For clarification, the voice of the local congregation will be heard through the Session, Church Council or Official Board.

DKS, I always find the words of the remits hard to understand. can you tell me in a nutshell and plain language, what they are asking?

We don't have the exact wording, but the approximate wording will be "Should the three Statements of Faith (1940, A New Creed and Song of Faith) be included in the Docrine section of the Basis of Union (our foundational document) ?"

Could someone please just tell me what it MEANS?  I read lotsof churchy sounding words but don't truly comprehend them, or what, if any, difference they will make to the understandings and behaviors of the church.

It means exactly what it says. Should these statements of our faith be added to the existing foundational documents of the United Church? The questions which help us make that decision are these:

One implication being, I assume, that when new ministry candidates are asked "are you in essential agreement with the Basis of Union?" they can more comfortably agree if their theology is closer to the "Song of Faith" rather than the "Doctrine Section of the Basis of Union."  At present (and we have discussed this in other threads), there is often much hemming and hawing and deep interpretation about what "essential agreement" means.

shalom

I assume that you mean PAstoral Charge here DKS.  THey are the court of the church, not a congregation.

ANd yes I know that for many (at all levels of the church and in all areas of the country) the two terms are used interchangeably.  I just like to be a stickler (or is that pain in yhe arse?) from time to time

So am I to understand that the current situation is that only the Basis of Union, and not more recent formulations (such as the new creed) are recognized as "subordinate standards"?  I have major theological issues with the Basis of Union (especially its very Augustinian view of "Original Sin"), so something that broadens how we as a church relate to our theological underpinnings would be helpful.  (BTW personally, I find the Song of Faith much too long to be useful other than in a forum involving extended study).  But the issue does come up concerning how to approach the contractions inherent in these different documents. Or can some (eg Basis of Union) be seen as historical, but not necessarily current (in the way that the OT ban on eating pork can be seen as historical, but not current)?

OK - I printed it out and showed it to some United Church members when we met for coffee.  They were only aware in the vaguest of ways of the documents used to form this new statement.  My question remains - what does it mean?  How will it change (or not) the beliefs of the average member?  Maybe it  is mainly for judging the people who are applying for pastor jobs?

spiritbear,

yes you understand correctly.  AS for the differing (even contradictory) theologies that will be a topic for some discussion in many places I am sure.  But I think that there is room for the contradictions--it heps remind us of the breadth and depth of our denomination.

The study document is well put together.  Now, how many PCs will engage in it?  THe odds are stacked against remits like this to pass.  No vote is a negative vote since a majority of those eligible to vote (not just of those who feel like engaging) have to agree.  Mind you the original suggestion which would have removed the old 20 articles had no hope at all.

I like this suggestion and have the background (and have thought about the issues enough in the past) to know how I will vote on the REmit.  But my task as a leader in the church is not to convince people how to vote, it is to help them explore and come to their own decision.  This document will tie in well to the study we have already got going here on what the UCCan believes.

Good point.

It means what it says. And it probably won't chanege the beliefs of the average member. But it will make agreement or assent to what the United Church stands for a lot more understandable for most of us.

I think I am clear in what I said. In this case, as I said, it is the Session, Church Council or Official Board who will make the Decision. There can be multiple Sessions in a Pastoral Charge but only one Official Board or Church Council, whether it is a multi-point Pastoral Charge or a single point Pastoral Charge. Pastoral Charge can mean one or several congregations. In this case, I think multiple Sessions could meet as one for any Decision. But that would be a local issue, I guess.

Speaking as someone currently outside the UCC but with roots in it, I wonder whether the grassroots, even with a period of study, will really "get" it. To be honest, I didn't even know the Articles of Faith until the discussions about them here prior to GC and I don't recall any kind of discussion of either them or the 1940 statement in my congregation. The New Creed was used in place of the older creeds (although occasionally the Apostles would get trotted out) but, again, I don't recall much discussion from the pulpit or in group settings about what the durn thing really meant. Perhaps the real value of this, even if the remit fails, is that it affords an opportunity for those who do know and do care about these "subordinate standards" to educate others. That said, as a UU who occasionally attend UCC, it doesn't really impact on me much other than maybe on whether I ever return to the UCC, in which case a broader, more inclusive definition of the faith would help in that decisoin because I'm doomed to heresy if the 20 articles are what define the faith of the UCC .

Mendalla

My experience would suggest that an awful lot of UCC chuchgoers are only loosely aware of the UCC's history or its statements of faith and don't care very much about them. Even their own Mission Statements can come as a surprise when you broach a conversation about them and what they mean.

These doctrinal formalities are often hived of to a committee, if one can be found that's willing to look at them, and committees will rubber stamp stuff much more readily than they will write anything themselves, debate it or risk boring congregations with it. Where congregations are involved, acceptance is based on goodwill and a desire to be compliant, and resistance is to change and what people have come to "like"... meaning and theology and process get pushed to the periphery. The length of a service of worship is more important than what it might mean, as long as it's reasonably familiar and comfortingly affirming. The word "biblical" in relation to preaching often seems to mean "affirming" rather than Biblically based; it seldom is understood as "personally challenging".

I suspect that, far more often than trained ministers might like, words are not understood semantically but acoustically: people in the pews like the "sound" of familiar stuff that evokes a recognisable religiosity. This is where theologically aware leadership can run into problems when they try to address the theology they end up messing with the "sound" of it and the conversations that ensue can come to be carried out at complete cross-purposes. It can take a lot of patience and goodwill to move past such obstacles.

So issues like this are less accessible than the church leadership may hope, and felt as being of less consequence. And the more it's explained, the more complicated it gets and the less of the spirit enters it: it becomes administrative, managerial, corporate, legalistic and nit-picking. It falls over because so many church-goers go out of habit, out of a sense of fellowship and community or to take a break from the demands of the week. And meanwhile the church is looking for loyal "adherents" to share a high-sounding doctrinal position and support the church infrastructure and properties (i.e. become good "stewards", responsible not to God or Christ's teaching, but to "the church").

My own view would be that we need to answer a call to spiritual depth wherever that might lead, kicking over of a few traces if needs be in openness to the rediscovery of an authentic call. Those of us who feel committed to a call in a particular way should go for it. Those who feel called in some other way should also go for it. Faith building can surely come from thye dialogues such commitments inevitably invite... If the various calls stand the test and can be served by an infrastructure called the church, then wonderful! If not, and people need to follow different administrative protocols, so be it.  And this point of view is probably impossible to implement -- so what do we do? Suppress our sense of call? Suppress our spiritual yearnings? Keep going to church for sociable rather than spiritual reasons? 

I really don't know, but I do feel a certain amount of despair for and frustration over denominationalism and doctrinalism and administrative priorities that all seem to lead towards the narrowing and regularising of experiences of the sacred, and debilitating the energies of the spirit. Where, then, do we go to refresh and liberate our spirit? I seek a beach. It would be nice to have companions to soar with, but they're as hard to find on the beach as they are in church. Maybe it's just me that's so hard to accommodate? Am I looking for something that "organised" religion wants no part of? Am I crazy?

*chuckle* This is going to be a fun conversation!

When I read these three questions, I thought to myself, "1. No on the continuity, Yes-ish on the scripture; 2. No; and 3. No... ... ... and because of that, I need to vote in favour of the remit!" *LOL*

Chris's peace - r

kaythecurler:  My question remains - what does it mean?

GeoFee: Most likely many things to many persons.

On the surface we may anticipate uncounted hours given to settling the exactitude of phrasing with much quarrel over implication. This spread through the whole system over the next years, to be ratified with some percentage of support. Then to the publishing house with a bale of new documentation.... and, quick as a wink,  on to the next diversion.

 Well, George -

In this instance, it is impossible for us to argue phrasing or minuta, because the only thing we can say to General Council is "Yes" or "No" to the remit. No amendments. No "well, moving this comma would make everything make sense".

That was done when the various statements of faith were put together.

I'm surprised that you consider questions of faith belief and conviction "diversions".

For many of us, they are the articulation that help us to understand why we do what we do.

Christ's peace - r

 This is just a clergy matter?

 I'm not sure it is, Mike - although it does effect ministry personnel in a tangible way, with the whole question of being in essential agreement.

Depending on how one understands the various statements of faith the UCCan has made over the years, it could be seen as a widening of our 'written' doctrine, perhaps to more closely parallel the diversity of the 'lived' doctrine currently in the UCCan... perhaps reflecting a desire to respond to the frustration you talked about in the last paragraphs of your previous post.

Christ's peace - r

My suspiction that it will be published electronically more than in physical print. as Richard said above, it's a Yes/No question.

1.  Comparison

It is important to show what it was..and what it is changing to...by seeing that you get an idea of the change..without that, people struggle with "is there some hidden implication.

2.  Usage

It is helpful for people to be advised how this will impact them.

One example is as people are entering discernment or being ordained/commissioned/? as minsters

3.  subordinate

What is interesting is that the bible was not refernced previously, only the doctrine section. Some would say the bible was implied.  It is a big step to put the bible first, with the others that follow as subordinate.  It will be interesting to hear the progressive christian take on this one.

4.  I really dislike the questions with the word "each".

DKS, not sure who wrote them, but honestly, they do not match the intent and drive disagreement where it should not be.   see richardbott's response for the classic issue.

Questions 2 & 3 would have been better with "Do any of the ___", instead of "Do each of"

5.  the multiple statements of faith

Although i think only three are commonly known, there is a fourth one from war-time.  I understnad its language can be problematic but is included in the list.  This may introduce the challenge for the word 'each'

pinga,

from reading the document it appears we will be asked to vote on each document indiviually rather than one question covering all three of them.  My guess is that is why study questions 2&3 use "each of".

In classic Reformed theology the Bible is always first.  One of the signs of Methodism in the 20 articles of Faith is the fact that Article I is on God, not on Scripture.  It isn't as much of a big step as people might think.

I have never heard of a formal statement of faith outside of these three.  THese were all affirmed and passed by GC.  Can you say more about the one to which you refer?  Which war time?

Maybe I am counting differently than you, I count these as four(4)

• Doctrine Section of the Basis of Union,
•  1940 Statement of Faith
• A New Creed
• A Song of Faith

It is the 1940 one which gives more grief than the 1925 one for me....

I'm not sure how they could split it out...they were asked to do a remit based on the combined..we spent a reasonable amount of time on that proposal.

re the subordinate to the bible...

one could argue that it is closer to united church to say that we recognize the primacy of God (etc) as understood through the bible and reflected in the subordinate documents....___________

THe three we are voting on are adding 1940, new creed and song of faith.  The 20 Articles are already there.  So that is why they are talking about 3.

THe wording in the document was odd to me re: voting on adding all/none or voting on each of the 3 individually.  LEt me go look it up again

EDIT:  FOund it.  In SEction 3 there is a box which reads:

then later another one which says:

THis does seem to suggest we will vote on three yes/no questions--one for each statement.  But the intent of the remit seems to make most sense as all or none....

I just noticed nowhere in here is a direct link to the study document. Here it is

Again, per the GC motion, it was clear that the bible would be first, and then the 4 would be subordinate...which includs the original and the other 3....

sigh..

somehow the study guide has reinterpreted the motion....at least as I remember it

in fact, we even discussed if all 4 should be present, and it was decided at GC that all 4 should be...so, how can a study guide suggest that there is an option...

now, i do remember one person suggesting the one should not be included...and the decision of the court was that the 1940 should be...this is why this thing is bugging me...seems like the writers are now trying to push that decision back down

there may be legitimacy in that, based on teh "testing " but...seems really odd to me...

(note: i am still at work...my "treat" for knocking off another section of this very long project plan is to come & read wondercafe .   All may come clear when I have time to read the study guide, so thanks for the link!)

This isn't 1 + 4. It's 1 + 3. Basis + 3 more. All are then subordinate to scripture.

Which the Basis already is.

not in the original words.....

Yep, in the original words.  From the Basis (italics added):

I stand corrected GordW.   Thanks for your diligence.

"We present the accompanying statement as a brief summary of our common faith and commend it to the studious attention of the members and adherents of the negotiating Churches, as in substance agreeable to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures."

I am quite ready to concede the importance of such a project, considered from a certain point of view. A matter of keeping the formal accounting of our emergent identity in good order - whether there will be readers of such accounts or not.

From my place in the circle of perspective, such projects give the appearance of concern with matters of significance and importance. Persons are busy framing sentences and paragraphs aimed at equipping the understanding in its struggle with the rising tide of doubt and insecurity. Learned documents are produced and distributed, via whatever convenient media - information passing from hand to hand. As though such documents possessed some property adequate to the challenge of the hour now upon us.

As the baptized we are immersed in the narrative structures of the gospel. By that narrative our understanding is illuminated and our will innervated. There we hear the voice of the one in whom we have our very being; each and all. We may add creeds and affirmations till the cows come home, yet without deep rootage in scripture we are found lacking in the face of opportunity.

Here's Paul on the centrality of scripture, the ground of faithful public witness:

Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand,

through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you--unless you have come to believe in vain.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,

and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,

 

Would Paul pass the remit process of the United Church?

Yep. It's in my first post.

He already did, in 1925.

So it is.  How I wish the forum software would automatically identify links somehow, like underlining or colour or something.  Otherwise we have to happen upon them be accident.

"He already did, in 1925."

Chuckle...!