It certainly is an interesting time to be alive. People are changing so fast there's not enough time to build boxes to put them into. A gay relationship-oriented evangelical with a concern for the poor and an openness to learn from pagans for the sake of the ecosphere.  I think maybe we're getting outside of the box that invented the cliche "outside of the box."

Is not relationship the hidden message in Brown's Angels and Demons ... the whor of black and white where authorities do not want the Pagan to think about it? What is black and white without a wee grey matter thrown in for observation and placeing a crack in the shadowed mind like an eV'angel as tick, bugging the storm on the brain ... spirit of mind as soul we stand upon and abuse? It is a Roman Pane of the cosmos that we probably should use to learn from as the glaring discrepancies nearly blind the near dead to situations abounding. What a reciprocated meta phor (small measure of pyre'n processing)? One has to look into it to see!

And I know I'm not the only one! The problem in Quebec, it's evangelical are very conservative without progressive mouvement (like elsewhere in Canada or USA where they are progressive evangelical call "emergent church"). Also, french community of UCC are very liberal (more than the rest of Canada). 

Patrick_qc

I know that my UCC (English) talks the Emerging Sprit talk but is having a problem with the walk.  The outside the box that rishi mentions is so far outside the box that the box is in, that most, not all, are almost afraid, for lack of a better word, to go there.  It really is totally uncharted territory with no sign posts.

IT

Russ

I hear you, Russ. I feel the same way. I mean, how long before the Emerging Church strays so far from the mainline that it forgets what it was supposed to be? Inclusivity is fine, but boundaries are still needed. Once doctrine is thrown out window, what's left to give the church its shape? What defines it if it has no faith-statement to speak of?

Patrick, have you found any French UCC people who are both liberal and evangelical at the same time, or just one or the other?

 French UCC people are liberal for the majority. I left UCC when I begin to be more "evangelical".

I remember a discussion about a new creed... and we decide, at this time, to don't use the word "God" and didn't talk about "Jesus" because we wan't to be inclusive (don't exclude christians they don't beleive in God or Jesus). I think it's taking inclusivity too far.

So...you want your chuch to be inclusive toward homosexuals, but not inclusive toward Chritians who believe the bible is metaphor?

You're just twisting the discrimination you felt from the evangelical churches toward you for your orientation, and aiming it at people who are accepting of your orientation, but don't believe in a more literal interpretation of the bible.  That's remarkable.

That's what happens, Patrick, when you worship an idea. God deliver us from an all-inclusive church. We'll need a set of Stepford Wives to run it.

We are designed to be an all inclusive church from the beginning, from the day in Eden of the creation of mankind in Gods image.

Unfortunately we were deceved collectively by the carnal curse that was put upon this earth by the actions of in fact giving partial dominion of this earth to another through our collective actions that prove a nature not of God as it would "seem" holds more sand in this carnal world, as opposed to the sands of the "salt water" sea. 

We, this new adoption extends to all mankind even where we are in our life this inclusive nature was always the goal.

Carnal character designed & established in one who rebels against God.

Does this world as it is, surpize us?

This nature that is extended through influence of "the norm" This carnal nature that is so gloified through most media outlets near us.

It is a smoke screen to much better things,, believe me.

And these better things is through relationship with God the Fathe through our King, our first born of many, this King of all kings, & Lord of all lords.

This High priest of all priests.

The actual author of our faith! For the law told us as much about faith as it did about God's love.

Then this message of hell comes from out of the pit of hell, & right away this drives a wedge into this whole message of relationship.

And we who adhere to the worrd of God because we are not in the attitude of progressive in the same way as some, we are looked upon as bigots.

For proclaiming what one believes is the full gospel of Jesus Christ.

If you look in the dictionary of online it will give a desription if i print in the word fundamentals.

It will say positive things like how progreesive & productive to adhere to a structure of though or standard of law so to speak.

But when one prints fundamentalism it gives a more rather negative form of description.

I find this curious.

Bolt

perhaps because fundamentals is simply a pointer towards where you believe you came from, whereas fundamentalism is often the creation, and subsequent worship, of what you believe the fundamentals are.

I don't approuve discrimination on sexual orientation because isn't God' will. God give is holy spirit to all people they accept Jesus. Church have to accept  saved gay and lesbian as equal members in the body of Christ.

For the discrimination on doctrine, it's another thing. Jesus himself came to exclude people when he said: for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. (John 11:52). When you bring people together, you always put people out or some people will stay out. Jesus wan't to put together all saved christian. The people who believe in Him and His Father. 

Yes, according to how this dictionary description would indecate as something of that nature.

But why would a dictionary come to that conclusion as a description based on the word fundamental?

It seems to indicate it's with the inclusion of the "ism" part that would be the basis on this form of perception of what following the fundamentals are.

Instead of relying on the nature of the word fundamental.

What I'm saying is, doesn't this seem flawed?

On one end it says & promotes this ideal of fudamentals is a good form of though & action.

What if this applied to law, & the law of the land says to keep out of a river during spring runoff as the current can sweep even the best of swimmers away.

This would make sense would it not?

On the legal side one has this warning according to a law of the land to to swim in the river at spring runoff or the risk of something negative can occur if there is no adherence to this principle.

 But once it's applied as it is suggested in the dictionary as an application on ones beliefs in a religious format, it all goes south.

So if one decaires though ones belief in a biblical standpoint that it's what one reaps is what one sows, then this rule of thought & belief holds no merrit & is negative?

When after all, the whole design of this biblical priciple, is that it can work both ways.

The negatives can occure if this is not adhered to, but also the positive notion that blessings & productivity can be a result of adherence to this principle.

When one looks at the rule & find that the rules are pretty well aligned in their nature as a warning.

One where one would be in the risk of drowning on one end, & the other is the same but in a less detailed analysis as to a referance of drowning, but is a much broader statement of faith in all things that what one sows so shall one reap.

Thus providing a positive side to this principle as well.

Yet when one sees how it's described in the context of the dictionary decriptions,

It shows a negative outlook on the concept of fundementalism.

Don't you find this odd?

How it's referance positive on one end of the spectrum, but put "ism" on the end & apply it to faith in God, & what have you got?

It goes south from there.

What do you think about that?

Bolt

I disagree. A person is born gay or straight just like we're born male or female or black or white. Doctrine is a choice. I could accept predestinationalism or reject it. I could accept the deist's "clockmaker" viewpoint instead or take a view somewhere in between the two. I could look at the Bible as literal or as metaphor. All of these are choices. Being gay, or black, or female, or redheaded, or left handed or tall are all chosen for you by GOD. A church choosing it's members by demographic criteria is odious but a congregant choosing a church with the same or similar core beliefs as himself/herself just seems to be the obvious thing to do.

I agree, Jon. If all-inclusive extends to core values it becomes absurd. It would be kind of like deciding to marry the next person that enters your field of vision, no matter what. It is worshipping the idea of inclusivity, taking it as an absolute, which makes it into an absurdity.

This has been the greatest discussion, a consideration of the inclusive versus the exclusive. What would encompass the whole thing infinitely ... a concept of God that the outside (isolated force, m'n) has tried to package? God inna box ... a demon when such force is set free? Would such a hard package be like a foundational stone that metaphysics would swirl around, stumble over ... but avoid? Perhaps why m'n is d' void of thoughts most of the time and goes on blind passion ... a fey-word ... feyth' in ancient phonetics! And we don't even question it regardless of I Thessaloneans 5:21. If one takes the book of chaos (b'bl') literaly and fundamentally ... wouldn't one have to take the whole thing in context? Then according to the closing verse of the Gospel of John, Jean, Jane or otherwise ... is the story much more elaborate and expanded?

Perhaps it is not God in a box but m'n in a box and in the genre of the black hole paradox ... we have things convoluted when we do not respect the nature of the infinite soul! It is the ancient meme non, or negative same space in Dawkinsonian philosophy for the pure existentualist. If it isn't physical IT doen't exist! How do those aspects deal with thoughts, emotions and dreams? That's an imposible manna^s'm ... no?

Oh the spatial shocks that befall us ... is dat' you Zeus ... shoqan! Did you know that shoqan is a Heb expression for remembering or forgetting (read East of Eden---Steinbeck)? We can choose to do what we like ... the foundation stone of denial that anything else but thy's alph' exists. Is that a God like attribute that sets itself apart from creation? Now is that flighty being a soul or the spirit or just a contained bit of chaos to create a wild story with a wee spark inside?

In all of the spatial aspect once we escape the body of will (I am) do we become clear thought like Spock or Data in deep space ... in Einsteinian mode of infinite space ... just a mote in time ... like a bump in the newt/nuite ... or a Ripple in Time--- L'Engle? What a wild enigma to keep the demons occupied while the infinite sleeps ... trying to resolve the problems in arrest've Light! Allegory of T'Homme, Thomas in la tine expression, reflective on the upper tiers ... hot tin rouffe ... attica? Still a dunne geo 'n! One must simply get out moor!

Now omni is like "all," so we say that God is all potent, all seeing (omnisceant)  and omnipresent (everywhere). Did we miss the forth wind ... omnious where with some alteration we have the vast net of the soul .. a collective swirl of confusion ... chaotic old sow would that be like a shadow hanging over our heads as in the persona of Joe BLTZFX? Is that comedy before your time? How about the roadrunner as a storm along the way .. idyll that'll consume even the dog's reflections!

This is it.  If I imagine that I am an autonomous being, contained within my skin, with the power to control my experience, and ideally your experience as well...  then God must be the same as me.  But what if "I" am a process, like a stream.... thoughts float by, then feelings, images, reflections of birds flying in the sky, gay evangelicals, and so on.... But none of them 'belong' to this mythical entity called 'I,' which is so hell-bent on proving that they do (or at least should). And so, 'nobley' attempting to control that process, the process becomes completely dysregulated, and the stream becomes a stagnant swamp. And God, in turn, becomes an evil tyrant, bitching about the stench of the swamp that is rising to high heaven, and threatening to send us to hell if we don't clean up our mess.  As you say:

Or, as the more poetically challenged, technical types say, 'there's no way to separate our anthropology from our theology.'

I for one am glad that Patrick has not thrown the baby out with the bath water. A lot of folks would have (and indeed have) totally turned their back on Jesus because of the garbage coming from some Churches.

Now it may surprise some of you but......I am very conservative theologically. I know..... it comes as quite a shock. But I see no reason why I should not greet Patrick (regardless of his sexual orientation) with open arms as a brother in Christ and look forward to kickin' it with him in Heaven, worshiping God.

To Patrick: Don't let what others may say to you here get you down bro. Keep on keeping on for Christ, brother.

I hope you reproduce, ConsumingFire... the world needs more conservatives with your level of spiritual insight.

 consumingfire: To Patrick: Don't let what others may say to you here get you down bro. Keep on keeping on for Christ, brother.

Patrick: Thanks ! God be with you also.

That be the Dan's of Patrick, a devil of emotion that can also think ... some grand bunch prefer not to go there ... the sahdow of the mind is dark and scares them and they carry not their own private flame ... odd pyre eh? Demigogue Eire? That is a dualism where one can teach and learn concurrantly ... many operate on one frequency as authroitarian types: "I don't need to learn, I know it all been there done that!" Oh such humbling attitudes for us at the foot of Jaqob's latter Eires ... picking up on all the drifting pieces! Is that light humours ... like plasma. The stoics say we are not allowed to laugh in church. Did you ever hear of a strained giggle as legacy escaping the surrounding grasp ova don quies Tiye'n?