I agree that essential agreement sounds like a cop out.

Hi Crazyheart,

It probably depends on how agreement is read.

It can be read as "basically agreeing" as in "I'm okay with that" or, it can be read as I agree with the essentials as in "We need to keep this idea."

Grace and peace to you.

John

And with what would you replace it?

Remembering that a concerted drive to rewrite the 20 Articles (even if one pledged to keep the same theology, just update the English) may well make our divisive debates of the past look positively friendly, I wonder what option we ha ve?

AS for little or no excitment about the articles--most people don't even know it exists much less what either the docrine or polity sections talk about.

ANother question I have often wondered.  Clergy are required to be in essential agreement with the Basis of Union.  Is that just the doctine or the polity also?  Most discussions focus on the Articles of faith but we have a number of clergy who misunderstand (sometimes intentionally TBTG) the polity of the church.

I am not saying ditch it, send it to recycling. I think that somehow they could say in " such and such a date, this is what the basis of Union looked like. We will preserve it in the archives for all to have access to. But this is how we read the Basis of Union today." Now how could that ruffle feathers?

We are using all different translations of the bible today. We don't stick to King James.

Because that requires a re-write.  Even to update the language will open up a debate about the theology.  And because we don't all read it the same so how could you make that statement?

If memory serves, my grandmother was less than enthused about moving away from the KJV.  She also thought the REd Hymn Book (don't even mention Voices United, mind you she was back to the Prsbyterian church by then) was an anathema.  THis is how some in the church will respond to any attempt to update the Articles of faith.

That being said, the Articles have changed over the years, mildly--at least I think the article on ministry did at some point.  And the polity portion of the Basis changes on a fairly regular basis -- all those remits we keep voting on.

But really, the UCC is not a creedal or doctrinal church.  In adition to checking out essential agreement with the Basis I believe we need some way to check that ministry candidates have a clear understanding of what makes up the ethos, the on-the-ground reality of the UCC.  THat is what really matters in practice

But how can they, Gord, if everyone reads them differently?

It would ruffle feathers because many still read it the way it is written.  And it would be literally impossible to find any new language we could all agree on.

Essential agreement IS a cop out.  It's a way of allowing us to stay united.  If you believe that to be important, than it is necessary.  It's a question of priorities, in this grand experiment we call the United Church.  Is it more important to have a code we appeal to, or is it more important to stay together?  Both is not an option.

This is so depressing.

Doesn't everyone read everything different. Is their any creed, statement or written sentence that all people read the same.

I mean I can remeber you telling me you were a matchmaker or something like that. Others might have read that to understand you would keep a look out for single men for me.  While I understood it as "You were going to find me a perfect match and that we would live hapily forever in eternal bless"

However the two different readings do not proclude either possibility.

Hopefully it makes you less depressed too.

Thank you  for grounding me. in reality Alex. I never did match you up with anyone did I?

 Believe me if you had you would have heard. In fact everyone would have heard, and I would be planning the biggest wedding since Charles married Diana. 

Watch by millions live on Youtube and Wondercafe as proof that miracles still do happen

Members do not have to be in essential agreement - not on their radar - both Matt and Gord give a good response on why it is there for clergy - and yes it is a cop out but so what... John points out how it is a good cop out - just like we do when we say something nice to another person when we really don;t feel that way at that moment.  

Matt states:

"Essential agreement IS a cop out.  It's a way of allowing us to stay united.  If you believe that to be important, than it is necessary.  It's a question of priorities, in this grand experiment we call the United Church.  Is it more important to have a code we appeal to, or is it more important to stay together?  Both is not an option"

I have been thinking about this since yesterday and I find it disturbing that we as a church could be so wishy-washy and shallow in our thinking that their is either/or but are unable to find concensus.

I agree ... essentially.

I think essential agreement is a good phrase because if one's honest with themselves, I don't think anyone can ever be in more than essential agreement with any group that is even remotely provocative or controversial, be it a religious organization or political party. I am in 'essential agreement' with the Liberal Party in Canada and Ontario; does that mean I support every last thing they stand for literally and entirely? No. Nor have I yet found the church that I agree with 100% word for word. However, that I can read every tenet of the UCC and feel comfortable with them, and the UCC expects no more than that (as compared to a more fundy sect I taught for, who would not provide communion unless total agreement w/their beliefs were met), speaks very highly to me of this church as being my spiritual home.

 Maybe the problem is that we are using words written theologians and politicians to create our statements of faith.

Perhaps we should be using art created by musicians, writers and painters and creating expressions of faith.

Is essential agreement a result/sign of being wishy washy or a result of our diversity? (alternatively, is our diversity a result of essential agreement)?  IT is easy to forget how wide a tent the United Church has.  Essential agreement, IMO, allows that tent to remain that wide -- even if there are days when I wish it wasn't quite so wide -- with some degree of agreeing to disagree.

 Checkout this for expressions of Faith

http://www.wondercafe.ca/blogs/alex/statements-faith-or-expressions-faith

I think, Gord, you've hit something, there.

A big reason for the diversity of the current UCCan is the fact that there has not been a requirement to adhere to a specific doctrinal statement, right from the inception of the denomination. Although I don't believe the Congregationalist negotiators would ever have thought that it would be possible to wind quite as far away from the traditional tenets of Christianity as some of our colleagues have done, their stand that no doctrinal statement (hmmm... other than "Jesus is Lord", I think... I wonder where I read that?) could be required of a member of the denomination has definitely added to our wideness.

Christ's peace - r

RichardBott, 

There is one of your colleagues who would probably dispute the statement "Jesus is Lord".  

“I think that in a generation or two we might stop using the term Christian”, Gretta Vosper told the National Post last spring.  “The central story of Christianity will fade away,” she explained.  “The story about Jesus as the symbol of everything that Christianity is will fade away.”

good thoughts - sure, I'd love to feel like Crazyheart suggests - absolutely agreeing & cheering each article.  That won't work though unless I write them myself, and then they wouldn't work for most other people.  And maybe I would want the freedom to keep tweaking them -bit by bit.

The problem would be where to start - ok, maybe not.  I'm guessing we could go for the inclusive language right off.  But then what?  If the articles were more of a exercise in concessions than true consensus back in the early 1900's, then what would be different now?   Maybe the inclusive part is important to undertake, but it would never go far enough, and it would always go too far... for some people. 

p3 - Oh, I know... I know!

Christ's peace - r

Only from the perspective of those who are super-glued to the historic ways of expressing faith in Christ, Saul_now_Paul.

For those of us for whom the historic ways of expressing faith in Christ have little meaning, we need ministers of God's faith and grace who will live and speak God's love and Christ's message in ways we can understand.

That's the positive part of what "in essential agreement" has allowed in The United Church of Canada.

Chris's peace - r

I always appreciate when SnP comes by.  It gives a nice laugh.

There is a gospel...

If some people reject it - it is not the duty of the church to create a new gospel that hopefully some of the rejectors will latch onto.  Or in this case - each church can make up their own gospel and see if it draws enough people to pay the rent.  If finally one looks successful - maybe all the other churches could adopt that model.

If you want people in the pews - it is very simple.  You need Jesus back - he has no problem drawing crowds.

I think you are pretty funny too, GordW.

I tried booking Jesus in for Anniversary, but his manager said he was already busy.

Of course he was busy...

The first step is to repent.

Second is to believe.

Then, he shows up.  But not until you go through steps one and two.

Given the spectrum of theologies and non-theologies in the UC, I always thought of it as a cop-out.

Exactly -

an "anything goes" loophole

Hi Saul_now_Paul,

Well . . .that could be.

Of course there is more to the whole discernment process than Essential Agreement.

There is the requirement of testamur.  Some theological college needs to vet the individual and affirm that they have some ability to do theology.  And that typically is more than Essential Agreement.  It requires one, at some point, to take a position and defend it adequately.

Then there is the internship process which actually evaluates the individual over 8 months of actual field experience.  To see if one has a capacity for learning on the fly and/or applying on the fly what has already been learned.

Then there is the actual time in process from discernment through to ordination/commissioning/licensing.  All of which requires more than one person saying, "I am in Essential Agreement."

Which is not so much a function of Essential Agreement so much as it is a function of the individual's character.  Individuals who could claim absolute agreement with any point of doctrine and can jump the hoops may, in the end, be just as effective of messing up a lot of other people's minds.

And if they didn't exist here you'd have to look somewhere else to be all holier than wouldn't you?  Glad we could help with that.

Grace and peace to you.

John

You're fun.  More predictable than Pavlov's dog, really.

Woof, woof, little doggy.

Here`s a question for everyone, ? Do Ministers run a UCC Church? Is it not the job of the members to do so, with the minister(s) providing a leadership and teaching? At the very least is it not the role of the members to pick their leaders and teachers, and do they not select their ministers according to what they believe they need?

Now here is a comment. I go to a Catholic University. The RC Church is a credal and doctrinal Church. I study philosophy, however whenever I take a theology course (many of the teacher will not allow me to tape the classes to accomadate my disability because they fear that if they allow people to tape classes someone will send the tapes to Rome, and they could loose their Catholic Teaching License, if they are thought to fall outside offical doctrine)

Also the Bishop in Ottawa, the former Bishop of Halifax and other leaders have more or less said that it is OK to go outside doctrine as long as they do not do so publically. Thus he expelled a male couple that married in Halifax from the church, not for getting married but for going public by announcing their marriage in the Announcement Section of the local paper. (Thus no taping of classes as the tapes could be made public)

Many of them could be outside of doctrine, but they might or might not disagree.

So I would say that not only does essential agreement serve a way to deal with the tension about the need to be honest and be able to grow and the need to be united.

I also would have to be convinced that whatever benefits could even come close to undoing the damage a strict narrow doctrines has caused and is causing to the world. Because inevitably strict interpretation doctrine ends up as a weapon that is used by the powerful to hurt the weak. Plus I believe as a Christian Jesus also came to free us from the law. Which is exactly what Christian doctrine has become. The New Law.

Bernard Lonegan (Thomist) a Canadian Catholic theologian (likely the most well known Canadian Catholic Internationaly) Said that we need to people to work on the edges of our moral and theological boundries in order to grow in our moral knowledge and knowledge of God. Because those that do are the leaders and teachers of the community who will show us the way. Even if they are wrong, they are showing us the way, because they show us what is wrong.

(Insert essay on New Testament teachings on determining what  ways we are to judge that that is good, or beautiful, or pleasing to God.)

Moral and theolgical conversions happens when you break through the line between the known and the unknown, and the line between the known unknown and the unknowned unknown. This is when new knowledge is learned. And as a result you are changed. Unless you believe God has nothing new to say then it is our obligation to work on the edges of our belief systems.

If God has nothing new to say then essentially that is the same as saying God is dead.

IMHO I would conclude that essential agreement is thus necessary in a democratic and honest church, otherwise you will exclude our future leaders and teachers (the good along with the wrong) and kill the church.It`s strict doctrine that is killing the church, and it is only now in the past 50 years have people been free to say so with their feet.

 If we have faith in God, then we should have faith that enables God to lead us to the truth, and thus Godself.

Thus I believe "Essential Agreement" is not a cop out, but a good thing that allows the creation of beauty through increased knowledge of God, creation and ourselves.

PS I am not a minister, just a disabled bricklayer.

Hi Saul_now_Paul,

By which standard Grand Inquisitor?

There's a fine apples and oranges comparison.  The interpretation of one versus the interpretation of many.  Any one of us, be they clergy or laity, be they UCCAN or not, is going to be more consistent than any group of others.  Heck, you on your lonesome are more consitent than you with your fellows.

As you claim that there is no accountability that you can see how does that translate into no accountability whatsoever?

They all have the same nutritional content.

Which means what?  That you only go to real churches or you only attend churches where your personal ideas aren't going to be challenged?  I'm not sure what you are arguing is the merit behind your experience.

Again, I'm sure that is true if you decide you are going to lump all of our views together instead of looking at our individual testimony.  Most of us do not present the syncretized vision that you accuse us of.  We each present what we believe is the most faithful image of God.  We disagree with each other from time to time.

The Church is full of history of disagreement.  Not even Peter and Paul were always on the same page according to scripture.  They disagreed on points of doctrine.  They managed to recognize that each served Christ.

You don't look to see who serves Christ.  You look to see who serves your vision of Christ.  In that you are no different that the rest of us with the exception that we talk through our disagreements whereas you disparage through them.

No hasty generalization there.  Defending one's faith doesn't mean one needs to offend.

How blind you are.  So black and white in your perception.  God makes all the colours of the rainbow and you seek only to exist in tones.

So Jesus dwells in brick and mortar more than flesh and blood eh?

You are sadly mistaken if you think clergy "run" the church in any denomination.  If it isn't God at the helm the ship is on the rocks.  God can and will use anyone who mounts the pulpit, those with ears to hear will hear what God has to say.  It might not be word for word what the presider has to say God is pretty good at turning the sow's ear into the silk purse.

As for what I know.

I know that God is sovereign.  I know that nothing goes one without God's knowing.  I know that whether it is intended for evil or not God can turn it to good.  I don't live in fear.  I don't hunt heretics (half the folk who use that word in this forum seem to think it means anything they find upsetting).  I let the LORD of the harvest decide who will work the harvest.  I don't pretend to know better than he.

That is a possibility. 

The visible church is prone to error.  Always has been.  Always will be.  That is only a problem if you've made works righteousness your ticket to salvation.

You could be correct with your numbers (which I believe stem more from your healthy disrespect for things other than from an actual research) that still wouldn't make you more right or even more righteous.

Grace and peace to you.

John

woof woof,

yes, conserve your wit, can hardly wait for the next zinger.

Hi revjohn,

When I want to buy something - say electrical - I shift it around in my hand, and see that it has CSA approval.  OK, thats good enough for me.  Somebody has looked at it, and found that it would be safe to wire into my house.

UCC approval means nothing.  Sorry for lumping you in with everything, but there are no standards. You and your church, by default lose credibility by your wingnut affiliation. 

Wow!

So far elbows up and sticks on the ice.

Referee watching close now, ready with two minutes to cool the jets where patience has not had its place valued.

Cryptic.... to be sure.

Sarcasm bites.... as do ill-mannered cats and dogs.

I, for my part, have had the experience of entering the United Church of Canada in good faith, and keeping all of its rubrics for ordination at my own expense. I observed much along the way and hid none of my insights from any.

With hands laid on in the rural church I went to the Vancouver School of Theology. Even a large book would not exhaust the gleanings in that place; now deep in bondage to the schemes of land-developers and other such enterprising folk of the free world.

All along the way I have made friends in the congregations of the land. The Prairies, the West Coast and now the East Coast. Everywhere the same broken process founded on a document framed in Upper Canada and authorized by Parliament; a grand mutuality to ensure the extension of Empire in the New Land of Commercial Promise. 

Am I a friend of the United Church? If not it seems my game is harlotry as I take wages for my work. Such harlotry may be forgiven. It does not go so easy where the gospel is played for the sake of  money. An ingenuous practice of ministry opens to the suggestion of hypocrisy. A matter of the heart and the judgement of God alone.

Play on good folk... play on!

http://www.nme.com/video/id/dUsOR5rWH8I/search/one%20night%20only/offset/40

Yes there is. But your ideas of God are actually from Plato and Aristotle. They are not Old or New Testament. It might be something Saul believed but it is not what Paul believed.

Thanks Alex,

I'm sure there will be surprises all around on judgement day

Or is that another metaphor

By Saul Now Paul I think you got it!!!!!

Hi Saul_now_Paul,

And yet, even with all that rigourous testing parts still fail.

What CSA approval tells you is that the part has been tested and should, all things being equal, be safe for use in your home.  CSA approval is not a 100% certainty.

Actually not true.  If it meant nothing you wouldn't be so down on it.  What seems to be the problem is that you disagree with folk who think it could mean something.

You aren't sorry or you wouldn't have done it and you certainly wouldn't be justifying yourself for doing it.

There are standards.  You don't like them.  That is fair.  When you get to call the shots for all others then your opinion has meaning beyond your personal preference.

Can you clarify please?  By wingnut affiliation do you mean that we spend time in conversation with yourself or is it someone else you are better than?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Good one revjohn,

Glad you put it at the end - people only read the beginning and the end of your long posts.  And you only ever manage to argue your (points?) by twisting what the other person has said.  At least I try to meet with what I believe you are trying to convey.

You have said you don't want to be lumped with the rest - and then you do.

I have no recollection of a house bursting into flames as a result of a faulty CSA approved item.  Maybe it has.  But according to my bible (the true building code), there is a day at least parts of your house will burst into flames - Faulty wiring.

Take your time thinking up another good one - I will not be able to respond for a bit.

Hi Saul_now_Paul,

I'm glad you enjoyed it.  And thank you for telling me how everyone else reads my posts

What of yours did I twist?

Correction.  You have lumped all together.  I'm speaking out of the lump that you have formed of your own volition.  Whether I believe I belong there or not is of no consequence you believe I should be.

But what?

According to your interpretation of your Bible.

According to my interpretation of a Bible which is probably not dissimilar from yours there will be a fire of refining and all dross will be purged away.  I will pass through those flames as will you and all of the others in the WonderCafe.

What survives is what is valuable what is burned away is not.

I do not expect to get through whole.  I expect it will be something of an ordeal.  I don't look forward to it.  I don't fear it either.

I'll trust the masters fire of refining over your crude pyrotechnics.

In the meantime I will resist the urge to usurp the position of fire marshall and go about the task of ordering my home and the houses I serve.

Oh?  Are you still trying to find an appropriate response because I note that while you thought it was good for a laugh you didn't appear to offer an answer.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Richard Bott said:

Although I don't believe the Congregationalist negotiators would ever have thought that it would be possible to wind quite as far away from the traditional tenets of Christianity as some of our colleagues have done, their stand that no doctrinal statement (hmmm... other than "Jesus is Lord", I think... I wonder where I read that?) could be required of a member of the denomination has definitely added to our wideness.

I agree, Richard. It has added to both our wideness and our occasional wierdness. However, Dr. Hugh Pedley, who was the principal Congregational guide in the movement towards Union, did have a very wide tent himself. He also trusted in the Spirit to guide those who might explore the far corners of the faith and beyond.

The Committee on Church Union said in 1907

In the matter of ordination to the Christian ministry we consider that it will best safeguard the intellectual integrity of ministers, and at the same time preserve the church from formalism if at the ordination of candidates to the ministry they shall not be compelled to give an absolute subscription to a creed, but having before them a doctrinal statement of the church may frankly, and in their own language, indicate their relation thereto. It shall them remain with the ordaining body to decide as to the acceptance of the candidate, great importance always being attached to his general spirit and character.

Not much has changed in a century.

DKS that is helpful - as well in Butler Bass new book - on history - she gives us some insights on how the early church read the bible -  did not believe the bible should be read literally - nothing changes? yet does.

DKS - thanks for posting that again.  I've read it before and seeing it here reassures me.  They were some smart cookies back then.

Just speaking to the point of Saul_Not_Paul's idea that Jesus is not in the UCC, and that there's no real overarching theme or theology to our beliefs -

Well first of all I've been convinced that isn't true by the description of the ordination process earlier in this thread. But I did believe the same and do still to a certain degree, but I also think that's one of the UCC's strengths -

If we as Christians accept that God is 'above' us, able to know things we don't, with understandings we don't have, then we can't possibly understand and know him in his entirety. There are going to therefore be different interpretations, and there are going to be doubts, etc. To ME that's what the UCC provides - a place where I can go and believe in Christianity - in the Lord as our creator, Jesus as our Saviour, and the Holy Spirit as our faith sustainer - but that accepts I might trip sometimes, I might have questions sometimes, sometimes the 'did a man really come back from the dead?', 'did he really turn water into wine?', etc. is going to get into my ear, and I don't want to be made to feel like in that moment's doubt I am a hellbound sinner.

To me, faith is a journey - to understanding, wholeness, peace, dare I say salvation - not the destination in itself. It is the means by which we get those reassurances and those answers that oftentimes you need to already have before another church will accept you. I appreciate that I'm allowed to learn 'on the job' at UCC, without feeling like that somehow makes me less faithful.