CH said, "people of the United Church felt that they were a cut above other denominations".

But then, wouldn't every denomination think the same thing?  In the end, what is important is that you are true to what you believe. And some of the things at the heart of what the UCC believes are: that science and spirituality are not incompatible; that the story of faith cannot be read without recognizing the nuances and inner meanings that come with our stories and the lessons we take from them; that there are many ways of understanding what we call "God"; but that fundamentally, God is love, and this is paramount over any other attribute we ascribe to God; that God's love extends to all, not least of which whom society looks down on (even if we tend to do the same thing, but at least our hearts are in the right place. And it is more likely that you will do the right thing if you start with your heart in the right place). Unfortunately, many of these attributes remain totally unrecognized by the bulk of the Canadian population, possibly because we haven't found an effective way of sharing our story. Even on a United Church-sponsored web site such as this, I suspect that few could tell what the United Church stands for. That's not because it doesn't stand for anything, as some would arrogantly suggest (because a different point of view can only be considered to be no point of view). Rather it is because we haven't taken the time to tell our story. (Challenge: what does the UCCan mean to you?)

CH said, "sometimes we think we are better than what we really are". Of course we are. Humility doesn't come easily to most human beings. But occasionally we get the opportunity to hold the mirror up to ourselves and realize that we have missed the mark. That's what confession is all about - to bring us back to earth and reality. That's something our society doesn't promote except in the most superficial way.

Trouble is, the UCCan is a strongly congregational church, which means it's theological point of view comes in many shades, rather than from a "top boss". That makes it hard to pin down, but it does provide a "big tent" as we so often call it. And without some latitude in how we describe what we believe and how it motivates us, there would be far fewer followers that could call the UCCan as their spiritual home. But it does make it much more difficult to pool resources on a common issue.

So there are many things that the UCCan needs to work on. Passing resolutions is a favourite UCCan activity, but how much really comes of this? What kind of follow-up can we expect. How should we expect our behaviour to change?  We're a little thin on that one. We're also a little thin on the role of spiritual health, and in how it impacts on both our physical health and the health of our communities. Spiritual health has its core in a community of faith, where we realize how we are connected to each other. We need to do a better job of "connecting the dots". We're gradually turning inwards as it becomes more difficult for others to understand our story. This happens when telling that story is more up to individuals and individual congregations than to a central body from whom we might take our lead. More room for nuance, but more easily lost amongst the din of competing voices.  And finally, the last forty years has shown an inability to deal with generational differences, to the point that it may simply be too late. Many churches no longer have a "critical mass" of the next generation, an older generation having been unreceptive (or just lacking imagination) for so long that they have turned many away from their doors. This is not only attitudinal - it is also structural.  At a time when congregations need to be able to adapt quickly to a new reality, we saddle ourselves with "Joint Needs Assessment" processes that take months (if not years) to string together a few platitudes about the direction of a congregation, while sapping energy from implementing actions that might actually make a difference.

Sorry that this is so long - and it barely opens the door a crack at that! But you did open a rather large can of worms! Now don't get me wrong (to use your phrase) - I don't see any other faith community that would come close to accomodating me.  I just wish there was a little less inertia, and a little more urgency in what needs to be done, and done soon.

i have never felt that the UCC was 'a cut above' anyone else... 

i have always felt that we were simply another piece in the colorful quilt of christianity.

Hi crazyheart,

Anyone who pats themselves on the back as hard as we do has self-esteem issues.

We were the first to do this and we were the first to do that is, more often than not, us resting on our laurels.  It isn't untrue that we were the first to do this or that.  If we truly are a ministry then the issue should never be what we have done, it should be what we are doing.

At the same time we should be mindful that while we may not be where we want to be and we may not be what others want us to be trajectory matters.

When I wrestled I learned that where the head goes the rest of the body must follow.  We in the United Church have head issues.  We are unsure of our spiritual head and distrustful of our institutional head.  As a body we perform as any headless body might.  Some parts flop more vigorously.  If a head is not attached promptly that vigour will become a stupor and shortly thereafter the body will cease to flail or flop at all.

I wonder if the last twitch would be one more back pat?

There is good news in that we might stumble across our head, plop it back on and get back to being a Church which has the coordination to be first at something even if we are only the first to stop being so self-congratulatory.

Are we the elite?

God help everyone else if we are.

Grace and peace to you.

John

i heard a great sermon on this years ago... the minister talked about our place in the realm of christian churches, and very beautifully laid out what our strengths and weaknesses were in comparison to the other denominations, and how all of us together are what jesus would have wanted for us. 

after hearing that, i got SUCH a better sense of us in the UCC are simply part of the body, rather than whole thing, and it gave me a sense of kinship with the other faiths.

Thak you for the thoughtful responses.

Good points, RevJohn! How easy it is to succumb to goodness by association, vicarious morality or virtue by proxy. (And it works the other way too - the "I'm good because I'm not one of THOSE people").  What matters much more is if our churches equip us to be disciples in our daily lives. And on a church by church basis, some are better at this than others. I wonder what (or who) makes the difference?

I believe that the UCC is typically Canadian because it is made up of typical Canadians.  We Canadians are not very good at being proud of the things we should be proud of but can be very smug about them at the same time.

LB

------------------------

If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia.
     Margaret Atwood

Being among the leading edge of human culture does not necessarily make us UCCers elitist.

As LB just said, what makes the United Church great is that it is typically Canadian: tolerant, inclusive, generous, democratic, self-depreciating—all of which can be strengths or weaknesses, depending on how we use them. The UCC governs itself from the grassroots up more than from the top down, and therefore is less authoritarian than other denominations. Although UCCers are proud of their virtues, they don't advertise them, so that the public at large doesn't know what the UCCan is all about. I myself joined wondercafe in August of 2007, found out how inclusive, truly democratic, and all round great the UCC is, and promptly joined.

Let me start by saying I love the UCCan and it is my home, so you know this is going to be honest... LOL

It picks up where RevJohn was travelling....

We tend to like to say "we were the first" and we are either lying or ignorant as we say it. We also ignore the ugly side...

If the topic is female ordination, the Salvation Army allowed female ordination since inception. Wesley allowed female preachers.... Quakers... Clarissa Danforth is a name to look up....Olympia Brown is another... Celia Burleigh... Mary Baker Eddy... the Church of God, Mennonites, Assmeblies of God.... all before the UCCan was formed.

We also never tell that although women could already be ordained in the Methodist tradition it took a decade, until 1936 for the UCCan. We forget Fidela Gillette and recall Lydia Gruchy. We do not tend to recall that Lydia was denied in 1926 and re-petitioned every two years until 1936. We do not commonly tell that women had to resign when they were married or other things we prefer not to talk about.

If the topic is homosexuality, Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches existed before 1988. We forget Rev. William Johnson and the United Church of Christ. We forget The Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Netherlands decision of 1972. Can we say "the first Canadian church"?

Just like this Remembrance Day when we remember the liberation of the camps in 1945, we tend to like to forget that the Allies did not free those imprisoned for homosexuality. They had to serve their full sentence under Paragragh 175.

All this co-ordination and church finding it's head talk, makes me think, "Why would it be a bad thing for people to think for themselves, and not necesarily cohese as a like whole? Isn't it each of our goal and responsibility to think for ourselves? RevJohn are you suggesting all UC's should follow their leaders and be a distinct group? Shouldn't they each have their own head?

El - As far as my experience in the UCCan indicates, there is nothing that prevents any member from "thinking for themselves".  One is always free to disagree with a sermon. But there is a difference between thinking for oneself and thinking (exclusively) on one's own.  It is through discussion and contemplation with others and hearing what others have to say that what we think is put to the test. Our opinion may not have changed, but at least we are made aware that others hold a different opinion.  Failure to work out your theology/philosophy in public conditions often results in a philosophy that may work for one person, but not for the community, and we all need that community in order to survive and flourish. 

Re: your statement: "Isn't it each of our goal and responsibility to think for ourselves?" No, that's not my goal. It might be how I get to my goal, but it is a means, not an end.  And thinking for yourself doesn't exclude agreeing with someone else.

Spiritbear, sorry I'm late in picking up this reply. I totaly agree that discussion is good. I wish more evangelicals chatted with more UCCan's and atheists. Things would get more sorted out. But I hope it will happen slowly.

Oh absolutely right about the means not the end. I was thinking how some pople want to be told what to think, and a minister should encourage them to think for themselves, not to merely blindly follow whatever he sais, in an idol-like fashion. Absolutely as well, about agreeing with others. I often do it myself.

I notice I didn't get a reply from the Rev himself. Perhaps RevJohn doesn't like what I have to say.

Hi Elanorgold,

My apologies for not seeing the question and taking so long to respond.

By no means.  I am suggesting that the UCCAN be more intentional about who its head is and how that head leads.

The Churches of Christ have only ever had one head.  It is how the rest of us relate or are connected that is of real consequence.  The institutional Church will always have difficulty when it comes to subverting the head, that doesn't change because we employ a more concillior or democratic process.  I've been part of enough groups to know that few, whether they be the minority or majority position, do not believe that the Holy Spirit supports their position.

Simple observation should be enough to raise the question, "If two are divided which is responding to the Holy Spirit?"  As if both cannot be wrong and one must be right.  And when our faith narrative places so little emphasis on winning political point and discussion yet our faith history is so full of it one should wonder which spirit is at the helm.

We don't.

If we did we wouldn't have the time to pat ourselves on the back.

And to clarify, our spiritual head has never told us with any great detail "how" things must be done.  It has told us clearly "what" must be done.  We as a denomination have the freedom to spend time exploring the "how" instead we put more focus on the "what" and as SG shares quite clearly we rarely do that honestly.

In the context of body when I have one cell that decides to do its own thing I have a cancer.  With luck that rogue cell dies before it can multiply and allow the cancer to spread.  If I am unlucky I have the beginning of a tumour.  Whether that tumour is malignant or benign is also a matter of chance.  Either way it is going to interfere with how the body operates.  Having millions of cells doing their own thing is not going to result in anything productive.  Having millions of cells doing what they were called/designed to to makes a huge difference.  It means that the life of the body continues and as is the goal of all living things reproduction will happen.

Grace and peace to you.

john

LGM,

Like your quote and comment. Some portions of the UCC value theselves as free thinkers and as the emotional side go too far  ... thus M. Attwood's comment on the emotionally, or intellectually distrubed.

Often Christians are blinded to the difference between emotion and intellect ... a' Phtha out there concession ... that can Cos ends ... privey to a new beginning ... New world Philosophy apart from those that believe ins tarting the same old crap all over again...

Makes people like me wobble and weeble in spatial aspects ... it is really a staggering vision and some call it simple dimension ... monotheistic?

Oh its much moor that that ...

Then some cannot abide with a greater sole that the Wii particle they received ... resting uncultivated in an antisocialistic relam ... we call it civilization! Is this some kinda Joker?

A willingness to have frequent, friendly conversations would be useful for all involved, I think.  I recall having a conversation with someone who attends what is called locally - the Bible Thumpers church.  To me her Bible thumping sounded positive and growth promoting.  During the conversation she expressed her difficulties in conversing with UCCan members.  It seemed to her that they had already decided that she had nothing to say that might be useful to them and that they dismissed her before listening.  She also pointed out that no UCCan member had ever attempted to start a conversation with her.

Kay, I think this could be true. We are standoffish and maybe feel we are a cut above.

Also to the same  comment about elite. In all the United Churches that I have been in in all my life, I find not many ethnic, aboriginal or very poor. Or Are these just the United Churches I have been in in Alberta, Manitoba a nd Saskatchewan

Perhaps it is because we cannot believe that someone else can save our souls ... except that wee bit inside of the fabrication we call humanity. Tis the gravid point of the soul that wee mote in the eye of the believer in something bigger ...

This has been belittled by many religions ... there is no nothing and no infinite perception ... mankind controls the whole thing?

Crazyheart - I didn't get the impression that the person was saying that the UCCan folks were standoffish.  It was more that they already knew she was a Bible Thumper and didn't have anything to say that was worth listening to.

The United Church in my town doesn't have people who differ from the crowd either.  No aboriginals, Asians, or low income people.

We have two out of the three groups you mention in my congregation (suburban Toronto), Kaythecurler.

My church has low income people among the congregation, worshipping with us on Sundays, attending our groups, and also outreach (food vouchers, legal aid, fellowship evening, AA, gamblers anonymous, overeaters anonymous, etc.)    We are not in an area where where there are many aboriginals (because of the history of this province most Christian aboriginals in this area are RC), or many Asians.  My previous church had a number of Koreans - enough that they established English/Korean classes).  My present church is pair with Cuba and in the past we have had Cuban theological students working for a term in our church.  Until recently we had an African and a Chinese minister in our Presbytery.  

Yes, we are. And we love throwing it in people's faces. But too often we are so, so wrong as has been pointed out upthread.

Well, the UCCan is quintessentially Canadian, and the majority of Canadians are middle class, so the UCCan would have to be a religion of, by, and for the Canadian middle class.

In Jesus' time, the majority was lower class, and Jesus preached to the majority. In Canada today, the lower class is only about 10% of the population, and their spiritual hunger is perhaps not as great as that of the underprivileged masses Jesus talked to.

Social justice, though, is still a burning issue, even in Canada. But, in a democracy like Canada, social justice is enacted by the majority, the middle class. I think the United Church of Canada is well situated to teach and preach social justice to the middle class, and foster its practice, and does so effectively, perhaps more so than some other denominations, who overtly cater to the underclass but politically support the exploitative capitalism that necessitates and perpetuates an underclass.

Yet there is scholarly suggestion that Jesus himself was a trained artisan, and by defintion, middle class...

We live in a culture of kitsch, where people believe that they need no real help to flourish as human beings, perhaps only more DIY resources. They can buy the Good, the True, and the Beautiful at IKEA and the Body Shop on the privacy of their own Blackberry. This is the kind of culture where, for what it is worth, it is fairly easy to become the kind of "elite" you are speaking of.  Most religious institutions seem to operate in the very same way, even if the commodities that grant elite status are attitudinal or ideological.

But I think a genuine moral elite, a really advanced group of human beings, would be the ones who know that they are impoverished at a far deeper level than any store or religious institution can remedy,  that for their predicament there really is no solution which can be bought.  For sure, such genuinely advanced human beings exist in the U.C.C. but I think that (as with most denominations) they are likely in the minority.

I also think that it is the most beau monde institutions, the ones which fashionable society highly approves of, that are in the most danger of becoming elitist. Perhaps 'back in the day' the UCC was in that position, but I don't think it's something that needs to be worried about these days... unless of course there's a striving to regain that lost fame.

Yes, I think Jesus was middle class, not because he was a trained artisan but because he was fluent in Aramaic and Hebraic, in the Judaic scriptures, and perhaps in Latin or Greek as well. Trained artisans of his time weren't that well educated. He must have been a scholar of sorts.

I don't think "Jesus the Carpenter" was an artisan. I think he was as much, or as little, of a carpenter as the Masons of today are stone masons. Members of secret societies always refered to themselves as builders: builders of a better world. He could well have been a member of a secret, mystical, esoteric, anti-Roman society who called themselves "Carpenters" or "Builders," and who may have posessed some skills in that craft in order not to arouse the suspicion of the Roman authorities. 

I think, for exactly the reason that has been pointed out above in regards to our lack of centralized, top-down leadership, painting the entire UCC with one brush is unfair. Do I believe there are people within our churches - on both ends of the spectrum - not especially open to new ideas or reinterpretations (or old ideas which might still have some value, despite being a bit musty, for that matter)? Absolutely. But I also think there are some who are open-minded and want to learn everything the universe has to offer them, good or bad, new or old, or anything in between.

In a story that risks outing myself as a snob AND patting myself on the back for not being one, I use my own attitude towards fundamentalism, and a relative of mine, as an example. I have to admit to having my own image of fundamentalism, and my assumptions of what those with that label (or 'evangelical' label, as RevJohn pointed out) might believe - obviously, as a progressive Christian myself, I knew there were different kinds of Christianities, and as such found faith itself useful - but for those wrapped up in dogma, as I saw it, I had little patience.

But then we had a family crisis and this relative's refuge was faith. I don't know enough about her church to know if 'fundamentalist' is the right title to apply; but I do know it's far, far more traditionalist in terms of a masculine deity, a belief in sin, a belief in Jesus dying for our salvation, than I've become used to in first a mainline, and now a progressive, United Church congregation. Yet it brings her so much comfort, sustenance, and joy to believe in an anthropomorphic, prayer-granting God who will always love us, a Jesus who redeems and saves us ... I still sometimes have the instinct to argue with her when we talk about religion, but ultimately I check myself, because who am I to deprive her of the comfort it brings her? Or to even say in that context it's wrong? What other purpose is religion to serve, if not to show us how to live and guide us through the tough times in life ... which it has certainly done for her.

Does the fact that I disagree with her and still find her views a bit childlike and a sign of an immature faith, make me a snob? Yeah, probably internally. But I can also say with great confidence I do not show that outwardly to her at all, am more than happy to talk to her about our shared faith - her views of it and mine - and there is certainly no condescension or animosity when we do so. Her faith is not mine - but it works for her, and while yes it confirms my thoughts sometimes that she's not always the deepest person, she is still a person who deserves to be treated with respect, and who deserves her beliefs to be treated in the exact same way.

That flies in the face of current archeological scholarship.

And that is simply unsupported.

Is it odd to observe things that are right under other's Nos.?

It is a calculated stop, sort of pause ...

In my life it was considered normal that ...

• men knew nothing whatsoever (I being a potental man as mael, felt odd, well ground).
• This theology also demanded that women have nothing to do with organization of the church.
• By logic this demands that the church be a place with non-sense ... or not a clue' dimension of life.

Where does such a lack of logic leave us?

Now on the matter of middle class; you know what the extremes (polity) think of mediums ... people that read into ends (escatology)? Sort of mire Ai eh? Now if one wonders out there (Odysseus, hajii, voyage) would we learn something while separated from heaven? God help us out here please ... even if you are the powers of the imagination we need something out of what is degrading to the point of nowhere to be seen ... soon I expect some de ranged father of de-civilized social order (secret) will just blow us away! That's obviously oblivion; ID'll be the death of me give rise to a new way of picturing things ... altered image ... Cos Moes?

Consider a person that reads something into the entrails of chickens (frightened peoples) would a fearful bunch be opposed to learning under Romantic Roués that is mire ruse? It is sort of like reverse or invert psychology ... once they get enough of it in the face they'll want out ... why thinking, intelligence and other such logic is just out of here! An imaginary dimension like ethos of soul ... that's just the pits to a person obsessed with an improper version of emotions ...

I Believe RevJohn  hit one out of the park. When he wrote on this thread.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Churches of Christ have only ever had one head.  It is how the rest of us relate or are connected that is of real consequence.  The institutional Church will always have difficulty when it comes to subverting the head, that doesn't change because we employ a more concillior or democratic process.  I've been part of enough groups to know that few, whether they be the minority or majority position, do not believe that the Holy Spirit supports their position.

Simple observation should be enough to raise the question, "If two are divided which is responding to the Holy Spirit?"  As if both cannot be wrong and one must be right.  And when our faith narrative places so little emphasis on winning political point and discussion yet our faith history is so full of it one should wonder which spirit is at the helm.

We don't                                                                                                                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------May I say , a thought maybe the the church has forgotten what UNITED means.---This may Help.-----1-peter:2-9----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-airclean33

Hi DKS:

Although most scholars would agree that the historical Jesus existed, I don't think there are any archeological findings that confirm his existence. Most of what we think about Jesus is speculation (including my own speculations :-)

Speculative?

Is that like an enlightened imaginary field of psyche ... the other side of the empiric?

If you divide the circe down the middle as medium your get theta ... an old symbol for word ... the basis of soul Mon ...

Well goodness, has this thread ever taken off! Before I get confused and forget what I was thinking, I'd like to reply to John.

Thank you for that reply. I supose I should have expected your response, what else could you think in your position. I supose you're right, if the cells did their own thing the church could become ill, and I can understand you're not wanting that. I am of a different persuation. I don't want to be part of any body that dictates what I can and can't do or think. I would pack up my little cellular knapsack and head for other shores. Funny comparison though, the freethinker to the virus. I don't think of myself as a virus or a cancerous cell, and perhaps I am not, so long as I am not within a church. I think of myself more as a pollenator, taking pollen from one flower to another, and keeping things healthly mixed up. I find it a bit oppressive to think that I should be acting a certain way for the health of the body, that is if I considdered myself a part of the body. I do not think there is any great dictator who says how I should be. And I find the Holy Spirit notion odd. I do not see a right and wrong in this regard, as you explain about factions splitting off due to dissagreement. I wonder who is the head of the United church? The catholic church has a Pope, what does the United Church have? A bishop?

Also, if I am not part of the body, and therefore not a cancerous cell, would it be possible that the Holy Spirit only applies to those in the church and not outside the church? That doesn't seem likely for you to think that either, so you must see me as a virus of sorts. That is a shame, for I am anything but.

I don't know why you want the UC to reproduce? What should it matter if the next generation think as you do, or do not? Does it make it true if it carries on?  Does it loose validity if it does not?

As having played a minor part in higher church functions ... it often comes out as parody ... the same thing over and over ... time to get out of the hole eH ... consider the profoundity of the story as piece of a larger mind. Then would authority listen?

Isn't that demos unusual devilish perspective of forced uniformity ... like primal algae ... creatures of light persuasion to be something other than on integral self ... to amuse a higher dimensional being  ... invert space ... abstract esthete ... something missing ... de hole ... where de sole resides ... below the horizon of mortal ... din't wish to know ...

Odd thing in space this manna of firm earth ... clay plateaux? Rquires a most unusual sterre ... Goggle Star Chamber ... a way out tho'T ... heavenly or just shamayim? Other waters ...

Hi Elanorgold,

I'm not sure what you intend to communicate with this comment.  I know how I am reading it.  Rather than reacting to what I might simply be imagining I would prefer that you clarify your meaning and intent so our communication stands a better chance of being profitable.

I am confident that I did not make any such comparison.  I think it is fair to be held accountable for what I have posted.  I do not think it is fair to be held responsible for what you imagine I have posted.

The question in the OP has been about the United Church as elite.  I have stayed in that context and firmly answered with "no."  I have also challenged the notion of the true head of the United Church coming down firmly on the notion that Jesus is the head of the Church and not the Institutional trappings of the United Church.

The highest institutional authority recognized by the United Church is the Executive Secretary of General Council.  We do not consider this person to be infallible and indeed rulings given by this office are subject to challenge.  It doesn't happen that often.  As a part of the Christian Church the United Church of Canada recognizes that Jesus is our head and all of our institutional effort is our attempt to follow in Christ' footsteps.  We do so haltingly.  On some days we do well on others days we do not.  We, because we are human, often tell ourselves that our meagre efforts are stunning successes and as SG points out.  We, like many humans, are adept at lying to ourselves.

Once more you are putting words into my mouth and attributing to me a perspective which is the creation of your imagination.  It is unfair at best and dishonest at worst.

Because all living things reproduce.

Whether the next generation thinks as I do or doesn't is not my concern.  The trajectory between what they think and what I think is. 

Grace and peace to you.

John

A bureaucracy.

Elite? Conceit?

Are the members of the UCCan the elite? Actually, I find this question rather amusing. In my evangelical church the people in the UCCan are certainly not regarded as any kind of elite. I mean, really, when the UCCan comes up at all, usually it's when we laugh about it as being the liberal institution that it is. We seem to question a lot whether UCCan members even are real Christians. So I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I can understand that you might see yourselves as being a cut above, but believe me, certainly not everyone sees you in that way.

I found Jae.

MorningCalm - sometimes when we observe Baptists we might also be tempted to laugh at them and question if they are really Christian in their attitudes and actions, but then we remind ourselves that we are all on this journey together and we pray for them.  

Some denominations see Christianity as a set of necessary statements to be believed: this is religious conformity, creedalism  and fundamentalism. It is prescriptive and holds that faith can be learned, in the same way as you can learn geometry. The denominations tend to oppose change. Charity, for example, is about giving to the needy.

Some denominations see Christianity as the growth of personal faith, holding a view that faith is a journey and a healthy faith is always questioning belief: secular and religious beliefs, side by side. So faith is understood as necessarily being about change, about acting out of principles like love. Here, charity is about justice as well as giving.

If you go a church, you are likely to find people who lean more to one approach thhan the other.... it's often a fracture line for congregations.

At-one-ment with God is the highest possible conceit, and those who are thus conceited could well be regarded as an elite.

But if God is regarded as the totality of being, then oneness with God means being the totality, acting on behalf of the totality, and subordinating one's individual self to the totality, in service of the totality. This is the lowest possible humility.

So, being part of that godly elite results in the highest possible conceit but requires the deepest possible humility.

As Jesus said, the last ones will be first, the lowest will be the highest, and servants will be masters.

Is the UCCan there?

I don't think an institution can be there. But individuals can. And if they constitute a large enough number within any institution, and are determined enough, then they can take the institution along with them in their godly flight.

Amen Seeler, well said. I couldn't agree more. All true Christians are the daughters and sons of God no matter what denomination, if any, they are in.

Congratulations. I owe you one french vanilla supreme.

John:

In "what else you could think in your position" I meant: that I believe you have to have the view that all non believers are wrong. It seems it would be difficult to be a minister if you did not think that.

I will not persue this further, as I find it rather upsetting. Suffice it to say, I feel disliked, and that doesn't feel very nice, so I have been trying to figure out why, and to defend myself.

What, is it Rrroll Up The Rrreligious Fundamentalist time again?

Ha! Good one. The only thing that would have made that joke better would be... you know... if I actually was a fundamentalist.

Hi Elanorgold,

Actually, I am not obligated to think that non-believers are wrong.  I may not agree with their perspective.  That is not, from where I sit a matter of who is right or who is wrong.  My primary concern is what the individual does with what they believe and how does that belief impact upon who they are.  It is most certainly not given to me to sit in judgement of non-believers.

I do, by virtue of the office I have been given by The United Church of Canada, have the right to shepherd individuals I am in a pastoral relationship with.  That entails guidance and correction where warranted it is not permission for me to determine what can or cannot be thought, said or believed.

I will challenge other believers on points of doctrine and interpretation which is how Christian community operates.  Sometimes the challenge will be gentle other times it will be more earnest.

I am happy to engage other believers from other traditions or non-believers in discussion about what they or I believe.  If disagreement happens in those discussions I hope that all parties have the maturity to accept that dissenting opinions/beliefs/thoughts exist.

Fair enough.  What you feel is what you feel.  I have expressed no dislike for anyone on this thread nor have I attacked anything but the self-esteem issues of The United Church of Canada.

Grace and peace to you.

John

When one looks at statistics of  who run the big businesses in Canada, and which members of which religious groups dominant Parliment, than the United Church, along with the Anglican, and the Roman Catholic Church are the elite. Which is one of the reasons it is difficult for the churches to speak the truth to power, because when our leaders do they are out numbered by the elite.

This is true of the big cities, where the rich and powerful live, (The 1%) It also explaimns why churches in regions and small town are generally more progressive than those in the city.  Because the 1% in Canada, live in the big cities, when they are not in the USA, or in tropical resorts.

Interesting. Just where can I find these statistics of which you speak?

I do not have them at hand, however I have seen this expressed in numerous studies and reports. A recent report before the last election also added that Sihks, along with the three churches were over representated relative to their population size to be represented in Parliment . Howevr because Sikhs represent only 1% of the population there numbers are still small in Parliment.

Historically United and Anglican church members were more likely to vote and be elected as Conservatives, while Roman Catholics were more likely to vote and be elected as Liberals.  The ongoing reallignment of the past 15 years is changing  this.  More and more evengelicals and others are present in bigger numbers in the new Conservative party.  

The last study I saw attributed alot of the dominance in business and politics of the big three churches (Catholic, Anglican and United) to their historical ethnic make up.People of  Scottish, English, Irish and French ancestory dominate big business and politics in this country,   They also dominate the three Christian churches.   As well immigrants from other ethnic groups are much less likely to be elected or to run or own big busineses. 

Shiks supposely are more successful at breaking into politics, because they have origins in India, where they have the same per centage of the population as they do in canada and have learned how to levrage there popluation in order to win elections, and they are much more likely to vote than other groups do.   In other words they understand how to play poltics with those group[s that are present in larger numbers.

I have not seen any studies of the present parliment, which is likely to be different from past ones as the new Conservative party has a majority, and the NDP is the official opposition for the first time.

Just go to Bay st, or Rue St Jacques and look at who are running businesses. Most groups are representated, but some are totally excluded. Look at the churches the rich get married in. This can be done by just looking at the announcements in The Globe, the Post, and La Presse. Not many of the 1% have their children married in Mosques or Pentacostal churches.