I would say there were significant differences NF, both historically, structurally and currently.  I'm going to start, and then I will let everyone tell me how wrong  I am.

The United Church of Canada has a history of joining of multiple denominations all with differing structures, etc, but all Christian.

Unitarians do not have the same formation from Christian background...and so...there is beliefs are more individual. . I will let the Unitarians explain that..however, as I understand, to the exclusion of Christian in some congregations. If I remember either US or Canada started by individuals who were atheists, ie it was a secular group where science was the top, but desired congegational gathering/work.

United Church comes from a strong history of political influence.  Now, it isn't necessarily there now..yet...check out the press GC got.  It can do so.

United Church should have critical mass and be able to do things...sadly, we don't have it together. Call me the optimist.

There is a united church in most cities....unitarians just aren't there.

************

For me, Unitarian just didn't cut it.  It could have been the congregation/gathering.  It could have been that i needed more something.  I know some folks from our united church have left to go to the unitarian.  I recognize they mentally checked out of our church quite a few years ago...probably 10..and needed a community.

I wonder, Ninja, do you mean one congregation to another?  or the organization?

Pinga- so you're saying, that politically, the UU isn't focused on such things, and 'faithfully', the UCC sticks to Christian story and tradition, and the size of the church makes a big difference.

I'd say that many UCC's don't get very political, and some might even be said to pay lipservice to such things.  The UCC centers on Christian tradition, but many of them also respond to wisdom from other faiths without disrespect, (though it may not be front & center).  The UU is small, but may be built around some people who are more passionate about intentional gathering, than a UCC where it is habit & community for many people.

One thing I think the larger denominational structure offers is some integrity & honesty about focus & direction, so the UCC is more 'loyal' (I was almost going to say 'faithful')  to the Christian message at its core.  My point is not that UUs have no integrity, but that they may not have as predictable a message.  But that goes to what Pinga said about being more 'individual'.

I'd like to hear some UU responses to this - I can't rely on my own experience - it is vicariously lived only through some website reading and a friend who led gatherings and spoke there a few times. 

Birthstone...

I think those points are the historical elements...that I was referring to..ie..where the overall church is grounded in.  (where individual congregations focus on..who knows).  The remit that is going to be coming to congregations changes our grounding from the Articles to the Bible, and then adds all the other statements of faith as subordinate documents.  In essence...the Bible is our core document.

Kind of jibes with what I"ve observed.  There seems to be a heavy element of intellectualism  in some Unitarian churches.  A larger proportion of attendees seem to be professors and professionals.   Do they have congregations largely in university towns and urban centres?   It seems a bit cool toward even liberal Christians.

What I admire is the attention given to other ways of celebrating passages and holidays.  I've been to one UU funeral and a wedding.  Both were very creative and wonderful, personal experiences.  Those involved had complete control of every aspect.

I was under the impression the the UU began primarily as an inclusive, but Christian organization.  Didn't know about the atheist roots. 

NF, that startup may be the difference between US & Canada.

I think there are many differences....

I am going to focus on the urban united churches.  That alone is a significant difference.  I doubt there are many rural unitarian congregations.

For example: united church invests a significant amount of money into the education of their ordained ministry...and most urban churches have at least one minister.

United church congregations generally have a music director and often a formal choir.

United church congregations will carry some of the patterns of their initial denomination...and so..you have the methodist, congregationalist, united brethren, presbyterian flavours

Again, the biggest is that the United Church of canada is a Christian congregation with grounding in the bible...though you will see various versions of that.  United Churchs will often respect and value the other paths; however, the focus will be Christian.

That is generally the flip of Unitarian

Actually Unitarianism has been part of christian history - a debate over the trinity and historical it emerged along side other reform movements.   There are Unitarians and Unitarian Unversalists which suggest different but connected history.   There are Unitarian Baptists which tells us the issue historical was the place of the trinity.

Shifting to modern times there are Unitarian congregations that have been a place for exevanglicals and those christians who are not trinitarian.   Some times there was a reaction against the christian trajectory and the congregations moved more to humanism.  Some the themes have been strongly interfaith and creating a trajectory out of different religious ideas - Some Unitarian theologians have taught in Christian theological schools ( I had one such teacher but he was a process theologican who rejected the trinity but was a theist).  Some UCC ministers have become Unitarian ministers because of their problems with the trinity or the 'conservatism' of the UCC.

Some congregation in the Unitarian trajectory see themselves as part of the christian tradition and others don't.

They affirmed same sex marriage often befor the UCC and have as strong social justice.  A friend of mine who is a christian is the principle of a Unitiarian theological school.   She is even a trinitarin of the process school.

Some then are strong on theism and others are not.  

As a church it was never started by atheists even though you will find them in a congregation- historically theism is central and as well the rejection of the trinity and  affirmed universal salvation ( hence the name) before most other churches.

I stand corrected Pan, thanks

I will go back through to determine where that came from.  I thought it was Mendella or someone else who outlined the two different forms and hwo they originated Unitarian / Universalist

Just in the interests of clarity.  My information (from teh Conference Executive Secretary and one of the "Friends at Council") is that it has yet to be announced whether this remit will come to congregations (actually to Pastoral Charges) or just to Presbyteries --this apparently is the call of the General Secretary.  And while GC sets teh intent of the remit, the exact wording will not yet be finalized (I believe that happens at a meeting of General Council Executive, likely at their OCtober gathering).

Certainly it should come to Pastoral Charges with some hints/resources about how to enter the discussion before voting.  But "should" and "will" aren't always the same in the church.

Thanks Gord.

So far I my posts from this morning were pretty weak...

No worries Pinga, Remits are rather arcane things after all -- and not nearly as straightforward as they shoulc/could be.  Honestly I thought that GC decided whether it went to the PAstoral Charges (or at least that there were clear guidelines on how that decision is made) and up until 3 years ago I thought the question wording was set by GC.

United church is christian.

As a general rule, UU's don't identify as christian. Unitarians believe each person makes their own spirituality, and they each have different spiritual paths and gather together to learn from each other and stuff.

I call myself a small-u unitarian. I am a theist (a position which I have found to be not especially welcome in our local UU congregation) within the Judeo-Christian tradition, and accept Jesus's teachings and relationship with God without accepting him as The Christ (note caps). More like A Christ. 

It is no small irony that I feel reasonably comfortable attending services in a United Church congregation (without agreeing with some of the theology or christology) but not very comfortable attending a UU service here. With due respect to our UU friends, a UU service feels altogether too intellectual to me--I don't want to leave my heart at the door. That said, sometimes I feel i have to leave other parts of myself at the door at a UCCAN service!  :)

like your intellect? sorry, I just think sometimes our ministers have been hogtied..and we have paid the price with individuals such as yourself having to walk to other places.

there is a diverse faith perspective which resides within the united church of canada....  It is through honesty that we figure out how to live together, and also..when we arent' being fed, what other options exist.

i truly feel for those who live in cities without the options.

Hi badger:

When I joined the United Church two years ago, I was assured by our minister that I could take everything as metaphorically as I want.

I'm a great fan of experiential spirituality, and I regard all explanations of spiritual experience as speculative and/or metaphorical. Once we delve deeply into spiritual, mystical or religious experience, then we experience the unity that underlies all diversity and are overcome with unitive love. The unitive love that we feel compells us to act in the spirt of that love, without commandments or doctrinal explanations.

Hi Everyone

Here are a few sermons from the closest UU church to me.

I like Emerson.

http://firstunitariantoronto.org/Sermons/sermons08.htm

Actually, Pinga, the intellect usually tags along in a UCCAN service. That's odd enough, when I've already expressed discomfort at the level of such at the UU services. What I am trying to say is that at least UCCAN acknowledges the spirit and God in some way in its services, something I have not seen in UU services. I value that acknowledgement. Most of the UU services i've attended are lectures, without a whiff of spirituality in topic or delivery. Interesting, but not what I need.

The difficulty with the UCCAN is its culture--not its theology (which is very diverse). Culturally, a UCCAN service is not very nourishing; it's very conservative (same liturgical form from about 80 years ago; strong resistence to non-traditional music and instrumentation) and "intellectual" in the sense of too much reliance on The Word, which has become The Sermon. Our minds are engaged, our hearts much less so.

I attend the UCCAN because of its freedom to ask, to search, to believe, to experience God in ways that make sense to us.

I ought to add that I don't just bitch about the culture (though i do bitch)--I write liturgical dramas, play alternative instruments and styles at worship, and try to play around with the liturgical form whenever I do pulpit supply. My wife's congregation is very open to this, but I am well aware that this is still rather unusual in the UCCAN as a whole. At the end of September, a poet and I are going to do a dialogue sermon based on the writings of Rabbi Nilton Bonder and Q'abbalistic insights into wealth and spirituality. With a flute accompaniment.

Arminius, I hope I've addressed the things you mentioned.

wow, that sounds wonderful, badgerpacker.

I concur...we are stuck in word...somehow, we lost such things as liturgical dance, which i know we had in the 80's... not sure why.

I believe that to be a sweeping generalization that does not necessarily reflect the experience in all UCCAN congregations.  I don't disagree that your description exists (and possibly in many congregations) but certainly not across the board.  My particular congregation (while certainly unorthodox) celebrates with a wide variety of music, medium and sources of wisdom.  I have participated in many services each year that deviate from a more "recogiznable" liturgical form.  Hopefully more congregations will try new ways to gather together...cms

Oh yes, badger, you have!

I too think that both the UCC and the UU may have gone overboard with intellectualization. When religion becomes mere ideology, severed from its life-giving and live-sustaining mystical roots, then it runs into danger of antrophying and dying.

Many liberal and progressive intellectual Christians lump both biblical literalism and mystcism together into "superstitious absurdities" that belong to a dark and distant non-intellectual past, and are best left behind, forgetting that mystical experience originally gave birth to religion and provided it with re-generative and self-renewing impulses all along. Religion without mysticism runs into danger of becoming a secular ideology, i.e. secular humanism.

For most people, though, religion is the fervent belief in a particular belief system. But without the underlying, life-giving and life sustaining religious experience, doctrinal religion becomes sterile and dies.

To me, mystical experience is nothing mysterious. It merely is what we experience when we turn away from the distractions of our everyday lives and the constant chatter of our thoughts and experience reality as it really is, not as we think it is.

To my mystical mind, experiencing reality as it really is is experiencing God.

We must, however, be careful about our interpretations of mystical experiences. When we take the interpretations as literal and absolute truth, then we are in trouble. To me, the explanations and interpretations of mystical experience are metaphorical and/or specualtive. They express the ineffable reality which I call God. However, only the experience itself is is absoluteley true; the interpretations are our creations.

This is why, rather than believing in the experiences and  interpretations of others, we should seek our own mystical experiences and create our own interpretations.  

Great question.... 

There is certainly some UU-like basic assumptions in many UCC congregations, or maybe they're New Age assumptions, or Post-Modern assumptions, or pluralist assumptions. I'm not sure what to call them, but in many congregations that I've been a part of, being a member doesn't necessarily involve a commitment to the Christian tradition as one's spiritual path, as it would for example if you were to become a Lutheran or a Roman Catholic or an Anglican. In the UCC, membership doesn't necessarily mean that one has found their spiritual path. It can also mean that one is still seeking a path and wants church membership to be part of their seeking process.  But the path may be different for different individuals or for the same individuals at different times in their journey. Individualism seems to be a big part of it. In my experience, this is also a common assumption in UCC seminary education.

I belonged to a UU congregation at one point in my life. My sense of their philosophy was that it had been very consciously developed, and all of the members seemed to be quite on board with it, as though they had seriously thought it through. The above assumptions in the UCC, however, seem to me for the most part to be more absorbed by osmosis.  Many people will tell you they believe such things, but many don't seem to have thought those beliefs through as seriously as the UUs have. 

 Doesn't Mendella have something posted on this somewhere?

Hi Rishi, 

Mendalla started a thread called "Unitarian Universalism and Progressive Christianity" earlier this year.  Cjms was kind enough to do a search for it, and she has reactivated it for us.  

It is a fairly long thread, but it contains several very informative posts by Mendalla, and some interesting discussion.

Interesting - all of the faith statements in the UCCan are predicated upon a relationship with the Divine through Jesus of Nazareth (in some way, shape or form). From the 20 Articles through to the Song of Faith that holds true.

There is definitely a wideness of theology and christology in the UCCan - but the point at which we move to having no christology is the point at which we would need to recognize we are no longer a Christian church. Please note: I'm not saying that is bad or wrong or out-to-lunch, just that I believe that part of the definition of a Christian church needs to include Christ.

I think that there are a few congregations in the UCCan who might need to stand up an say, "Ok, this is what we believe! We are no longer where we were. Jesus - as Christ - is no longer a focus in our congregation's life - and we believe that that is ok!"

I also believe that the UCCan needs to decide if it is a body of Christian congregations, or a body of theistic congregations, or a body of spiritual congregations... or something else entirely.

Christ's peace - r

Hmmm.....   I think honesty is the best policy here.  Of course it's hard to be honest about things that we feel compelled to either believe or risk punishment (eternal or otherwise.)  

Maybe the ever-increasing softness of our ethos is in part an attempt to gently nudge ourselves into the place where we just can come out and say that we'd really like to jettison those beliefs, but are afraid that doing so might be wrong / dangerous.

Stand up, stand up for Jesus honesty. . . ?

If I had to choose between being part of a community of honest atheists and nervously alleged theists / Christians, I would choose the former.  Most congregations are probably somewhere between those extremes, though.

Boo!

I'm lurking, but not posting these days.

I'll just hearken back to the original question in my response. Remember that I attend both a UU congregation and fairly liberal UCC congregation (although I'm trying to get away from the latter, since I've very much decided UU'ism is where I belong).

UU'ism long ago moved from being a liberal Christian movement (well, two liberal Christian movements, actually) to a broader focus in which all spiritual traditions, including non-theistic and atheistic ones are fair game for spiritual exploration. This is really what attracted and still attracts me: the primary call is to explore faith from many angles and perspectives with the goal of building a personal spirituality. In any given week we can call upon one or many spiritual sources from various scriptures to literature to philosophy and even science. My next service (September 20 for those in the London area) is going to be on Creation Stories and while I haven't picked which ones I'm going to use, it will likely range from Chinese mythology to Hesiod to the Big Bang, possibly with a reading of Genesis 1, although I'm debating that one (not because it doesn't fit or I don't like it, but it's just too well known and I'd like to use some that people may not be as familiar with). Contrary to what Arminius says, we are not all cold intellectuals, although that stream exists. My congregation has a mix of humanists (both secular and religious), pagans, eastern mystics, and a few of no particular path.

My sense of the UCC is that it is very open and diverse in its theology, but is still very much rooted in the Christian tradition. My UCC, while professing its liberalism, still uses a lot of Trinitarian language in its services, follows a fairly rigid liturgy, draws exclusively on the Bible for its texts, etc. Few, if any, of my services could be offered in it without some modification, since I use the Bible as one source and often don't reference it at all. That said, from what I've seen here and elsewhere, I know that there are other UCCs that are starting to look very UU in some ways and certainly individual members, like Arminius, who have a very UU outlook on things. Where the UCC goes in the long haul is very much up to the UCC, but it is definitely closer to UU'ism now than it was 20 years ago, which was when I stopped being active in my family's congregation.

So, I guess the upshot is that I still find UU'ism more open and diverse in it's spirituality (see the list of the sources on the CUC website, www.cuc.ca) but the UCC is certainly liberal enough that I can go there without wincing (too much).

Mendalla

I would really struggle if we stepped away from the basis being Christ.

Again, it comes down to that my personal beliefs is that they are all paths to the same place....(well, within reason...you will always find something different)

the path that I know, and desire to learn more about my faith, and how to live it, is that which defines itself as Christian...in a very wide wide way. 

so, richardbott...yes, for me, there would be a bottom line, and it is why UU is not for me. 

It is also why I know of at least one friend who came back to UCC due to the wideness of the UU not allowing them to go as deep as they wanted into any story.

It doesn't mean that UU isn't valid or wondeful.  It fact, I would say it is essential for ecumenical dialogues. 

Please  picture a spreadsheet...with multiple columns representing faith groups and/or denominations and rows representing say aspects of the faith group: Theology, organization, membership, region, and within Theology: God(s), Earth presence, scriptural / books.....

For me, the UCC does a deep dive in a column way within their space.  There will be some overlap with other columns.  UU runs across the columns.  Given the # of columns and rows...no one can know it all.  We are limited by our ability to both comprehend, as well as our apportionment of time: study/prayer/action

I prefer to do the deepdive in the UCC, others prefer , as Mendella presented above quite excellently, to do the across the columns comparisons.

I feel both have merit.

I don't really see the UU and UCC as having that much in common, perhaps because I don't know that much about UCC. Well, I guess I do. I would probably have defined myself as a liberal Christian from 1993-2003 if I had known the definition at the time. I belonged to the youth group and Canadian Girls in Training group at the local United Church growing up (even though I was brought to a Catholic church until I was 8). During the mentioned decade, I probably would have been comfortable at a UCC, if I had known that metaphorical interpretations were welcomed.

However, since 2003, I have really moved away from Christianity entirely. I know want to believe in Christianity in a metaphorical way, or in anyway. I accept that if Jesus existed, some of his teachings about compassion and tolerance are extremely useful and beneficial to humanity and so he should be considered an important teacher, among hundreds and thousands of other important teachers out there. I'm not sure if God exists, sometimes I border on being quasi-atheism. So even if the UCC was tolerant towards people being of other pathways and traditions, I would still want to go to the UU, were they make more of an effort to approach and welcome people from non-Christian paths. I wouldn't want to feel like the only atheist in the room.

There are a ton of professionals in UU! But I don't think they're cold intellectuals. At least at my congregation, they appear to be the intellectuals who need some spirituality over and above what they get from their careers in science. I like that. I find it very William James like.

Great example, because it clarifies that the UU way is not just a mindless hodgepodge of different wisdom traditions, but a very well considered approach to developing a spiritual path.  And this is quite different than the openness of the UCC,  which, as I experience it, is based more on a  sentiment of Canadian culture than a philosophy or a theology.

Another example of the UU spirit, if I can call it that, is Jacob Needleman, although he's not UU as far as I know. Here is a recording of a talk by him on his book, "Why Can't We Be Good?" :

http://fora.tv/2007/04/24/Why_Can_t_We_Be_Good

Hi Rishi, 

The UU's have clearly articulated the principles and the sources of Unitarianism.  I agree with your comment about a well-considered approach.

Hi RichardBott,

Yes, I agree with you completely. 

I agree too, but how on earth do you do that? 

Dialogue?

Who's on first? No, Hoo is on second; Wut's on first. Who died and made you boss? No, Hee made Yu boss, and Hee is on third.... but Hoo didn't die; Sheez died, the husband of Hee. Hoo is still on second....   etc, etc, ad nauseum

Maybe the new Moderator can help sort this can of worms out. If anyone can teach this elephant to dance, I think Mardi could. Enough mixed metaphors, I think my point is finally as clear as mud. 

You're still in my prayers, Mardi.

I would ask the question of those above.

Is that the #1 thing you feel as a church we should be doing?

Is it to look inwards at our own definitons of who is in and who is out and try to make rules about it?

or...should we say....guys...we agree..here is our essential agreement stuff.. no, we are not UU..currenlty our docs say there is a bottom line..but honestly..

.let's work in the world

let's work for justice

let's work together to fill this space with faith based activities

Pinga, 

Yes, I would agree that working in the world, and working for justice are the fruits of Christian faith.  There would not be much point to a faith that was not "lived out" in the world. 

However, I don't necessarily see that attempting to define who we are has to translate into determining "who is in and who is out".  After all, secular humanism has the same goals for leading a life of compassion to others, etc.

RichardBott wrote upthread:

I think that there are a few congregations in the UCCan who might need to stand up an say, "Ok, this is what we believe! We are no longer where we were. Jesus - as Christ - is no longer a focus in our congregation's life - and we believe that that is ok!"

How do we feel about this?  This might be the question we need to answer as a denomination.  I agree with Rishi, it is certainly not an easy one to answer.  Do we have a bottom line?   I am not sure.

The bottom line (s) are within this:  note the word Christian - it means that in some sense the person of Jesus and the title Christ have some influence on identity - how we understand the latter is based on several theological traditions - for the process person it is the principle of Creative Transformation which is incarnated in history and we see that in the person of Jesus ( and in places but more vividely in Jesus) hence we give that title Christ to that experience which shapes us.    The second is this trajectory points to the sense of God or theistic effect within history.  The third is from the book of James - faith means works, making the common good a reality - and there are many methods of doing that and it is a process - beauty, justice, compassion.

Jacob Needleman, is a Jewish Theologian and teacher.

The UCC has several different theologies flowing in its tradition - it may be true some congregations do not know this but our very being began in theological examination - bits of calvin, wesely, personalism, naturalism, barth, tillich,  whitehead, the chicago school, postliberalism.   Now one of the problems is some of our leadership have not done enough constructive work so cong get a mish mask of ideas from the pulpit

Great comments, everybody!

I felt very excluded at the local UU congregation because I am within the Judeo-Christian tradition. If I were Wiccan, Hindu, or just about anything else, I would have been much more welcommed. It's a local thing, and according to friends of mine who are UUs here, it is evolving into a greater acceptance of the Judeo-Christian tradition, same as any other (which is as it should be).

Please note that I attend the UCCAN because I feel freer there to be a non-Christian ("small-u unitarian", remember?) than I would be to attend our UU congregation as a Judeo-Christian. Count your paradoxes!  :)

My experience (subjective) of the UU service is that it is pretty much an intellectual exercise--this is fine, but it does not answer my needs for a spiritual connection and nurture. The two impressions together have kept me away from further connection with the local congregation.

As to my observations on UCCAN culture, of course there are exceptions; some wonderful ones, too. Unfortunately, what I have described is pretty much the rule, and I defend my impression of an across-the-board conservative culture. It may change, and I am certainly grateful to be in a congregation where non-traditional music and liturgy forms are welcomed.

This is turning into more of a "where should the UCC be headed" thread, so I'm a little reluctant to wade in to that part of the discussion since I've made my call and become a UU.

However the line of Richard's that P3 quoted about about "I think that there are a few congregations in the UCCan who might need to stand up an say, "Ok, this is what we believe! We are no longer where we were. Jesus - as Christ - is no longer a focus in our congregation's life - and we believe that that is ok!" caught my attention.

I'm not sure that you need to change your focus from Jesus as Christ as much as redefine what that focus means. The life and teachings of Jesus Christ embody many values important to all of us, not just traditional Christians. Even many secular humanist UUs still acknowledge Jesus as a great moral teacher, but what takes him beyond that for some of us is the way that his values were embodied in the story (not necessarily to be taken literally) of his life, death, and resurrection. Taking that approach, you can reclaim Christ as a valid focus for your church but do it by living out the values and virtues He symbolizes rather than by insisting on belief in/worship of Him as a sacrificial lamb/Saviour in the traditional sense.

All IMHO and from the perspective of a UU who still uses the New Testament as one of his personal sources.

Mendalla

My UU congregation (and I hope to God it's not mine that you're talking about since you don't have a location on your profile) has pretty much finished this battle now, but it's too bad that it had to be fought at all. The problem, as I've seen it over the last few years, is that many (but not necessarily most) people who came to UU'ism from Judaeism or Christianity came because they saw it as a way to have a church without the Judaeo-Christian tradition that they were rejecting for various reasons. Some of those reasons, BTW, are good ones (clergy abuse, for instance). The struggle then is to get that group to realize that accepting the J-C tradition as a UU source can be done while still rejecting what they dislike about it (rigid dogma, authoritarian clergy, etc.) because those things are not really core to the teachings that are found in the J-C source material (the Torah, the Gospels, etc.). It is ironic that the source we seem to have the most trouble with is the one that we grew out of and whose own intolerance is what drove us to be what we are in the first place. I would also say that if there is a group in your UU church that is trying to change this situation, they need your support and to hear your story, because change isn't going to happen until eyes are opened to the fact that there is intolerance happening in what should be a tolerant environment.

Mendalla

Maybe that acknowledgement -- that the teachings of Christ in light of scholarship like 'The Jesus Project" is foundational to the UCC could be what really sets it apart. 

I think the Christian story is evolving to the point where we can actually hear and act upon the essential message, which has always been radical by nature, and different from the humanist perspective in "motive".

What is stale are old hymns (unless they are acknowledged as sentiment), old liturgies that aren impossible to integrate in a meaningful way.  Seem like sermons are contorted to fit sometimes.   "Church" as bricks and mortar......

Anyway, I"m really enjoying everyone's input.

I think this would be the honest thing to do -- honest in the sense that, in my experience, the UCC's real distinctiveness is in its modern, neo-secular approach to the Christian tradition. Jesus as a role model, not as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world or an emanation of the Cosmic Christ.  So why not celebrate that for what it is, instead of clinging to doctrines of a more transcendental nature that the denomination by and large does not believe anyway?  It's this incongruity, I believe, that makes the UCC unattractive to many. 

Mendella: As far as I know, that is totally within essential agreement, and as such...there is no need for redefinition.  If one looks at the most recent statement of faith, you would see it as well.

Pan: thanks, as always, for your comments.

I do appreciate the folks like yourself who do that exploration. and transmits to me / others that work...so that we can focus on other areas and yet still be fed.

you have no idea how much your words and others on this site lift me..and encourage me to continue.  You give me language or references to wade through those touch points.

i would love to hear you preach some day, along with many others on this site.  I heard revjohn..that was good..and look forward to "preaching road trips" some day.

I think it is difficult for a grassroots-run organization like the UCC to come to a consensus as to where we are, or ought to be, headed as a denomination.

If we wish to remain a religious organization focused on the teachings of Jesus, I think we should focus on Jesus' foremost mission: the "kingdom within," also known as the "kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God."

Jesus' kingdom, to me, is the experience and awareness of the unitive state as the ultimate state of being, and with it unitive conscience and consciousness and, most of all, unitive love. To bring about and enact the kingdom ought to be our primary aim, as individual members and as a denomination. 

Pinga, 

The concept of "essential agreement" is not easily understood or defined, and it is only expected of UCC clergy, not of the general membership. 

There are some interesting threads on the GC40 board about the twenty articles of faith.  Many of our clergy posted about what being in "essential agreement" with these articles means to them.  I particularly enjoyed ClergyChikita's ideas, I remember.

In my experience, Gretta Vosper's congregation at West Hill United Church is an example of this.  Does anyone know if there are others?

Hi Arminius, 

I agree with you, but I don't think we can assume that everyone in the denomination is looking to remain focused on the teachings of Jesus. 

This really goes with my previous post, but I am not sure how to quote two previous contributors in one post.

Great discussion thread!  Thanks for starting it, Ninjafaery.

Hi paradox3: That's why I said "If we wish to remain focused on the teachings of Jesus."

If we want to be a universally spiritual or humanitarian organization, then we might as well pack it in and join the UU.Wouldn't make much difference to me. I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and would remain personally attached to the spirit and teachings of Jesus, which is entirely possible within the UU.

See, that's the thing, isn't it? Once you drop Jesus as your focus, then how do you differentiate yourself from us? We acknowledge the Judaeo-Christian tradition as one source among many that some of us, but not all or even most, might choose to see as the core of their faith. The UCC, in my recent experience, still places that tradition as the primary source of its faith even though it accepts the legitimacy of other traditions. Would most UCC members be comfortable moving from that view to the UU view (or something close to it, at least)? While I am a former UCC member who has embraced the UU approach, I'm sure there are many in the UCC who would not. If you moved to far away from the J-C tradition, I suspect that you'd be looking at a split at some point between those who want to be more "UU-like" or even join with us and those who want to keep the focus on Jesus. And both are legitimate points of view, which means a long debate/discussion is looming.

Mendalla

Hi Arminius, 

Thanks for the clarification.  Yes, it is entirely possible to remain attached to the spirit and teachings of Jesus with the UU tradition. 

There is a network of Christians within UU, and some even say they feel more able to live as followers of Jesus within UU than in mainstream denominations.  About 10 - 20% of UU's identify as Christians. 

There is a similar network of UU Jews, I learned recently.  (Thanks, Modern Girl for that information.)

paradox3...I understand the essential agreement point, and the dialogues.  There is a remit which will be going to either presbytery or congregations, which is helpful in this regard, or I feel it is.  It really shifted the tone of the GC when the revised proposal was presented. 

Pinga, 

Can you explain about the remit?  I know a proposal went to GC re: declaring the articles of faith to be historical.  Is this the proposal which was revised?

yes...and i don't have the exact wordings handy, and am only taking a short coffee break...but basically, it puts the bible as the top document, and puts the articles of faith, the 1940s statement, the new creed, and the newest "song of ____" faith statements as sub-ordinate documents.

The concept being that they show an evolution of language around faith and understanding of the Bible...