Building Bridges 

As should be well known by now, "Project 2000" was initiated in the fall of '97 for the express purpose of providing a forum for interested people to make a contribution to the United Church of Canada on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.

Over the past couple of years several topics have been raised and much has been said about them.

A rather intense  debate ensued about the future of the original articles.  Were they to be rewritten, were they to be replaced, or were they to be (honourably) retired? Although an important topic, it ought to be remembered that the primary aim of "Project 2000" was, and is, the re-imaging of the Bible and that the contemplation of the 20 Articles of Faith was to serve as a stepping stone or framework for that effort. 

Speaking personally, the original 20 Articles of Faith were the statement that enabled the different denominations to form the United Church of Canada. Nothing can change that, and no attempt should be made  to do so. We can however enshrine them as the historical documents they are, and subsequently examine them in the light of contemporary knowledge and theology to formulate an up to date set of articles of faith. How to proceed?

Rather than starting by positing my own position, I want to take this opportunity to start from the article Rev Greg Smith-Young wrote for United Online. Greg wrote that article in an effort to narrow the area of debate down to the "deeper issues" as he sees them. This approach is very much to my liking and I'll use his article as the starting line for my own presentation.

What are these "deeper issues?" I have isolated them and address them in my own fashion. If I miss some of the issues Greg had in mind, I am sure that it won't be long before someone picks up on that. To begin.

Greg observes  that the "comments have pushed me to think deeper about what is at stake in this discussion  ." 
I can't say how pleased I am with that observation, as this means that it is "Mission accomplished" for "Project 2000". Right from its inception this project has been giving, is still giving today, and will be giving far into the future. Something to be thankful for. Anybody who has followed "Project 2000" knows that a not insignificant number of members of the UC of C (both lay and clergy) have been driven to do the same. Another plus.

An early "deeper issue" that we encounter is that the church is "apostolic". This means "that the teachings of the present-day Church are founded upon and in continuity with the teachings of the early Church. If we accept this, then limits are imposed on what the Church can teach. Certainly this does not preclude innovation and adaptation, but it does provide boundaries within which the change would take place."
Greg goes on to voice solidarity with certain correspondents in that they express a fear that a radical "opening up" of the 20 Articles of Faith may lead to new beliefs which fall outside the accustomed boundaries. i.e. they become "un-apostolic".

Is it necessarily bad that some ideas and interpretations fall outside the apostolic boundaries? My own perception is that, rather than being detrimental to the health of the Church, new ideas and interpretations may actually improve the health of the Church. I would take that a step further and say that new ideas and interpretations are a prerequisite for the growth of the Church. 
To give just one example: prior to 1936, female clergy were definitely not a part of the apostolic teachings. Yet,  the decision to "allow" women to serve congregations as clergy was one idea that, although outside the "Apostolic" boundaries, enhanced the status of the United Church of Canada.  
The Roman Catholic Church still can't get itself to make the same decision and neither can the Christian Reformed Church, although it is struggling with it.  
So, with regards to "apostolic boundaries", it is clear that they depend on the denomination one belongs to.

My own position is that I believe the time to have arrived for humanity to start looking for ways and means to expand its horizons. As we use the term "expanding our horizons", everybody knows that we are talking about a plane that has two dimensions. What I am suggesting is that not only ought we to expand our horizons, we ought to recognize that we can expand the parameters in which we are capable of working. This means that we have to expand in multi-dimensional directions. Over the past couple of millennia Christianity has imbued Western society with the idea that humanity is the crown of creation. In that hierarchical position we operated in the horizontal. The only time we stepped outside that plane was when we died and were buried. That's when we traveled either up or down to our final resting place. The last few decades however it is becoming ever clearer that humanity is just one part of a multi-dimensional ball of wax that is billions of years old, and will continue for an equally long time.  After that ....  what? Where will our new boundaries be located?  God only knows! 

How are we to expand our working dimensions? By adopting an attitude that focuses on our responsibilities rather than on our rights and by concentrating on what it means to be "sons (children) of God". Working from the premise that we *are* "children of God", what potential have we been endowed with? My perception is that  we haven't even scratched the surface of that God given potential. We are supposed to be Children of God, yet, spiritually speaking we go about as paupers. We are far from acting like the royal offspring we are. 
Just this evening (April 2-'00) a TV station showed the story of the new king and queen of Jordan. It showed clearly the tensions the new king and queen had to deal with as, overnight, they were propelled from the status of subjects to that of royalty. Had they seen it coming? No, although everybody could see that the old king was not in good health. Were they prepared? No, not really as King Hussein unexpectedly and only at the last moment removed a close relative from the position of successor and elevated his son to that status.
That is how it is with us. We have to start contemplating our lineage and in doing so we have to start pondering our heritage and what to do with that heritage. The consequences of that scenario are potentially awesome, and will probably transport us from surprise to surprise. 

This clearly spells out the challenge we face. We either (as the Germans of WW ll) "plunge *back* (my emphasis) into a re-affirmation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the relativization of all worldly powers in the light of that Lordship", or we start allowing our God given talent to develop to its potential. We can nurture that process without any feelings of guilt and betrayal. AAMOF, we can do so with a great deal of  anticipation, excitement and with the assurance that we have God's enthusiastic encouragement.

The question for each reader to answer is whether or not one wishes to "sign up" for this adventure. 

A few general remarks.

 I want it to be understood that I contemplate the traditions of the United Church of Canada with a great deal of appreciation for the efforts of my forbears.
I also want it to be understood however, that, if we engage the 20 Articles of Faith in the manner requested in the Cambrian petition to General Council , we will become part of a paradigm shift. This will come about because many of the positions of the 20 Articles of Faith (circa 1925) can no longer be supported in the light of contemporary knowledge, scholarship and theology. In that light, and placed in its proper context, the Bible itself offers an alternate response which will demand a change in our approach to humanity and its role in creation as well as our relationship to God. It is up to us to engage the Bible and unearth and formulate that alternative meaning. Rather than be dismayed at the prospect, we ought to see this as *the* opportunity to get involved and to start exercising our God given rights and responsibilities. We can do so by becoming the bridge  builders between the current paradigm and the next. That is some challenge!

Finally I want to deal with the last question Greg poses. Although the question is put in general terms, allow me to give my reason for staying in the fold of the United Church of Canada. The answer is simple really. This is *my* church! Having left Thunder Bay (and the CRC), I joined the United Church of Canada in 1965 for lack of anything "better". I am staying however because I have come to appreciate and admire it. In addition, I am also in "essential agreement" with the direction in which the United Church of Canada is moving. But that does not mean that we can't do better. We can and we have to!

Regardless of our hallowed traditions, from now on we write our history. From now on we live in the present, meaning that we refuse to continue to occupy the basement and move out and up to the next level of floors.  In moving up we continue to use the 20 Articles of Faith as guidelines for our behaviour, but we interpret them in the light of our contemporary knowledge.  
 The question is, will we actively shape and record our blueprint into the future, or will we circle the wagons in defense of our turf and stagnate? The choice is ours to make, but that choice needs to be made individually. And it needs to be made quickly and decisively.

Supposing that the choice has been affirmed by the majority, the main question is whether we can discuss our beliefs civilly, supportively and without acrimony. We are "kin" in the eyes of God and God is in all of us. Regardless of how we demonstrate that, to support one another is to be an affirmative part of creation. To be an affirmative part of creation is to treasure life and sanity. The alternative is that we end up as so many religious groups who kill one another in the name of the God they worship. Speaking for myself, I wish to take Greg's suggestion and articulate a contemporary collection of teachings that is good for us all. I differ with him only in that I prefer to do so in the company of those I know and respect, the members of the United Church of Canada .

Shalom,

 Peter.

Afterthought: is anybody really advocating a "new" statement, or just a contemporary one, one that is solidly grounded in the Bible?

Table of contents   or   Next