I agree with you. I get the sense that you think I disagree. Perhaps my words didn't explain well enough. That is to say, we can live in a modern world but not of it- not exploiting others and the earth for gain.

Then again... The challenge always before me is 'how'? And I get feeling discouraged. How, when living on earth in western culture sometimes requires tools like gas powered cars, or computers- mass produced using precious metals- designed only to last until the warranty runs out- or sometimes people having to choose a paid occupation where they are bothered by the ethics of their employer but bothered greatly by the thought of not being able to feed their families. Daily we find ourselves amongst a myriad of 'catch 22's'- the list goes on and on-where we are oppressors and oppressed, in the big picture. So maybe, when people wanting to follow Jesus go looking for a church home- they find themselves making compromises to the 'ideal' because everyone else is also making compromises. I don't think that's unique to any denomination.

It can be done, we can come out of Babylon- it takes risk, and love and support and common understanding to get each other out, as God calls us to follow Jesus- for real, not just by lip service-and that solidarity is hard to find.

I'm not trying to make excuses- but it's similar to packing up for moving day- an analogy- so much to do, don't know where to start housecleaning/ packing. So you start with the first thing first and go from there- sometimes feeling like you'll never accomplish it but you keep going knowing it has to happen. Having faith in moving even while having doubts- not knowing what lies ahead- and not feeling like you're doing the best job you could sometimes.

I have no desire to have a statement of faith that says the world is flat because "once people believed it was."

I have no desire to hear we accept slavery because "it was present in 33 AD or the 1830's"

I believe in a living, moving, God... not a dead one that I preserve.

For me, I was raised that Moses might not have heard a specific idea which the rabbi living thousands of years later has, but the crux of it has always been there.

So, I do not think Jesus taught us specifically about global warming, cloning, artifical insemination... They did not exist.

The Bible, the teachings of Jesus, (for me) have meaning for all times. Using the commandments Jesus said all the Law hung on we can apply them to whatever arises. 

I think that God gave us the tools to delve into such things using the Bible and Jesus' example as a guide.

I think a denomination should have a statement of faith that says who they are, not who they once were.

I also think a denominational statement of faith should says who they are, and not who they wish they were.

I think the statement itself should be a living, moving thing.

For me, I find the Song of Faith to be beautiful. It encapsulates the diversity and even the double-speak we use or the "essential agreement". However, as a statement of faith it is a "whatever" document. It says too much and too little.

I wrote this years ago as a personal statement of faith. (the pauses in lines can be important, as they were to me, the author)

A Statement of Faith

I believe in the Ultimate
        God - not defined completely in words and concepts.

The Creative, Life Giver, the All

Jesus - A Companion, guide, guest, fellow traveller, friend, teacher

Who taught (as others have taught) that a breath inhaled has been given, it is a gift.

It is inhaled and exhaled by two legs, four legs, those who walk, swim, fly, flowers, plants… throughout all time and space and an exhale goes on.

Spirit - Ruach that connects all life

A combined Presence
      Always
     Here and now
      With me
      Close at hand
      Present in life and work
      Immediate and accessible
      That encircles, encompasses, upholds and supports me.

Creation and the presence of Creator
     A connectedness,

     A shared, reciprocal relationship
     Unity that binds together

I believe that the Holy, the sacred, is before me
not contained by, but in all that ever was or will be.
     Beside me as a friend,               
     Behind me as a history, a trail, a past

a tailwind encouraging me forward, even pushing me,
      Around me

present in everyone and everything.

I believe in Word and words.

Stories, songs, poems…
That invite us in
To look with another’s eyes

          To experience

Myths, metaphors, dreams, visions…
That stretch us
Invite us
Challenge us
More than words on page
Beg more of us than eyes
Require mind, heart, soul

Prayer…
Addressing the Ultimate,

out there,

in there

Speaking also to ourselves,

The Reality encountered when mining in our own depths.

The liberation

unutterable weakness and brokenness

alongside beauty, strength and wholeness

put into words

made  real

Words, stories, witness…
      break through defenses

the Benevolence and Rightness we long for penetrates
          the wandering, the exodus,
          continual conversion
          never-ending transformation

I believe in the Church
communal, common, shared
the Journey, Quest, Odyssey

Outward- to the world
Inward- interior, undertaken by impulse for Love

     The verbal
           the visual and nonverbal
           image and symbol
A home

   grounded and earthed
   in one’s self and the world
A place that affords and encourages pilgrimages

Invites us as friends
Yet, sends us out as strangers and exiles
From all that is familiar and safe

To live and be what we believe.

The earliest ccreed I am aware of is in the Bible.  It reads 'Jesus is Lord'. 

Basic.  Now we just have to figure out what that means:  then and now. 

I also go back to the Covenant.  'I will be your God and you will be my people.'  which I interpret as including all people, and all life.

It seems that even the simplist statement has to be understood and interpreted.

I am not sure what you mean "as the tent gets bigger." I think we all know that UCCan membership has fallen considerably over the years, so In that sense the UCCan tent has been getting smaller, not bigger.

[/quote]

The tent getting bigger is not a comment about numbers.  It is a comment about the breadth of theological opinion within the UCCan

Does it really matter who reacts positively or negatively to the various statements of faith? So far as I understand it, noone in the UCCan needs to agree with any of them. Is that not what people mean in calling the denomination "non-creedal"?

[/quote]

In a sense you are right.  But practically it makes a great deal of difference when we are trying to articulate an answer to the question "what does the UCCan believe?"  ANd there are many people in the UCCan who have yet to figure out that they can have radically different opinions on a topic and still accept each other as part of the same denomination.

Hi Stevie and graeme:

I agree with graeme. Jesus did not propagate doctrines, he was not a doctrinal Christian. He was not a Christian at all, because the name and concept of "Christian" did then not exist. His teachings, of course, were straightforward. I am a follower of his teachings. And if to follow his teachings means being a "Christian," then I am a Christian.

In my opinion, the movement around Jesus was largely mystical. Spiritual experience, and acting from the depth of that experience, was the essential element of faith. When Jesus said: "Your faith has helped you," he did not mean that the unquestioning belief in a particular doctrine has helped us, but our trust in and our feeling of a spiritual dimension. Doctrines were established by later followers of Jesus. And, eventually, unquestioning belief in doctrine replaced spiritual experience as the essential element of faith. Christianity fell from mysticism to dogmatism. This, I think, was a fall, or THE fall, from Grace. Reversing that fall, and re-introducing spiritual experience as the essential element of faith, is sorely needed.

Faith, as an experience, is beyond doctrinal belief. I am an experiential rather than a doctrinal Christian, and this is what I mean by "nominally Christian." I can, of course, not speak for the United Church as a whole. To describe the United Church of Canada as a "nominally Christian" denomination, in the aforementioned sense of the word, is my wishful thinking. Whether it is true or not depends its members.

I do not expect people to think the New Creed is not "properly" a creed.  I expect people to think it is a creed because we called and call it such. We have then taught (even by omission) that it was/is. 

IMO I do not suppose that the word creed means "a statement that everyone must sign on to". I am aware that far older creeds, that are "properly" creeds were not universally accepted.  They were decided on by the powers that be or majorities, etc. 

IMO The New Creed is a statement of belief. It is, again, IMO, a pretty formal statement of belief, being used widely by congregations as well as the denomination, printed in our hymnal and such amidst other "creeds". We also require a statement of belief (basically a creed, "properly" a creed or not) in adult baptisms, etc. 

So, DKS, what would be your explanation to someone who asks you, what is a creed? What is a "proper" creed? And why is The New Creed called a creed and not "properly" a creed? 

Arminius,

You are reading things I did not say. Example: I did not say Jesus propagated doctrines and I did not say Jesus was a Christian, etc... (In fact, I said he was a Jew)

However, now that you have stated that Jesus did not propagate doctrine, let me ask this-
Did Jesus breed, transmit, multiply... a particular principle, position, belief? 

My personal answer is yes.

Then again, I do not avoid or have negative baggage regarding the word doctrine. 

Our mileage may differ. 

When I joined the United Church seven years ago, I asked our minister whether I could take our profession of faith metaphorically. "You can take it as metaphorically as you like," she said, and I did, and do.

So the Old Creed, the New Creed, the Nicene or Apostolic Creed or the Song of Faith, I profess them all, and they all are deeply albeit metaphorically true to me. Although I'd prefer to express my spiritual experience in different metapors, I deeply and profoundly feel the meanings of all spiritual metaphors, and agree with the meanings—and I feel the world around me nod in silent agreement

Hi Stevie:

My personal answer is also: "Yes!"

And yes, our mileage differs. I do have negative baggage with regards to doctrine, probably because Christian doctrine was shoved down my throat as a young man, and ideological and political indoctrination was a particularly sore point in my German culture. This made us post-war anti-Nazi Germans outspokenly "anti-doctrinal." But I also realize that all teachings are doctrine, and there is something like "soft doctrine" that is not absolute or dogmatic but simply a set of teachings. Even what I say could be regarded as soft doctrine.

Thank you, Arminius, for answering with an explanation. Our explanations are often far more important than our answers. (The same with our questions.)

For me, I was taught that "God exists" was about it for Jewish creeds until the Middle Ages and then every Tom, Dick and Harry had a list. Rabbis had their followers... Choose. 

So, I grew up with political and religious freedom, being able to believe what I chose to believe. I was able to embrace or reject what I chose. There was little forced on me, meaning little to rail against. 

I was free to move in Judaism to a different branch of Judaism when homosexuality was a sticking point.

Contemplating becoming a Christian, I chose to first study the faith, as I had done with Judaism. 

I learned that there have always been diverse theologies, various doctrines (falling in and out of favour even) within Christianity. Yes, there were times because of that diversity or to stop it, that it was forced upon peoples. So, I do understand how it leaves a bad taste in some folks mouth. 

Confusion is a result of following a gospel of salvation as compared to Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom.

Fair enough. But wouldn't it be more accurate to call that a smaller tent with a wider range of opinions?

As a perennial topic of discussion on WonderCafe that question has some interest. As a challenge posed by some Christians from outside the UCCan, that question has some interest. Interesting though these may be, neither of these seem to warrant formal attention on the part of the denomination. 

The UCCan is a denomination of the Christian Church, in the mainstream Protestant tradition, and acknowledges the scriptures as its primary source of doctrine. (Have I understood this correctly?) 

Is there any reason to say more than this? How the denomination and its congregations live out this Christian faith will say much more to our country and our world about our faith than any written document.

Amen.

The second sentance probably explains the first. We each and all fall short of perfect explanation. This is normal and problematic only where it is denied. That is, it is very difficult to speak with another who images that the destination in view has been reached. Do we not hear this from some perspectives in the circle of our conversation? It is not always explicit, being often implied in the denigration of differing perspectives.

I find much to admire and appreciate in your language above, as elsewhere. You seem obviously engaged in the struggle for clarity and purpose. Like most of us, you are more aware of your shortcoming than your achievement. This is the tension of creative process, which is our human nature liberated from the norms and standards of the dominant discourse. We have learned competitiveness for a diversity of reasons. Some of these leading to life and others to death. At our core we are cooperative.

I am here for the days of Lent, having given up my silence for the struggle of being here, in this odd space where we meet and greet.

This place has offered me opportunity to wrestle with the expression of thought, ever seeking improvement . This has meant opening  myself to criticism by pressing the boundaries of convention. Sometimes my Grace carried too much Salt to be helpful. The balance has been much improved by my habitual resort to healing silence.

I am present here as a sower of seed. It is seed produced by a process beyond the threshold of my capacity. It is sown freely and without reservation, trusting in the way of such seed and the assorted receptions it finds as it falls to the ground.

We are thinking about the United Church and what it believes. How on earth could I frame a reply? The United Church of Canada is an abstraction. It has no being excepting in the persons and associations gathered to that abstraction.

What has been noted by graeme, seconded  by GeoFee and Arminius, is crucial. It is not what we talk about, in the liturgy as in the commons, but what we do. It is what we each pursue, by the dedicated disposition of heart, inclination of mind and determination of will, that brings forward realization of the ancient promise in and through us.

With apologies for resort to ramble. I have intended only to say that I cannot know who agrees or disagrees with me. It has become a matter of little consequence on my side. I am tasked with pressing language to its limit in the hope of disclosing a referent not available to perception or representation.

The God who holds me breathes into and through creation, leaving traces as song, story and prayer. I delight in the manifold traces of God breathing in and through creation. I am not at all concerned for the veneration of any such trace. It is the breathing God who fascinates and leads me forward.

I am not against the doctrines of the Church. I do, for instance, believe in the Holy Trinity. This comes as a surprise to many who know me as ultra-progressive.

The Holy Trinity, however, is a metaphor to me. It is symbolic of any pair of diametric opposites, plus the transcendental power that unites and separates the two.

My Trinity is a spiritual as well as a scientific principle. In science, it is known as the Principle of Complementarity. This principle asserts that the fundamental opposites, particle and wave, together with the transcendental power that makes one into the other and unites and separates the two, constitute one inseparable whole. The transcendental power has recently been discovered in the Higgs boson.

As a spiritual principle, the Holy Trinity is any pair of diametric opposites, the creator-created pair in particular, together with the transcendental power that makes one into the other and unites and separates the two, and the three together constitute one inseparable whole.

To me, all scientific principles are also spiritual, and vice versa. To me, nature herself is the most profound word of God—in other words, the most profound gospel—and natural science interprets this gospel most truthfully.

But science does not give us a moral code. Or does it?

I think it does, but implicitly, or experientially. 

More and more scientists agree that the reality which we analyze actually constitutes one inseparable whole. Energy can't be pluralized; there is only one energy! Although, with the power of the transcendental power, this one energy can and does change its states and diversify itself into a limitless number of forms, it is still one energy, capable of transcendence. Energy and the power of transcendence are intertwined into one inseparable whole. This whole is our ultimate and eternal self, our ultimate I, and experiencing ourselves as our ultimate I unleashes in us hitherto hidden feelings of universal unity and love. Acting from the depth of this feeling is moral action, and I am convinced that the moral teachings of most religions are based on this feeling.

To me, science is deeply spiritual, scientific findings are also spiritual findings, and the UCC, if it wishes to remain or become relevant, must acknowledge science as a spiritual discipline and scientific findings as spiritual. My list of what the United Church believes in, or should believe in, includes scientific insight.

The lamps are different,

But the light is the same:

One energy, one matter, one light, on light mind,

Endlessly emanating all things.

Yesterday, a great teacher went from door to door,

With a lamp.

He who cannot be found

Is the one I'm looking for.

-Rumi

Exactly. As it is written in John 5:

Hi chansen,

I'm going to ask you as a courtesy to not falsify scripture.  Disagree with it and argue against it all you want - no problem.  But deliberately falsifying scripture is crossing the line and I respectfully ask that you refrain from that.  Thanks.

For the record, 1John 5:7-8 reads as follows...

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

It crosses the line for me, too, Lookin Up.

If it were actually presented as scripture, I might find it mildly offensive.  Obviously Chansen is pulling your leg.  I doubt very much if he expects anyone to believe it.

It reminds me of this situation:

Our women's group would ask for us to answer roll call for a scripture verse containing a specific word.  It might be love (near Feb 14), mother (in May), growth (spring), or forgiveness, bird (any bird), joy, peace, family,  ministry, shepherd, whatever.  The idea was for each to try to remember or search out a verse.  One woman had a concordance.  She would look up a dozen references andd pass them out to her friends before the meeting.  I always found that bordering on cheating, especially for those who simply accepted her verses.

I never did.  I tried to recall a verse myself.  If I couldn't, or if one of the concordence people got to my verse first (Seeler is near the endd of the roll call), I would just makee up a verse.   ie.   Flower - Somebody has already considered the lilies of the field.  So I piously sprout,  "Look to the flowers, meditate on their beauty and find joy."  I was seldom challanged.  When people did catch on to what I was doing, I reversed it.  I would recite the most obscure verse I could find, and then delight in locating it for whoever challanged me.

In my mind, false quoting was not as bad as accepting a verse someone else had looked up in a concordance.   A joke, rather than a crime.

*bangs head on desk*

Ryan Seacrest is not a character in the bible. He is incredibly good looking and possibly worth going gay over, but anybody who hears Mr. Seacrest's name as part of a quote from scripture and doesn't realize it's a joke, clearly has a rod or a staff discomforting them.

Humour can be funny to one person and offend another.

My wife and I saw the comic Nikki Payne.  In one of Nikki's jokes, she said Jesus came back and asked, "Who the hell is this guy Paul" I laughed. Some would not.

Some folks find the Landover Baptist Church site funny. (It is satirical and a parody.) Some won't.

Some find Monty Python's Life of Brian or The Meaning of Life funny and others are offended.

I personally do not take offense at a parody of Bible verses. It is a parody, not falsification IMO.

Um... one could point out that there are now four judges on American Idol.

Rich blessings.

Exactly! That's a valid criticism of the joke. Unless you discount Nikki Minaj.

Ooh... I could never discount Nicki Minaj. I'm obsessed with her 

Rich blessings.

I'm not. Apparently, I can't even spell her name right. I'm forced to watch American Idol because my wife likes it, and it's either spend quality time with her, or do something productive around the house, which I'm really trying to avoid.

I'm with you chansen on the whole "really trying to avoid" thing. It explains why all too often I get sucked into watching Biggest Loser.

Rich blessings.

I can go one better than that. I watch the Maple Leafs. Of my own free will.

As to chansen's Scripture parody - it really doesn't offend me. Although I looked up John 5 just to make sure Ryan Seacrest wasn't in it. Just to be on the safe side.

Did you check the HAWTT? (Humble American White Trash Translation)

Actually, I don't expect you to believe the non-parody version, but that hardly stops you guys.

The crazy thing is, maybe someone thinks my edits are divinely inspired, and they start worshipping Ryan Seacrest. Oh, no. American Idol would suddenly have a cult following.

Who the hell is this guy Paul? ROTFL

I'm just amazed that Chansen read John 5.  It's a miracle!

Is this the guy?

Rich blessings.

Hi chansen,

I'm confused.  I understand time with your wife to be quality time.

Time with anyone watching American Idol appears to be a quality defeater.

Sounds more like sucking up to me.

Admittedly that might have quality pay-off.

I'd like to run it through the Dragon's Den to be certain.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I watch Dragons' Den.  And while I'm cuddled with my afghan watching it Seelerman spends quality time with his model trains.

Good point, SG.  It was indeed a parody.

*bangs own head on desk now*

I knew you were joking chansen. I just didn't care for the joke very much.

Some folks might not think Ryan Seacrest is in the Bible, but they may think hell is in the future of those who parody the Bible, bible characters, religion (with exceptions for religions they don't like)....

Some people's faith tells them that God wrote the Bible and God would be pissed. They can also believe that when God is pissed, sometimes everybody gets it.

Personally, I think God has a sense of humour. We are in God's image. Yet,caricaturize God and think that is ok. See,  we make God in our image and insist God must be an old cranky fart.  

For me, God did the preposterous. God also created the platypus, who decides that and doesn't have a sense of humour?

If God doesn't have a sense of humour, well, I believe God can handle it.

I mean Sarah laughed.

Hey, anything I can do to book my place in hell is fine by me. I can't recall how many times I've blasphemed the Holy Spirit, so my ticket is punched. Flaunting these idiotic rules and ideas is fun, so that's what I do.

But why would anybody else care, to the point of telling me not to do it? It's not them I'm condemning to hell. Sure, I could put in a word when I meet Satan, but the people who are most convinced they'll be spending eternity in heaven are not typically the people I would find fun to hang out with in over a coffee, never mind for eternity.

I can bring on the wrath of God? Cool. Can I order it like pizza?

I obviously don't believe in God, but the universe is certainly absurd. And, because we're living the only life we know we get, it's pretty important to have fun with it. I just find religion to be an endless source of amusement.

Jesus said that what goes into your mouth is just crapped out the other end, however what comes out of your mouth is what defiles you...something like that.... Maybe an attempt at humour?
Pretty scatological.

And in other news,
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9230GI20130304?irpc=932

"People like to read small, happy messages while sitting on the toilet."

(some days I swear I'm channelling a nine year old boy...)

Edit

Is that a shot at Catholics?

Not intentionally. Being an altar kid is too dangerous!

Glad to hear we are keeping you entertained, Chansen.

I was thinking about you when I read a letter to the editor in the Star this week (not even joking about this.)

The letter writer, who identified as an atheist, defined atheism as a conviction that no supernatural power exists. "Friend Chansen would beg to differ," I thought to myself. "He has told us that atheism is not a belief system of any kind, but rather a lack of belief in God based on lack of evidence."

Hmmm ... thanks for keeping things interesting here on wondercafe. You have pretty much taken over from Atheisto, who I haven't seen around here in quite a while.

I cannot believe I am commenting about "I can bring on the wrath of God? Cool. Can I order it like pizza?"

For clarity, my comments are about it. I am not actually talking to the author. The author is not about to care what I have to say here. Yet, it may need to be heard by others.

Discussions, conflicts, disagreements... (and yes, even jokes) can be raised to eternal proportions. Some may not see that. They may fail to understand. There are those who believe salvation is at stake. It might be ours, theirs, their family's, the church's, the denomination's.... So, it is very serious to that person.

One might see it as no big deal, but it is a major deal to another. One might see it simply as a discussion about theology, but it isn't to another.

The topic could be homosexuality or it might be joking about scripture.

Awareness of what the stakes are for those involved in a discussion matters because it contributes to the discussion, debate, conflict... 

Feeling surprised and occasionally amused by how this thread has developed.  I should know better.  I wish more lay members of the United Church knew the Bible as well as chansen does.  I enjoyed the post about making up scripture passages. 

This reminds me that so many people confuse legends and traditions with scripture thinking culturally acquired faith stories are actually in the Bible.  Would it be out of place for me to copy my blog into this thread?

Oh, I'm aware that scripture is deadly serious for some. To me, it's just an ancient con job. It's that divide between approaches that makes religion so much fun to screw with. If nobody takes it seriously, I'm out of a hobby.

Jim, speaking for myself sometimes I mix metaphors and realities when discussing something- and culture can blur the lines. I grew up in a household that used all kinds of expressions, some biblical- to describe a situation even though I didn't know much about thw bible stories some of the expressions came from. Sometimes we do it unknowingly, sometimes purposely allude to symbols to illustrate a point. I should know the bible better but really only started trying to learn it in any deptha couple of years ago.

I believe Jesus, when telling parables, also sometimes mixed old testament stories with cultural and political realities.

The discussions above have been interesting, and some did relate to my opening question.  I really would like to advance the discussion on mapping out the territory of what we believe in the UC of Canada, and how to present that in an honest and  easonably brief way as part of our public face.

Here is my original blog with the correction about being a credal church.

CBC Radio included a commentary on advertising campaigns and approaches used by different churches, and included a comment that, as much as most young people support the positions of the United Church of Canada on issues such as homosexuality and the environment, most also perceived the United Church as having no clear beliefs. This provoked me to reflecting on what I thought could go in a belief statement by the United Church.

The United Church is a non-creedal church, meaning it does not require members to declare they believe a specific creed. However, we have an evolving creed we call A New Creed, even though it is close to 20 years old now in its current form, and several different faith statements created over our life time.

We are not alone,
we live in God’s world.

We believe in God:
who has created and is creating,
who has come in Jesus,
the Word made flesh,
to reconcile and make new,
who works in us and others
by the Spirit.

We trust in God.

We are called to be the Church:
to celebrate God’s presence,
to live with respect in Creation,
to love and serve others,
to seek justice and resist evil,
to proclaim Jesus, crucified and risen,
our judge and our hope.

In life, in death, in life beyond death,
God is with us.
We are not alone.

Thanks be to God.

This creed is pretty close to the center of where most members of the United Church would stand. To clarify a little more, I offer my perceptions of where most United Church people fit.

We tend to put ethics ahead of arbitrary moral rules — doing what is right and wrong ahead of inherited or imposed rules about behaviour. This is challenging as it is easy to adopt particular moral codes such as women are to be subservient to men or our Canadian code that women and men are to be considered and treated as equals. Moral codes are designed to preserve the status quo of a society while ethics are designed to seek out what is right. The United Church, by choosing to go the ethical route, chooses the harder route of understanding the consequences of actions, and choosing the actions which do the most good or cause the least harm. Many situations are complex, and it can be very difficult to gain certainty about what is the most ethical route to go, and some controversial decisions by the United Church reflect this challenge.

We tend to believe our members have the ability to choose shades of belief that are most helpful to them in living good lives, and that God will love them no matter what shade they choose. We do not believe in an arbitrary God who turns faith decisions into a lottery, punishing those who make the mistake of picking the wrong doctrine, and rewarding those who make the right choice. We tend to believe in a God who has been revealed to humanity through the created world throughout our existence as well as through spiritual experiences and the accumulated experiences of people over thousands of years represented by the Bible.

We tend to believe that Jesus came to save the world, as stated in the Gospel of John, and not just selected individuals. This is why we tend to be strong social activists and environmentalists. If this is God’s world, we choose to treat it with respect as best as we can.

Now I invite you to add your own comments on what you believe or what you see as representative of belief in the United Church of Canada.