Cruxifusion

[RevNP]

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.

Many of us wear those scars. Some much deeper than others.

 

[revjohn]

If they tried to shame them out of their church, yes.

What about shaming them because of their faith?

I know you want to make some sort of comparison to how I mock Christianity, but I also mock Christianity-lite.

What if paradox3 wasn't thinking about you at all? What if she was addressing the confrontational attitudes prevalent in the Reverend Vosper herself.

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.

That's true and it goes both ways. My minister told me he would do everything in his power to keep me from becoming ordained. I wasn't part of any group at the time. He had a lot of friends who helped him through various dirty tricks. Where was anybody speaking out againts that?

Turns out his reach isn't as far as he thought and I managed to outlast him and his cronies.

If I believed in payback I could spread that misery around.

I don't believe in payback and I do believe in being better. So I work harder to be better. For several years I haved served on Hamilton Conference's CIC. I am assessing the theological fitness and readiness of candidates for ministry.

I think the United Church profits from having people who don't believe.

I think we can profit from conversation with those who don't believe. If anything it helps us to check our presuppositions at the door and realize that gentleness is something we are called to exemplify.

Some clearly do not heed that particular calling.

I do not think that any church profits by giving leadership to individuals fundamentally opposed to the mission of the church. That is similar to suggesting that buildings and structures are safe if the kid who designed them has a wicked lego collection or a lot lf duct tape.

I think they are good people, they want to be members and they self-identify as United Church members.

As far as I am aware the concern is not how evil a person is. The church doesn't really lend much creedance to self-identification. We deal with congregationally identified members or adherents and there are different rights and privileges afforded to each.

Members have made a public profession of faith. Members have the privilege of discerning a call to ministry within the UCCAN.

You have no doubt heard that clergy are required to demonstrate essential agreement with the doctrine of the United Church.

Applying a standard of belief as a requirement for membership or leadership just makes you like any other church.

There has always been a standard of belief. What is new is process for revisiting. Revisiting standards of faith is not unique.

Nor is it a goal.

Belief has always been a core component of our existence. From the beginning we have said, "We believe."

How we operate and what we believe distinguishes us from other Christian denominations it does not alienate us from the Christian faith.

 

[revjohn]

I checked out the site, and I don't see any discussion papers.

Really?

I wrote one on Natural Church Development for Cruxifusion a few years back.

Archived somewhere for safekeeping is my guess.

I am trying to understand what Christ-centred means, as compared to say, not Christ-centred.

Speaking personally it means that on any issue in any conversation my first concern is how Christ would respond.

Sometimes there are very easy parallels. Othertimes there aren't and then we are speculating. Always with an eye on Christ and with every intent on capturing the best qualities of Christ in response.

Do I fail at that?

Yes. I do. Always.

Some mistakes aren't readily noticeable other times they are so glaring nobody really needs to point it out.

And from that I grow and I learn and I try to do better next time. I don't change the target so that it would be easier.

I would imagine those who aren't Christ centered use a different focal point.

Would you consider Cruxifusion to be small a affirming?

It affirms me, my ministry, my perspective. Through it I affirm others in their ministry and their perspective.

Though I helpfully point out how they wouldn't have the same problems if they were more Calvinist.

Like here that isn't always appreciated.

 

[RevNP]

What about shaming them because of their faith?
There has always been a standard of belief. What is new is process for revisiting. Revisiting standards of faith is not unique.

Nor is it a goal.

Belief has always been a core component of our existence. From the beginning we have said, "We believe."

How we operate and what we believe distinguishes us from other Christian denominations it does not alienate us from the Christian faith.

Great point John.

The church, in 1925, set a standard which we live by today. Sure it's maybe been blurred a bit. Sure the edges have become soft. But it's still there. If the Christian church has a standard, and wishes to evaluate it's leadership on that standard, then it has every right to do so.

Now, for those who wish to change the standard, there are those beloved processes they can follow. Calling out our moderator because he responds in a Christian way (prayer) in response to a world event is not the process.

If the organization in which you work does not meet your own personal standards, there are other ways in which to act, including creating your own organization with others who believe as you do if the processes in place do not result in the changes you desire.

 

[RevNP]

Really?

I wrote one on Natural Church Development for Cruxifusion a few years back.

Archived somewhere for safekeeping is my guess.

I found it just this morning as I was looking through the archives on the new site.

 

[Pinga]

I found it just this morning as I was looking through the archives on the new site.

hmm, when I went to "resources" all I saw were devotional items.
Should I be looking elsewhere?

 

[paradox3]

We seem to have become a little sidetracked by the Vosper situation on this thread. Oh well, the issue is a timely one, I guess.

Any other thoughts or comments about Cruxifusion? Or questions for those involved with the group?

 

[RevNP]

hmm, when I went to "resources" all I saw were devotional items.
Should I be looking elsewhere?

Check under "Latest news"

 

[dreamerman]

Yes, it's a very clever term thought up by a very wise mentor to many of us.

At first glance, I thought Cruxifusion had something to do with being somewhat confused about the cross.

 

[revjohn]

We seem to have become a little sidetracked by the Vosper situation on this thread. Oh well, the issue is a timely one, I guess.

Well Cruxifusion has been implicated in that whole fiasco.

And that by design as much as by suspicion.

I'm a little bemused about how we should speak out, considering the willingness to listen that is demonstrated by most Cruxifusion critics.

Par for the course.

 

[paradox3]

Well Cruxifusion has been implicated in that whole fiasco.

And that by design as much as by suspicion.

Yes, this was alluded to on Mendalla's Christendom thread, IIRC.
Have Gretta's supporters made an accusation somewhere? I haven't seen it myself and would be interested in a reference, if there is one.

 

[paradox3]

Check under "Latest news"

Enjoyed reading about your lunch with the former Moderator.

 

[GordW]

Yes, this was alluded to on Mendalla's Christendom thread, IIRC.
Have Gretta's supporters made an accusation somewhere? I haven't seen it myself and would be interested in a reference, if there is one.

The closest I have seen is in the blog post where Gretta was talking about Richard Bott's survey of UCCan clergy where she said that the Cruxifusion group was one of the very few places the survey had been shared (which was factually incorrect--the survey had been shared far more widely than the post suggested) and described Crux as an "extreme right" group.

 

[revjohn]

The closest I have seen is in the blog post where Gretta was talking about Richard Bott's survey of UCCan clergy where she said that the Cruxifusion group was one of the very few places the survey had been shared (which was factually incorrect--the survey had been shared far more widely than the post suggested) and described Crux as an "extreme right" group.

That's the one.

It is a deliberate attempt to smear Richard and to insinuate that Cruxifusion is behind the complaint.

Why?

To generate more sympathy for her cause.

Will it be successful? To some degree it will be.

Certainly wouldn't have been a conspiracy that faced much opposition here.

Chansen is still convinced we have our grubby little fingerprints on the knife in her back.

Given the fears generated by the financial contribution from the COC if there were none here to advocate for Cruxifusion the notion that Cruxifusion is responsible for the problems the Reverend Vosper is now facing would have been cemented.

Certainly nobody would have thought that an Affirming congregation would send a letter of concern regarding clergy attacking the first openly gay moderator.

Only the "right-wing" would do such a thing.

 

[Pinga]

Certainly nobody would have thought that an Affirming congregation would send a letter of concern regarding clergy attacking the first openly gay moderator.
.

huh?

 

[revjohn]

huh?

What did I post that you find confusing?

 

[paradox3]

The closest I have seen is in the blog post where Gretta was talking about Richard Bott's survey of UCCan clergy where she said that the Cruxifusion group was one of the very few places the survey had been shared (which was factually incorrect--the survey had been shared far more widely than the post suggested) and described Crux as an "extreme right" group.

Will go take another look at that blogpost. I saw it but didn't read the whole thing carefully.

 

[paradox3]

What did I post that you find confusing?

Do we know anything for certain about the letter from Met?

I may have missed this piece of information.

 

[Pinga]

What did I post that you find confusing?

Are you implying that that an Affirming congregation DID send a letter of concern regarding clergy attacking the first openly gay moderator.
or are you drawing an analogy to the Met letter regarding Vosper

 

[revjohn]

Are you implying that that an Affirming congregation DID send a letter of concern regarding clergy attacking the first openly gay moderator.
or are you drawing an analogy to the Met letter regarding Vosper

Probably more analogy than anything else.

Before we knew the letter came from Met chansen, on my "Are you ready to rumble thread?" already believes Cruxifusion wrote the letter.

You yourself offer the opinion that criticism of clergy only runs one way. Declare yourself an atheist and get reviewed refuse a same sex marriage and nothing.

Nobody thought an Affirming congregation might be involved. The list of possible culprits began and ended with "right-wingers" and as soon as a COC link was made nobody thought to look elsewhere.

That is inclusivity operating at its finest right?