Ok... I'll start with my first thoughts.

What parts of this do I have difficulty with? I think I'll start with the one that causes me a twinge every time, so I can get it out of the way. "He" is not the pronoun I would use for "God". My theologically formative years - especially my teens - happened during the discussion and debate around inclusive language for people and for the Divine. After the first twinge, I don't hear "God/He" anymore. My brain replaces some of the "He"s with "She"s, "God"s, etc.

Substance stuff? Well, I have difficulty with the concept that God is "unchangeable". If God is in relationship with a constantly changing uni/multiverse, then God is going to be changed by that relationship. There may be parts of God that are unchangeable - perhaps the core of Godself... but I think I've experienced (both in scripture and in life) God's willingness to change. Does this supposed changability negate the statements of God's perfection? I don't think so. Perfection may be quite different when compared moment-to-moment. Wouldn't perfection have to be changeable in a changing situation?

It's funny. Other than the enshrining of the traditional format of "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit", I don't have difficulty with the whole unity/trinity thing. For me, the paradox of three and one is a beautiful place to sit and play with the idea that God is more complex than we can imagine.

What are your thoughts/feelings about this one?

Christ's peace - r

My thoughts are similar to yours, Richard.  "Lordship" is an anachronism which I believe is based on feudal thinking.  I don't believe that word describes a meaningful or authenic relationship to God, although it may have at one time.

And so the corollary is that I also agree with your view that God isn't "unchangeable" unless we are describing accessibility to Spirit. 

I also think Trinitarianism is a narrow concept.  I can see it as an attempt to describe the "holographic" nature of God, but it seems too received to me.

Looking forward to hearing more.

I am reading

Actually I think we need to reclaim the original Christian use of teh Lordship concept (preferably with a gender neutra twist).  Originally it was not meant as a feudal term, it was a statement that the rulers of the world were not Lord because God was.  Unfortunately the church conveniently forgot that once the church became part of the power structure.

The one problem I have with all the articles is that the style is inaccessible to modern readers.  This is simply a change in the use of the Language and sentence structure (and I suspect that the language used was intentionally formal because of the "holy" nature of the topic).  And of course inclusive language wasn't even close to the radar screen in the early 1900's when the articles were written (well before 1925 in fact).

This article I have no problem being in essential agreement with.

I agree with changing the male pronoun, I agree with GordW about the use of "lordship" (though it may be that this one just won't ever catch on again).

My only big problem with it is the word "unchageable".  I recognize that many theologies view God as unchanging.  Mine is not really one of them.  God is in relationship with Creation, and is changed as each moment goes by.  Not in the fleeting manner that humans are, but I still find the "unchaging" or 'unchangeable" notions to be too static.

I've read enough early 20th-century texts that the writing style doesn't bother me, but I won't assume that UCC members across the board will find it accessible.

Sheesh... I am essentially in agreement, but have issues.

I am a monotheist through and through, but the word "true" bugs me. I could live with it if the true God of Christianity is the same true God of other religions.  I am not sure that is always meant, but could be in essential agreement because I do mean that.

Unchangeable does not bother me as I read unchangeable in being and perfections, nature....

Lord does not bother me.  lords do... Lord does not.

I am fine with mystery of the Trinity. I don't really do equal in power or glory. For me,  God is God and has no equal. Though could be in essential agreement, because God could have given/can give whatever God wishes to whomever God wishes.....

 I will agree that the "He" does not do it for me.

2.1   Article 1.  Of God.  revised.

We believe in the one only living and true God: a Spirit, infinite and eternal, unchangeable in being and perfection; God who is above all, and yet who chooses to live with us, a God who is love, most just and most glorious in holiness, unsearchable in wisdom, full of mercy and compassion, and abundant in goodness and truth.  We worship God in the unity and mystery of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Creator, Christ, and Spirit; three persons of the same substance, equal in power and glory, in a relationship that is the core of the mystery of God.

'nuff said

shalom

Hmmm, I missed the "one true" phrasing when I read through. There certainly are some negative connotations that this phrase has acquired over the millenia.  I'm not sure what that could be replaced with that wouldn't be entirely convoluted or wishy-washy.

The language reminds me a lot of the triumphalist hymns that, while stirring musically, leave me cold in terms of my experiences of the Spirit. It drowns out the intent of the message, as I hear it.

 Hi RichardBott,

I blogged this here at WonderCafe on February 6, 2007:

Article 2.1 Of God. We believe in the one only living and true God, a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being and perfections; the Lord Almighty, who is love, most just in all His ways, most glorious in holiness, unsearchable in wisdom, plenteous in mercy, full of compassion, and abundant in goodness and truth. We worship Him in the unity of the Godhead and the mystery of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons of the same substance, equal in power and glory.

So said the United Church. I'm not so sure that it is accurate to state we still say so. Speaking for myself I can say it is what I believe.

If I had my druthers I might tighten up the language in a nod to the inclusive bent of the denomination but on the whole I'm quite happy with it.

Recognizing I am something of a throwback theologically I'd like to explain my interpretation of this particular doctrine in the interest of discussion.

"We believe in the one only living and true God"

I find this important for a statement of faith in that it posits that God is personal, God is real and God can be engaged. I find it important because it is the first step we can take in bringing God close, close enough that God's presence is actually felt and it must be dealt with. If we leave God as an ideal then God is not personal and any box and any description is as valuable as any other.

"a Spirit"

I find this important for a statement of God because it posits that God is neither exclusively male nor exclusively female while at the same time it allows God to embody the very best of what we understand to be male or female. God as Spirit invites us to explore the wealth of names, titles and images applied to the person of God and grow deeper in our knowledge of who God is and what God does.

"infinite, eternal, and unchangeable"

I've lumped these terms together for a purpose. And the purpose is this, we are not either of these things and our view of any such being will be limited. By putting forth that God is infinite I acknowledge, as I believe the framers of this doctrine acknowledged, that there is much more to God than I will ever fully comprehend. It also allows that my particular need will filter the expression of God and God's character which I have most need for at any particular point in time. If I am in need of grace then I will find grace to be a characteristic of the God I seek. If I am crying out for justice I can take confidence that God will express God's character as justice. In fact, that I need one or the other (grace or justice) I can be certain that the other must also be present. Grace without the possiblity of justice is license and justice without the possibility of grace is vengeance and I don't think either serve the communal good.

Unchangeable is also important. Not in that God doesn't adapt to us in how God communicates. If God was not adaptable or changeable in that respect there would always be a communication gap between divinity and humantiy. Rather God's character is unchangeable. God will always love mercy and do justly and that I believe, I can count on always being the case.

"unsearchable in wisdom"

This sounds problematic. At first blush it suggests that I can't discover anything about God but I am confident that is not what is implied in the phrase. I believe that it speaks to the depth of God's characteristics. The Ocean is deep, deeper than my ability to plumb on my own. That does not meant that it is without a bottom. The ocean floor is so vast and so far removed from my ordinary sphere of movement that I could never know the whole of it in my lifetime. I could try but I would fail and in that respect it is to me unsearchable. God's wisdom strikes me in the same way. I know God is wise. I don't know what the limits of God's wisdom is so in that respect it is unsearchable. I can know bits of it but I will never know all of it.

"the mystery of the Holy Trinity"

Yes, I am a Trinitarian. I know that seems hopelessly primitive. No, I cannot explain it thoroughly so that you can understand it fully. Truth be told I can't explain it so that I can understand it fully. It has never bothered me, not even for a moment, that unless I can understand anything fully it cannot be true or real. I believe in a single God revealed through three persons. I prefer relational trinitarian expressions to economic trinitarian expressions.

So there you have it.

Some of what I believe about God. I think a lot more about God that is stated in the faith statement introducing this blog. There is much more that can be said, some that has been forgotten and is no longer said and still more that has yet to be discovered and has yet to be spoken.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I am okay with the article as it stands.  I am okay with God being referred to as a He.  I think some sects of the UC have gone to far with the "mother God" or gender neutral God stuff.

I have some questions about the unchangeable statement.  It appears that many here try to change God.

There is even a reference to the Son of God which is Jesus but there seems to be dispute here as to whether Jesus is the Son of God or just a good man.

The language does remind me of the triumphantalist hymns as well but I like it.

interesting endeavor - as I head through discernment to candidacy, to seminary  and so on, this is going to be a muddle in my head.  How can I prove 'essential agreement', and who do I have to prove it too?  What are their parameters for 'essential', even if I reconcile with the Articles of faith?

The word that bothers me the most is "Allmighty". As it was said after the Holocaust, the three qualities atributed to God "allmighty", "allknowing" and "all-loving"- can no longer co-exist in one God- an all loving God can not be allmighty.

Anyway, I like the "Song of Faith" from 2006 a lot better as it spares us those kinds of vocabulary while expressing a more indepth picture of God.

I also struggle with the language of "one  true God".....

I am unsure if I can find words...but if God were an 8-sided figure, then the side I see...and describe may be different than the God someone else does...and the way I describe God will be from language of my experience...

how to capture that..so that it doesn't seem that we are stating that the God we describe is not the same God that others describe.

I love the Trinity...grew up anglican..but struggle with the language of father/son/spirit....

so, yes, I could be in essential agreement, recognizing the language is different, but...the concepts are the same...(or I think they are..and had I worked on a masters of theology....then I would know if they were the same)

I like your image of the 8-sided-figure - I totally get the point you make. 

 What parts of this do I have difficulty with? I think I'll start with the one that causes me a twinge every time, so I can get it out of the way. "He" is not the pronoun I would use for "God". My theologically formative years - especially my teens - happened during the discussion and debate around inclusive language for people and for the Divine. After the first twinge, I don't hear "God/He" anymore. My brain replaces some of the "He"s with "She"s, "God"s, etc.

Posted by RichardBott

Hi Richard:

I appreciate you revealing your theological "playing hand" during this game of "theological poker"!!!

I really value when people are able to formulate and articulate where they are coming from.  In respect, and only in respect, I believe our brainwaves do not see this particular article of faith in the same way.  I think that this is good and rich and perfect for conversation to begin.

You see, I think that inclusive language actually invites people to be dumb.  I think that I am concerned about inclusive language because it presupposes that "Father" or that "He" really means "he" in the way that the world uses the term.  When we invite people into faith and refuse to see the complexity of the language we are actually using we deny them the journey through the struggle.

I never had any problem with people identifying God as "Father" until I met, in a little black church in Chatham, my biological father.  It was a joyous occasion; it was an overwhelming occasion; it was a depression occasion; it was a confusing occasion.  I can pinpoint that time as the real test...acknowledging my biological father as "father" - I can't even call him that because my adoptive father is my father.  This is where inclusive language falls apart for me.  Because in that moment I realized that perhaps part of calling God "Father" is that struggle, but, also, perhaps the struggle is what invites the broader understanding about who God is - the relational aspect of what a Father who provides "daily bread" and "forgives debts as we forgive our debtors" is and means...

I don't really use inclusive language because I don't really think that changing the surface really gets at the heart.  It's like learning to be a welcoming congregation - just because people have smiles on their faces when you go to church doesn't mean they're not hurting deeply.  I wonder if inclusive language only deals with surfaces and denies people the opportunity to get beneath the Biblical language.

And, of course, I say that with utmost respect for you and for your ministry.  I say this out my experience of a breadth of issues in our United Church of Canada.

Sincerely,

Adam

I guess this all comes down to interpretation; for me I can understand the problems that have brought up with some of the finer points of semantics - the masculinity of God, 'unchangeability or unknowableness' as aspects of a very populist and inclusive church, etc. Nonetheless I can be accepting of this because of how I read it:

Masculinity of God - no excuses here I just chalk it up to traditionalism I guess. As a modern woman of the church on theoretical grounds I agree that this is anachronistic and exclusive, however it also feels forced and pretentious when we speak of "creator/redeemer/sustainer" or God in the neutral and/or feminine.

Unchangeability - I think this more refers to the inherent nature of God; it is unchangeable that He loves us, protects us, forgives us our sins, etc; I don't choose to interpret this as Him being inflexible or unwise to changing times, but unchangeable in his relationship with us, and that in fact brings me great comfort more than consternation.

Unknowability - again, I see this more as reminding us that we are imperfect and as such cannot fully comprehend the fullness and richness of God. Can we still be close to him, emulate the example He provided us in Jesus etc? Sure! But it reminds us not to judge those around us, or feel too sorry for ourselves, or whatnot, as God is ultimately the one looking out for us and our neighbours, and we are not privy to his deepest desires in that regard.

Hi, Adam -

Thanks for your post.

You wrote, "You see, I think that inclusive language actually invites people to be dumb.  I think that I am concerned about inclusive language because it presupposes that "Father" or that "He" really means "he" in the way that the world uses the term.  When we invite people into faith and refuse to see the complexity of the language we are actually using we deny them the journey through the struggle."

I've been thinking about what you've written, for a few days, to make sure I'm writing what I actually think. *grin*

I agree with you that people need to struggle (though I might use words like "encounter", "play with", or "wrestle with") with our language - especially the language we use for God (hmm... "the Divine", "the Numinous"?). Such wrestling can work to help us deepen our relationship with God and with each other. From my perspective, it is part of my responsibility as one who facilitates worship and faith exploration to help people to dive deep into that struggle.

For me, however, part of the way I do that is to challenge people to recognize that our human-created language is not wide or deep enough to describe, in its entirity, God. I believe that this is one of those places where Paul's, "For now we see in mirror - dimly..." comes into play.

When we say, "Father," what do we mean? How does our use of that word change - depending on our own experiences and depending on the context of its use? As the father of a child, and as the son of a father who was teacher and guide - and at times, frustrated love embodied! - that word has a myriad of meanings for me.

Are there other words that more readily express the facet of God we're trying to share in this moment? If there are - then why hamper our already 'dim' understanding by using a word that doesn't express as humanly close as we are able?

God is Father to me. God is also Mother... and Great-Uncle... and Grandma. God is the Foundation Upon Which I Stand, and the Dream For Which I Reach. God is my Coach, my Teacher, my Judge. God is...

well... God Is.

Christ's peace (and thanks for making me think about this one, again) - r

 For me, however, part of the way I do that is to challenge people to recognize that our human-created language is not wide or deep enough to describe, in its entirity, God. I believe that this is one of those places where Paul's, "For now we see in mirror - dimly..." comes into play.

I like your response Richard!!!  My only concern, however, is about the seeming marks of liberal theology that seems, at least lately, to make the Bible and God a reflection of me, rather than about the sovereign Creator who was a rabbi from backwater Galilee.  Of course we are part of the picture as well; but part of what I'm alluding to is that propensity to lean toward worshipping myself rather than the Trinity.

Of course I will be spending a few days to mull over your response.  I should affirm, however, that your response is very engaging and attractive.  You know, it really looks like it commands me to do some of the work of figuring out...

Peace,

Adam