RevNP
Active Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
No we haven't. The closest we've come is this: http://cruxifusion.ca/cruxifusions-response-to-the-united-churchs-expanded-doctrine/
Cruxifusion
- Thread starter paradox3
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
No we haven't. The closest we've come is this: http://cruxifusion.ca/cruxifusions-response-to-the-united-churchs-expanded-doctrine/
Pinga
Room for All
Cruxifusion stands on a belief. It believes Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church. We firmly believe that. So to ask us to stand in support of others who oppose our fundamental view doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So instead we're silent on the issue. Sure, people who identify as Cruxers may be involved with discussions, but Cruxifusion as an organization will remain silent.
We choose to be silent because are not politically motivated. We simply desire to be a blessing to those who want to be in contact with people like us. If we are able to help the church, we are happy to do so. But we don't wish to be part of something which causes division. We're very Canadian that way I suppose
I am trying to picture how Cruxifusion exists.
I am aware that I have a sense of concern regarding the group,which this thread has in part been able to dispel. Thank-you @revsdd , @RevNP, @revjohn and @GordW amongst others for your posts.
That concern comes from the CoC funding and what they saw in you to give you money.
I checked out the site, and I don't see any discussion papers.
I am trying to understand what Christ-centred means, as compared to say, not Christ-centred.
Would you consider Cruxifusion to be small a affirming?
Rev. Dr. Connie DenBok is a UCCanada Minister worthy of much respect - a missionary within her denomination.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Cruxifusion stands on a belief. It believes Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church. We firmly believe that. So to ask us to stand in support of others who oppose our fundamental view doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So instead we're silent on the issue. Sure, people who identify as Cruxers may be involved with discussions, but Cruxifusion as an organization will remain silent.
We choose to be silent because are not politically motivated. We simply desire to be a blessing to those who want to be in contact with people like us. If we are able to help the church, we are happy to do so. But we don't wish to be part of something which causes division. We're very Canadian that way I suppose
My suggestion is not that you outwardly support the concept of churches that are not Christ-centred, but that you rebuke those people who come from similar beliefs as you do, who attempt to publicly shame post-christian leaders.
That would be a breath of fresh air.
paradox3
Peanuts Fan
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I take it you would hold post-Christians to the same standard? They should not publicly shame or ridicule traditional believers? In fact they should rebuke any post-Christian who might do so?
I am okay with this statement of yours as long as it goes both ways.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
If they tried to shame them out of their church, yes.
I know you want to make some sort of comparison to how I mock Christianity, but I also mock Christianity-lite. And I've never told anyone that they don't belong in their church and how they should leave.
The point is, there are people from similar beliefs as those promoted by Cruxifusion, telling other people in the church that they don't belong. I think that's wrong. I think the United Church profits from having people who don't believe. I think they are good people, they want to be members and they self-identify as United Church members. Applying a standard of belief as a requirement for membership or leadership just makes you like any other church. And I don't think that's a lofty goal.
paradox3
Peanuts Fan
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Nope. I wasn't thinking of you when I posted. Seriously.
I was thinking of the dynamics within our denomination.
Pinga
Room for All
Does Cruxifusion have any onus to make a statement regarding Gretta Vosper? No. Cruixifusion didn't way in as an org, wasn't a mover behind it,
Does Cruxifusion have any onus to make a statement about "WWJD", No. Cruxifusion has not said that they are a policy setting or lobbying group. There soul purpose is a network of support" "Supporting, inspiring and connecting Christ-centred leaders and congregations within the United Church of Canada."
They have no more onus than does Five Oaks, an education centre within the church .
Does Cruxifusion have any onus to make a statement about "WWJD", No. Cruxifusion has not said that they are a policy setting or lobbying group. There soul purpose is a network of support" "Supporting, inspiring and connecting Christ-centred leaders and congregations within the United Church of Canada."
They have no more onus than does Five Oaks, an education centre within the church .
This is good, I always wondered where ministers could find support.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I'd like to think that those who promote a Christ-centred church with a live-and-let-live attitude would not want those who *demand* a Christ-centred-only church from hijacking their message and making that side of the church appear inflexible and demanding of exclusivity.
RevNP
Active Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
The United Church of Canada has a process in place. It is following this process. This process is independent of anything anyone else in the church says. So what people say has no power, in favour or against.
I trust in the process to come to a fair conclusion, even if there is the possibility I may disagree with it. And I will respect the decision.
Anyone is welcome at
I was hoping you would refer to Jesus' instructions that informs the church.
RevNP
Active Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I wish I could say that. But for the United Church, it's processes and committees.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I'm not talking about the process. I'm talking about the people. Nowhere above did I suggest you interfere with the process. I'm suggesting someone other than me rebuke the jerks who happen to agree with you on your purpose, but want to enforce your preference as a requirement and reject good people who don't share your purpose in the pursuit of an inflexible version of your purpose.
In a similar way, I suppose, as Republican lawmakers sometimes rebuke Tea Party members who go too far in their rhetoric.
RevNP
Active Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Personally, I haven't seen this happening. Not that I'm saying it hasn't happened. But it certainly isn't very public. The only publicity I've seen around this is from Gretta's own camp.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
I'm not aware of very many people who've said that people who don't believe as Cruxifusion believes should leave the church. I do know of people who've suggested that to be standing in a Christian pulpit one should be a Christian. As I understand it the issue has never been one of who's welcome or not, but it is a question of who should be eligible for ministry and on what basis.
Your analogy with the Republican Party is interesting. Those who you want Cruxifusion to rebuke could argue that they are the ones who are doing the appropriate rebuking of those who don't belong in a Christian church, which leads to you believing that Cruxifusion should rebuke them for their action of rebuking those who ... That type of argument is a never ending cycle; a traffic circle with no exit.
Cruxifusion as I understand it doesn't exist to rebuke anyone. That's not its purpose. Its purpose is positive and not negative. As I understand it, it exists to give support and offer fellowship to those clergy who agree with its basic principles. I don't think of it as a reform movement seeking to change the church or as an organization which would play the role of rebuking anyone. It's just not why it exists. Some of those who are affiliated with Cruxifusion are going to sometimes take stands on the issues facing the church on any given day. Some because they're part of the church disciplinary structures; others because they're members of the church who are interested. Those stands, as I understand it, are neither dictated nor even encouraged by Cruxifusion, nor is Cruxifusion answerable for them.
By way of edit, I should mention that I have been told on a couple of occasions by people that I don't belong in the United Church because of my high christology and that I should think of going elsewhere.
Last edited:
