What Do We Do About Gretta Vosper?

I really haven’t said a whole lot about Gretta Vosper. The truth is that on my list of day to day priorities, Gretta and her ministry ranks somewhere after remembering to floss my teeth before going to bed at night. However, I’ve noticed that there’s been some interest in her recently. That interest is probably spurred by the fact that there was a recent article about her in Christianity Today and a one column summary of what’s happening in the most recent (September 2015) edition of the United Church Observer. Some of my Facebook friends have made some comments about her, and I’ve even had a question from a parishioner about her. In all honesty, I believe that this was only the third time that I think I've ever had a parishioner raise Gretta with me - and I suspect that she may have been motivated possibly not so much by interest in Gretta but by interest in how the new minister feels about Gretta. But there has been some interest expressed, and Gretta does keep popping up in the news, and since she’s now pretty much a neighbouring colleague (West Hill United Church and Pickering Village United Church are separated by a scant 33.9 km according to Google Maps) it seems appropriate to share some thoughts.

For those who don’t know, Gretta is kind of a media star right now. She’s an ordained United Church minister - pastor of the aforementioned West Hill United Church - and she’s also an avowed atheist, a status that probably makes her an anomaly to both atheists and Christians alike - at least some of them. Many atheists probably shake their heads over why she stays in the church - many theists probably do the same thing! Now, in fairness to her, her atheism is somewhat nuanced. If I understand her position correctly, she doesn’t completely deny the existence of God. She uses the term “atheist” to express her rejection of the traditional understanding of a “supernatural and interventionist” God. God may still exist, as I understand her position, but God really doesn’t do much of anything, and certainly not in a way that affects us. That’s just my impression of her beliefs. I could be wrong. Please don’t take that to the bank.

I should say that personally I don't know her, and I’ve never met her. I know some people who know her. They all without exception describe her as friendly, caring and compassionate. I think I'd like her if I met her. I think sitting down and having lunch with her would be a pleasant way to pass an hour as we shot the theological breeze over - well - theism vs atheism perhaps? After all, it is her theology that’s at the heart of everything that’s happening right now. (Some would argue that she has no theology, since she rejects theism. I would say that rejection of theism is a form of theology, if theology is the exploration of thoughts and concepts about God. But I digress.) Basically, her argument is that Christianity is about doing rather than believing. It’s about living a certain way of life rather than believing a certain set of doctrines. I actually have some sympathy with that. I don’t believe that doctrine has the last word either. Doctrine is a starting point. Where I would disagree with her is that I believe that doctrine is a point of some kind. Christianity isn’t just about doing good. Anyone can do good. Identifying as a Christian is a theological statement about God having been present in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore it is a statement that Jesus of Nazareth is our example. Jesus, of course, was a theist. He believed in God. He also did many good works, as Scripture notes. So, my understanding of Christian faith is that it’s a blending of belief with action. Each contributes to the other. Either in isolation does not make one a Christian.

So the current ruckus is over Gretta’s place in the United Church. Does she belong? Should she stay? Should she be removed? A quick summary: Gretta has been ordained since 1993 (meaning one year longer than I have) and she’s been serving at West Hill since 1997. When she was ordained she had to state that she was in “essential agreement” with the statement of doctrine of the United Church of Canada, which has changed somewhat over the years, but which then and now has been overtly theistic, proclaiming belief in a God who is interventionist. So, although Gretta has been “out” as an atheist for several years, it was only recently that there was a complaint made against her, and a review of her “effectiveness” as a minister was ordered. She has appealed whether such a review can take place, and that’s where we stand right now, waiting for some official pronouncement on whether the church can even review Gretta’s effectiveness on the basis of her theology. (And, in spite of what some say, there are United Church ministers who have faced the same kind of reviews.) I wanted to address a few things today on the subject.

First, there’s been a lot of talk about her motivation for staying in the United Church. Why does an atheist want to remain as a minister in an overtly theistic church? There appear to be three broad possibilities:

1) She wants a pension and the benefits. That seems to be the most popular theory among a certain segment of the church. Whatever she believes is less important to her than the benefits she gets from living those beliefs out in a church that’s fundamentally opposed to what she believes. That makes her a hypocrite at best. That’s one theory. To be clear - it’s not my theory. But it’s one theory. Myself? I would think that if her pension and benefits were uppermost in her mind then she would have just stayed quiet and not made waves. So I reject this one.

2) She believes that being in the United Church gives her views more credibility and certainly gets her more attention. Even given our rather precipitous decline in recent years, the United Church remains the largest Protestant denomination in Canada. We have at least a toehold in most parts of the country. That gives her a platform. And, of course, the media loves controversy, and Gretta has become the poster child for “theological” controversy for the moment. Realistically (based on her beliefs) she would probably be a much better fit with, say, the Unitarian Universalist Church. In fact, there she’d be pretty mainstream. Maybe, in fact, she wouldn’t even  be noticed. Some might suspect that’s the point. So is her decision to remain in the United Church motivated by a quest for either publicity or credibility - or perhaps both? That’s certainly possible.

3) She sincerely believes the church would be better off if it adopted her beliefs. I probably find myself drawn to this option. I don’t want to be judgmental toward her or to ascribe motives to her when I don’t know her and certainly don’t know what’s in her mind. So maybe it’s best if we all treated her with respect and just took her at face value. She really believes this! Really! And she really believes that the church is dying and will die unless it moves in the direction that she’s pushing! Really! I think that’s probably the likeliest option of all. She just believes this, she actually does care about the United Church (not just the pension and benefits it offers her, not just the credibility and attention it gets her, but the United Church itself and even more broadly the Christian faith) and she sees herself as a sort of leader of a new, 21st century style reformation of the church. I really do think that’s the most likely option of all.

All that, of course, begs the question of whether or not she should be allowed to stay in good standing as a United Church minister, or whether she should be placed on the Discontinued Service List - which would make her ineligible to serve as a minister. Personally, if this gets to the point of a formal review (if her appeal of the process is denied, in other words) I don’t think that a review panel has much leeway in the matter. Obviously, doctrinal issues are the key to this review. Technically, her “effectiveness” is in question, but in this case her effectiveness revolves around doctrine. One of the responsibilities of a minister of the church is to effectively preach and teach the faith of the church. Each one of us will have some variations, of course. We’re not in lockstep doctrinally. But, when we’re ordained, we agree that we’re in “essential agreement” with the Church’s doctrine. We say, in effect, “the statement of doctrine of the United Church is something I’m comfortable holding up, with a few asterisks here and there.” But Gretta does seem to have more than just a few asterisks. The simple reality is that lack of belief in an interventionist God fails the test of United Church doctrine. We may not all agree on every detail, but every doctrinal statement we have assumes that in some way God intervened in human history and in creation through Jesus Christ. I don’t see how you can deny that and still claim to be in “essential agreement.” It just doesn’t work. Gretta simply cannot be in essential agreement with our doctrine, and that means that any review, in my opinion, has to recommend that she be removed.

I don’t take any joy in saying that. To be perfectly honest, I’d have preferred that she not be reviewed and that we simply let nature take its course. I’m an advocate for what might be called the Gamaliel school of thought. Gamaliel was an honoured Pharisee whose theological position toward unorthodox belief was, I think, a wise one. His story is recounted in Acts 5, when he basically said that the proper position for the authorities to take toward the nascent Christian community was that “if it’s not of God it won’t succeed and if it is of God you won’t be able to stop it.” According to the latest statistical report from the United Church the average attendance at West Hill is 70, compared to an average of 92.2 in the 51 pastoral charges of her Presbytery. It’s not like the world is flocking to the place, and I for one don’t feel especially threatened by her presence. I think that while some find her intriguing, and perhaps some have connected with the church because of her, most see her as something of a curiosity. If this is the wave of the future, well, the future certainly isn’t now.

But, we do have to be aware of the pastoral implications of what we’re doing. Perhaps not the review process itself, which is a more formal proceeding with one interest, but the wider church has to keep in mind that people have come into the church because of her and that others have remained because of her. Do we want to simply jettison them and leave them with the impression that we have no place for them in the community? The reality is that  those who disagree with our doctrine are welcome into our community. We have a place for them, but we also have to be true to who and what we claim to be as a church - and our leaders have to reflect that. Leaders are always held to a higher standard of accountability. That’s just reality. “Not many of you should presume to be teachers,” James wrote, “because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” Gretta is in that uncomfortable position of being a teacher of the church, and a teacher of the faith. Her beliefs have been called into question. Can she be an effective teacher of the church’s beliefs? That’s the only issue. 

I’d have to say - no, she can’t. I take no joy from saying that. Some seem to be gleefully anticipating her removal; others are furious that her place is even being questioned. I just find it all rather sad - because I know that however this all turns out, there are going to be people hurt.