May 04, 2005
New United Church Statement of Faith
Also available in MS Word format.
| Other Faith Talk II Aids |
RE. “A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOUR RESPONSE”
This response is submitted by the national and regional directors of the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations on behalf of some 17,000 members, clergy and lay, in congregations from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island.
1. What does the draft statement of faith evoke in you? How does it make you feel (hopeful, confused, excited, uneasy)?
It evokes:
Appreciation that some room has been made for traditional language and historic understandings of the faith.
Confusion, arising from the lack of firm focus, the reliance on allusive and sometimes ambiguous language, the conflicting statements, etc.
Frustration that the document’s organization, style, and language (above) make it so difficult to use as a reference for understanding the faith.
Dismay over the syncretistic, pantheistic, and other heretical elements which are in conflict with commonly accepted Christian theology.
Amazement that there is little of substance on such critical matters as God’s judgement, the atonement, Christ as mediator, what his resurrection means for us, and his instruction that we spread the Good News.
Surprise that it was thought appropriate to include debatable socio-political-economic theory.
Impatience that the FT2 draft constitutes yet another attempt to undermine the authority and reliability of Scripture, most obviously by questioning its God-given status.
Disappointment, since, whether acceptable to us or not, we had expected a statement of faith. However, the draft says only “we speak of”, “we speak faithfully of”, “we witness to”, “we search”, “we endeavour to seek out”, “we celebrate”, “we search”, “we see”, “we yearn”, “we await”, but never “We believe”.
Skepticism about the purpose of the document, on which much time has obviously been spent. Rather than a denominational statement of faith, it appears an attempt to validate the wide spectrum of (often incongruent) beliefs currently held within the UCC.
2. Do you recognize God, the United Church of Canada, your context, yourself in the draft statement of faith?
God: Yes, the God we worship is there, but so, unhappily, are other gods.
The United Church: Yes, we recognize that part of the denomination that believes truth is personal and subjective. What is not well represented is that part that believes in objective truth, most specifically in Jesus’ declaration in John 14 that He is the truth.
Your context, yourself: No, because of the draft’s unfortunate design and flawed content it has little to say to us or to our context; our references will remain Scripture, and such faith summaries as the “Doctrinal” section of the Basis of Union, and the Apostles’ and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds.
3. Could you (or would you) use this draft statement of faith
to explain your faith to others? No, we could not. It is far too diffuse for such a purpose. Moreover, it is not congruent with what we believe or with what is stated firmly in the United Church’s Basis of Union, effectively our constitution.
for faith education in your congregation(s)? No, we would not. Parts of it could lead to apostasy.
in worship? No. We would continue to base worship on the Bible, the great creeds, and orthodox Christian commentaries.
for personal devotion No, we would not, for the reasons mentioned above.
4. What else do you wish to tell the Committee on Theology and Faith?
We consider the draft a seriously flawed document for a number of reasons.
General Concerns would include these:
The task of theology, and, by extension, of any faith statement is to clarify and preserve the faith “once delivered to the saints”, passing it on intact as an inheritance to succeeding generations, possibly with rephrasing but without alteration of substance. Christianity is a revealed faith, and consequently cannot evolve, even though FT2 apparently assumes otherwise.
Scripture, the biblical Word, stands above our mores and culture. Scripture judges them, and not the reverse. The draft does not appear to accept this truth.
Doctrine”, i.e. what the Church teaches, attempts to speak truth about God, His intentions for us and for the creation. To be true, it must be consistent with the written Word, given to us by God, and intended for our understanding. Even when Scripture challenges our understanding, it still speaks truthfully of God and of His purposes. Moreover, to be helpful, the Church’s teaching must be inherently coherent as well as consistent with Scripture. FT2 is neither.
While theological statements can never comprehensively describe God, they can speak truth of Him with truth. Both Testaments speak of God in intensely personal terms; FT2 however relies largely on abstract and symbolic language when describing Him. Jesus most emphatically did not do so, speaking of God intimately as Father.
Some Specific Citations to illustrate our concerns:
You speak of God “whom Jesus called Father” but do not acknowledge that Jesus told his disciples (including us) to call Him Father, as in The Lord’s Prayer.
Early on you say “with the Church through the ages we speak of God as one and triune: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, but nowhere else in FT2 do you name God “Father”.
You call Jesus “the child of Wisdom” (in Greek, Sophia) thereby affirming those of our clergy and laity who have worshiped a goddess they call Sophia.
Immediately thereafter, you introduce alternative “Trinities”, one of which includes “Mother”. What mother is this? Sophia?
After proposing these alternative names for the Trinity, you say that baptism is “in the name of the Holy Trinity”, whereas the United Church and all Christendom have maintained that baptism must be “into the name of the Father and of the Son and on the Son and Holy Spirit.” (Basis of Union, 2.16.1)
In listing the outcomes of sin you omit lust, leaving the door open to indiscriminate sexual practice, including adultery, group sex, homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and so on. You have overlooked the United Church’s constitutional obligation “to preserve the inviolability of marriage and the sanctity of the family” (Basis 2.20).
You say that Jesus “suffered torture and execution by government” and inexplicably do not mention the religious forces involved. Today millions of Christians around the world are being tortured and executed by political and religious forces. Do you ignore the latter for fear of offending non-Christians?
Your draft statement demotes the Bible to being just one “among the creations into which the Spirit has breathed revelatory powers… [admittedly] occupying a unique and normative place in the community’s life”, but falling short of the authority given the Bible in the Basis of Union, which declares it to contain “the primary source and ultimate standard of Christian faith and life” (2.0) and “the only infallible rule of faith and life” (2.2).
The New Testament declares “Jesus Christ is Lord” and our church constitution speaks emphatically of Jesus in these terms. Your draft does not .Why not? As a “child of Wisdom” is he just a great teacher?
Orthodoxy holds that God is distinct from His creation, a transcendent Trinity of persons wholly other from what He has made. Near its conclusion the draft advances a quite different view, speaking of our “integration with the common ground of all being” (i.e. God), etc. This is Monism, and, in Christian terms, an ancient heresy.
In Conclusion
Those who are called by Jesus, and who see themselves as under the authority of Scripture, are called to challenge heresy and error. With regret, the NACC Steering Committee believes the draft exhibits examples of a number of such errors and heresies. Jesus’ stern words at Matt 18:6 speak directly to the task you accepted, and therefore we feel obligated in love to warn you of the danger in which you stand.
In your defense, the church asked you to perform an impossible task – i.e. attempt to reconcile orthodox Christianity with inclusiveness and pluralism. We respect the diligence with which you pursued that goal, and thus we recommend the United Church apologize for saddling you with this task, thank you for your efforts, and abandon the project. As to the document itself: we consider it a serious danger to the health of the denomination. It should be removed from consideration immediately.
Geoff Wilkins, NACC Chairman, for the Steering Committee
Posted at May 4, 2005 01:19 PM