Yes, George, I feel what you say, and I fully agree, although I might use less overtly Christian metaphors to say it. But the metaphors don't matter. The feeling does!

Although Christ, Or God, or the Holy Spirit, or Divinity or Holiness, or whatever we choose to call IT, can and does dwell in people, it cannot not dwell in institutions. Unless, of course, the people belonging to the institution are animated by the Holy Spirit.

Come, Holy Spirit, enter us,

And let us be your dwelling.

Thank you Arminius.

While deeply valuing alternative language, I am hoping that the text from Romans, as found in "The Message", will have something to say to persons still in the United Church. It is after all the received text that is taken as authoritative.

My suspicion is that the great majority of members in the United Church will, even after a lifetime in the denomination, have little or no idea of wha the text means in plain English.

There has been no real experience of the texts at the core of personal identity. They have been much recited in the liturgy and preached in the sermons, but have not reached into the formative imagination.

We have not learned our own stories and therefore we have not known how to tell them in language our families, friends and neighbours could understand. So we slip ever deeper into irrelevance and dispond.

George

Hi GeoFee,

The Watchman replies, "Master God, only you know that."

If the same script is in play someone will be commanded to prophesy over these dry bones and they will become less dry, covered in sinew, muscle and skin.  Dead bodies waiting for the animating breath of God.

So it is a matter of when then since only one can animate.

And less a matter of when since only one can animate, it is a matter of if.

If the one who can animate won't.  Nothing will change.  Save for dry bones getting dryer still.

Grace and peace to you.

John

If they are dry bones perhaps they need some stewing ... to know the formative imagination?

Is that like the myth of mind ... or just blind alegory? These things have to be construed in depth ... the bone shakers motivation ... many in church don't even feel a chimerii sense ... that chill monstrous feeling that we're going the wrong way 'ere ...

I've been told by many ministers and other grand authorities that's there's no such thing as chimera ... the spelling throws them off ... LOGOS is like that if you don't get a grip on the UNSEEN portions ... peace? This requires stepping across that absolute line into Dagon ... gow ah you're kidd'n meis!

Such is the nature of the obtuse state of "i" ... a warped factor ... as a bent weal ... no common weal th'Eire for the privileged ... mental and emotional elite that are in err? There's far moor tuit that's UNSEEN ... but can a wee demon tell the hierarchy? Such connection is mythical ...

Yes, George, the text from Romans, and from Paul's other Letters, means much. Although I am not a great fan of the Christology that was fashioned from Paul's Letters, they contain many precious pearls of wisdom. What's more, most of them were verified by independent scholars to have actually been written by Paul!

But, as you said, if the wisdom of Paul's Letters, or of any other Biblical writings, does not sink in on a depeer, personal and formative level, but is merely repeated in liturgy and song, then we don't benefit much.

Yes, we don't know our faith stories on a deeper, experiential  level, and therefore are unable to communicate them on that level, in the language that others understand, which is not necessarily the language of conventional Christian liturgy and doctrines.

The problem with fundamentalists is that the writings of Paul have sunk in on a deeper, personal and formative level. When people skim Paul's letters and only read the good bits, they're avoiding some awful stuff. I can live with the good lessons being left for children's books and other sources of morality during formative years, if that means people don't internalize the worst of the bigoted crap that Paul came up with.

Hi Arminius...

I have been a reader of Martin Heidegger for many years. He speaks of language as the house of being. From this I have learned that the words I speak are inhabited by the inner being that I am. With you, and many others in all times and places, I am devoted to the rising of that inner being. As it rises,clearing away all the debris accumulated by my false self (Jacob the heel snatcher). Each day that one inner being radiates more clear and bright.

How much of our conflict and strive is rooted in arguement over the meaning of words? The religious institutions of all times and places have made some words sacred, carving them as the ancients carved stone and wooden pillars. What is sacred is the breath by which words are animated and expressed. One breath common to all human being. One being common to all manifestation.

Better a kind person speaking poor words than a cruel person speaking rich words.

George

Quite a bit, if Wondercafe is anything to go by. 

Hi John,

You and my Omma (uncle) Thys would have got on very well.

George

Hi chansen...

Might I not say much the same thing about reading what you post? There is much good and there is some pretty serious not so good. I value the good and will do what I am able to assist you in casting off the not so good. I want the good in you to shine.

A lump of stone cast into a refining fire will be purged of the dross and reveal the precious.

George

I don't pretend to be speaking on behalf of, or be inspired by any god. Where I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong and dismiss those refuted things I write. Where the bible is, say, misogynistic, let's show it, and explain why that part should be dismissed.

There is so little willingness to do that in religious circles. Excuses are made for the bible all the time. What's wrong with being honest and admitting that in some areas, the bible sucks?

Wouldn't it be more dishonest to leave out the "bad parts"?

Hard to say. Teachers ignore parts of textbooks they don't like, and produce learning materials to cover those lessons all the time. Doesn't make it a bad textbook, just weak in some areas.

Similarly, why can't Christians admit that the bible sucks in some areas?

Hi chansen...

You say you are willing to be corrected when found in error. Let's give that a go.

This is a generalization. The evidence will show that the majority of Christians visiting the Cafe have admitted this without reservation. You include this majority with the minority who will not admit it. This serves your bias and impedes the clarity for which the world is hungry and thirsty.

Can we expect you to avoid resort to generalizations as we move forward? It will take practice, but I am sure you are up to the challenge.

George

The bible presents conflicts ... gives reason to exercise the po' psyche ... considering it's state of oppression among mortals ...

Take it out and Eire ID ... yet many authorities not not wish to hear of common flaws and RIFTS ... could affect them if they don't keep them isolated ... shunning is thus good from that perspective ...

It could take a stretch of the imagination though to make it abstract ... send creepers through the paradigm of those absolute ... you know the pious!

My experience is that when the bible appears unethical, such as when unsafe posts, then somebody else here has an explanation. The bible and God, I'm told, are not anti-gay, not misogynistic, not pro-slavery, and not pro-murder when it suits them.

I'm writing in general terms, but that's what I and a lot of other people see - not enough honest admissions that the bible is flawed in some areas, and too many excuses made for how easy it is to extract immoral acts or beliefs from its pages.

You could also argue that it was unethical of God to give us free will.

Sure, but to bring this back to reanimation of the UCCan, how great would it be to see a church say, "Look, we know there are some really bad parts of the bible that have caused a lot of people a lot of pain. We know that the whole book is not perfect, and that it doesn't have all the answers, and that it was not written by God, but written, compiled and edited by people, not all of them noble in purpose. We still consider ourselves Christians because there is still a lot of good here, so come join us as we explore the bible and other sources for ways to enrich our lives."

Well, Paul was human, and a child of his time, and burdened with personal and cultural prejudices. He was a misogynist and anti-semite, and approved of slavery and other things we moderns find gross. Many people who created great works were bastards in some respects. That doesn't take away from the greatness they created.

Richard Wagner, for instance, was an outspoken anti-semite and possibly a bastard in daily life, but he wrote heavenly music. I admire his music, but not his opinions or lifestyle.

Hi GeoFee,

Thank you sir.

Grace and peace to you.

John

But whereas Wagner's legacy was his music which can be easily separated from his opinions, Paul's legacy was predominantly his opinions.

Yes, I agree.

Can we separate wise opinions from unwise opinions?

Our knowledge is fragmentary, and our prophecies are fragmentation.

But when that which is perfect has come, then the fragmentation will end.

1Cor13:9,10 (Luther Version)

I've listened to several sermons at UCCan where that sort of thing is discussed and explained in historical context (I've listened to some great ones). I've never heard a UCC minister glorify the murderous and misogynist parts. In fact, I've several times heard them admit that there are parts of the bible they don't enjoy as much and have difficulty wrestling with, separating the good from the ugly, and have said pretty much exactly what you said- although not written directly by God, inspired by God in that time and place, and not inerrant- and poetry and literature from later times very often brought into the sermons as well. They admit it was a different time and even the prophets had their human failings. You might have the wrong idea about what happens at UCCan on the whole.

archaeologists, anthropologists, philosophers and students of humanities.

if we can move forward, in terms of being human, then we must learn from the past - and we must learn more from failure than from success. 

and learning from failure will require examination from outsiders. 

celebrating success will be within the realm of insiders.

the old story: us and them: how history is recorded and taught, how it is understood and dissected and understood as neutrally and respectfully and thoughtfully analysed is left to future generations.

Yes, they "struggle" with it.

To most observers, Christians start with the assumption that God is good. Whenever they come across examples where God is not such a nice guy, there is a tendency to "struggle" with those parts, not actually admit that they are immoral.

That it was a "different time" misses the point. If Christianity and the story of Jesus' life is supposed to be this great example for the world, why still the misogyny? Why not have Jesus abolish slavery?

So Jesus righted some wrongs. Others weren't even mentioned. I mean, what the hell is the point if it's a story of a guy who said some great stuff, missed the boat on others, and was killed for speaking (mostly) truth to authority? There's plenty of stories like that, and we don't erect buildings on street corners to celebrate those people.

Look, you guys want to animate the UCCan, but what's the big deal about this story and this faith? I think it's better to outright admit that centering your life on this book is wrong when you have to ignore chunks of it to avoid jail time. Where's the refreshing honesty from churches about this? Yes, I see the quaint "This church is full of hypocrites..." signs. But where is the open and loud admission that the bible isn't quite the Good Book that has been sold to people for generations?

I think the obvious answer is that at least half your congregations and half your ministers would have a hissy fit. Who would dare question the bible? Question Jesus? There's one area where young people look at what's left of the UCCan and run the other way. For all this talk of radical inclusiveness and embracing other ways of thinking and believing, the stories here at WC show that the actual parishoner experience is rather predictable and boring.

You're going to have to lose a lot of people by way of attrition before you can change. You're not actively doing anything significant - it looks to me like you're having these conversations, passing time while waiting for the old guard to die.

Sometimes, I think you're right, they are passing time. There are people, younger people, who want a new and different focus away from the same old same old. But they are not the pillars that have kept things going, all the little details elders take care of behind the scenes that isn't noticed. They don't want to do the menial work if it doesn't boost their resume or whatever. I think that happens. And the older folks don't understand how the younger folks think or how the world looks to them. There's a big generation gap, that's absolutely true. But, Jesus is still there, still central to what's taking place in the UCC, even when new material and ways of doing things is being introduced/ expressed/ opposed/ embraced. It will end up being something, no matter how big or small remains to be seen but it won't stop altogether.

I look at events like Wild Goose and Greenbelt Festivals and wonder why can't church be like that all the time? Invigorating, inspiring, real, creative, spiritual activism? That'd be so great! But I think it would be uncomfortable for some people hanging onto tradition and they need a place to be and use their gifts too. Just because it's not my cup of tea doesn't mean it's not important.

Hi chansen...

"You guys" is a generalization. Which ones of us? Are you talking to me? I do not centre my life "on this book", or any other book.

Are you perhaps centred on refusing it and the God it brings into our collective experience?

George

Back to the original post:  these bones are not dry and fleshless yet.  There are many very healthy congregations and vital ministries changing the world.  We are better described as suffering from a wasting disease due to malnutrition and / or a changing social environment that is corrosive or antagonist to the way we have tried to be church.

Sometimes when a tree is diseased due to either an infection or injury or lack of essential nutrients or presence of toxic substances, arborists take appropriate measures.  Sometmes diseased and damaged branches are removed.  Sometimes injures are treated.  Sometimes the tree is cut off at ground level so it can come back from the roots.  Sometimes fertlizer is applied.  And sometimes measures are taken to eliminate the toxins.

Even if the institution dies inspiration won't

Not really all that good at all.

Now, let's consider your claims.

Is the Bible anti-gay? The Bible speaks of a God who loves one and all unconditionally.

Is the Bible misogynistic? Can you please give a few examples?

Is the Bible pro-murder? Is not one of the 10 commandments, Thou shall not kill.

Is the Bible pro-slavery? The Bible speaks of freedom from sin being available to all through Jesus.

Hi Jim...

"A smouldering wick will not be quenched, a bruised reed not broken."

"I will never leave you or forsake you. I am with you even to the end of the age."

Where there is life there is possibility.

George

I'm not going to play your game, Jae. We all know I can point to examples of all the above. You can pull up scripture to oppose mine. End of the day, you can use the bible to justify just about any position, or at least easily interpret it to have very immoral messages, by modern standards. Which brings us again to the simple question, "Then what is it good for?!?"

I'm not going to play your game, Jae. We all know I can point to examples of all the above. You can pull up scripture to oppose mine. End of the day, you can use the bible to justify just about any position, or at least easily interpret it to have very immoral messages, by modern standards. Which brings us again to the simple question, "Then what is it good for?!?"

[/quote]

We can properly interpret it in order to discover its very moral messages. We can misinterpret it to try and show that it carries immoral messages.

What is it good for? See Hebrews 4:12.

That's the part of my post you want to refute? The part that refers to UCCan types as "you guys"?

Okay, some of you don't centre your life on the bible. "Seriously but not literally," is a phrase I've heard. But no one actually comes out and says that parts of it are bad. No one says that they outright reject some parts.

If you want to reach young people, stop with the bullshit. They all have incredibly fine-tuned BS meters, because they've been marketed to all their lives. Christians are just one more group marketing to young people, and young people aren't buying what you're selling. It's that simple. The more you use confusing language and say you "struggle" with some verses or take the bible "seriously but not literally", the worse you're going to do.

Won't some church please just stand up and say, "This part and this part and this part of the bible are hateful or stupid and should not be followed. Join us and celebrate the rest." Be honest with young people.

Why do I bother playing your stupid games? That passage starts with "Indeed, the word of God is living and active..."

What a useless fucking thing for the bible to say. By that token, I can write that, "The posts of chansen are alive and active..."

It doesn't mean anything. It's just words.

Keep reading. You can read the whole verse.

Who cares? More empty words.

And why should I do your job for you? If you're so eager to share something, link it.

Hi chansen...

What I want to examine is your resort to generalizations by which you propogate your evident bias.

I am not at all concerned with how you read the Bible or what you think the Bible says about God. I am concerned with how you communicate and would go a long way to help you overcome some serious deficits.

Why? Quite simple. You have some important insights about what matters and what does not. I would like those insights to gain a hearing in the public discourse.

Your conviction and candor have made an impression on me. Not so with your method of presenting the merit of your position. All I am hearing is bias and prejudice.

Responding with generalizations about how some abstract "you guys" get it wrong does nothing for your case. Tell me, the living person you are talking to, where I have got it wrong, if you think I have it wrong.

George

:)

I'm sorry dreamerman, I wrote that after coming home from work, reread it this morning, and thought it seemed rather self indulgent and a pointless bit of diatribe that would only fuel further argument from who is was directed.

What beta thing to throw at nothing than a diatribe ... divine tribes of the mind ... one group emote'n while the other thinks and then they get it together ... Ecclesiastes in season or just patient time ...?

And when the fragmentary bones of the story are set together ... a complete soul ... a monster or chimerii creature to the shadow of man? Did ij'Zus spend time in the closet with his skeletons?

And the sword of God ... was that  mortal god or an essence of god ... a stinker passing in de night ... like a bump to the dead soul? Could this arous ethe "soma" thing as somnolent release from it's cell? Good god it St Eve'n ... or Eve'h in another translation ...

All archangles of the soul need dipped in de dirt at times ... just to get a taste of corruption at its finest. Just look about at what lies just under the surface of all rightous activities ... the profound urge to scro' your neigbour whether male or female ... now tell me about sexuality in the bible again and explain mythology as interpreted by the pious! It is even fun in the mental side of the activity which is highly popular in churches where you are directed to shelve your mind ... as if that would save it some necessary work out ... back to the Great Escape ... a bottom Line thingy ... a good movement being almost as good as separate sects ... and conjugation of dark icons ... dark bloody humus is rich for the oppressed soul a subtle thing in a whorled of emotions ...

Such things stir the stoics ... like the genre of word in Gael "de mote" dead to lesser reverence as fude for soul ... or is tha allah moðe ... like a smear inde-i? Leaves the soul beam 'n ... as an out of bo dein thingy ...

Good Morning Chansen --I was going to post about your posts. But believe it better I just wish you a good and calm day. -airclean33

Hi GeoFee--I also believe the U.C.C  church is in a decline. I think though is because like what   Israel did . So wound up by the rivers of Bablon. They moved away from GOD in there thoughts and prayers.The jews had to learn to obay GOD and what He has said and wrote.And they did . Even today if they will only obay GODS word and follow it  .If the Church would come back to GOD . As there fathers were with GOD I believe GOD, would fill there churchs once more.Some of the older members ,I have heard left, because it was not there church any longer.I believe they have had there time in Bablon , It's time to come home to Zion .  God Bless  --airclean33

dead bones and deline ?

whats the measure?

as I recall Christ had 12 diciples, not 12,000...

we may consider the united church as more alive than it has been.... at least in respect of the outline suggested by Geofee

Doesn't Luke 10:1-24 mention 70 or 72 disciples?

Decline is reflected in numbers.  e.g.:  Number of members;  Number of new members;  Number of donations; Amount of donations.

Throughout WC, there is discussion of decline.  Congregations literally dying off.  Hence, funding is a problem. 

A very good example is WC being shut down; when anyone with any sense should understand that continuing WC is smart, thoughtful, progressive, and financially sound means of outreach, ministry and communication.

I propose this question:  on an annual basis, is operating WC less or more expensive than operating a bricks and mortar Sunday service church with a declining population (hence less community based funding)?

Kinda makes one think of the messages in the synoptic gospels.

Bottom line, which is a financial term, is that human organisations require funding.  And numbers tell the story.  No new members. No new money. Occasionally, a gift, a bequest, from a member who has died. 

Certainly Paul understood this:  in no way is anything I have written in this post novel:  but it is interesting that people do not want to discuss it.

The spirit and care provided through being part of a congregation, whether it be virtual or RL, is incredibly important.  But the reality is that it costs money to support, and people are, apparently, not buying into it (or, as religious organisations prefer, donating to it).

So then the question becomes not about animating bones, or is UCCan dying, or even the future of WC, but what will current members and leaders do to fulfill mission and value statements?  What will the future of UCCan be? 

Because a really good, non-funded outreach story is written about in the NT;  and respectfully, this is the time in a Xian calendar to reflect upont the actions a Jewish leader who was frustrated by economics, politics and organisations, and cared about people, reaching out, and being inclusive.  Not exclusive.