Cruxifusion

[revjohn]

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

We know that Met asked for clarification on what boundaries exist.

We know that they expressed clarification about how a self-professed atheist could qualify as a minister of the United Church of Canada.

What the sub-executive did in response is documented.

Nowhere is it recorded that the sub-execitive actually answered the questions asked and communicated those answers to Met.

 

[chansen]

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.

Because Gretta is very good at getting the attention of the media, and the United Church thinks it has to advertise to get noticed.

But there have been individuals, specifically on Facebook, who have said that West Hill - the entire congregation - does not belong in the United Church. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to see Cruxifusion say something nice about Rev. Vosper and West Hill, and affirm their right to share an the denomination.

It would further be nice to see West Hill affirm that belief in Jesus is not necessarily a bad thing, and that they do not wish to change the entire denomination, but carve out a place for themselves and like-minded people within it, to work toward goals common to believers and non-believers alike.

Both sides have engaged in rhetoric, but only one side is in danger of expulsion. It would be good to see Cruxifusion admit that belief is not a requirement, is all.

 

[chansen]

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?

I don't think I ever assumed affirming congregations were not involved in Cruxifusion. The CoC link was the money, not the ideology. I think it was wrong to accept it, unless the money went to undo the work the CoC tried to do.

Cruxifusion exists to promote a belief that I think has limited growth opportunity and is of limited value. I think it's a step backward, and an attempt to regain some lost Jesus cred. While I disagree with Cruxifusion, I don't suggest their leaders be removed from the church.

As for who gets reviewed, I think refusing a same sex marriage is an order of magnitude worse than simply not believing in something for which there is no evidence. And yet those ministers are safe. I think that's wrong.

 

[RevNP]

Both sides have engaged in rhetoric, but only one side is in danger of expulsion.

I can name a number of clergy who were chased out of the denomination because of their high-Christology and strong fundamentalist views. No one on the progressive side ever stood up for them.

 

[RevNP]

I don't think I ever assumed affirming congregations were not involved in Cruxifusion. The CoC link was the money, not the ideology. I think it was wrong to accept it, unless the money went to undo the work the CoC tried to do.

Cruxifusion exists to promote a belief that I think has limited growth opportunity and is of limited value. I think it's a step backward, and an attempt to regain some lost Jesus cred. While I disagree with Cruxifusion, I don't suggest their leaders be removed from the church.

As for who gets reviewed, I think refusing a same sex marriage is an order of magnitude worse than simply not believing in something for which there is no evidence. And yet those ministers are safe. I think that's wrong.

We will have to agree to disagree. There are many who stand in support of Gretta. But because she is calling for the church to get rid of my beliefs, she is calling on the church to get rid of me.

As for lack of evidence, you are discounting the personal experiences of many people, including myself as one who was once an atheist. It was an encounter with Jesus which changed my life.

 

[Pinga]

Probably more analogy than anything else.

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.

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]Hmm, most of my comments are regarding holding congregations to account for not having inclusive marriage policies or being willing to marry same-sex -- and my frustration regarding not being able to demand it because of our congregationalist roots. The same freedom that allowed ministers to marry same-gender couples is the freedom that allows them to NOT marry.
In addition, t if a minister of the United Church of Canada refused to marry based on a theological stance, then, I don't think that we, as a denomination would challenge them, and yes, I think that is wrong. Yet, again, I understand that also goes along with our lack of enforced doctrine.

Now, I am not a fan of Vosper, or her games, at all. I would likely turf due to lack of respect and abidance of operational guidelines, rather than on a theological standing. My issues with the Vosper challenge were fully regarding the signers not engaging with West Hill in dialogue prior to bringing the challenge and Met not coming forward with any transparency regarding their challenge.

On a side note, I am growing to understand that Cruxifusion is a support network with resources for those that are Christ-centred. That is interesting to learn. I am sure that I respect many of the people who participate in it and find it life-giving. I know that I have appreciated the contributions on this thread from members.

I am not sure where you are seeing an accusation from me that CoC was engaged, but, maybe it is in another thread that I am conveniently forgetting.[/FONT]

 

[Pinga]

I can name a number of clergy who were chased out of the denomination because of their high-Christology and strong fundamentalist views. No one on the progressive side ever stood up for them.

hmmm...strong fundamentalist can mean a whole lot.
Women's role is in the kitchen.
Gay marriage is an abomination.
The Bible is the literal word of God.

 

[chansen]

We will have to agree to disagree. There are many who stand in support of Gretta. But because she is calling for the church to get rid of my beliefs, she is calling on the church to get rid of me.

So maybe talk to her. Talk her down from the ledge. She's had people taking shots at her for years, yet no one even asks her a question before initiating a review. No one asked the congregation anything.

As for lack of evidence, you are discounting the personal experiences of many people, including myself as one who was once an atheist. It was an encounter with Jesus which changed my life.

Great. I should introduce you to Berserk. He's all about similar experiences, though he prefers them in conjunction with some sort of medical trauma. Punch up your story with something about stepping on a nail, and he'll be all over it.

 

[RevNP]

hmmm...strong fundamentalist can mean a whole lot.
Women's role is in the kitchen.
Gay marriage is an abomination.
The Bible is the literal word of God.

In hindsight I should have used "orthodox". But if our church is as "big tent" as it claims to be, then should they still not belong?

 

[RevNP]

So maybe talk to her. Talk her down from the ledge. She's had people taking shots at her for years, yet no one even asks her a question before initiating a review. No one asked the congregation anything.

You've been part of every conversation Gretta has had? I know of several people who reached out to her in her presbytery and conference. Nothing changed did it?

Great. I should introduce you to Berserk. He's all about similar experiences, though he prefers them in conjunction with some sort of medical trauma. Punch up your story with something about stepping on a nail, and he'll be all over it.

Thanks for mocking me. Much appreciated. [/SARCASM]

 

[paradox3]

So maybe talk to her. Talk her down from the ledge. She's had people taking shots at her for years, yet no one even asks her a question before initiating a review. No one asked the congregation anything.

No doubt people have taken shots at Gretta on Facebook and other social media. But, ahem, this thread is about Cruxifusion and I see no evidence that Cruxifusion has taken any shots at her. Disagreed with her, yes, but that is a different matter than taking shots at her.

Lack of dialogue with her congregation has been a common lament in the secular press and you have been happy to echo that concern.

In your opinion, should the church also have sought input from the individuals who left WHUC as a result of the theological shift? Perhaps to be fair they should have spoken to everyone who has been affected by Gretta's ministry. In one way or another.

 

[paradox3]

You've been part of every conversation Gretta has had? I know of several people who reached out to her in her presbytery and conference. Nothing changed did it?

There were also many conversations that took place between Gretta and those who chose to leave West Hill during the transition process.

 

[Luce NDs]

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.

Tell a vaguely understood motif for the remaining thinkers ...

 

[revjohn]

Because Gretta is very good at getting the attention of the media, and the United Church thinks it has to advertise to get noticed.

For some reason there are powers that be in the United Church which believe that the only advertisements that are going to make any difference are our everyday rank and file.

The Emerging Spirit Campaign poorly, as it turns out, executed a program designed to increase member effectiveness in that regard.

Part of the problem was that the rank and file, for the most part, desire to be served rather than offer service.

Which is why so very little changes except for the arrangement of deck chairs.

There is also a more prominent contingent of self-serving, self-promoting cheerleaders whose focus rarely extends beyond a list of what we did first.

Which is why the denomination celebrates x number of years of offering an apology (which we said in 1997 was not something we did much of) instead of celebrating x years of response to that apology.

Anyone remember what that response was without resort to Google?

Apart from that being the centre of attention is a double-edged sword. If you want everyone listening and everyone's attention then you have to live with all that comes with it.

Here we are.

But there have been individuals, specifically on Facebook, who have said that West Hill - the entire congregation - does not belong in the United Church.

That is a decision that will be made in the future. Most likely by the congregants themselves. If they choose to stay it will most likely be with increased oversight. Nothing unusual about that either.

And few of the voices among the chattering masses are among the courts of oversight.

They have opinions. That is about it.

All I'm saying is that it would be nice to see Cruxifusion say something nice about Rev. Vosper and West Hill, and affirm their right to share an the denomination.

It would be nice wouldn't it? Because it really is all about what is nice. Will we be seeing more of this nice from you?

Cruxifusion has chosen not to participate in this process. Save for those members of Cruxifusion who are obligated by their respective offices to serve the church.

If we had something nice to say about the Reverend Vosper we would be saying it. At this point only those with personal aquaintance have offered anything.

There is, fundamentally, strong disagreement with much of what she has published across the broad swath of theisms within the church. It isn't just the theologically conservative who disagree with her, our process theologians and many progressive theologians are finding her characterizations wildly disparaging and inaccurate.

That much was made evident on WonderCafe.ca when With or Without God was reviewed and examined.

At core is whether or not she holds her office with integrity. Particularly when she proclaims herself in opposition with our mission and our doctrine.

In case you missed it many within and without are wondering the same thing. How does an atheist serve a denomination which is unabashedly and unapologetically Christian? How can a denomination which repeatedly refuses to remove or diminish scripture or doctrine be served by a clergy person who is hostile to both?

We don't think she is evil.

We don't think anything of the sort.

We do believe that she is hostile to the doctrine and identity of the church.

Is there a nice way to say that?

Actually yes there is and the CIC already did. If she were just starting out and coming before them they would say she doesn't fit.

Not that she is evil.

Not even that she is wrong.

She doesn't buy into our mission and she doesn't shate our faith. Her skills and talents are better utilized elsewhere.

The formal review may say the same thing.

It would further be nice to see West Hill affirm that belief in Jesus is not necessarily a bad thing, and that they do not wish to change the entire denomination, but carve out a place for themselves and like-minded people within it, to work toward goals common to believers and non-believers alike.

As far as I am aware West Hill is generally silent. Save for this debacle in which they have demonstrated, repeatedly, a very poor understanding of the actual processes of the church.

Officers of the church have actually helped them to say what they wanted to say.

And West Hill is not being held accountable for anything they have said.

The Reverend Vosper, arguably, is.

Both sides have engaged in rhetoric, but only one side is in danger of expulsion. It would be good to see Cruxifusion admit that belief is not a requirement, is all.

Nobody is being expelled.

Not the Reverend Vosper nor anyone in the congregation. That is you using rhetoric which helps no one.

The Reverend Vosper is facing a disciplinary process. At most, she finds herself, ineligible for the office of minister in The United Church of Canada at the end.

She will not be excommunicated.

Should that happen she will choose whether or not she remains.

Cruxifusion is not going to admit belief is not a requirement for the office of minister because Cruxifusion does not have the authority to make duch a claim.

The denomination does make belief a requirement for the job.

Cruxifusion doesn't oppose that in the slightest. In fact, we actually agree that it is right and proper for the vocation.

 

[Luce NDs]

Rite and left Christology ... something different than Christ-centred so the persona can peer into what thye don't know or understand ... however are some opposed to going there as too much of a stretch ... ankh?

The spark needed in the darkness of the core-in ... what an particularly odd comprehension of umbrella cases! But you are not allowed to say straight forward motifs ... escapism? As Harold Bloom stated ...do people not know when enough is enough ... before it gets brutal?

 

[Luce NDs]

Can a double edged sword bust a bubble?

 

[revjohn]

Thanks for mocking me. Much appreciated. [/SARCASM]

To be fair to chansen, the target of mockery is a former member who went by the username Berserk.

I think your testimony was simply dismissed.

Chansen tends towards cynicism, particularly when spiritual or religious belief arises.

You haven't had much chance to grow on each other yet.

 

[Luce NDs]

Like moe's on a stone?

 

[revjohn]

Can a double edged sword bust a bubble?

Bubbles are not generally noted for invicibility.

 

[Luce NDs]

Imagine how the powers out there in the ethereal state look upon this hard bubble we live on!

Sometimes looking at the other side leads to complete reversion ... like Jesus with the monis on the table ... the militant powers just take it ... because they can.

Some distribute the reciprocal value of virtue ... a hard point in the natural world ...

Can one dream od ethereal spaces like a mental heaven ... kind of an alternate musing of perfection ... please leave me to rest and dreams!

Besides I have to catch up with Joseph ... the dream master ... an Ephie journey when you start with nought in ... having had the eL beat out of yah by hostile stoics!