Hi my name is Jay and I'm new to this forum. I was raised United Methodist and have flirted a little with the Epscopal Church. The way the UCC has gone out of its way to set itself apart from the intolerance...well let me just say that I really appreciate how welcoming the UCC tries to be.

However I do need some clarification on a couple of things. See I would really like to become involved in a church and hopefully one day raise a family in that church. The problem is that I am a heretic by the standards of Orthodox Christianity. I do see Christianity as sacred and I am a better preson because of my experience with the Christain Church. But I have a hard time believing that God requires me to believe X, Y, and Z. To make myself more clear, I don't think an all-loving God would require me to believe in miracles that I did not witness. I'm not out to reform the church and I actually see great meaning in the creeds, but the moment someone tells me that they are to be believed literally, they cease to have any meaing to me. I certainly don't mind if others believe the creeds, the bible, etc, literally and I'm not out to change anyone's mind. But I believe in the bible and the creeds in a very broad and figurative way.

I've seen a couple of UCC church websites which say that the historic creeds are testimonies, not tests of faith. So I guess I just want to 'test' how wide-spread that approach is. Many of my mainline Christian friends don't understand why this is so important to me, but unfortunately they don't see that many of the political problems in the Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Lutheran chruches are because of very disparate understandings of core doctrines. This disparity would be OK, expcept these churches don't do a very good job of officially recognizing them. If I came here from Mars and read the websites and official literature of these denominations, I would think that people who belonged to those denominations believed the creeds very literally. It turns out that's not true, but that doesn't stop those denomications from being somewhat...duplicitious, IMHO.

But the UCC seems different. The UCC seems to focus on the overall message, and not the details of doctrine. I should clarify too that I think it's very important to believe in some sort of ethical system. Concepts like justice, fairness, humility, the sacred, etc, mean very much to me. Whether or not Jesus was really born of a virgin, whether Jonah was really swallowed by a whale, etc, these mean very little to me beyond whatever lesson they may teach.

Ok that was probably more long-winded than it needed to be, so in summary; the UCC seems to be a place where many different types of people are welcome AND respected as EQUALS. Can a heretic like me find that same welcome in the UCC?

Thanks to everyone who responded. But I think I'm still left with a question mark over my head. I should stress again that I appreciate the progressive nature of the UCC, but I am still fuzzy on the doctrine. I realize that the UCC doesn't constrain local churches, but if a statement of faith is on the national UCC website, isn't it reasonable to apply  it very generally to all UCC churches?

I appreciate the poster who has provided the six-point statement of faith. However I must say that after reading it, I don't feel drawn to conclude the same things, namely that this means something specific about the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, or any other Biblical miracles. So let me ask a few things:

1. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the church.
What does "The Lord" mean? Is that a title of simple, undefined adoration? Or does it emphasize the divinity of Jesus, a divinity that we as pure humans will never attain?

2. “Christian” is a sufficient name for the church.
Please define what it means to be a Christain. What does a Christian believe theologically?

3. The Holy Bible is a sufficient rule of faith and practice.
I'm fine with this one especially since it has already been demonstrated that the bible is translated as a historical document subject to all the imperfections such a document can have. For some reason though, the miracles seem to have received canonical status.

4. Christian character is a sufficient test of fellowship and of church membership.
If Christian charater has to do with the way we live our lives, I welcome this test.

5. The right of private judgment and liberty of conscience is a right and a privilege that should be accorded to and exercised by all.
Should this right be exercised by all in society AS WELL AS all in the church? If the answer is yes, then my liberty of conscience leads me to reject the teaching that belief in miracles is important to our all-loving God. Now that I have exercised that right, do I still have the privledge of having my beliefs validated in the UCC just as much as beliefs in miracles are?

6. The purpose of this church will be consumated in the reformation of the world and the union of all Christians.
Err, if I had to choose, I would say it's much more important to me to be united with progressive Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims, (and hey while we're at it, agnostics and atheists), than to be united with crazies like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Is it OK that I have no particular desire to be united with Christians as opposed to being united with the human race in general?

Ok, I hope this isn't too iconoclastic, but I'm trying to find out if Christianity is about believing something or about living something, or about both. I have no problem with Unitarian-Universlists but I feel called to be involved in a church that fits under an umbrella and that is a part of a particular religious tradition. I think it's very possible to devote oneself to a religious tradition, believing in the tradition and the moral meaning only. Our liberal Jewish couterparts in the reform tradition have a set of moral beliefs and traditions that bind them together just fine without arbitrary tests like beliefs in miracles entering into it at all.

Can anyone

I'm enjoying your questions, Jay. I'd like to answer them from the point of view of another UCC person .

1. To me, Lord means leader--particularly a leader in wisdom, experience, judgment, responsibility, faithfulness. It's not so much a position of power, but rather a position of authority. There is no ownership of other people involved, or coersion, or force. It's a relationship of unequals (God : humanity) built on love and respect. I could not say that my Lord demanded or forced me to worship and adore, but I can say that my Lord invites my loving relationship in which I seek understanding, wisdom and support in my efforts to walk the path of truth, mercy, and justice.

2. To describe a church as Christian means that the gathered community makes a faithful and informed effort to follow the teachings of Jesus, who came to be called Christ. A Christian is a follower of Christ. See my blog on Thomas (John 20) for some thoughts on this.

3. The word miracle simple means something that produces the reaction of amazement and awe. For some people, the miracles described in the Gospels and Acts take on the meaning of proof of Jesus' divinity. Other people say Who cares? Still others work to describe the miracles in terms of what probably happened, or what might have happened. I see miracles every day: a daffodil in the sunlight is a miracle. Every person is a miracle. The cardinal in the cherry tree is a miracle, and I can describe it in story in such a way as to encourage some readers to see it as an intervention of God upon the tree and the bird. I suggest that you give the miracles only as much weight as you want to, and don't make them a burden to your faith.

As for the rest of the Bible, it, too, can be understood in many ways. It can be the history of two faiths (and the interventions and collisions with several others), the myths and rememberings of how things came to be what they are (Why do we all talk different languages, Daddy? Well, my dear, once upon a time... See Mark Gelman's delightful book Does God Have a Big Toe? for stories about the stories of creation). The Bible for some is an absolutely perfect Word of God which has no human error in it, and variously a collection of literature and remembered folk tales. There's lots of room for the curious in the study of the Bible. Come on in! The water's fine, and we encourage wonder!

4. For me, Christian character is what we're working toward, and we stand a better chance of getting there if we gather in community to work together. The conversations, the study, the wonderings and the discoveries form and inform the community and its members. Wondering about things in the privacy of one's own head can be dangerous--it leads to thinking I know everything and nobody else has a clue, which is clearly not the case. What are Christian characteristics? I think of the fruits of the Spirit listed in Paul's letter to the Galatians. It's not a long book--I recommend it to you.

5. As members of the gathered community called Christian, we have rights and responsibilities to the One we follow and to our brothers and sisters within that community, and to those whom Jesus calls us to teach, to help, and to learn from. I believe we serve best when we hone and polish our gifts and graces--our talents--and use them to further the Good News and the church that sees its place in the world as helpful, not judgmental. Grace-filled, if you will. If we can sing, perhaps our voice belongs in the choir or teaching songs to children. If we can speak, perhaps we are teachers or preachers. Perhaps we are good listeners, or pray-ers, or cooks. Maybe we can understand financial maters. We can be a friend, or a role model, or an advocate. These are the privileges and responsibilities of a Christian and a church.

6. We don't have to like the way in which other people choose to be Christian or Republicans or flower-arrangers or exercisers. Let them choose their own ways, just as we expect to be allowed to choose ours. In community, we'll talk about what makes us comfortable and uncomfortable--and, if we're open and trusting, why and why not. We'll be able to examine our reactions to other people, and to perhaps behave in such ways that other people may see that our Christian, loving, accepting, gracious way is a better path. Paul said somewhere that we should always be preaching and, if we must, we can use words. We don't have to carry the burden of other people's patterns of living. We have enough to do being the faithful gathered community of Jesus, working to bring in the promised Realm of God.

Pastor Barbara

Dear Jay,

I guess I wanted to reply to you because I saw that you were raised as a Methodist and I was also.

During my teen years I checked out a number of different denominations in my home area of upstate NY.

After marriage, I attended church very infrequently because I had become so disillusioned by organized religion.  Especially the part where the "leaders" told me what I must believe.

During my early 30's, I felt a real need to return to church (organized religion).  I again went on a search to find the "perfect" church.

I attended numerous Christian denominations, some very strict evangelical types.  When I stumbled upon the UCC, I finally felt at home.

You see, I had always had a problem with church hierarchy telling me what God meant!  Especially when so often their statements were contradictory. 

I recall having a conversation with my Mother when I was probably between 7 and 10, where I said; “How can you say that God is all forgiving, and then say God will condemn me to Hell if I sin?”  This was just one of the contradictory statements I had a problem with, but it is the one that I recall the best.

I am presently a member of a rather Conservative congregation.  I am considered very Liberal, though I personally do not consider myself Liberal or Conservative, but rather, someone who is trying desperately to “Follow Christ”, not just Believe in Christ.

I have found a home in the UCC because of the ideals of the denomination.

Will you find this “home” at the UCC?

I don’t know, only you will be able to answer that question by attending churches and seeing if you fit in.

The first UCC I joined was a comfortable place for me.  Upon our relocation to WI from CT I found it difficult to find a church that I felt was a good fit for me.  Probably because the UCC allows each congregation to determine the direction of their particular church.  Finally, I found a good fit and have been a member at my present church for quite some time.  

As I have “grown” in my faith, I have changed my views on Christ and God.  This at times has cause some members of my church to question whether I should remain a member of this

Thanks to everyone that replied. innervisions, danschultz, Pastor Barbara, and Peaceseker, thanks.

Pastor Barbara, I suppose I would like to direct my next set of questions to you, though I welcome anyone who wishes to respond. I'm wondering what the "rules" are, sorry, I just can't help it. I will posit 3 possible categories where the national UCC could possibly take a position and therefore implicitly say that contradictory positions are not UCC positions.

Category 1: This category is about what passes as "Orthodox". Martin Luther King, in his letter from Birmingham Jail, quoted the theologian Paul Tillich. Tillich is famous for saying that God is not a being, but instead the ground of all being, quite unorthodox by most Christian standards. Early in the history of the church, differing versions of the Trinity had to fight it out to see which one would prevail, and the result was in part the Nicene Creed. St. Paul says that if the resurrection isn't real that our faith is in "vein." Some denominations fight over whether creation ex nihilo was truly "out of literally nothing" or simply out of chaos. According to many Christians, if one believes that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin or didn't rise from the dead, then they can't be called a Christian. This category is not about homosexuality or gender roles, it is about the technicalities of the "faith" and whether or not the national UCC feels strongly enough about any of these technical religious doctrines to take a clear position on them.

Category 2: This category has to do with big-picture moral rules, not necessarily current social phenomena. This category is about the possibility that the national UCC sees a clear difference between love and hate, between bigotry and acceptance, between forceful coercion and peaceful persuasion, between promiscuity and commitment, between integrity and dishonesty, between justice and exploitation, between...right and wrong.

Category 3: This is a sort of middle ground between the first 2 categories. This has to do with ethics or morality from a specific Christian standpoint. This category makes us wonder if the national UCC has a specific enough claim to the Christian message to make a religiously moral distinction between these types of positions: The Beatitudes guide my life vs. the Beatitudes are just stupid. Jesus said "what you have done to the least of these you have done to me" vs. Social Darwinism. Jesus said to leave the 99 in order to bring back the 1 vs. "that's a defective sheep, we don't need it." Jesus came to deliver a message of hope and forgiveness vs. "unless you deny his atonement, in which case you go to hell." The Christian message of social justice and compassion has great relevancy for today vs. "man we've got to help Israel get the Mount back at all costs to pave the way for the 2nd

Linda,

Thank you for your words. It's good to hear that you feel free to hold your particular beliefs. It's not important to me to be around a bunch of people that agree with me. However in Mainline Christianity right now, you have people like John Shelby Spong who wish to reform the church, you still have fundamentalists on the right wing, and then you have a bunch of regular folks, let's say "moderates" who just want to go to church in peace. I would very much like to be a moderate, but I can't make faith statements that I do not actually believe in order to join a church. If I can find a religious organization that makes it known that some of their members believe things literally, while others believe figuratively, then I would be very happy. This way, fundamentalists would realize that they couldn't have their views enforced by simply quoting the Bible alone. I need to know that I'm not being duplicitous in joining a church. In other words, I don't want to "sneak in" to a church by suppressing my views so that other more literal minded people can feel comfortable. I don't wish to be hostile at all; I just think fundamentalists and liberals, if they are to coexist, should have equal relationships.

I'm glad you mentioned Marcus Borg, I have heard him speak on the internet several times and I'm somewhat familiar with the Jesus Seminar he was involved with. I like Borg's vision better than Spong's. Spong seems (from my limited perspective) to think that the church would benefit by rearranging the creeds to reflect a more "modern" approach to faith so that Christianity isn't one day "left behind" by modernity. Borg on the other hand, seems to say that fundamentalism is just fine if it makes people happy, but that there are more ways than that to be a true Christian. In my humble opinion, if Borg's vision could become reality, it could go a long way to lessening some of the tension currently being felt in Mainline Christianity. If we could all not be shy about proclaiming that Christianity is wide enough for people who believe things as allegory as well as for people who believe literally, then virtually everyone in the mainline churches could give their assent to the "traditional" Christian story, so long as adequate freedom was given to members. The problem is, no mainline Christian denomination that I know of has made that official. In other words, it seems like a dirty little secret. It seems like it must remain secret so that the right-wing will not be run-off. So in Sermons, ministers (be they right wing or left wing) speak in "codes" that like-minded people understand. When problems occur, the right wing just quotes the Bible and left wing just quotes their cherished social views. That’s one of the reasons I love the "comma" symbol the UCC is using. "Don't put a period where God has placed a comma" is something that most mainline churches have not said as explicitly.

As to the 3 categories I made up in a pervious post, I have no problem with the Christian moral message and I have no problem with the UCC believing in moral standards like justice and compassion. But I cannot reside in a place where Category 1 is important. Things like whether God is Three in One or One in Three or whether Jesus was really born of a virgin or not, I just can't be in a place where those types of technical doctrines are emphasized to

Phyllis,

Thanks again for your reply. I see better now that the UCC is quite different from more hierarchical churches like the Methodist and Lutheran churches. However this website, for instance, is representative of the UCC right? If not, I would hate to be a UCC congregation that didn't like the message communicated on this site and in UCC commercials, considering how ubiquitous these ads are. I love the comma symbol, and I love how explicitly welcoming the UCC seems to be towards…well, everyone regardless of race, gender, nationality, social status, sexual orientation, etc. So it does help to know that the church itself doesn't actually make statements, but the messages the church does communicate on this site and in commercials are no so vague when we think about it. Saying that God has placed a comma on God's revelation instead of a period, combined with the explicit welcome that has been offered to practicing homosexuals, makes a pretty specific statement about biblical interpretation and a church's ability to reevaluate beliefs held by Christians for centuries. The UCC has taken this bold step, after that, it seems like only a slight movement to say that the Bible is open to varying interpretations, including a critical or figurative one. Forgive me if I have made the same mistake again in assuming that this site or the TV commercials are representative of the UCC, but isn't that a reasonable working assumption? If so, then the church, in spite of not making specific legalized proclamations put down on paper, has committed itself to some very specific views (by implication) with their advertising.

Jay

Jay,
Is the UCC as the body of Christ and a church as a whole making a statement?
I believe so!
From what I have discovered by reading some of the history of the UCC. They have often been in the forefront on many issues, racism, slavery, aparthied, etc.
Because of the resolutions made at Synod, the UCC puts out the feelings/beliefs of the majority of the churches that belong to the UCC.
In my own area, one church already has seceded from the UCC and at least one, perhaps two more are considering doing so.

Some people believe this to be a bad thing.

I personally do not believe this to be the case.

I feel that if congregations are not able to follow the doctrine set forth by the majority of a group of people who are representatives of their own UCC congregations, all over the world.  Then it is probably best that they no longer are affiliated with the UCC.

My particular church had a small group who wished to bring before the congregation a resolution to secede from the UCC.  However, there were not even enough people willing to sign their petition to bring it to a meeting of the church.

My church is over 600 people and only 25 people were needed to sign the petition to bring this before the church.

Since this attempt, a few of those people have left this church and gone to a church where their personal beliefs were reaffirmed.

I like the UCC because it causes me to continually grow as a person and as a Christian.

It causes me to continually reevaluate my position on personal and world events.

My personal church is now more conservative than I am personally, but because I have been the one to change, I feel I must give them time to also adjust and change.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Technically, I suppose your statement that the website is &t;/span>representative of the UCC is correct, but remember, all churches have autonomy and are able to make their own choices regarding how they will follow the resolutions put forth by Synod.  Some will openly and explicitly follow these resolutions.  Others will take a more moderate/quiet approach because of the makeup of their congregation.  Look for the best fit for you personally.  It may be one that openly adheres to the resolutions, or it may be one that quietly accepts the resolutions and you feel you could help them to become more open in their acceptance.

Blessings and Peace,

Phyllis

People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
...Forgive them anyway!
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;
...Be kind anyway!
If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
...Succeed anyway!
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;
...Be honest and frank anyway!
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;
...Build anyway!
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;
...Be happy anyway!
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;
...Do good anyway!
Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough;
...Give the world the best you've got anyway!
You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God;
It was never between you and them anyway.
Mother Teresa

Ok that was probably more long-winded than it needed to be, so in summary; the UCC seems to be a place where many different types of people are welcome AND respected as EQUALS. Can a heretic like me find that same welcome in the UCC?

[/QUOTE]

Yes, although I've only been to one UCC.  When new members go through the little ceremony the pastor always talks about how people want to know if their belief in this or that is okay.  He says that every time someone joins the church their beliefs become part of the church -- recognizing that "the church" is the people it is made up of.  You can be Unitarian and comfortable in the UCC, for example.  The thing I like best is that I can have my beliefs and someone else can have their's and they have no need to judge me and say I'm not a Christian or I am a Christian based on those beliefs! 

Ok, I appreciate everyone who replied. I've read over the website and I like what I see. Seriously, thank you all for responding. I think I'm starting to get the hang of it and I've gained a new appreciation for the UCC. Thanks again.

Jay

And thank you for your rigorous questions!

I'm lousy at theology and tend to snore during philosophy.  I have noticed that the UCC is a difficult pill for some to swallow!   My lifetime experience in the church has shown me that the UCC does not say "you shall behave and believe thus and so."  It's more like:  "OK then, here's some things we more or less agree on.  Use them as tools on your path to God"

Or something like that.

God speaks many languages.  Some people need a language with strict grammar to thrive.  Others need a different language to thrive.  At the UCC, we need that different language!

And thank you for your rigorous questions!

I'm lousy at theology and tend to snore during philosophy.  I have noticed that the UCC is a difficult pill for some to swallow!   My lifetime experience in the church has shown me that the UCC does not say "you shall behave and believe thus and so."  It's more like:  "OK then, here's some things we more or less agree on.  Use them as tools on your path to God"

Or something like that.

God speaks many languages.  Some people need a language with strict grammar to thrive.  Others need a different language to thrive.  At the UCC, we need that different language!

[/QUOTE]

I think you sum it up well

Jay, I'm sorry it's been so long since you asked me to respond to a series of questions. I've moved across the country and am in the middle of unpacking--we just found the connecting cables for the computers, and here I am once more.

1. A lot of Christians (and non-Christians) love to argue about language. Joe Jones, my very wise systematic theology professor in seminary, took what we all thought was an inordinate amount of time making sure we understood his language and the way he used language. The way we use particular words is vital to the meaning of what we say. Often we're so excited about what we say that we forget to define our terms, assuming that everybody uses the same dictionary. Well, we know that ain't so! 

Let's look at some of the words in your first section. "Being" implies somethings existence, and generally assumes that because it exists, there must have been a time when it did not exist. To say that God is a being implies that God was created, and there's a conversation for you! I am comfortable saying that I believe God is, was, and will be, has always been, and does not depend on us or anything in order to be. I agree with Tillich. God is the ground (base, foundation) upon which all that exists, exists. God is that upon which we stand and depend. We are specifically talking about God as creator of all. Did God create out of nothing or out of a mass of stuff that needed better definition? That's the conversation with the process theologians. Nothing wrong with the conversation, nothing wrong with the idea, nothing wrong with wondering.

People can decide for themselves whether Jesus' mom was a virgin or a young woman (or both). People can decide for themselves about resurrection and whether it was a physical event or a spiritual event (or both). These questions are raised all the time. Nobody gets cast out for wondering, or for asking. (Youth groups always come around to "Was Jesus married?" as the ultimate question for the semester.) The national UCC's stand on these interesting, intriguing, no-definitive-answer questions is that God gave us brains, minds, reason, experience, Scripture, friends, conversation partners, and time: go for it. Individuals within any church community may be more or less comfortable with these questions, but they will self-select not to join the conversation. They have that right, just as others have the right to talk and wonder about things. "Test everything", Paul said. So do. The result is not that you'll find absolute answers, but that you'll ask better questions.

2. Yes, sometimes it's very easy to say something is wrong or right. Sometimes we have more difficulty defining those terms. We recognize that culture, circumstances, social pressures, and a variety of other forces can influence us at a particular way at a particular time. Learning about the past (our own and our community's history), looking clearly at the present day, and keeping our eye on the goal of a better world shaped through the love of God helps us hold back on judging others, keeps us walking on God's path, helps us through the tough times.

3. You'll find UCC folks all over the map on these examples, as you will on 1 and 2. We need to keep the conversation going, listening to those with whom we do not agree or understand, processing the information with what we understand to be the case, being flexible enough not to insist on our own way as if we were the ones who got the answer from God on Mt. Sinai. Listen, talk, think, wonder, repeat as needed.

Your 3 questions about disagreement on 1, 2, and 3: Go ahead. Who's stopping you? We're not the boss of you, you're not the boss of me, but together we might be able to reach a conclusion that can help a small corner of this hurting world become a little less chotic. Welcome to the search, welcome to the world of wonder.

Pastor Barbara, i guide for Opening the Bible

"I hope this isn't too iconoclastic, but I'm trying to find out if Christianity is about believing something or about living something, or about both."

Christianity is SUPPOSED to be about living something but thanks to heavy Greek influence it is predominately become about believing in the right thing -- at least when you look at fundamentalists and conservatives.

"Well, I'm not a Pastor.."

Interesting comment.  Ministers are just people.  Don't put them on pedastals. You don't need to be ordained. 

We ministers put our trousers on one leg at a time just like everybody else. We're not more wonderful than anybody else. We've spent some time studying and thinking and working toward a theological understanding of God, Jesus, people, life, creation, the Realm of God, and a whole lot of other things. We've been honing our particular gifts for service to God. Don't see our particular gifts as the only gifts. They're just the gifts and graces God gave us, and we have chosen to accept those gifts and to polish them (as our passage from Ephesians 4 talks about this week). (See Kirk's and my blogs in the Opening the Bible section.)

Other people have other gifts, and as ministers, we depend on those healers and teachers and engineers and organizers and merchants and farmers and... We're working together, each bringing our own gifts to the table. We all sit at the table together, and we all eat together in God's world.

What we're doing in the meantime is trying to get us all to that world!

Pastor Barbara, iguide for Opening the Bible

Yes, Christianity is an active verb. Doing without believing is empty of blessing. Believing without doing is empty of blessing. Only together is the richness and abundance of life present. And then, such joy!

Pastor Barbara, iguide for Opening the Bible