Cruxifusion does not equal CoC. Having had experience of both, I can say that with no hesitation. I wasonce invited on the CoC Board. I knew little about them, except that I was told their main interest was trying to keep the church Christ-centred. Fine. What I discovered was that CoC was composed largely of a bunch of angry people (mostly men - I used to call them "the angry old men") who couldn't let go of the decison over homosexual ordination. They were like dogs with a bone. I also discovered that many (if not most) on the CoC Board weren't even in the United Church anymore. This made the official name (Community of Concern Within the United Church of Canada) somewhat ironic. I did one year, and then left, because every time I dared to suggest that the organization needed to take a more positive approach if they wanted to be Christ-centred, I was put down and belittled. Cruxifusion (with which my only involvement is the Facebook group) seems much more positive and, indeed, centred on Christ. Indeed, there are those who would be considered on the liberal, social justice side of the church who are members of Cruxifusion. There are those who have no problem with gay marriage who are members of Cruxifusion. So I really don't get where you come up with that comparison, except that you don't know a lot about either group. Cruxifusion is Christ-centred, but not literalist. 

As to why the left doesn't demand that those on the right get out - believe me, they do. I don't consider myself particularly "on the right" and yet I've been told many times over the years that I don't belong in the United Church. When I left my last church and moved to my current one 9 years ago I was told by someone that they were surprised I wasn't going to a Pentecostal Church - and I'm not even a charismatic. When I had my final interview before being ordained almost 19 years ago I was told by one member of the Committee that with beliefs like mine I wouldn't last 6 months in a United Church pulpit. Some on "the left" tar anyone who dares to mention Jesus as a rabid anti-gay, anti-science angry fundamentalist. Frankly, Gretta has a much easier time than some on the supposed "right" of the church face on a regular basis.

Perhaps I don't see it because I only know what goes on online. Online, the right-wingers can be jackasses, and the left-wingers are passive.

And no, I'm not saying Cruxifusion is anti-gay marriage, just that they are the latest group intent on steering the UCCan to the right.

Do you know of a similar group steering to the left? Or is the whole of the UCCan steering in that direction?

If the latter....who is to say that Gretta is the one who doesn't belong?

That would depend on what your definition of "right" is. If wanting the church centred on Jesus is  steering the UCCan to "the right," then I guess that's fair. However, many on the more liberal or progressive side of the church are very much centred on Christ. It is their faith in Him that puts them there. Some (myself included) would say that those on the far right are those who are ignoring the life, ministry and example of Jesus. 

Again, define "to the left." Generally speaking, in the way the terms are usually used, I would suggest that, yes, the entire denomination is moving in that direction and needs little encouragement to do so.

Her Presbytery, if they choose to do so. Which is why I generally don't engage the discussion.

The issue for those who think she should be out, as always, comes down to whether someone who proclaims themself an atheist can in any realistic way be considered "in essential agreement" with the doctrinal statement of the church which - in every manifestation I'm aware of - is not atheistic. An analogy would be that if one wants Stephen Harper as Prime Minister one shouldn't be a member of the NDP, because one clearly doesn't support NDP principles. It doesn't make sense.

But it's for her Presbytery to decide whether she fits or not. So far they haven't said otherwise, and I get tired of the whole discussion.

Hi chansen:

Even a stout Calvinist like RevJohn says that Christian action trumps doctrine. So, if the UCCan agreed that Christian action defines their denomination, and humanism in action is Christian action, then I see no reason why a congregation that embraces secular humanism should not be part of the United Church, if they want to.

The theological or doctrinal direction of a congregation already is pretty much up to each congregation. Because the theological spectrum includes everything, from non-theism on the far left to supernatural theism on the far right, non-theistic congregants and congregations already are part of the church. I expect that there would, in time, be a gradual shift from right to left, from supernatural, authoritarian and absolute theism to liberal theism and atheism, but the different theistic directions wouldn't matter if humanism is of the essence, and is what unites the United Church.

The UCC, then, would be more like the UU. I, personally, welcome such a development.

Hi chansen,

Within reason.  The intent was never to be anything goes.

Just like every time a budget is passed at Queen's Park or on Parliament Hill we expect partisan politics to mysteriously end?

Differences of opinion do not go away just because one opinion comes up short in the voting.  Dissent remains a way of life within The United Church of Canada.

That there are some who believe in it means that the belief is not unbelievable.  In fact, that some believe in something means it is believeable.  Difficult to believe in might be closer to the fact.  I'd even accept impossible for some to believe. 

So there are no times to plant or times to reap?  We can just plant whenever we want?

Obviously the Bible is not a history text nor is it a science text.  It isn't a phonebook or dictionary either.  Attempts to use the Bible for those purposes is a dishonest use of the text.

Which is not to say that there is nothing that is scientifically observable or historically verifiable in the Bible.  Expecting it to be as accurate as something hot off the presses today is a fool's game (pro and con).  Its like criticizing Verne's around the world in 80 days because Phineas Fogg uses trains and steam powered ships rather than hoping on an Airbus 320.

The two groups are not similar.  The CoC was primarily reactionary to the ordination of homesexuality.  Cruxifusion is, according to its mission statement, "supporting, inspiring, and connecting Christ-centered leaders and congregations within The United Church of Canada."

Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a Christian Church would need such a blatantly Christian group but there it is.

Different strokes for different folks.  I lean towards the orthodox end of Christian belief and I can assure you that there are colleagues and congregations that would not consider my leaving the Church to be a negative thing.  Are any actively working to arrange it?  None that I am presently aware of.  I've locked horns with folk in the past.

Those leaning towards the more liberal end of Christian belief are no less human than their more traditional counterparts.  If I were to generate a list of dirty tricks that the various camps have pulled on each other it would be impossible to identify who was the perpetrator and who was the victim in each event.

Because the centre-left generates enough of its own shit that the Church ultimately has to deal with.

My experience in The United Church of Canada suggests that while there are extreme elements to The United Church of Canada, they are sparsely populated.  Most of the denomination hovers fairly moderate on most positions.

That is certainly true for the most part.  There still exists various levels fo demonization on both sides of the theological divide.  We make loose connections such as the following:

Conservative =  Fundamentalist = Ignorant.

Liberal = Heretic = Godless.

Which basically shows that while we can use the words in a sentence we are fundamentally ignorant about what the words mean in our context.  It also shows that as a denomination we do not hesitate to stick a knife in the back or side of folk we disagree with.

So we should speak out against our right-wing element but not if they are fellow ministers because that is poor form?  Or we should only speak out against fellow ministers who are right wing because that is good form?

I'm failing to see a consistency in the conversation.

I admit that is a new expression.  The idea behind it has been a part of Reg Bibby's work for years.  Anyone who has taken a moment or two to read Bibby's work on religion in Canada knows that he has found most denominational growth is not from new conversions to Christianity but rather from Christians shopping for new Churches.

Net gains and losses might be seen between denominations yet, for the most part the population that identifies as Christian is not changing a whole lot.

I agree with you becoming more rigid is not going to attract.  There is a danger that comes from not being defined or from holding to a definition that is not true.  Welcoming Churches welcome individuals.  Any Church claiming to be welcoming that doesn't welcome individuals fools nobody.

One of the shifts taking place within the Churched population is away from spectator to participant and many congregations cannot accommodate the transition.  Folk want to be doers of good rather than talkers of good and many congregations do not provide enough opportunity to actually provide service to the wider community.

Many congregations think outreach is the same thing as renting space to A.A. or charging folk to come and eat a dinner of some kind.  Both of those things are revenue generation if that is the only time congregations open doors then the doors are better off shut.

In answer to the question posed as the title of the thread I would say yes and no.  There is so much space between the Reverend Vosper and Cruxifusion that is inhabited by Clergy and Laity who have no real connection or sympathy for either  that there is little cleavage forming.

Until somebody draws a line in the sand somewhere there is little chance that either will stand nose to nose with the other.  Both will be like planets in a solar system travelling in their own orbits but only passing in close proximity to one another on odd occasions.

A rift could be generated that might spur some in the middle ground to move closer to one edge or another.  I don't see anything on the horizon that speaks to that particular axis.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I will just second much of what John has been saying. Vosper and CoC or whatever represent the extremes of the UCCan. Most members, IME, fall somewhere in between. Rather than a right-left cleavage, I could almost see a more complex breakdown. Those of Vosper's belief peel off one way (and maybe become UU or maybe become the basis of a Canadian atheist church) while the more conservative wing peels off to join some evangelical group or other  (or form their own). What would be left as the UCCan would then be the middle who, for the most part, believe in God and Christ in some moderate way and take the Bible, in Borg's words, "seriously but not literally". IOW, something rather more complicated than a simple cleavage that would leave a smaller, less polarized UCCan with 2 or more offshoots of various theological stripes.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Hard to say without it happening.

Mendalla

fine riff, chansen :3

the UCC has two main roles as i see it at the moment:  as a 'safe' place for believers to practice & maintain their belief (it is easier to practice a belief if people around you are also practicing it...) and as a corporation/organization with political and societal clout.

A conservative Christian, I go to a conservative church within a conservative denomination that's led by conservative leaders.

I am not at all interested in the dichotomies of left and right. Perhaps because I find both my eyes, both my ears, both my hands and both my feet to be useful as I address the diverse possibilities and purposes of my particular being in the world.

The homeless mother of an infant child cares little or nothing for the core values of the stranger stopping to pass the time of day and provide some small measure of material comfort.

An elderly gentleman suffering the limitations of a recent stroke will not ask to see the belief statement of one come by to help with the material and psychological challenges of being disabled.

Whether gay or straight, conservative or liberal, black or white, a particular person may determine to do good or to do ill. It is those who determine to do good that I support and encourage by all available means. As to those who determiine to do ill, I make use of all available means to press for a change of imagination and determination.

What follows where a population is distracted from seeking and expressing our common human and non-human being by the urge to choose sides, with "my" side being in the right and "your" side being in the wrong?

George

I'm more on the side of Gretta than others may be.  I'm grateful to both the 'left' and the 'right' (whatever) for opening up space to talk and think and work together.  

I keep hearing about left slagging the right (again with the terms - whatever), and yeah - I've seen a bit of it but not in a long time. I have felt the flipside of that slagging. More often,  I have felt  deeply the change in the climate that makes me feel like 'what happened to the liberals?'   I grew up in a liberal church where metaphor was normal and questions were welcome, and it was ok to decide the Mary likely hardly existed in any way we understand her, let alone being a virgin of sparkling nature.  

That 'liberal' nature was apparent for a long time and made me feel like we were on to something unique and daring and appealing.  The evaporation of that unique placement worries me,

I would suggest that the middle ground is alive, but not fighting for anything because they are busy raising M&S funds, making ministry happen, doing pastoral care, and not asking each other 'are you orthodox or not?'  

Lately, there was a ruckus about Rev. Vosper AGAIN, despite the fact that she's been around a long time, supervised as any minister is by her presbytery and serving her congregation.  Lately, they have become an Affirming ministry (for LGBTQ folks) and done some remarkable work around First Nations justice - I dont have the details but we coudl check the website.  

The slagging that went on on facebook was nasty - so much for middle ground or appreciation of the wide ranging possiblities in our church.  I'll be honest - I was pretty fed up with that.

Reaching the Overchurched- that is a good thought. I'm going to think about that in my context. The unchurched may still be reached through loving action when they are in need - and maybe not by a church, or because it is a church.   

Good conversation.

Hi Chansen---

Yep, they're committed to promoting the unbelievable in a denomination where some are actually trying to bring some sanity to Christianity.

, I define Christian similarly to Marcus Borg's idea of seeing life through the lens of Christ. Partly because he (jesus) is right, also know as divinely filled with the Spirit, and partly because he is the culture/lens that I grew up through.

That fits within your description. I just don't often feel like it is enough for the (!) crucifusion set. In fact I have experience in discussing some differences with a few key people who made it pretty clear I am 'outside the circle'. That was eye-opening and disheartening.

Birthstone, I have always found the fringes of the circle to be an interesting place to live....

I've been locked outside a circle before. I know how it feels.

Jae, like me, you have questionable social skills and every time I've seen you literally or metaphorically on the outside of any social circle, you've been responsible for where you're sitting.

We know that you like full espresso Christianity instead of fair trade decaf, so immediately, you're not going to be everyone's confidant here. Neither am I. But you kinda lose the right to complain about it.