revjohn wrote: "We are the United Church of Canada"

EZ Answer: And already you have changed the Basis of Union. I thought the capitalized definite article was the one thing we could agree on as a denomination?

HA!

Down with "T"! :)

All I can say is that I am endlessly thankful that when I was ordained I was asked "are you in ESSENTIAL agreement". I love that word, and the way it isn't defined :D

Thanks Rev. John

I've already been exploring the beliefs of the UC. People should know. I hope everyone will read it.

I read the rules of conduct and I'm really sorry to have to kick you off the forum. You're a good old Joe ! I'm not defrocking you ! Perhaps the forum feels that people will be intimidated writing to ministers ? Naw....I seriously doubt it Rev. John ! They are bold as lions.....

I quote:

'To help create an environment that encourages discussion and the equality of perspectives, users may want to avoid using titles as part of their user name, such as "Dr.," Rev.," "Fr.," etc.'

You can stay Rev. John....cause I said so !

Rev. Matt : You can stay too ! I'm easy.............

EZed:

Hello,

You wrote:

I thought the capitalized definite article was the one thing we could agree on as a denomination?

Well either accept my little variance or be prepared to face an onslaught of remits.

:)

John

We just got some UCC brochures: superbly written, excellent work by the folk who put them together.

Have you seen them?

originally said by revjohn

There are a great many members of the United Church of Canada who wouldn't change a word of this document. There are als a great many members of the United Church of Canada who would like to scrap it. There is an even bigger number of members (bigger than both the other groups combined) who think it needs to be changed a little here or there but can live with it as it is.

Just an observation.. it doesn't sound "united" to me? So if I check out the link you provided, can I believe it? If it keeps changing because of what this person feels or that person feels is right, when will it be a solid statement?

smimik

Hi,

You wrote:

Just an observation.. it doesn't sound "united" to me?

Fair observation. We are united but we are not uniform.

Like a river we have all manner of depths and widths. There are areas where the current flows steadily at a good pace and other areas where it meanders and takes forever to get to where it is going.

What unites the river in the midst of the lack of uniformity is what flows through it, the water itself.

The nature of water is the same no matter how many litres per minute are flowing or how many fathoms till we reach bottom.

The United Church is like a river. We have deep areas and shallow areas. We have wide places and narrow places. We have bits of really fast water and bits of very slow moving water. But it is all water.

If you like to snorkel we have places for you, If you can't swim we have places where you can wade

You asked:

So if I check out the link you provided, can I believe it?

You can believe that the statements of faith I have provided the link for are in fact the doctrinal statements of The United Church of Canada. You can believe the statements completely and if you do we have congregations that would welcome you. You can believe that some of the stuff doesn't apply here and now and if that is what you decide there are congregtions that would also welcome you. If you think the whole thing is a bunch of baloney we might have a hard time finding the right fit for you.

You also asked:

If it keeps changing because of what this person feels or that person feels is right, when will it be a solid statement?

On a personal level that does happen to some degree but as far as the denomination is concerned the statement is relatively unchanged since it was accepted in 1925.

As far as solidity goes it isn't.

To be completely solid we would have to be convinced that we have come to the end of our faith journey and there is no more to be learned.

The United Church of Canada flatly rejects the notion that we know everything there is to know about being the Church or knowing God's will. We do believe that we are still growing and still learning.

Check out John 21: 15-18 and tell me whether Jesus asks a question of Peter three times or asks the same question of Peter three times. Theological positions are cut that fine.

So doctrine can be changed. Everyone who belongs to a Protestant Church believes and accepts that or they never would have left the Roman Catholic Church

Is our doctrine stable? Stable enough to make a good foundation.

John

Hi revjohn!

I'd like to focus on this paragraph you wrote in your preamble: "There are a great many members of the United Church of Canada who wouldn't change a word of this document. There are als a great many members of the United Church of Canada who would like to scrap it. There is an even bigger number of members (bigger than both the other groups combined) who think it needs to be changed a little here or there but can live with it as it is."

The sense I get from this website isn't that the largest group thinks that it "needs to be changed a little here or there but can live with it as it is."

If anyone were to post anything that sounded remotely similar to Article 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 etc around here they would get branded as a fundamentalist and then shunned or ignored.

So how can candidates for the ministry in the United Church of Canada say that they are in essential agreement with this document?

revmatt delights in the fact the the word "essential" isn't defined anywhere so that can give you a nautical mile of wiggle room. But, come on! "In essential agreement" doesn't mean "I agree with a bit of this."

I so dig the 20 articles of faith. Woohoo for the spirit of 1925! I also dig the New Creed that came along later - it says so much good stuff in such a manageable chunk. Haven't really looked at the new "Song of Faith", it strikes me as just being too bloody long.

But back to the Basis of Union. I was a little concerned because someone at a conference interview this year told me that the Basis of Union was passe and not to be taken seriously anymore. Say what!?! Isn't it our founding document? The Conference committee (Hamilton BTW) was much more concerned with what they called the "current ethos of the UCC", a certain way of thinking, which lo and behold was not actually in any tangible document. Does anyone know if there is an actual statement about the "current ethos"? Does that hold any water/weight?

I write for a magazine called Fellowship, which unfortunately gets labelled as the conservative magazine in the UCC, but really it's mandate is to uphold the historic faith of the United Church of Canada. I like that idea. There was an energy, a gusto, a sense of being part of something bigger than any one denomination in 1925, and I think we've lost it along the way. We came into being to not be another denomination, but a denomination of denominations, a home for all, a national church, an ecumenical movement... but somewhere along the line we've settled for being just another denomination like all the rest. I'd love to reclaim some of that energy from 1925, not to harken back to glory days, but because I think that movement speaks so much to our current situation.

I wonder how different things would've been had the Anglican church joined back in the 1970's (I think that's when it was / wasn't). Are there any new thoughts on reaching out to unite with other denominations, or is the UCC in survival mode and just trying to maintain the status quo?

Hi Ahyde!

I'm afraid I must let you know that you yourself are passe and do not quite embody the current ethos of the United Church.

Sorry!

Damn.

Greg_Nazianzus

Hi,

You wrote:

The sense I get from this website isn't that the largest group thinks that it "needs to be changed a little here or there but can live with it as it is."

Fair enough. This website is not an accurate depiction of the whole of the United Church it is a discussion forum not a congregation, I also suspect that of all the members and views there is a relatively small number of active posters and more folk who spend their time lurking waiting to see if it really is safe to come into the water.

Wondercafe has only been open for a pretty short time.

You wrote:

If anyone were to post anything that sounded remotely similar to Article 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 etc around here they would get branded as a fundamentalist and then shunned or ignored.

I disagree with that assessment. I actually wouldn't change anything about any article. The branding aspect I suspect has more to do with how scripture is abused rather than how it is used and the shrill tone of the poster. If any of the 'apparent' fundamentalists actually engaged in dialogue rather than insisting they know us better than we know ourselves and engaging in proof-texting we would not likely be branding them.

I don't know that anyone championing any of the aforementioned articles would be shunned or ignored either unless they were using them to shut down discussion. If I waded into every thread and said "Article 2.1 says this about that and unless you agree with that you are not a Christian I would chase a lot of people away and make others very upset.

If I used any of them to make a point or as an illustration I don't think the conversation would dry up. I mean, here we are talking about them and nobody has called me a 'fundie'

Granted EZed tore a strip off of me for not capitalizing the T in The.

You asked:

So how can candidates for the ministry in the United Church of Canada say that they are in essential agreement with this document?

It does depend on how you choose to interpret 'essential' I have never heard the official or accepted definition but when I was asked the question I didn't have any hesitations. You could change the word 'essential' to complete or utter and I would still consent to agreement.

You wrote:

revmatt delights in the fact the the word "essential" isn't defined anywhere so that can give you a nautical mile of wiggle room. But, come on! "In essential agreement" doesn't mean "I agree with a bit of this."

RevMatt is my colleague so it would be poor form for me to take cheap shots at him. If EZed wants to put it into a hypothetical I'll play along. :)

Truth is I agree with both of you. When the question is asked we do not then go line by line and ask the question over and over until we can check back and see that what remains is greater than what has been cast aside that is where the wiggle room comes in. Examiner's do have the right to push on this issue and I have heard of it happening. At the same time RevMatt is going to have to minister to folk who have a more literal outlook and would brand me a heretic for pushing the "t" agenda. He may not agree with them but he will have to minister to them and he is going to have to respect their right to hold those beliefs.

At the end of the day our training is roughly the same, different schools present the curriculum requirements differently, We are different people and each of us faces the prospect of finding ourselves having to minister to folk who push our buttons. The testamur from our respective seminaries confirms that academically we are ready. The various levels of discernment we pass through confirms that we have been called by God to exercise ministry in The United Church of Canada. The doctrinal statements say this is where you began and we go out from there.

John

AHyde wrote:

"But back to the Basis of Union. I was a little concerned because someone at a conference interview this year told me that the Basis of Union was passe and not to be taken seriously anymore."

I'm not too sure I'd be taking them too seriously either. Our people are pretty quick to haul it out whenever we get into orthodoxy troubles with the rest of the Christian Church. But then this is coming from someone who "signed on the dotted line" wondering if he could white out the word "essential." :-)

I guess for me, it's a question of integrity. Do the words you use, the documents you write, actually match up with the way you act? Seeing as the document is set up as the "Basis" of our "Union" (ie. the ideas/beliefs/words upon which we hang together this whole relationship called the Church) it at least suggests that it should be taken seriously. *understatement*

If it's no longer the thing that hangs us all together (essentially, or otherwise), that's fine, but name it for what it is. Chuck it and come up with something else. That way the church is clear about what it is and we can all decide if we wanna be part of it. Right now, we've got a buffet of statements and loads of wiggle room in interpretting them, and no real clear direction about what the church is or what we're supposed to be doing. And we wonder why the UCC is seen as ineffective and going nowhere!

A government official in Ottawa is bound by the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. Employee relationships are bound by contracts. Marriages are tied together with vows and covenants. I'm a part of the UCC, but I don't exactly know what I've signed on for. If the Basis of Union isn't going be the contract we agree to, have some integrity and come up with something else, so I can (with integrity) say yes or no.

From my viewpoint, the Basis of Union is good. I think there's something to be said for orthodoxy with the rest of the Christian Church - 2000 years of faithful believers can't all be wrong. I think there's also a role for prophetic voices to be pushing the Church (the UCC has been great at this), and I think there's room for that in the 20 Articles as well. I realize being a big tent church that tries its damnest to be inclusive and unified is a tricky project, usually not undertaken in the wider Church, but I hope we don't have to abandon all our integrity to get it done.

One of the continuing education tasks I set for myself a few years ago (ouch - actually 8 years ago!) was to do a "ribott translation" of the Basis of Union - not attempting to change it to what I believe, but attempting to take a look at the various concepts and re-work them into language that I can 'get' more easily.

Please note - this was a completely personal task... for my eyes only (although it did become the basis for conversations with a variety of colleagues). After I was done, I shredded it.

I think it might be something I need to do again.

revjohn, Mind if I just call you John? You see I have difficulty in revering anyone other then God!

John said;

"Check out John 21: 15-18 and tell me whether Jesus asks a question of Peter three times or asks the same question of Peter three times. Theological positions are cut that fine."

Ok lets take a look at what is being said here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?

Notice that Jesus uses Peter's full name. Now I don't know about you, but whenever someone close to me uses my full name and says, I immediately sense that what is about to follow is serious business and so my ears perk up!
Also, the question that Jesus asks Peter is "does he love Him more than the other disciples love Him?," not more than he loves the other disciples. (See Mat. 26:33, 35)

The word Jesus uses for "love" in this 1st question is agapao, meaning a deep abiding moral love.

John 21:15 (con'd) He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

Peter replies, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee", using the word phileo for love, instead of agapao. Phileo is the word from which we get Phila-delphia, the city of "brotherly love".

Jesus then tells Peter to Feed "my lambs", i.e. Christ's lambs, not Peter's.

John 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?

Jesus asks Peter again if he loves Him and again uses agapao.

John 21:16 (Con'd) He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Peter again replies using phileo and Jesus now tells him to Feed His "sheep" this time.

John 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?

This time Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him, only this time He uses the word phileo, and Peter becomes distressed over it!

John 21:17 (Con'd) Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?

Certainly Peter was sensitive about having denied Jesus three times, and he knows full well that the Lord knows what is in his mind and heart!

John 21:17 (Con'd) And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.

Peter replies again using phileo.

John 21:17 (Con'd) Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Jesus has given Peter instructions to Feed three distinct groups:

1. Feed His lambs, the young and tender, be they children or "babes in Christ".
2. Feed His sheep of the House of Israel.
3. Feed His sheep of His Other Fold.

Do you remember from John 10:16 that Jesus has more than one sheep fold? They also must be fed!

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The other sheep are the gentiles to whom salvation is now open since Jesus has paid the price for all! And it will be this Peter who will see the "sheet" come down from heaven (three times since it's Peter) with the unclean animals on it (Acts 11:1-18). It will be at this point that Peter will understand about the other sheep he is to Feed.

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
Teach the young lambs, teach the House of Israel, teach the Gentiles, Peter, the Words of the Living God and of His Christ. And so he will go forth and fulfill his destiny and become the great Apostle Peter. We thank our Father for him.

Finally, Jesus tells Peter not only that he [Peter] will die, but also in what manner. Would you want to know how you are going to die?

John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

Jesus is not telling Peter that he will die of old age here, but that he will be "girded," i.e. bound for execution. Tradition has it from very early on that Peter was crucified, though he requested that he be hung upside down, for he considered himself unworthy to be crucified as his Lord.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you are a teacher of God's Word, I trust this is what you mean.

My wife was raised a UCC member and I remember the many discussions I had with her father, naturally my father-in-law, who left the denomination in the mid 60's due to their varying changes in beliefs. IE at that time his disdain was over the church's teaching on trying to explain away many of the miracles recorded in the Bible.

Praise the Lord that he has not had to live long enough to see the recent changes that have evolved.

For example;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head of church denies Resurrection of Christ!

Interview with Bill Phipps, current moderator of the United church of Canada in October 1997, shows him to be an infidel and enemy of Christ!

1965 premarital sex approved

1988 Practicing gays approved for ordination

1997 Church head denies Christ''s resurrection.

1997 Leaders unanimously approve Phipps after both these articles were published in the newspapers.

2003 church petitions Ottawa to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals.

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

Rojo,

Hi,

You wrote:

Mind if I just call you John?

Go right ahead. That is how I sign all my posts.

You wrote:

You see I have difficulty in revering anyone other then God!

That is very warm and friendly. No jumping to conclusions with that statement at all.

You then turned your attention to the text I lifted up for our attention:

I commend you for catching the key bit of the passage.

That Jesus does not ask Peter the same question three times.

Twice Jesus sets the bar at the Godly standard of Agape, Twice Peter fails to clear. The third time around the bar has been lowered to Philia and on the third attempt Peter clears.

The text is clearly not about giving Peter three chances to confess Jesus and even the score with respect to his three-fold denial. If we want to take score Peter is shut-out 3 - 0 in the first period and takes a drubbing in the second period where he is outscored 2 - 1. And the goal that he does score only happens because Jesus gives him a penalty shot and pulls the goalie. In the third Period (Peter's ministry) he finally is able to put the pieces together and he demonstrates that he has met the standard of Agape as he dies the same death Christ died. Death on a cross.

When I wrote about how finely theology is cut I spoke to the interpretations that have been laid on this particular passage. I do thank you for broadening the conversation into other text but I didn't need it to prove my point.

My point is, that based on a literal interpretation of the passage in question as it appears in English Jesus sets the bar at love and three times Peter clears. This gives the impression that Jesus is giving Peter the opportunity to redeem himself. Which is true, the opportunity is given--Peter just blows it. If Jesus doesn't alter the question from Agape to Philia Peter answers the same way for a third time and it is another shut-out.

Having a knowledge of the difference in the Greek words of both questions that Jesus asks and the answers that Peter gives demonstrates that Peter is incapable of redeeming himself and that he still has a need for Jesus to be Redeemer for him.

You wrote:

Since you are a teacher of God's Word, I trust this is what you mean.

Actually it isn't but I have explained my point and intent above. If you want to debate the point I have made we can continue.

You wrote:

Head of church denies Resurrection of Christ!

Technically he denied a bodily resurrection which still got him into hot-water internally. It got him a rap on the knuckles and he faced a great deal of frustration first-hand from the general populace of the United Church. We don't do stoning.

Technically the Moderator is not the head of The United Church of Canada, that would be Jesus. Our Moderator is a 'figurehead' and temporarily holds some administrative authority. Very few members of The United Church of Canada actually have the ability to speak on behalf of the whole Church. The United Church of Canada has rejected the office of Pope (that is why we are Protestant) and it has also rejected much traditional ecclesial heirarchy (that is why we don't have bishops).

You can continue to make this claim or repeat this claim but it requires you to ignore the truth of how we operate. When you ignore that you don't present the whole truth just half of it.

You wrote:

shows him to be an infidel and enemy of Christ!

Wonderful pronounce a fatwah then.

In the following I just want to say that the words one chooses are important and that there seems to be a great deal of misrepresentation

1965 premarital sex approved

Technically not approved. The United Church of Canada did not say anything goes. We did say we would not condemn folk for engaging in premarital sex some see license we preach grace.

1988 Practicing gays approved for ordination

Technically not approved. What the United Church said was that we would not see sexual orientation as an impediment just like we don't see gender as an impediment. Just because you are gay it does not follow that you will autmatically be ordained by The United Church of Canada. The same tests for fitness and call are applied equally to all members. Again, some see license we preach grace

1997 Church head denies Christ''s resurrection.

I have already addressed this issue.

1997 Leaders unanimously approve Phipps after both these articles were published in the newspapers.

I'm not sure which articles you are referring too. The very Reverend Bill Phipps held the office of Moderator from 1997 to 2000 so our leaders could not approve him for something that happened 9 years before he took office.

Also unanimous approval is a deliberate misrepresentation of actual events. Leaders of The United Church of Canada did support the notion of not removing the Moderator from office they did however remind him that he does not have the authority to speak on behalf of the United Church with respect to doctrine.

Once more some see license we preach grace.

2003 church petitions Ottawa to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals.

Finally, an accurate comment. The United Church of Canada has petitioned Ottawa to change the definition of marriage to include same gendered peoples. Based on the understanding that the role of Government is to govern all with fairness. The Government of Canada recognizes God and seeks to serve all of God's children and treat them with equity and dignity. As such, no Government can rightly exercise leadership and discriminate openly against its people.

This we have seen with changes to legislation, lead by the Church, with respect to the colour of a person's skin.

This we have seen with changes to legislation, lead by the Church, with respect to a person's gender.

And now we challenge existing legislation with respect to a person's orientation.

Some see license we preach grace.

If it is not from God it will not succeed.

Thanks for the discussion Rojo. You love scripture and I respect that a great deal. You are willing to dig past translation to find true meaning of the words employed by scripture and that can be difficult and time consuming labour.

It would be no disrespect to God if you took the time to examine what it is that The United Church of Canada has actually said with their own words rather than trusting the interpretations and headlines of others.

John

Touche' John, I admit that that information posted came from another website that I had visited years ago at Bible.ca and I will also admit that they appear to do a lot of unwarranted bashing of various Religions. The only reason that I used the quotes from that site were in deference to my Father-in-laws feelings some 40 years ago, as mentioned in my last post.

As my profile states, I have abandoned Religion as I feel it is a form of bondage, and declare myself to be a Christian. Consequently my challenge has been to dig out truths as best as possible using the many sources now available to us by use of the Internet. Christ admonishes us to study to show our selves approved and I take that very seriously.

You said "Thanks for the discussion Rojo. You love scripture and I respect that a great deal. You are willing to dig past translation to find true meaning of the words employed by scripture and that can be difficult and time consuming labour."

To which I thank you very much as I do truly love to read and study the Bible. I have attended many church services over the years and if there is one thing that I find common amongst most is the lack of study from God's Word. Almost all services are a discussion or sermons based upon one or two verses from the Bible which would mean that it would take me several hundred years to understand the whole, for which I do not have the longevity of life. A note in this regard is found in the Book of Malachi, where God is claiming that His teachers are robbing Him by not teaching His word as instructed, although they were collecting tithes and offerings in His name. Then unbeknown to the students of God's Word the teachers use this very verse Mal 3:8 to squeeze more out of there parishioners by putting THEM on a guilt trip, passing the buck from themselves.

One of the main tools that I use is E-sword which allows you to download the KJV along with the Strong's Concordance built in for free. Also there are many different version that you can also download for free along with commentaries by different authours, plus much much more. The program allows you to place different bible versions side by side for comparison and gives you both the Greek and Hebrew original translations.

John I respect your commentary and I do understand the position that you must take in this day and age particularly in your field of endeavour. We all have our own beliefs and understanding as to what is right and wrong and I do appreciate the restrictions that are placed on a person such as yourself in trying to keep peace on both sides. It is easy for a person to criticize another especially since they have not walked their walk. As for myself I only try to post when it appears that God's word may provide some assistance to the topic and that is why, as you have seen in other posts of mine, there is so much quotation from the Bible.

Should anyone be interested here is the website address for a free E-sword bible study program; http://www.e-sword.net/

God Bless your endeavours, John.

Agape'

Ross

Ross,

Hi,

I'm convinced that when most of us sit down and take the time to talk, ask questions and listen to given answers there is not a whole lot that separates us one from the other. And what does separate is usually not something that would prevent us from working together on anygiven project.

Thanks for clearing up your references. I understand the context and lived through all of it myself. Not as clergy but even for the layperson things can get pretty tense.

E-Sword is a great tool. Although I'm eventually going to have to spring for some of the translations that I use which are not part of the free downloads. I've been very happy with it.

Thank you again for the questions and the conversation.

John

Hey RevJohn

I think that's one of the things I like MOST about UC. We can all agree that we will disagree - and all's good.

Does the UCC believe all those that the first Christians believe in?

noelpoem

Hi,

You asked:

Does the UCC believe all those that the first Christians believe in?

All those what? I think you've missed a definer here.

John

noelpoem I believe that even in the early church some strayed from the truth as Paul asks "Oh foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth,crucified among you. This only would I learn of you. Received you the spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing of faith? Are you so foolish having begun in the spirit are you now made perfect in the flesh?'

by performing same sex marriages are they justified by the law? " Christ is become no effect unto you whosoever of you is justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace."

Galatians 3-1-3 Galations 5 verse 4