I'm one who has had involvement with both the Community of Concern and Cruxifusion. I've spoken of the two years I spent on the CoC Board of Directors in the past, and don't want to go into it in detail again. To summarize, I knew little about the group, was invited to join their Board in 1995 (I think?) Knowing little about them I asked what their purpose was and was told by the person who invited me that they were a group committed to promoting Jesus as the head of the church and that they had a special concern with the state of theological education. I was interested in both, agreed to join the Board and then spent two years pulling my hair out at Board meetings because every discussion seemed to turn into an attack on the United Church over the "gay issue." At one meeting I expressed some significant concern over the tone of a newsletter that had been just sent out and was shut down and simply told that if I didn't like the newsletter I should save them money by taking my name off the mailing list and telling others who didn't like it to do the same. In other words, this was the only tone they wanted to set. So I did more than take my name off the mailing list. I quit the Board and the organization, and never missed "the angry old men" - which was my nickname for the Board.
Anyway, surprisingly perhaps (because I take him on when he promotes suspicions about Cruxifusion) I find myself largely in agreement with chansen on the issue of the acceptance of CoC funds, perhaps because I had that experience with CoC. I understand the principle of "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" but getting funding from CoC muddies what Cruxifusion is about in my opinion. I'd have turned it down. That's just my opinion, and I have no say in decision making for Cruxifusion, but I think accepting it makes it too easy to link Cruxifusion with CoC's views and agenda. Chansen has done it regularly. He can say above that he doesn't intend to paint Cruxifusion as anti-gay, but he certainly implies that there's something sinister or conspiratorial about the organization, and frankly accepting the funding gave credibility to the charge that Cruxifusion is on the "extreme right wing" of the United Church. It isn't in my experience, but the historical linkage with CoC (through the funding) doesn't help dispel the idea.
My involvement with Cruxifusion is through the Facebook page. I don't know how "membership" in Cruxifusion works. revjohn says there are no membership fees. So how one becomes a member I don't know, nor am I interested. I do not consider myself a member of Cruxifusion just because I'm a member of the Cruxifusion Facebook page. I do find the Cruxifusion Facebook page a good environment for sharing with colleagues whose ministry is Christ-centred first and foremost. One can join the group and share thoughts and ideas without being attacked - which happens in many United Church settings online and otherwise if you express too high a regard for Jesus unfortunately. Theologically, I find the Facebook group theologically diverse, as revjohn described, and while I haven't attended the conferences, I've established several Facebook friendships through the group and have gotten to know many of the "Cruxers" as personally as one can through Facebook. It is a good personal and theological support network. It's not a subversive movement, nor does it have an anti-anything agenda that I've picked up on.
I would maintain, however, that I do agree that it was a mistake to accept funding from the CoC, simply because of the optics involved.
