The Rev. Vosper Again

[Luce NDs]

New Testament ... that after the OT prophecy about light coming and gone due to corruptive power demanding God's people (Caesars) ... should not think ... an icon of enlightenment? Who put Jesus down to the state of subtle thought in hypo boule as a metaphor of glowing grail of wisdom that's out of sight?

Real powers demand reality and are shaken badly by essences of the other found in the dark cloud with the silver lining ...

A smoking reflection ...

 

[revsdd]

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'.

I'm not sure how it is that you "too frequently mention Jesus in [your] message." Sounds to me like you're mentioning Jesus quite appropriately. Christian preaching is about Jesus, no matter what text the sermon is based on. If it isn't in some way about Jesus it isn't Christian preaching. The idea (which I think is starting to die out) that we should refer to the Old Testament as the "Hebrew Scriptures" as if they somehow aren't Christian is silly. As my Old Testament professor at Emmanuel College said, "The Old Testament is Christian Scripture."

 

[Luce NDs]

The true powers would rather you not mention the light of wisdom ... thus those in the dark can be taken advantage of ... a matter of ad vocation by advertising agents of fear, anger and mongering of the thoughts with excessive emotions ...

Leads to aspirations and later expiration as you die when you learn of what you did while blindly aspiring! Only those virtue'ous stick with it ... seeing through to the NDs? Is that possible with eternal essences?

Did you know that only the Latins and Judy ANs were the only ones that curtailed conceptions of eternal and nothing ... love being nothing but the extreme demiurge to make something o've ID! One needs a wile full partner ... and thus the concept stuck as a sticking point ... even with the Aztec ... who built pyramids on the other side of the spherical domain and thus upside down to the other view ... "v"s vs "/\"s!

And the light comes first to the peak expression ... often left behind as conclusion to the peace ... thus lost sectors ...

 

[revjohn]

I am suspicious of Cruxifusion.

I belong to Cruxifusion. How suspicious are you that I want to take the UCCan down a "more" Jesusy road?

And while we are at it how do you know that the "more" Jesusy road is actually a bad road to take? What do you understand "more Jesusy" to mean?

From where I sit it isn't so much about going down one road over the other so much as it is remembering which road we are supposed to be on. The UCCan is, despite all claims from critics here or otherwhere, a Church which holds onto the idea that Jesus is its head. Even if we aren't completely in agreement about who Jesus is/was/will be.

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.

And the Reverend Vosper is not a polarizing influence? Or is it that you really aren't opposed to polarization so much as you are opposed to a particular perspective?

And as for what you see about Cruxifusion, how much of it is what you actually see and not actually suspect? I only ask because you constantly lift revsdd and I up as somewhat positive examples and revsdd is sympathetic towards Cruxifusion whereas I actually belong to/participate in Cruxifusion.

I suspect that the two of us probably know the various members of Cruxifusion better than you do and yet you don't actually seem to be very much interested in our impressions.

I find that inconsistent of you.

And in case it hasn't been mentioned yet I think it only fair to let you know that the Community of Concern (COC) has finally decided to formally disband and one of the decisions they have made is to direct funds that they still control to Cruxifusion to continue our work, not theirs.

 

[revjohn]

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?

Legitimate question. I don't know that there is a quantifiable way to determine if that is true and how, if it is true, it is true.

I have not always been a member of Cruxifusion. To become a member of Cruxifusion I didn't have to prove anything. I simply had to agree that I was a Christ-centered member of The United Church of Canada. I didn't find that odd or even difficult because, as a Trinitarian, everything revolves around the God-head of which Christ is the second person. I do not ignore God the Father or God the Holy Spirit simply because I think a Christian is properly in relationship with all of the Three as opposed to one of the Three.

I don't think that my services contain extra Jesus now that I am a member of Cruxifusion than prior to my joining Cruxifusion.

 

[Jaebius]

Legitimate question. I don't know that there is a quantifiable way to determine if that is true and how, if it is true, it is true.

I have not always been a member of Cruxifusion. To become a member of Cruxifusion I didn't have to prove anything. I simply had to agree that I was a Christ-centered member of The United Church of Canada. I didn't find that odd or even difficult because, as a Trinitarian, everything revolves around the God-head of which Christ is the second person. I do not ignore God the Father or God the Holy Spirit simply because I think a Christian is properly in relationship with all of the Three as opposed to one of the Three.

I don't think that my services contain extra Jesus now that I am a member of Cruxifusion than prior to my joining Cruxifusion.

So a Minister being a member of Cruxifusion isn't a sign I could look for in choosing a new church (since I would want one that, as you said, "revolves around the God-head of which Christ is the second person")?

 

[revjohn]

So a Minister being a member of Cruxifusion isn't a sign I could look for in choosing a new church (since I would want one that, as you said, "revolves around the God-head of which Christ is the second person")?

Not necessarily.

Again, we have all agreed that Christ is centre. We are not all agreed on who or what Christ is/was/will be.

We are a pretty eclectic mix of theologies. Some Calvinists (not all of which are exactly like me) and some who are currently struggling with the label Progressive Christian because they are not at all happy with some of the more recent baggage the term has been tagged with and, we have some who happily wear the label panentheist. So if you asked one representative from each of those demographics to exegete any passage of scripture you'd have a grab bag of responses which were not cookie-cutter.

The idea that we are a Conservative reforming element in the UCCan comes from folk who talk a lot about things they know nothing about.

We have a Conservative element (only in as much as we believe that there are some traditions worth defending) and Jesus as centre of the Church is one of those traditions we are all agreed in defending. After that we go flying madly off in all directions. So, looking for the Cruxifusion label will only tell you what the hub is that the Church rotates around it won't tell you which spoke of the wheel is attached to that hub and which minister is on which spoke.

We have some Arminians that I can hang around with and not feel at all compelled to call dogs. We have some Methodists that I can hang around (even though I have yet to stop telling them that Whitefield was by far the superior preacher). The most difficult demographic is the newbies. Folk of whatever theological stripe who come in assuming Cruxifusion is all this or all that.

In terms of personalities that Wondercaffinators might remember, Rev, James Murray belongs to Cruxifusion as does Rev. Richard Bott and while the three of us are genuinely fond of one another we are not peas of the same theological pod.

 

[Mendalla]

In terms of personalities that Wondercaffinators might remember, Rev, James Murray belongs to Cruxifusion as does Rev. Richard Bott and while the three of us are genuinely fond of one another we are not peas of the same theological pod.

That, right there, kind of puts paid to the idea that Cruxifusion is some kind of movement to turn the UCCan into a more conservative church. Rev. Murray is, IIRC from his days on WC and reading some of his posted sermons and writings, into process theology and Rev. Bott is hardly an arch-conservative as we well know.

 

[revjohn]

That, right there, kind of puts paid to the idea that Cruxifusion is some kind of movement to turn the UCCan into a more conservative church.

It ought to.

It won't though.

For those who have decided to take a disliking to Cruxifusion the only evidence they need to continue that disliking is their own suspicion which never rested on fact in the first place.

 

[chansen]

I belong to Cruxifusion. How suspicious are you that I want to take the UCCan down a "more" Jesusy road?

And while we are at it how do you know that the "more" Jesusy road is actually a bad road to take? What do you understand "more Jesusy" to mean?

From where I sit it isn't so much about going down one road over the other so much as it is remembering which road we are supposed to be on. The UCCan is, despite all claims from critics here or otherwhere, a Church which holds onto the idea that Jesus is its head. Even if we aren't completely in agreement about who Jesus is/was/will be.

And your problem there is that this is a shrinking part of the Canadian population that believes Jesus was anything but a guy. So by reinforcing that belief, you're moving in the opposite direction of the country.

And the Reverend Vosper is not a polarizing influence? Or is it that you really aren't opposed to polarization so much as you are opposed to a particular perspective?

And as for what you see about Cruxifusion, how much of it is what you actually see and not actually suspect? I only ask because you constantly lift revsdd and I up as somewhat positive examples and revsdd is sympathetic towards Cruxifusion whereas I actually belong to/participate in Cruxifusion.

I suspect that the two of us probably know the various members of Cruxifusion better than you do and yet you don't actually seem to be very much interested in our impressions.

I find that inconsistent of you.

And in case it hasn't been mentioned yet I think it only fair to let you know that the Community of Concern (COC) has finally decided to formally disband and one of the decisions they have made is to direct funds that they still control to Cruxifusion to continue our work, not theirs.

Rev. Vosper is polarizing within the denomination. She is bridge to those outside the denomination and those outside the confines of belief. She widens the appeal outside the church, while annoying those within it. She represents the theological direction the country is going, instead of the direction churches think they can will it to go.

As for my suspicions, it's not that I think Cruxifusion is evil, like the Catholic Church or the Watchtower Society. I just think they are taking the denomination in the wrong direction. Moving in a more theologically rigid direction will put you in competition with other churches for a piece of a shrinking pie. I think it's a safe prediction that this is going to fail spectacularly. Your competition is the UUs - not the Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans and Catholics. You fall between those, and with more people abandoning faith, Cruxifusion seems to want to fight it out with the derpier denominations in town. I can't understand why.

You are very defensive whenever Cruxifusion comes up, as if I'm not allowed to talk about it or point out what I've learned or the simple, obvious conclusion that there is a link to the Community of Concern. If I were part of Cruxifusion, I would not want to accept money from the CoC. I would publicly rebuke the CoC, noting that some CoC members left them because they were not like-minded, and did join Cruxifusion. Correct me if I've missed that. All I have for the two groups talking about the other, is one of the last posts on the CoC site was complimentary toward Cruxifusion, saying, "...it continues."

Searching online, there is precious little open discussion on UCCan FB about Cruxifusion, except on Wondercafe and Wondercafe2. The Cruxifusion FB group is private (and that's fine, but it is). I think there is a clear reluctance to bring it up, and given how I've been received here when I do, I can see why. That said, the disapproval of others really doesn't faze me. It's not like I've ever declared I've found a smoking gun about any wrongdoing, or even suspected criminal behaviour (because I haven't), but there are things about Cruxifusion that even UCCan members have learned because I brought it up. And, I think Cruxifusion are going in the wrong direction and are therefore a greater threat to the survival of the UCCan than Rev. Vosper ever was.

 

[Waterfall]

And your problem there is that this is a shrinking part of the Canadian population that believes Jesus was anything but a guy. So by reinforcing that belief, you're moving in the opposite direction of the country.

Rev. Vosper is polarizing within the denomination. She is bridge to those outside the denomination and those outside the confines of belief. She widens the appeal outside the church, while annoying those within it. She represents the theological direction the country is going, instead of the direction churches think they can will it to go.


And, I think Cruxifusion are going in the wrong direction and are therefore a greater threat to the survival of the UCCan than Rev. Vosper ever was.

So basically you think the gospel should bend and submit to the will of the people? Rubbish!

 

[chansen]

The gospel is continually being bent and forced into submission to the will of people. It can be anything to anybody. Thousands of different denominations based on one book, and you're trying to tell me the bible can not be skewed? Too late.

 

[Waterfall]

The gospel is continually being bent and forced into submission to the will of people. It can be anything to anybody. Thousands of different denominations based on one book, and you're trying to tell me the bible can not be skewed? Too late.

It happened in Jesus' day too. Different churches...some doing it right and some not so much. One only has to "check in" with what Jesus said about that... Where would Gretta's "church" fall under?

 

[Mendalla]

It happened in Jesus' day too. Different churches...some doing it right and some not so much. One only has to "check in" with what Jesus said about that... Where would Gretta's "church" fall under?

What did Jesus say about that? I'm curious to know. Given that no Christian churches existed until Paul's time, I doubt he said anything. Paul, on the other hand, might well have something to say here.

@chansen isn't talking about Jesus' time or today. He's talking history. There has never, ever been a single consistent interpretation of the Gospel in Christianity. Even in the Middle Ages, you had theological differences in the church, plus the Eastern Orthodox-Roman Catholic split, plus smaller churches like the Copts.

 

[Waterfall]

What did Jesus say about that? I'm curious to know. Given that no Christian churches existed until Paul's time, I doubt he said anything. Paul, on the other hand, might well have something to say here.

I was referring to the seven churches of Revelation and to note which ones that God was pleased with.

 

[Delightful Life]

I was referring to the seven churches of Revelation and to note which ones that God was pleased with.

Well that would require some sort of metric that all of humanity could agree upon?

And what if any current methods or philosophies or etc are the closest we have to that?

(also if jesus is supposed to already b here n if the fatalist Chrisians cant predict when...do good works no matter how we feel?)

 

[Waterfall]

Well that would require some sort of metric that all of humanity could agree upon?
And what if any current methods or philosophies or etc are the closest we have to that?

What have you got?

 

[chansen]

I was referring to the seven churches of Revelation and to note which ones that God was pleased with.

Oh come on. The seven churches in the Book of Horror Porn. Really.

 

[Luce NDs]

Steven King says that horror is close to humour as many people are amused by seeing other people put down ... consider what goes on in the Roman Circus as entertainment with the oppression of old prophets ... and thus is utilized today to avoid lessons of the past as we live only for presents ... was it Oscar Wilder that said one needed a time machine or a device that would deal with times as skewed ...? Ess Q'Wa shine that comes in waves of emotion? In between we thinks not ...

One has to dig deep to know such things as dis believable alteration ... redact able metaphor? With light (c) would that be altercation? Thus the vessel comes about as a bote ... and one asks; "What's ab' ode?" Did you know an ode was once close to a Ba'al aD sung by troubadours be reeving the loss of soul ... that which is searched for physically but isn't and thus must be metaphysical or even metaphorically naughty! Thus the emotional side is revved up as in apocalyptic ... except in the apostolic where they're planted ... some (w)hole is required ... defining absent! Thus sent or the way it ghost ... mire essence as all that is left is the stink raised in the PEW!

Eris in, or dissonance?

 

[revjohn]

And your problem there is that this is a shrinking part of the Canadian population that believes Jesus was anything but a guy. So by reinforcing that belief, you're moving in the opposite direction of the country.

Which is only a problem if the function of the Church is to be the echo chamber of the country and not something different. Believe it or not the UCCan wants to be something different, there is a desire to be the dog that wags the tail and not the tail that wags the dog. There is quite a difference of opinion about what to wag and how within the Church. There is a certain uniformity in opinion that the Church has something of value to offer other than capitulating.

Rev. Vosper is polarizing within the denomination. She is bridge to those outside the denomination and those outside the confines of belief.

Possibly. Revsdd has proven to be a similar bridge. As far as I know the only thing polarizing about him is his sunglasses.

She widens the appeal outside the church, while annoying those within it.

Doubtful that she has actually widened the appeal. Granted that she has succeeded in being annoying.

She represents the theological direction the country is going, instead of the direction churches think they can will it to go.

For some clearly. For all in no way. And there are none saying she cannot continue to lead the charge in the theological direction she feels is most needful. What is being examined is whether she is free to do that as clergy within The United Church of Canada.

As for my suspicions, it's not that I think Cruxifusion is evil, like the Catholic Church or the Watchtower Society. I just think they are taking the denomination in the wrong direction.

Well there is that. Which is fair. There is the ongoing allegation that we are nothing more than covert ops for the COC which would be fair if you could provide anything approaching truth about it. Instead you continue to invent allegations

Moving in a more theologically rigid direction will put you in competition with other churches for a piece of a shrinking pie.

Except Cruxcifusion is not more theologically rigid. Having Christ as a centre for a Christian Church is not unreasonable. Having Christ as the centre of an Atheist Assembly would be unreasonable. The Reverend Vosper might believe that her brand of athiesm is the future that the Church needs to travel. If she can convince the denomination that is so then good for her. If the denomination is unconvinced and believe that she does not actually contribute to our goals it is the denomination's right to take appropriate action.

I think it's a safe prediction that this is going to fail spectacularly. Your competition is the UUs - not the Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans and Catholics. You fall between those, and with more people abandoning faith, Cruxifusion seems to want to fight it out with the derpier denominations in town. I can't understand why.

The reason you fail to see is simply because you have no will to see. You assume which is not problematic because you have no reluctance to be an ass just an overwhelming need to prove that you can be one. You have not examined Cruxifusion, you have not explored who we are or what we are about or even how we operate as individuals. You spin conspiracy.

You are very defensive whenever Cruxifusion comes up, as if I'm not allowed to talk about it or point out what I've learned or the simple, obvious conclusion that there is a link to the Community of Concern.

Now you are lying. Deliberately so. And it is unbecoming of you.

Count your posts invoking Cruxifusion and the number of times I have responded to them in this thread. Correcting your mistakes is not defensiveness on my part any more than you pointing out false attestations of faith made by Atheists on their deathbed is defensiveness on yours. And if speaking truthfully is a defence it is the best defence running.

Nobody, least of all myself, have ever said Cruxifusion cannot be talked about. Most of what you have learned about Cruxifusion has come from your own interpretations of comments on the internet and on occasion ignorant statements about what Cruxifusion is from critics of Cruxifusion on the internet. I am here and you have an opportunity to ask me anything about Cruxifusion but you, to date, have chosen to ignore my knowledge of the organization or its history. Clearly, demonstrating your belief that you are more in the know than I am.

If I were part of Cruxifusion, I would not want to accept money from the CoC.

Which would be fair if you were a part of Cruxifusion. You aren't so how is what you would do even relevant? What does it actually prove other than you would have made a different choice?

For the record, I was not part of the discussion because I am not part of the board which did make the decision. While on record I will say that I do know many members of the Cruxifusion well, better in fact, than I know you and I have, on occasion defended you against false statements made here (or WonderCafe.ca to be more specific) by others. If that shows anything it demonstrates that I am willing to challenge untruths. How defensive is that I wonder?

I would publicly rebuke the CoC,

Again, you aren't a part of Cruxifusion so how is what you would do the litmus test to what Cruxifusion must do?

noting that some CoC members left them because they were not like-minded, and did join Cruxifusion.

Which proves what in your mind? That COC was not COC enough for them but Cruxifusion is more COC than the COC? If that is what you are thinking you really do need to think again.

The COC was really a one trick pony. It existed, primarily to prevent the possibility of homosexual ordination. General Council in 88 decided that sexual orientation was not a barrier to ordination and that, more or less, eviscerated the COC's reason for being. They have floundered greatly ever since and leadership within the COC realized that their combatative style wasn't granting them any gains.

The United Church Renewal Fellowship excelled at one thing above all others and that was publishing. Ultimately the UCRF would simply become Fellowship Magazine and it was Fellowship Magazine which decided that the very last publication they would print is a magazine entitled Cruxifusion and many of the contributors to that particular magazine would form the first board of Cruxifusion and they would be handed everything Fellowship Magazine had, charitable number for tax purposes and the lot. COC handed over some cash for the venture with no stipulations as to how it should be spent.

Cruxifusion chartered its own agenda and its own purpose, none of which was informed by the COC's purpose or agenda.

In fact, if Cruxifusion has ever mentioned the COC other than the financial contributions it has made it has been specifically to say, we don't want to gain the reputation they had. Which is difficult only because there are folk like yourself willing to paint them with that brush based on leaps of logic you would criticize in others.

Correct me if I've missed that.

Cruxifusion has made no formal rebukes of the COC. Which is exactly double the number of formal compliments we have made about the COC. Zero x two still equals zero right? The math is correct isn't it?

All I have for the two groups talking about the other, is one of the last posts on the CoC site was complimentary toward Cruxifusion, saying, "...it continues."

Well, to be completely honest. No. That is not all you have. It is all you choose to access and even then it is your interpretation which leads to every statement you have made on the subject.

Searching online, there is precious little open discussion on UCCan FB

Many Cruxifusion members are still members of the UCCan FB page. Like yourself they find the site next to useless and rarely if ever contribute. When they do we are as warmly accepted as you ever were.

I think there is a clear reluctance to bring it up, and given how I've been received here when I do, I can see why.

There is no reluctance. And by "bringing it up" you really mean making false allegations which is not conducive to real discussion and Revsdd and I know far more about Cruxifusion than you and I have yet to see anything from you on the subject approaching a legitimate conversation discussion.

What you offer is the idea that it was Cruxifusion that wrote the letter leading to the review of Reverend Vosper. That Cruxifusion is the heir/heir apparent of the COC so obviously we are just a reworked Community of Concern.

That said, the disapproval of others really doesn't faze me.

That's admirable.

It's not like I've ever declared I've found a smoking gun about any wrongdoing, or even suspected criminal behaviour (because I haven't), but

But you suspect that there must be and you are prepared to invent crap because its serves your bias.

there are things about Cruxifusion that even UCCan members have learned because I brought it up.

And more that UCCan members have learned about Cruxifusion from revsdd and myself because we had to correct your inventions.

And, I think Cruxifusion are going in the wrong direction and are therefore a greater threat to the survival of the UCCan than Rev. Vosper ever was.

Yeah. Clearly the way a Christian Church survives is by abandoning Christ and adopting your perspective. You appear to be missing something relevant to our identity.

Whether or not you think Cruxifusion is moving in the wrong direction is one thing. Whether or not you are prepared to speak truthfully about who the are and what they are doing is quite another. When it comes to your allegations and your suspicions they are founded only on your lack of trust and nothing resembling truth.

It is okay to admit that there is something you don't know.

If you are really interested start a thread asking questions about Cruxifusion. Since you don't accept that revsdd and I might have more knowledge on the matter than you do would you listen to members from the Cruxifusion board? Would you be willing to enter into a respectful discussion with them or are you simply going to use the opportunity as an excuse to insult others? I could call in some favours and see if other members than myself would be willing to engage you here.

I'm not going to put a black mark on my reputation and friendship so you can prove how much of an ass you can be.