]
the general media connects and says they want to talk about what it is that's
going on. I think the United Church has had an opportunity to really engage
media, but they haven’t.
I think the interest in what is happening could have been leveraged by
the United Church in a very positive way, had they chosen to do that. This is a
moment in the United Church's history when it has much to engage about, and
they don't seem to have any sense of that.
John: Why did you stay in the church despite all of this?
I wanted to clarify what it was I was doing. Unfortunately, the
disciplinary review completely stifled any conversation about what it is we're
doing at West Hill and why we're doing it.
And that's the important piece here. I want people to know what it is
that we're doing, why we feel so passionate about it, why we think that it's so
important, why we think it's the work that the United Church has to do, and
[why it] is perfectly placed to do that work. [By] not doing that work it’s
abdicated its responsibility.
I talk about it because I think what we do is crucial. I think it's
significantly important and I think that if we had the opportunity to have a
conversation with people [in the United Church across] Canada they would find a
serious and significant avenue for the work they do to provide for the needs of
a fast-growing sector of Canadians who currently have no community that
replicates the kind of social well-being and social connections that the United
Church [provides].