The Rev. Vosper Again

[Luce NDs]

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but Cruxifusion isn't working for polarization within Christianity.

I believe you are eternally out of place with a comment like that ...

Considering God as pure love is a vacuous topic into which everything could be sucked, or aspired ... later expired if denied entry as an ethereal's composite of eternal and nothing ... which both the Romans and Jews did not believe in and thus believed God to be entrained in a Dark Temple ... Bas'alt?

Almost as bad as combining aged people and young virile persona in church and expecting no dissonance ... are ageism ... a disbelief in the fact one can learn something over time when starting out with nothing ... a' priori? Tis a lead in the debate over where the disturbance over mediums began ... absolutely no where! Possibly within a displaced imaginary realm ... if you could conjure such a thing !

 

[revsdd]

Some members and some money moved from the failed group to the new group. The failed group wrote on their website how Cruxifusion was somehow the continuation of their work. And you're maintaining there is no connection between the groups. There is literally nothing I need to add.

I am suspicious of Cruxifusion. They seem to want to take the UCCan down a more Jesusy road, when Canada is going in the opposite direction. I see then as a polarizing influence at a time when we don't need more polarization in general, and the UCCAN in particular wouldn't benefit from it.

I see no reason to be suspicious that Cruxifusion wants to take the United Church down a more Jesusy road. I think you can rest assured that they do. No suspicion necessary. So do I. If you feel that I'm a "polarizing" influence in the United Church, so be it. I also don't think that the direction set by secular society is necessarily the right course for the church to set. I have no desire to belong to a church that isn't "Jesusy." So if the United Church chooses that direction I guess I'm gone. I think the greatest value of the United Church is to demonstrate that there is a liberal, socially progressive Christian voice that is still firmly centred on belief in Jesus.

 

[Jaebius]

I see no reason to be suspicious that Cruxifusion wants to take the United Church down a more Jesusy road. I think you can rest assured that they do. No suspicion necessary. So do I. If you feel that I'm a "polarizing" influence in the United Church, so be it. I also don't think that the direction set by secular society is necessarily the right course for the church to set. I have no desire to belong to a church that isn't "Jesusy." So if the United Church chooses that direction I guess I'm gone. I think the greatest value of the United Church is to demonstrate that there is a liberal, socially progressive Christian voice that is still firmly centred on belief in Jesus.

Church service A is led by a Minister who's part of Cruxifusion. Church service B is led by a Minister who isn't. How will extra-Jesusiness be enjoyed by those in service A?

 

[Mendalla]

Church service A is led by a Minister who's part of Cruxifusion. Church service B is led by a Minister who isn't. How will extra-Jesusiness be enjoyed by those in service A?

Don't know that it would. Depends on who Minister B is, doesn't it? I'm sure there are many Jesus-y ministers in the UCCan who aren't Cruxifusion members.

 

[Jaebius]

Don't know that it would. Depends on who Minister B is, doesn't it? I'm sure there are many Jesus-y ministers in the UCCan who aren't Cruxifusion members.

Right, good point Mendalla. So let's say Minister B represents the average UCCanada Minister, if such a being can be said to exist.

 

[Luce NDs]

As long as you don't come up with a new idea 'r in the church ... in the line of thought process ... knowledge is said to be sternly crucified under a bible denying knowledge ... especially under the terms of ageism! Old things are not to be re raised ...

 

[revsdd]

Church service A is led by a Minister who's part of Cruxifusion. Church service B is led by a Minister who isn't. How will extra-Jesusiness be enjoyed by those in service A?

At the very least, a "Jesusy" minister would presumably not be leading an essentially humanist service. A "Jesusy" minister would likely and regularly name Jesus. A "Jesusy" minister would likely not ignore Jesus' teaching that we should love both God and neighbour, and not neighbour alone. That's just off the top of my head.

 

[Seeler]

Right, good point Mendalla. So let's say Minister B represents the average UCCanada Minister, if such a being can be said to exist.

I'll claim to be a B worship leader.

A few years ago I heard someone say that United churches are mainly atheist and you almost never hear the name of Jesus.

I found that hard to believe. I don't sit in church counting the times the minister says 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or 'Saviour', but having time on my hands and being somewhat obsessive-compulsive, I decided to check my services over the years. So I dug them out of my files. Say 10 to 25 sermons a year (average about 18) over about 15 years at the time - 270 services - and I found one in which I didn't mention the name of Jesus. The sermon that particular day was based on the Lectionary reading from the Hebrew scriptures and was on one of the stories of David - perhaps David and Bethsheba - and even though the sermon didn't mention Jesus, I did use the Gospel lesson earlier in the service preceding my talk with the young and young at heart, and I did use the name of Jesus in the hymns and prayers that rounded out the service. So, I guess I could claim that the worship services led by me are 'Jesusy'. I don't think I have ever attended a regular UCC worship service that wasn't 'Jesusy', yet I tend to lean towards the Progressive side of the spectrum.

 

[Jaebius]

I'll claim to be a B worship leader.

A few years ago I heard someone say that United churches are mainly atheist and you almost never hear the name of Jesus.

I found that hard to believe. I don't sit in church counting the times the minister says 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or 'Saviour', but having time on my hands and being somewhat obsessive-compulsive, I decided to check my services over the years. So I dug them out of my files. Say 10 to 25 sermons a year (average about 18) over about 15 years at the time - 270 services - and I found one in which I didn't mention the name of Jesus. The sermon that particular day was based on the Lectionary reading from the Hebrew scriptures and was on one of the stories of David - perhaps David and Bethsheba - and even though the sermon didn't mention Jesus, I did use the Gospel lesson earlier in the service preceding my talk with the young and young at heart, and I did use the name of Jesus in the hymns and prayers that rounded out the service. So, I guess I could claim that the worship services led by me are 'Jesusy'. I don't think I have ever attended a regular UCC worship service that wasn't 'Jesusy', yet I tend to lean towards the Progressive side of the spectrum.

Did you mention God in the sermon in which you didn't mention Jesus

 

[Seeler]

Did you mention God in the sermon in which you didn't mention Jesus

Without digging it out again, I would say 'yes, I definitely mentioned God.' It seems to me that it would be difficult to preach on a passage of scripture about David without mentioning God.

 

[Jaebius]

Without digging it out again, I would say 'yes, I definitely mentioned God.' It seems to me that it would be difficult to preach on a passage of scripture about David without mentioning God.

I've always mentioned Jesus when I've preached. I'd find it very hard not to. I always want to share with people the Good News that the text contains.

 

[Luce NDs]

In that flash of insight into everything ... one gets the ungodly sense we know little as spiritual creatures that are too emotional to learn much!

Tis a stage to pass through ...

 

[Seeler]

I've always mentioned Jesus when I've preached. I'd find it very hard not to. I always want to share with people the Good News that the text contains.

Am I to understand that you never preach on a text from the Old Testament - say Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, or Ruth, or Hannah and Samuel, or David and Goliath, or David and Bethsheba, or the wisdom of Solomon?

 

[Mendalla]

Am I to understand that you never preach on a text from the Old Testament - say Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, or Ruth, or Hannah and Samuel, or David and Goliath, or David and Bethsheba, or the wisdom of Solomon?

Doesn't stop you from mentioning Jesus. You just might have to stretch a bit to justify the point.

I'll say that I'm a UU who's been known to mention Jesus, God, and even the Trinity in sermons over the years. So maybe I should be an LLWL in the UCCan?

 

[Jaebius]

Am I to understand that you never preach on a text from the Old Testament - say Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, or Ruth, or Hannah and Samuel, or David and Goliath, or David and Bethsheba, or the wisdom of Solomon?

I've more often preached on texts in the Old Testament than in the New.

 

[Seeler]

Doesn't stop you from mentioning Jesus. You just might have to stretch a bit to justify the point.

I'll say that I'm a UU who's been known to mention Jesus, God, and even the Trinity in sermons over the years. So maybe I should be an LLWL in the UCCan?

That part about 'stretching it a bit to justify the point' is true Mendalla.
When I first started leading worship services I thought that I should touch on all four of the lectionary readings for the Sunday. Somehow I had to find a way to tie together the psalm with the other Hebrew scripture reading, and both with the Gospel lesson and the epistle. I must say that some of my sermons were a bit disjointed. (Though occasionally it can work - I used all four last Sunday in preaching about the Trinity.) Since I also try to relate the scripture to our lives in today's world, covering all four scriptures in the allotted time (I usually have 1/2 hour to get between two points on a pastoral charge on a Sunday morning, usually doesn't allow time to do them justice.
Now I pick one to focus on, with a brief referral to a second one. This week it will either be the Gospel about Jesus healing the Roman officer's servant boy, or the opening verses of Paul's letter to the Galatians - probably the latter. I'm almost sure I won't use the Hebrew reading. Undecided about having the Psalm read responsively (some congregations expect that). It's a cheerful psalm - I may use it as an intro to my talk with the children.

 

[Seeler]

I've more often preached on texts in the Old Testament than in the New.

I would like to hear more about how when you are preaching on a text from the Old Testament you find it hard not to mention Jesus and share the good news that the text contains.

 

[Jaebius]

I would like to hear more about how when you are preaching on a text from the Old Testament you find it hard not to mention Jesus and share the good news that the text contains.

When I seek to understand a text in preparation for preaching, I ask myself among other things: a) what the Good News is for us found in the text, and b) what is in the text that helps prepare us for the coming of God's Kingdom. For me Seeler, those questions have to do with Jesus because I believe in Him as both Savior and King.

 

[revsdd]

Am I to understand that you never preach on a text from the Old Testament - say Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, or Ruth, or Hannah and Samuel, or David and Goliath, or David and Bethsheba, or the wisdom of Solomon?

I often preach on Old Testament texts - and I'd be surprised if any of those sermons I've preached don't mention Jesus.

 

[Seeler]

Thanks Jae and revsdd. Thinking back over the number of sermons I checked (approx 170) and realizing that I probably based about 1/4 of them mainly on the Hebrew scriptures, and that I only found one that didn't mention the name of Jesus, I guess that I too frequently mention Jesus in my message.
(I wish I could remember the year I preached that sermon on David, and/or the pastoral charge I was visiting, so that I wouldn't have to glance through files of sermons to review it.)

But I guess the point is this - most UCC ministers (and LLWLs) lead worship that is pretty 'Jesusy'.