Trudi Jones & John Maich 

Art l

Tea-Jay:

>How important are the following ideas? Need these be
>included?

>1 We believe/think/feel/decided

My understanding of belief is that it is a synthesis of intellect
and gut reaction. Since this is a "faith" statement it seems
appropriate to use faith based language. I vote for believe to
stay.

>2 one God only

Yes.

>3 not dead God

This makes God accessible in the here and now rather than relegating
God to the scrap-heap of history.

>4 not false God

This means that God is the standard for truth, it counters the
opinion of Pilate, "We all have truths, are mine the same as
yours?" (Andrew Lloyd Webber in Jesus Christ Superstar).

>5 God is Spirit

Yes, this should be emphasized to a greater degree so that we
can move beyond gender specific understandings of who God is
and how God relates.

>6 God is not material/molecules/flesh

This is best left for the discussions on the Trinity and Jesus
Christ.

>7 Beyond time, before time, after time ends, in time
>and outside of it too

Time is creature and God is not bound by it.

>8 Beyond space, in space, both places

Space is also creature and God is not bound by it.

>9 God's changeability ( an aside: as it stand does this
>mean that if we see
>something change then it is not of God? )

The unchangeable quality of God (immutability) speaks to the character
of God. God is not angry in one testament and loving in another,
God's interaction with the people of God is consistent/constant.

>10 God is, He is, She is, It ( Spirit ) is, Se is, He/She
>is, He/She/It is.

God is.

>11 Love God, Love Him, Love Her, Love It, Love Serm, Love
>Her/Him, Love It/Her/Him.

Love God.

>12 God's, of God, Hers, His, Its, Ses, His/Hers, Hers/Its/His.

God's or of God work.

>13 God's being is different from God's doing

I'm not certain as to what is meant by this but I'll say no. 
God is united in being and doing.

>14 God's is perfect

God's being is perfect. God's will is perfect. God's (fill in
the attrribute) is perfect.

>15 God has more names/titles. Is the Lord Almighty the
>one we want to use near the beginning?

Is it inappropriate to use LORD here? I think so since we are
in fact setting up God as someone completely other than creation.

>16 God is Love with a capital 'L' :) ( Why not? Go ahead,
>make the aging Flower Children happy! )

I'm not a flower child but I have no difficulty with God is Love.

>17 See 12 ( 10 & 11 too )

God's.

>18 God doesn't play favourites

Correct.

>19 Some things and people are Holy. Some are gloriously
>so. Of all the 'Holies' God is the superlative, the most
>glorious. 
>or 20 most = very

I think 'very' is the thrust here.

>21 Unsearchable in wisdom. hmmm what is this? God is right
>all the time so don't bother looking for errors of judgement.
>or God keeps all the wisdom to God's self (sp) Godself
>so don't bother trying to penetrate the fortress to get
>that wisdom for yourself. or God and/or God's wisdom
>is unknowable by mere mortals. Do we want to have children
>and other literalists understand this document without
>having to ask for an explanation/interpretation?

Unsearchable meaning we cannot fathom the wisdom of God, not that
God cannot be found. God's perspective on all matters is far
more complete than ours, therefore God is able to take a course
of action which seems ridiculous or foolish from our position.
I worked for a camp and lead many canoe trips down the local
river. By viewing the surface of the river I could discern something
of what was hidden from my sight (rocks, logs, shallows) God
doesn't need to look for the clues I need all information
is clear to God.

John

Top Of Page

Art ll

>Tea-Jay:
>
>1. We believe -- Is this a decision or a choice? What
>is wrong with "We choose  to believe..."
>
By saying "We believe" we are affirming that we, as the
United Church of Canada are a part of a larger body called
Christianity. It also suggests that Christianity is
but one of many ways to God. Traditionally the faith
has not recognized a multiplicity of paths to God. Within
the testimony of the Old and New Testaments it appears
that Judaism is the main pathway to God and the Christianity
is a tributary by which Gentiles may experience the blessings
of God's covenant with Abraham.
>
>2.that God has revealed -- 
>
This is important. Revelation is dependant upon the grace
of God rather than the ability of humanity.
>
>3. Himself -- Godself Itself 
>
God's Self
>
>4. in nature, 
>5. in history, 
>
Points 4 and 5 speak to the notion of Immanence, that
God is active in creation and history.
>
>6. and in the heart of man; 
>
This relfects the prophecy of Jeremiah 31: 33, "I will
put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts."
 It signifies that has made a covenant with the house
of Israel.
>
>7. that He -- God 
>
Yes
>
>8.has been graciously pleased 
>9. to make clearer revelation 
>
That aside from Creation which is 'general revelation'
God uses special revelation when dealing with his children.
The Christian Church recognizes that the scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments are 'special revelations'
of God's will and action.
>
>10. of Himself -- invent a new pronoun, preferably
>capitalized, reserved
>exclusively for reference to God?
>
God's Self is sufficient and much more immediate.
>
>11. to men -- need a gender neutral word here
>
Would humanity do?
>
>12. of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit;
> -- whose evaluation?
>
According to the thread in United Online, the Church as
the pillar and foundation of faith (1 Timothy 3: 15--thanks
Richard) evaluates.
>
>13. and that in the fullness of time -- Is there a better
>way to say this?
>What would Stephen Hawking use?
>
I like the phrase, it suggests an order and the inclusion
within that order of the human perspectives of past,
present and future.
>
>14. He -- God
>
Yes.
>
>15. has perfectly revealed --imperfectly in (some, most,
>all) other Homo
>sapiens?
>
Perfect here should be understood as complete. Perfect
revelation is complete revelation. Divine revelation
is incomplete, as it does not point to redemption, the
Old and New Testaments are, to a degree, incomplete because
they are the Words of God alone while Jesus is complete
revelation in that being God he is able to interpret
the scriptures in their spirit. The Sermon on the mount
illustrates how Jesus, interprets segments of the Mosaic
Law. 
>
>16. Himself -- God's Self 
>
Yes.
>
>17. in Jesus Christ, -- Query. Jesus is/was a perfected
>being. Is it important
>to state whether or not Jesus was the only perfected
>being God created?
>
Jesus is unique, not one of many. He is fully divine
and fully human. No one else comes close. This is important
because, as mentioned earlier Christianity does not allow
for a multiplicity of paths. Technically Jesus is begotten
not created since he is God the Son he existed before
the incarnation.
>
>18. the Word made flesh, --Grand Narrative : )
>
Close but more in keeping with John 1: 1, "In the Beginning
was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was
God."
>
>19. who is the brightness of the Father's glory -- I
>hope you leave this
>in! In spite of the reference confining God to maleness,
>I find my whole
>self lifted up several 'notches' when I read these words.
>
I like this too! The importance of 'Father' here is not
to say, "God is male" but to highlight that for Jesus
the ultimate head of our 'spiritual' family is God rather
than Abraham. See John 8: 31-41 for a dialogue between
Jesus and 'the Jews' regarding "paternity."
> 
>20. and the express image of His person. -- I run into
>trouble when I try
>to think this one through. I offer this in its place
> ... glory, a perfect
>expression of God.
>
This phrase reflects the teaching of John 14: 7, "If
you really knew me, you would know my Father as well.
From now on, you do know him and have seen him." According
to John, Jesus claims that his union to God is such that
whatever you see in Christ you see in God. Not the obvious
maleness but rather the compassion, love and passion
that drove Jesus and his ministry. How do we know God
loves us? Because Jesus loves us.
>
>21. We receive -- Is this the best word?
>
Yes, after all we did not create, they are gifts of grace.
>
>22. the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,
 -- and not the Apocrypha...
>
Protestant Church says no because the Tanakh (Jewish word
for what we Christians call the Old Testament) does not
recognize these writings as being inspired by God. This
was decided by the Council of Trent (around 1563 A.D.).
 The New Testament was established much earlier at the
Council of Carthage (around 397 A.d.).
>
>23. given by inspiration of God, -- and evaluated by
>the aforementioned men
>of God and selected/rejected by a committee of same
>
Evaluated by the Church but written by the aforementioned
men.
>
>24. as containing the only infallible rule of faith and
>life, -- what if
>something went wrong in the evaluation and selection
>phase. What if we are
>smarter now that they were then? What if only the inspiration
>part is infallible
>and the rest isn't?
>
We act in faith that such is not the case. Starting with
What if we need to go back to the first portion of scripture
and ask "What if the Spirit of God did not hover over
the waters?" Faith is to start with a proposition of
trust, God exists and desires that humanity comes to
a knowledge regarding the person, nature and will of
God. The "critical method" demands proof that there
is a God, that God can be known and that God has a will
that can be discerned. Faith allows the Christian to
embrace the authorities of the Christian system and these are
primarily scripture and the Church whereas the "critical
method" denies authority to these elements since they
are under question.
>
>24. a faithful record -- that depends...
>25. of God's gracious revelations, 
>
Most certainly they are this, without condition! They
are not history as we have come to understand it but
they are the record of the history of Redemption. They
record God's active hand in saving the children of God
and outlining how the children of God may be saved even
at this point in human history. Because they aren't complete
as we would like in no way diminishes that they are gifts
of God given to the people of God and that they fill
in the gaps necessary for redemption to take place. 
We are saved by Grace not by works.

>26. and as the sure witness of Christ. -- The meaning
>of this is not immediately
>evident.
>
Scripture from Genesis to Revelation points directly at
Jesus. He is the seed of the woman who will crush the
head of the serpent, he is the Bridegroom, the Alpha
and Omega.

>John

Top Of Page

Art lll

>We believe
>that the eternal,
>wise,
>holy -- Holy

Yes Holy, meaning other or set apart for sacred use.

>and loving purpose
>of God so embraces
>all events that,
>while the freedom of man -- gender issue

How about we use humanity instead of man?

>is not taken away,
>nor is God the author of sin,
>yet in His -- Gender

How about God's instead of the third person personal possesive
pronoun?

>providence -- is there a better word

I like providence, it speaks to God's understanding and provision
for all of our needs rather than all of our desires.

>He -- gender

As above except using God in place of the second person personal
pronoun.
>makes all thing work together.

>in the fulfillment of His --Gender

See above.

>sovereign design
>and the manifestation of His -- Gender

See above.

>glory.
 

John
Top Of Page

Art lV

 Of Creation and Providence -- What is meant by
Providence?

Providence is (1) the general foresight, love and care of God
for people; (2) God's divinely ordained or predestination of
certain events and (3) God's ultimate control over the universe
to ensure that good will is produced. Romans 8:28, "And we know
God causes all things to work together for good to those who
love God," is a text that is traditionally used to illustrate
the divine work of 'providence' (providing).

> We believe
> that God is the
>creator,
>upholder
>and governor -- this trinity is easier to understand because
God takes on
>all these roles.

This is an economic trinity which seeks to define God by what
God does rather than who God is. While it is in one sense easier
to understand it also is easier to misunderstand particularly
because the relational qualities of God are ignored in the economy
of divine work.

>of all things;
>that He is above all His --gender issue x2

God is transcendant.

>works
>and in them all; -- pantheism or not? immanent and transcentdant

God is immanent.

>and that He --gender

God.

>made man --gender

humanity.

>in His --gender

God's.

>own image, does 'image' mean imagination? After you say this
statement 'God's
>own Image' I am no further ahead.

Image comes from the Latin "imago" which can be translated as
image, likeness, picture, bust (as in statue), ghost, vision,
echo, appearance, semblance, shadow, mental picture, conception,
thought or idea. Theologically humanity is created "Imago Dei"
in the image of God. Debate around what the precise meaning
of 'created in God's image' means is ongoing. Some believe it
speaks only to the spiritual aspect of humanity since God is
"Spirit." Others believe that all of the 'earthly' creation
is
the shadow of a heavenly reality (sort of like Plato's cave analogy).

>meet for fellowship -- gender

I don't think so. True a grouping of males can be called fellows
and I myself have been addressed as young fella ( a corruption
of fellow). I suspect that the use here is to point to a familial
bond and in that way it is more inclusive than the term 'brotherhood.'
Communion may have been a better word.

>with -- does meet mean 'just right' or perfect'. Better word?

I believe "meet" is meant to be understood as indicating 'suitable'
or 'proper.'

>Him, -- gender

God.

>free
>and able to choose
>between good and evil,
>and responsible to his -- Gender

God's

>Maker and Lord. -- Not Lord Jesus in this case, right?

Yes and no. This useage clearly indicates God the Father when
the relational Trinitarian concepts are used but in an economic
Trinity there can be some confusion. Creation is not the sole
work of one person of the Trintiy, Genesis 1: 1 clearly has
God and the Spirit of
God present at creation while John 1: 1-2 places Jesus (as the
Word of God) in the context of Creation and testifies that everything
that has been made has been made through the Word. Jesus may
most appropriately be addressed as Lord, as may the Holy Spirit.

John
Top Of Page

Art V

 Of the Sin -- How important is the definition
of sin
>of Man. -- Gender

Humanity. Sin is a necessary topic since without the presence
of sin the concepts of redemption, justification and sanctification
become meaningless. In turn, these concepts are important to
our understanding of Jesus and His work. Remove redemption,
justification and sanctification and you strip Jesus of his identity
and reason for existence as an incarnate being.

> We believe
>that our first parents, -- is it important to know whether
or not they had
>navels?

That they had navels isn't the issue. The fact that we do is significant.

>being tempted, -- by what?

According to the narrative of Scripture they were tempted by the
Serpent and the desire to be like God.

>chose evil, is it important to know whether or not it was
an informed choice?

Yes it is important. Traditionally Christianity has seen sin
in two categories, sins of commission, the evil we do with our
hands, hearts, minds or mouths and sins of ommission, which is
the evil we did not prevent by the proper use of our hands, hearts,
minds or mouths. It is a choice. Scripture asserts that God
has placed the Law upon every human heart. And regardless of
our knowledge of that Law most courts stipulate that ignorance
of the law is no excuse.

>and so fell away -- what exactly is this process of falling
away?

Prior to sin our first parent were united to God and shared in
communion with God. They were one with God. With the rebellion/sin/falling
away they have lost the capacity to enter fully into that union.
Some Reformers have taught that in the falling away of humanity
the "Imago Dei--Image of God" is corrupted, a slanderous, offensive
act against God who is their benefactor.

>from God and came under the power of sin, -- There is only
one power in this
>universe, god

There is one ultimate power, God, and in the end that power will
vanquish all pretenders to the throne but there are other elements
within Creation that can exercise a power which is beyond our
ability to influence or resist.

>the penalty of which is eternal death; If there is such a
thing as eternal
>death then the one who has been 'sentenced' to this death
by some fabricated
>sentenceer, would not be aware of the state of being in eternal
death. So
>, what is the point of using eternal death as a punishment?
Sounds like scare
>tactics to me.

Death is ultimately, separation from God. John 1: 4, " In him
was life, and that life was the light of men (meaning humanity)."
John 15: 6, "If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a
branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked
up and trown into the fire to be burned." My take on these passages
is that the immanence of God graciously provides life to all,
the just and the unjust alike. Remaining/abiding in union with
Jesus allows that life to be ongoing/eternal. Separation
from Christ is a separation from life and the organism begins
the process of death. Hell appears to be a place where the death
process is a long, drawn out affair, as eternal as the rewards
God promises. Is this a scare tactic? Personally I believe  
that this is God's justice, as horrible and terrible as it sounds
the reality is most likely much worse.

>and that, by reason -- are you sure that it is reason and
not irrationality?
> Why doesn't the punishment fit the crime?

Reason here is meant to indicate source of action, sort of like
saying 'because of.' The punishment does fit the crime! The
image of God is corrupted and it has rebelled against the Sovereign
God. I'm not sure but I believe that the crime of 'Treason"
can still warrant a 'death' sentence, even in Canada. According
to the narrative the very basic laws at work in the garden were
obey me and live, disobey me and die. How would God be just
if after our first parents had downed the fruit of the knowledge
of Good and evil, which was clearly forbidden, God had said "No
really, I mean it. Don't ever do that again, you don't want
to make me angry!" God set a high standard, our parents fell
short of the standard, but God is also to be measured according
to that standard, to fail to punish exactly as outlined in the
law would have meant that God had fallen short. Fortunately
for us, God met the standard.

>of this disobedience, -- I'm sure that if it had been a fully
informed decision
>that They would never have done it.

"You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
for when you eat of it you will surely die" says God in Genesis
2: 17. "You must not eat from the fruit of the tree that is
in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you
will die" says Eve in Genesis 3: 2, notice how Eve has added
a further admonishment to God's commandment. It is obvious that
she clearly understood the intent of the law. "You will not
surely die, for God knows that when you eat it your eyes
will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil"
says the serpent in Genesis 2: 4-5, here is speculation of God's
motive on the part of the serpent as well as denial of the consequence
for disobedience. Humanity is fully informed yet desire for
something more promotes rebellion. It was fully informed and
it was deliberate. The sign on the roadside says School Crossing
Speed Limit 35km/h. Everyday for a year motorists ignore this
sign untli one day there is tragedy, will the judge
dismiss the case because everybody drives 50km/h through the zone
or will the magistrate bring to bear the full weight of the law
upon the motorist who, through negligence and gross disobedience
has taken a life. There are consequences to our actions we will
be held accountable.

>all men -- gender issue

humanity.

>are born with a sinful nature, --Here is a sweeping generality.
It is great
>fiction but it does not have the ring of truth about it.

Prove that it is fiction. Selfishness is a hallmark of sinful
nature. Why does a baby cry? To get it's needs met. it is
understandable, it is natural, but it is entirely egocentric.
Watch the child as it grows, see how quickly it will grow aggressive
and declare an object (blanket, toy or parent) "mine!" Watch
what happens if another child tries to take that object away,
that aggression that hostility is triggered by egocentrism. Pure,
naked, unadulterated, selfishness which, as the child grows
older we try to teach them is inappropriate. It doesn't become
inappropriate, it always has been inappropriate, our capacity
to demonstrate grace is what motivates us change the diapers
regardless of how personally uncomfortable such chores may make
us. And yet, maturity really only tempers how we display that
selfishness. I change my child's diapers but will I go next door
and change the diapers of the teen, young adult, middle-ager
or senior who is my neighbour? If I have love for them I might,
otherwise they can hire a nurse. The problem with the sinful
human nature is that it fairly screams truth and humanity tries
to block it out by demonstrating how noble we are, we've gone
to the moon, we've developed atomic weapons of mass destruction,
we sit and watch whole nations starve because they can't afford
to buy our wheat and the government dumps surplus wheat and fruits
so that our economy will not suffer.

>that we have broken God's law -- Is this the love God, love
self, love neighbour law?

Yes, although the order is askew. Technically it is love God
first and second we are to love our neighbours as we love ourselves.

>and that no man --gender

human.

>can be saved -- from what?

from death.

>but by His --gender

God's.

>grace. Would this engender learned helplessness?

No it is a statement of truth, a drowning individual is not able
to drag their self to shore while inhaling the lake nor are they
able to administer A.R. or C.P.R. if another doesn't intervene
they will die, regardless  of whether they want to live or no.
We have offended God by our sin only God can make this relationship
right again.

John
Top Of Page

>Article VI. Of the Grace of God

> We believe -- have come to believe? have been persuaded that?

I believe.

>that God, out of His -- gender issue

God.

>great love for the
>world, -- How about the word 'us' instead of 'world'

I don't think so, this would ruin the whole "we/they" argument thing. ;)

>has given His --Gender issue

God.

>Only begotten -- In order to think about the importance of this for inclusion
>ask yourself if in the year 2,367 another 'Son of God' appeared to help the
>people of that era get with the program then who are we to deny God this
>gift? Who are we to limit God?

While there are many 'sons of God' there is only one (1) Son of God. The difference
lies in the nature of the Son, particularly in that fully divine and fully human
nature. The article uses the term 'begotten' which is first introduced in the Nicean
Creed formulated by the Council of Nicea around 325 A.D and later revised (enlarged)
by the Council of Chalcedon around 451 A.D. The word 'begotten' sets Jesus apart
from the rest of Creation. Jesus is, in this understanding, not just a really good
person but the same in substance/essence as God the Father and God the Spirit. Next
one claiming to be the Son of God is either a false Christ or the antichrist according
to scripture. we don't limit God by taking this position we merely affirm the position
that God has taken.

>Son to be the
>Saviour of sinners, -- here is a bit of wordplay that may take your mind
>down a different path. sin, unsin... Sinners need to be unsinned. That's
>the purpose of a Saviour, to unsin sinners. How does unsinning happen? Did
>Jesus tell us how? Did Jesus provide us with an example of, show us how to
>unsin? Did he parableize it into obscurity or was he absolutely clear about
>it? I have often wondered if I had 'the ears to hear'. What do you hear
>that is different?

Albert Wolters in his book "Creation Regained" explains that the purpose of redemption
is in effect to re-create, to restore Creation to its original condition where nothing
was alienated from God. Jesus as the agent of Redemption pays the price that our
sins require, death. Jesus dies in our place and because he is fully divine as well
as being fully human he is able to die on behalf of an infinite number of humans
and since he is is infinite in nature, just like God there is still a Jesus left
when God's justice is done bieng enforced. Jesus' primary weapon against sin was
love (agape in the Greek). Love your God and your neighbour and your inclinations
will be to serve God and neighbour rather than self.

>and in the Gospel -- if Christianity was an oral tradition what would we
>say at this point? I think truth is truth even if it is unwritten.

At its point of origin Christianity was an oral tradition, the grafting of print based
cultures to the family tree lead to the spread of the gospel through the writings
of Paul and others.

>freely offers -- Is it necessary to say free. Adam and Eve's bodies were
>free, life was free, air was free, Eden was free, apples were free...

While this is true our bodies aren't salvation, trees aren't salvation, furit is not
salvation. It is Salvation that God offers freely within the context of this article.

>His --Gender issue

God's.

>all sufficient
>salvation -- It is too bad that we don't consider the option of being born
>sinless, staying sinless and dying sinless

What would we need Jesus for then? Moral example or guide? If we were sinless we
wouldn't even need him for that!

>to all men. -- gender

humanity.

>We believe also that God, in His -- Insufficiencies in pronoun availability

I agree. God, God's Self sounds kind of lame doesn't it?

>own good pleasure, gave to His Son a people,
>an innumerable multitude, chosen in Christ
>unto holiness, service and salvation. Why di God do this? What does this
>mean?

It means that after creating humanity for fellowship God was loathe to wipe humanity
out of existence when they chose to be their own gods. The work of redemption begins
with the promise of the Messiah to Adam and Even and grows larger with every succeeding
generation. It means first of all that God will not obliterate the "Imago Dei" from
Creation and it means that while some of humanity will have to live with the consequences
of sinfulness there are some that God will rescue for life in para
dise.
Top Of Page

>Article VII. Of the

>1. Lord -- why the word Lord. Is it to reflect some truth about the relative
>positions of Jesus and me ( mine?) in the universe?

In a way yes. As Creator and creation we belong to Christ inherently. Just like
when I take paint to canvas the result is mine, someone else could buy it but only
my name can be signed to it. History will not judge the work by its owner but by
its creator. As Creator of the universe Christ, has title over everything in it.
We are, in this like of thought, the property of God. That God treats us as children
and friends is much to the credit of the divine glory of God.

>2. Jesus Christ -- Does everyone have to have the same understanding of the
>difference between (amongst ) 'Jesus', 'Christ' and 'Jesus Christ'?

Be much more helpful than the every opinion for one's self. Jesus asked the question
"Who do you say I am?" Peter blurts out "You are the Christ, the son of the Living
God!" and Jesus blesses Peter because, "that knowledge was revealed to you by the
Holy Spirit and not by man." I think if the Spirit reveals there should be more
consistency in thought than is evident within the Church today.

>3. We believe --
>4. in and confess -- profess? With confessing having such a bad connotation,
>should it be used here?

Confessing has bad connotations? Admitting guilt is a bad thing? Those who repent
of much are forgiven much but those who repent little receive little forgiveness.
Let's get that guilt out in the open instead of letting it fester in the dark.
In essence, while profess would be satisfactory, the article is basically calling
us to say, "I admit it, I'm a Christian."

>5. the Lord --
>6. Jesus Christ, --
>7. the only Mediator -- I could buy this argument if it were implicitly
>understood that Jesus Christ was in each of us. The 'the only way' would
>become 'the inward way'

Nothing is being sold. The Christian system acknowledges that there is a rift between
humanity and divinity and that Christ overcomes that rift by partaking in both the
human and divine nature to their fullest extent. While there is much of the Christian
faith that can adequately be described as the inward way it should be noted that
the commandments summed up by Christ as the greatest are the love of God with all
of our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbours as we love ourselves.
It seems most appropriate that Christian faith and expression is more about others
than self. Of course if I belong to a community where everyone else is looking
out for my concerns/needs it is easy for me to concentrate on others.

>8. between God and man, -- Is it necessary for all to agree on the nature
>of the separation? -- Inadequate pronoun. Be bold. Create a new one. How 'bout
>this? A LITURGICAL PRONOUN for the exclusive use of religionists in religious
>settings!

Religionists? So this word could be used by Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists,
Zoroastrians and Wiccans alike? I'm not sure that I would want my God to be confused
with the gods of others, particularly those others who stand in contrast to the tenents
of Christianity. As to the separation and universal agreement to its nature, agreement
would make things much smoother, instead of theological squabbling/nit-picking we
could just get on with the mission of service. At the same time I think that
within the Christian system we need to understand how God and Jesus view this separation.
Jesus in John 15 says, "Apart from me you can do nothing." my understanding is
that united with Christ I can accomplish things that will matter and last, apart
from God nothing I do will have any real or lasting merit.

>9. who, being the Eternal Son of God, -- the non-temporal became temporal
>and then ascended back to non-temporal realms again.

Basically, yes. God without limit became human subject to limits. God the Son became
hungry, thirsty, lonely and afraid. God the Son did not use that hunger, thirst,
loneliness or fear become an excuse to violate his neighbours and when the work of
atonement was done cried from the cross, "It is finished." And returned to the throne
that he had put aside in the attempt to rescue his not so loyal subjects.

>10. for us men -- Gender issues

for humanity

>11. and for our salvation -- Are you sure that Jesus wasn't here to explain
>the 'mystery' ( that used to generate fear ) of death. Instead of talking
>he showed us not to fear death by doing the 'death thing' and then coming
>back. We were therefore meant to conclude that there was life after death
>and we were to let go of the fear.

No! Ugh, this is more repulsive than the 'just a nice guy but not God theology.'
We were separate from God, who is merciful and just. Mercy without the possiblity
of justice is liscence and justice without mercy is cruelty. The wages of sin are
death. God established this law upon the honour and word of God, to break it would
be out of character. But, God will accept quality substitutions (but not hand-drawn
or mechanically reproduced copies) The mercy of God is outlined in the Son's offering
to take our place, to die the death that is our penalty. Not to make our way easier,
but to make the way possible.

>12. became truly man, --gender issue - Why was a man chosen for the incarnation?

became human. God only knows, however Genesis 3: 15, "I will put enmity between
you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and
you will strike his heel" is one of the earliest messianic prophecies (though not
all agree that this is a messianic prophecy). Some theologians in the past have
indicated that since Adam was the master (this argument is made because only the
master can give names and Adam named Eve) it is Adam's sin, in contrast to Eve's
that lead
to the eviction and death sentance. Paul contrasts Jesus with Adam and even calls
him the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15: 45-50). A deeper meaning is found in the figure
of the Kinsman-Redeemer (Boaz took this responsibility in the book of Ruth so that
he could marry the central character), who is usually male. the Kinsman-Redeemer
is the figure who is obligated to maintain the wholeness/peace of all within the
clan. Our sin causes us great distress and loss of inheritance. Jesus, our Kinsman-Redeemer
can purchase our inheritance and restore us to our fortune. That is what the work
of atonement does.

>13. being conceived of the Holy Spirit -- Did Jesus have chromosomes? How
>many? Whose?

Being fully human I would say yes. As to how many I can only say enough. As to whose
I would have to say Mom's (Mary's) and Dad's (God the Father), how does it work?
God knows and for me that is sufficient.

>14. and born of the Virgin Mary, -- What exactly would be the significance
>in Jesus if the womb that bore him was multi-parous? ( I think that is the
>word. I mean multiple pregnancies. ) To me there is no difference in the
>essence of an individual that could possibly arise out of birth sequence.

Some believe that a typical womb has been contaminated because of the contact made
by the male, which is typically necessary for birth to occur. Sperm is the essence
of maleness so even invitro corrupts. It becomes necessary that the mother of God
be a virgin, though not important that she eternally remain so, in order to be fully
human but also to be free from the corruption of sin which is inherited from the
father and every other Son of Adam. God not being a Son of Adam is the only eligible
father.

>15. yet without sin. -- Sin is an informed choice. No babies exercise choice.
>16. Unto us He has revealed the --

I disagree and put forward another argument in the Article Of the Sin of Man. sin
is selfisheness.

>17. Father, -- the first Person of the Trinity

Yes.

>18. by His word and
>19. Spirit, -- what does this mean...we learned from what He was,did?

Scripture and occasional special revelation through the minds of chosen individuals.

>20. making known the perfect will of God. -- You should mention here ( or
>someplace else ) what the will of God is. This will help those who are uncertain
>about that matter. I guess that I think that the importance of will of God
>is greater than the arrival of the Messenger ( no matter how holy that messenger
>might be ) God's will should not be obscured by this particular method of
>bringing us information.

The importance of the will of God is manifested in several ways. Redemption is, I
think of primary importance, certainly God acts most frequently as redeemer throughout
the scriptures. But apart from the will for Redemption there is the will for abundant
life/compassion for those who suffer/right relationships within creation. God's
will is not a narrow thing and while there are many connections to each facet a complete
article on the will of God is beyond the scope of brevity, which believe it
or not the Articles tried to adhere to.

>21. For our redemption, -- from what?

>From death and corruption.

>22. He fulfilled all righteousness, -- what does this mean? I know this
>next part that I will right is kinda silly but it will reflect to you what
>some minds ( thought processors ) do when faced with obscurity of meaning.
>A mind will then look to structure for clues to meaning. It follows structurally
>to ask, "How did righteousness become unfulfilled in the first place?"

Through the disobedience in the garden. "You must not eat from the fruit of the tree
of the knowledge of Good and evil" is the law, "or you will die" is the consequence.

>23. offered Himself a -- 'as' is understood?

Not unless you understand Jesus to be God the Son.

>24. perfect sacrifice -- in my paradigm Jesus was an example, a perfect example.
> He taught us that there is life after death. In order to teach by example
>he had to actually do the death thing. Then he had to reappear. Amazing demonstration.

This is not a traditional Christian understanding. Jesus is the lamb of God offered
up so that the angel of death would passover us and we would be free to escape from
the bondage of sin and death fro the promised land of life eternal. That the Crucifixion
is so closely connected with the Jewish festival of Passover is not a coincidence.

>25. on the Cross, -- I don't know if some other method would have sufficed.

No. To be hung on a tree an indicator of being cursed by God. In order for Christ's
sacrifice to be acceptable it was necessary that God refuse him hence the other cry
from the cross, "My God, my God, Why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27: 46). Interestingly,
in the gospel of Matthew the story of the Judas' suicide immediately preceded Jesus'
trial before Pilate.

>25. satisfied -- Who was unsatisfied and why?

God was unsatisfied. Sin had corrupted his creation. Christ in accepting the wages
of sin and death when he himself is sinless and life incarnate cancels out what is
owed.

>25. Divine justice -- I hate seeing these two words together. I have not
>yet come to terms with the word justice yet. I need a better meaning. I
>am stuck in it as meaning revenge.

Justice and mercy are two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other.
It is not so much revenge on God's part as it is keeping his word. Keep in mind
that there is always fair warning.

>26. and made propitiation -- perhaps a more immediately understandable word

like restitution?

>27. for the sins -- ignorance, perhaps

I don't think ignorance works. Rebellion or disobedience are closer to the mark.

>28. of the whole world. -- lots of issues here. I guess time is the important
>one. Propitiation BEFORE the sin is committed?

For some yes, the Crucifixion, like a tree, is manifest in one point in time however
the roots (purpose or work) often find themselves manifest outside that point in
time. The crucifixion covers over the sins of the past, present and the future because
to God everything is now.

>29. He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, -- moved from the temporal
>to the non-temporal.

No. From death to life. Time is a gift given to humanity by which we can measure,
just like temperature and distance but it is part of life. Heaven is not without
measurement it surpasses all, world without end, no end to the time spent there,
no end to the distance one may travel there. The old barriers of life melt away.

>30. where He ever intercedes for us. -- Why is intercession necessary? What
>does this say about the entity on the other side of the intercession from
>us. What form does intercession take?

Without intercession, without Jesus saying, "Father, I died for that one" the atonement
might as well never have happened. The intercession takes place, I presume, in
the call for mercy. Spiritually, Redemption is a done deal for me, God holds me
fast in those powerful hands and has promised to never let go of me again. Yet,
even though I'm no longer subject to death my body is dying. My strength fades as
do my hearing and my vision and eventually this body will become an empty husk.
I will exchange this body of the earth for the spiritual body to come and on that day my
regeneration will be complete.

>31. In the hearts of believers -- This is lovely but why the heart? The heart
>is a source of error.

For some yes, but biblically the heart is the seat, the foundation of all action.
Everything we do, according to scripture, has its motive in the heart. our nobility
and our depravity as humans originates from the same place. Cleanse it thoroughly
and you are literally and figuratively a new person.

>32. He -- Jesus or God?

Jesus the Son of God naturally.

>33. abides for ever as the indwelling Christ; -- I want this to read 'the
>indwelling God'. Jesus came ( out of : ) the blue ) with his superior knowledge/contact
>with God. The God abiding in Jesus was to the max, to use a vernacular term.
> The God in Jesus came into time/space to say "wakeup Wake Up W A K E U
>P!" to the God in me ( also you and all the 'thems' that Jesus could reach.
>) Hey people, if you look at the story this way there is a whole lot less
>of 'I'm right and You're wrong' ( which
>is the biggest thing that makes people run screaming from the church. ) This
>scenario is full of " I'm good, you're good and we are getting better " This
>is a good foundation for a church.

The message of God through scripture is I'm good, you used to be but because I love
you I will make you good again.

>33. above us and over us all He rules; -- God rules.

Yup.

>34. wherefore, unto Him -- God?

Yes.

>35. we render -- we have decided to give

or, with grateful hearts we give. Gratitude is the proper response to Grace given.

>36. love,
>37. obedience and
>38. adoration -- God will lovingly accept these things but God may not need
>them. Does God have needs. Is perfection needless?

Does God need these things? Well no, after all God did exist before we did. Does
God desire these things? Yes, they were the motivation for creation.

>39. as our Prophet,
>40. Priest
>41. and King. These three are rather temporal in nature...how about using
>some of the titles for God that are more evocative of things trancendant.

These titles relate to qualities of Jesus' function and person. As our Prophet he
spoke to us on God's behalf. As our Priest, he intercedes with God on our behalf.
As King, Jesus is sovereign over all creation.

>I understand both my paradigm and yours much better after doing this article.
> By the way, If everyone was to review the concepts one by one, they would
>have an excellent beginning point for group discussion and individual contemplation.
>It's all here!

I believe that this was the proper function of the Catechism. It is a pity that the
United Church moved away from such a useful tool.

John
Top Of Page

>Article VIII. Of the Holy Spirit

>
>1. We believe --
>2. in the Holy Spirit, --
>3. the Lord -- is itmconfusing that two persons of the Trinity
are called
>Lord?

This speaks to the Trinitarian nature of God. One God, three
persons. Most honorifics, titles and adresses can be applied
to any one of the three equally. Those titles specific to the
person "Father, Son or Holy Spirit" are not. Jesus and the Spirit
are not the "Father" nor are the 'Father' and the Spirit "The
Son of God."

>4. and Giver of life, -- hmmm why did this task fall to the
Holy Spirit?

the Hebrew word "ruach" and the Greek word "Pneuma" are used to
indicate the Holy Spirit/wind/and breath. Traditionally life
was indicated by respiration. "Let everything that has breath,"
sort of deal. Ezekiel's valley of dry bones has a vivid comparison
of when the bones come together into bodies but "no life was
found in them."

>5. who proceeds from the Father and the Son, -- or is it
from the Godhead

The Father and the Son together do not make up the Godhead. You
need the presence of the Spirit for that.

>6. who moves upon the hearts of men -- upon hmmm an interesting
choice of
>prepositions

This is God's immanence. God at work in human hearts and history.

>7. to restrain them from evil -- In my paradigm, if I were
forced to acknowledge
>evil, I would the say that as soon as one has been 'incited'
( in itself
>an interesting choice of words ) to good, then evil cannot
enter in.

If such is the case, then good cannot enter into anything that
evil has hold of right? God makes sure that good can get a purchase
by using the Spirit to root out evil and to hold it at bay until
the good has taken root. Sort of like plastic lawn edging which
tries to keep the grass in the lawn rather than the flower bed.

>7b. and to incite them unto good,

Just because evil of one kind is absent it does not follow that
good becomes natural. So God removes the false god of materialism
from my being if God does not plant that proper relationship
I could fall prey to narcissim or hedonism or any other of the
false gods strutting around.

>8. and whom the Father is ever willing to give unto all who
ask Him. -- This
>is a wonderful promise; I'd keep this one in for sure. Maybe
change the
>sentence structure. Definitely change the personal pronoun.

You like this? I do too! It is by Grace that we recieve the
Holy Spirit, it is a gift not a merit award.

>9. We believe that He -- pronoun shortage

God.

>10. has spoken by holy men -- not just men, women too

Yes there are holy women, however very few are acknowledged as
the author of the scriptures. When the phrase "God has spoken"
is implied it points to the writings of the Bible and not the
"Special Revelations given to men and women in the ages since.

>11. of God -- someone will want to know what came first,
the state of being
>Holy or the speaking of the Word. What is the cause and effect
sequence here?

Holy means to be set apart for God's use. No one has spoken for
God unless God has set them apart first.

>12. in making known His truth to men -- and women and children

humanity.

>13. for their salvation; -- from what?

Damnation, eternal death, the consequences of sin, that sort of
thing.

>14. that, through our exalted Saviour, -- I have sequence
problems again
>. Let's see hmm while it is true that The Holy Spirit arose
after Jesus,
>I believe that the Holy Spirit comes from God, the Godhead,
or perhaps the
>Father directly to us.

Chronologically there is no progression within the Godhead; Father,
Son, and Spirit are all eternal together.

>15. He -- OH NO!!! Now it looks like we need a Trinity of
sacred pronouns!

The Spirit.

>16. was sent forth in power -- Hallelujah! I love this.
Thes words make
>me feel good even though, when I think about them, their meaning
is not really
>clear.

Authority. The ability to persuade rather than coerce. The just
authority of the Creator rather than the corrupt and unjust authority
of the Deciever.

>17. to convict the world of sin, -- is this step really necessary?
Couldn't
>the Holy Spirit just skip the convictions and get on with
the Good Works?

If you have not been convicted (convinced) of your sin, how can
you ever be convicted (convinced) of your righteous standing
before God? Without this two-fold conviction, moving right to
works makes redemption our responsibility and negates the atoning
work of Christ. It renders the cross and the sacrifice of cross
a non-event.

>19. to enlighten men's minds -- not the heart this time.

God has written the perfect and pleasing Law of God upon human
hearts yet the mind often interprets the law and humanity begins
to experience problems. God, through the work of the Holy Spirit
is going to give lessons in interpretation from the point of
view of the holy.

>20. in the knowledge of Christ, -- Do you mean to convey
that the Holy Spirit
>'tells' us of the indwelling God? Just exactly Who does the
indwelling.

Again the Trinity plays into this equation. The Triune God dwells
in our hearts.

>21. and to persuade and enable them -- this is good work.
People do this
>work too

True, but no where near as effectively. God really is not a thrill
seeker so God doesn't take risks for risk sake.

>22. to obey the call of the Gospel; -- In my paradigm I would

probably try
>to transmute the idea of obey into something less imperious.
Let's see hmmmmmm
>persuade and enable folks to resonate unceasingly with truth,
beauty and
>goodness.

Resonance is obedience. Open a piano and sing clearly and distinctly
one singular note ito it. Sing with power. Stop abruptly and
listen. One string in that piano was created to virate to that
frequency. You can hit it with a hammer and it will vibrate,
however after repeated stikings it will loose that tune. Yet
by singing into the piano, by gently calling to the string, it
will respond by calling out itself.

>23. and that He -- She, God the Motherspirit. Why not Motherspirit?
Father
>Mother Son is a Trinity of sorts.

God.

>24. abides with the Church, -- because the basic unit of
a chruch is the
>individual.

No the basic unit of the Church is the individual in union with
Christ.

>25. dwelling in every believer as the spirit of truth, of
power, of holiness,
>of comfort and of love. -- m-m-m- what a lovely ending. No
wonder the Holy
>Spirit is my favourite aspect of the Trinity.

The Holy Spirit is also the least understood and frequently ignored
member of the Tinity.

John
Top Of Page

>Article IX. Of Regeneration

> ( Kaizen is the Japanese word for continuous improvement )

Regeneration is the complicated word which in essence means "born again" John 3:
1-14 lays the foundation for the necessity of being "born again."
 

>1. We believe --
>2. in the necessity of regeneration, -- Be ye transformed by the renewing
>of your mind.

In part yes, most of it is actually of the 'new creation in Christ Jesus' scope.

>3. whereby we are made new -- like new again?

No, really new. While physically I resemble John Maich before regeneration took place
(DNA sample would indicate that the pre-regeneration and post-regeneration John Maich
are one and the same) Regeneration speaks to the totality of human being. Therefore
it is body, soul and mind which are to be regenerated. Soul and mind can be regenerated
through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and in effect create a new personality.
Physical regeneration will occur in our physical resurrection which happens
on the Day of the LORD.

>4. creatures in Christ Jesus -- I would need clarification

We belong to that which is created, therefore we are "creatures." The consequence
of "the Fall" (original Sin) is that we are now rooted, connected with the 'world'
which is temporary. New Creatures in Christ are in the world but not of the world.
We are spiritual beings, the spiritual children of a spiritual 'Father' so we are
not temporary.

>5. by the Spirit of God, --
>6. who imparts spiritual life - so, you believe that the gift of spiritual
>life is not a one time event??? A re-kindling is needed?

The gifting is a one time event yet the 'consequence' of that gifting is forever.
Just as one candle is effective against the darkness alone, many candles altogether
overpower the darkness. Our spirits and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will be
forever they just appear to be brighter when they combine in community.

>7. by the gracious and mysterious operation of His -- pronoun

God's.

>8. power, using as the ordinary means -- Why do you think the authors wanted
>so point out ordinary means here?

Common or regular. Typically, most come to understand the operations of grace and
the Holy Spirit through the scriptures of the Old and New Testament.

>9. the truths of His word and the ordinances -- a more understandable word,
>but not R U L E S.

The ordinances hinted at are, I believe, the sacraments held by the United Church,
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Martin Luther would have it that we never forget
our baptism and the covenant that it signifies and the United Church labels the Lord's
Supper as a perpetual obligation. A rule is boundary meant to protect, it can be
a loving act, just like when I tell my kids they are not to stick forks in the toaster
or the wall outlets. It would be most unloving to let them do that kind of thing.

>10. of divine appointment -- Huh?

Those things that God has given to us (i.e., Baptism and the Lord's Supper).

>11. in ways agreeable to the nature of man. -- 9, 10,& 11 together are not
>really transferring meaning to my mind, even after some deliberation?. Feels
>good though.

In effect God is not asking us to behave in a way that we were not 'originally' designed
to behave. 9, 10 and 11 point to the sacraments. 11 speaks of the imagery found
within the sacraments and how that imagery reflects upon the needs of humanity.
A Baptismal image is one of washing, while some people can tolerate the grime and
dust of the earth more than others I have met few who actually preferred the dirt
and grime to cleanliness. Even the "tillers of soil" I have known  who get dirty as
a means of putting food on their (and mine) table enjoy that wash at the end of the
day. The Lord's Supper, also known as Holy Communion or the Eucharist, points to
the eternal wedding banquet of the Lamb of God and the Church. In particular the
reception where there is food and drink galore. For those in the 'western' world
who have known more gluttony than hunger or thirst it might be comforting to know
that God has found fat-free food that really does have all the taste.

John
Top Of Page

>Article X: Of Faith & Repentance

>
>1. We believe
>2. that faith in Christ -- Does this exclude putting your faith in God?

No. Christ as God the Son automatically includes God as 'Father' and Holy Spirit.

>3. is a saving grace -- Are there other kinds of grace?

Yes. Common grace is that which we most frequently receive and have come to take
for granted. The sun rising and setting, the rains which nourish the crops of the
field, the life we live are all gifts from God (graces) but they are not salvific.

>4. whereby we receive -- in head, in heart ?

Heart, Soul, Mind and strength.

>5. Him, -- how 'bout 'this grace' instead

God. Since grace is the vehicle by which God offers God's self to the people of God.

>6. trust in -- wouldn't trust necessarily flow from the acceptance of the presence?

I don't believe that trust is the next logical step. Much modern biblical scholarship
appears to operate out of a system of distrust.

>7. Him -- 'this inward presence'?

"Inward presence" is to vague. Discernment of spiritual presences is called for,
"do not trust every spirit, but test every spirit to see whether they are from God."
(1 John 4: 1) While our God is the indwelling God it is not safe to assume that
evey indwelling spirit is godly. Demonic Possession for example is the indwelling
of an evil or harmful spirit. Theologian Merrill Unger has penned several solid
works on the theology of demons (i.e., Demons in the World Today; What Demons Can
Do To
Saints and Biblical Demonology) a much ignored aspect of Christian faith.

>8. and rest upon Him -- pronoun

God.

>9. alone -- what is behind this? The authors want us not to rest on something
>else. What?

"Sola Dei" (God alone)is the thrust of this point. It is to counter claims that the
Bible is an imcomplete form of revelation and that further revelation is required.
(i.e., The Mormon and Jehovah Witness faith expressions do use the Old and New Testament
but place equal or higher weight on the book of Mormon or the writings of Charles
Taze Russell). It is also a reaffirmation of the ancient creed, "Hear O Israel,
the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6: 4).

>10.for salvation -- from what? If you could swing the whole UCC around from
>salvation from some distant past negative thingy to going toward some glorious
>future then people could hold there heads up cheerfully and step out confidently
>to do good works. I guess I want a carrot religion not a stick religion.
> I get a sense of people moping around dragging themselves from moment (
>tomorrow and tomarrow and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to
>day ) to moment trailing or dragging their sin
>behind them like The Mummy's wrappings or Jacob Marley's ghost's chains.

Truthfully, the original sin position is not the predominant theological position
in the United Church ethos. I have spent years listening to my clergy never say
word one about sin, I have even witnessed the brutalization of biblical text to avoid
saying the "S" word altogether. This was done to alleviate feelings of guilt. Assuming
of course that guilt is a negative thing. I don't believe that guilt is a harmful
and destructive emotion. It is what one does with guilt that makes it so destructive.
You used the analogy of Marley's chains and it is a good one. Why do these people
mope and drag themselves around? Because they are guilty an they refuse, to repent.
Raher than come forward and take responsibility for the pain and injury that they
have caused they deny their fault or rationalize their actions to make the victim
responsible for their pain. The greatest failing of the Church is not that they
have emphasized the sin of humanity but that humanity just cannot believe the claims
of
grace. All can be forgiven! Why can't humanity grab that fact? Because they never
repent to be forgiven and because they would rather carry a grudge than offer forgiveness.
Repentance means getting everything out in the open where exposure will kill it.
Sin thrives in darkness.

>11.as He -- God, Holy Spirit Faith Grace???? Overlapping functions... not
>clear to me.

I think that Christ is the implied person.

>12. is offered -- by whom?

by the Gospel.

>13. to us in the Gospel, -- instad of putting in the reference here , why
>not put in the actual way or means of the giving?

The gospel is the message but God can deliver the gospel through a multiplicity of
mediums.

>14. and that this saving faith is always -- ALWAYS, how can you be so sure?

If I am guilty of a crime against my wife, and she has demonstrated that she is an
unforgiving person will I open myself to her vengefulness by confessing my sin, not
likely. If my wife has demonstrated the essential quality of God in mercy and grace,
will I confess my sin knowing that despite the pain such a confession causes her
she will not use that pain to hurt me, probably. The pain a confession will cause
my wife is my incentive to continue the ongoing work of repentance, to never cause
that
pain again.

>15. accompanied by repentance, -- means a re-think of things does it not?
> Who does the rethinking? God cannot impose thinking so whta is the dynamic
>here?

Not re-thinking. A commitment to refrain from the activity which caused injury.
It is more than being sorry it is turning away from an activity or behaviour.

>16. wherein we confess -- what are the psychological undurpinnings of this?

We are responsible for our actions, guilt is caused by the awareness of injury caused,
confession acknowledges the pain and takes responsibility for its creation.

>17. and forsake our sins -- is the word release inadequate here? release
>sin?

To forsake also means to turn away or forget. forsakeing our sins means leaving or
not committing the same sins again.

>18. with full purpose of and endeavor after --
>19. a new obedience to God. -- a new and better way to live.

Most certainly!

John
Top Of Page

>Article XI. Of Justification

Justification of what? You would have to
>already be on the inside track to know what this means right off.
>and Sonship -- Daughtership? Childship?

Justification by definition is the act of proclaiming something to be just or righteous.
In this instance Justification is God's declaration of Righteous all those who are
Christ's.

>1. We believe
>2. that God,
>3. on the sole ground -- at first I thought this was minimizing God ability
>to pardon. Then I say it was minimizing the "Hoops ' you have to jump through
>to get a pardon.

One judge, no jury, no mistrials, no appeals.

>4. of the perfect obedience and sacrifice of Christ, -- does the author mean
>Jesus?

For the author Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God.

>5. pardons -- what does one need to be pardoned for?

Our sins.

>5b.those who
>6. by faith
>7. receive Him -- Jesus was the man in whom the Christ Spirit was present
>right? So this should be Christ, not Jesus.

No. The Christian position is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, God's annointed
Messiah. Christ, Jesus, Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus; according they are one and
the same.

>8. as their Saviour and Lord,
>9. accepts them as righteous and
>10. bestows upon them the adoption of -- this sounds as though it came from
>the mind of a person.

God is a person (has personality) and God adopts us to be the children of God.

>11. sons, --daughters

sons and daughters or children.

>12. with a right to all privileges therein implied, -- and you say that God
>bestowed these privileges....hmmm

Adopted members of the royalty still get "royal" treatment. Di was a princess by
marriage not by birth yet she was buried as a princess.

>13. including a conscious assurance of their -- is this a right?

Yes. It is our right to know that we are a child of God and that any attack or criticism
against us is an outright attack against our 'Father' and the Sovereign of the Universe.
"If God is for us, who can stand against us?"

>14. sonship. -- wholeness? Does this mean that they become like Adam and Eve
>before the apple.

Inheritance? Spiritually yes, the flesh is renewed on the Day of the Lord.

John
Top Of Page

>Article XII. Of Sanctification

 Is this the best word? Is the sanctification
>volitional, automatic or bestowed?

Sanctification means the separation or setting apart of the sacred from the sinful
to make it holy. People, places, things and times may be sanctified. Within Christianity
it is God who sets apart the sacred. The history of the theology of sanctification
is closely connected with the theology of justification particularly in terms or
their order. It is similar to the chicken and the egg argument.

> We believe
>that those who are regenerated -- and only those who are regenerated?

Yes.

>and justified -- by whom? Who sets the standard here? Does this mean 'made just'?

By God. Yes they are 'made/pronounced/determined/declared to be just.

>grow in the likeness of Christ -- The affirmation/prayer I have bee taught
>to use is "Let the mind that was in Jesus be in me"

That is the essence of likeness, one in mind, spirit and body.

>through fellowship with -- is this another way of saying 'pray unceasingly'?

Praying unceasingly would be part of this fellowship. Other parts would include a
conscience awareness of God's presence at all times.

>Him, --pronoun problem

God.

>the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
>and obedience to the truth; -- The truth is not something to obey, the Law
>is obeyed. Truth is known.

It is difficult to separate God's Law from truth. Particularly in a system which
affirms the sovereignty of God.

>that a holy life is the fruit and evidence of saving faith; -- could the
>word saving be left out here?

No. Christianity is very much built upon the History of Redemption which outlines
the saving grace of God.

>and that the believer's hope of continuance in such a life is in --
>the preserving grace of God. -- is in the decision to stay connected to God.

The 'preserving grace' of God would be that form of grace which permits/enables the
child of God to stay connected/abide with God.

>And we believe that in this growth in grace --
>Christians -- anyone that successfully completes the previous steps...

Since most previous steps include conscious knowledge of Christ and union with Him
yes.

>may attain that maturity and full assurance of faith -- of his/her expectation

Expectation? I'm not sure what you mean by this can you elaborate? The phrase 'that
maturity and full assurance of faith' is that cementing of the relationship. The
knowledge within the individual that God will never let go.

>whereby the love of God is made perfect to us -- this has a connotation of
>imperfect love somehow. How about something like 'we grow and become able
>to see the perfection ( That has existed, exists now, and will always exist
>) better.

Again, "perfect" is being used here to convey the idea of 'complete.' On can come
to a knowledge of God's love for the world through general revelation (creation)
and special revelation (The scriptures). The 'perfection' of love is the integration
of knowledge, faith and experience. It is more than reading John 3: 16 or being
able to recite John 3: 16, it is living every moment in delight and rapture because
of John 3: 16.
Top Of Page

Article XIII. Of Prayer -- Of Re-connecting with Deity

This is raising some flags for me though I'm not sure why. The idea of re-connecting works if viewing prayer from the human nature angle, Creation--Connection/Fall--Separation/Redemption--Re-connection. However on an individual level prayer is a more conscious communion with the God who indwells and is ever-present.

> We believe that  we are encouraged to -- it is essential to

Prayer is helpful but not essential. Prayer is not a condition of our covenantal relationship with God, which God will honour even if we do not.

>draw near to -- be aware of our connection to

Enter into the presence of God.

>God, --
>our Heavenly Father, -- If there were an easy way to tell people to connect with the quality of God that was the most meaningful at the moment, I would put it here.

Is there a quality of God which is alien to fatherhood?

>in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, -- when you are connected to God the other aspects of God need not be thought about.

Yes and no. We are talking about the God of the Christian system not any other system. Christ is the Christians access to the process of Redemption it is important that we keep that in sight.

>and on our own behalf and that of others -- Love thy neighbour as thyself

Yes.

>to pour out our hearts humbly yet freely before -- before has a negative connotation for me, the connotation of separateness so I would use a different phrase

At God's feet?

>Him, -- pronoun

God.

>as becomes His -- pronoun

God's

>beloved children, --hmmmmm...
>giving Him -- pronoun

God.

>the Honour and praise due His -- pronoun

God's

>holy name, -- What is the difference in intention between using God's name and God.

God is a generic word in that Baal, Ahura Mazda, Kali and Ra are all gods. Yet there is only one Y/ H/ W/ H. who is God over all.

>asking Him ( pronoun )to glorify Himself ( pronoun )on earth as in Heaven, -- what is the reason behind this prayer?

God. God's self. So that we who dwell in the earthly realm will have the awareness of God shared by those members of the Church (the saints that have gone before) who dwell in the heavenlies.

>confessing unto Him ( Pronoun )our sins -- or let God know you want to do better and better

God. Its a matter of accountability. Taking responsibility for the evil that has entered the world through our hands, thoughts or words.

>and seeking of Him ( Pronoun ) every gift needful for this life -- How about asking for our desires for a life beyond need. What if I wanted a second pair of shoes or another Rolls-Royce?

God. Needs take priority over desires. I may want rebocks but I need something to protect my feet. I may desire peace in the world, God may want integrity.

>and for our everlasting salvation. - Would this be a good place to reiterate the criteria for salvation ( if needed )?

Salvation is needed! a reiteration of the criteria is not.

>We believe also that, inasmuch as all true prayer is prompted by His ( pronoun )Spirit, -- And untrue prayer is prompted by something else?

God's. Yes, untrue prayer may be prompted by Greed, desire or lust.

>He ( pronoun )will in response thereto grant us every blessing according to  -- the law God has set in operation, namely 'As you sow, so shall you reap' His ( pronoun )unsearchable wisdom -- since it is unsearchable, don't bother trying

God. God's. Unsearchable is meant to convey that the totality of God's wisdom cannot be comprehended, not that nuggets are given to those who seek.

>and the riches of His ( pronoun )grace

God's.

>in Jesus Christ -- plus the specific blessing that comes from understanding God through Jesus' ministry to us.

That ministry was redemption, everything else is icing on the cake.

John
Top Of Page

>Article XIV. Of the Law of God.

>
>We believe that the moral -- someone decided to leave out the two commandments

Which two commandments are you talking about?

>law of God, -- what other kind- of laws are there? What type of law is "As ye sow..." or "Be ye transformed.."

In and of themselves they appear to be laws such as certain laws of physics (i.e., what goes up . . . and objects at rest . . .) They tend to explain cause and effect/action and reaction systems rather than the morality God desires.

>summarized in the Ten Commandments, -- were they for their time or all times?

I would say that they are for all times. Certainly God has not changed regarding  the possibility of other gods being primary. I don't think God is anymore in favour of Adultery, Murder or Theft than 4 millennia ago.

>testified to by the prophets and -- what did the prophets say, "This is a good rule to obey." or "We know this came from God

Usually the prophets used the phrase "Thus sayeth the Lord" indicating that the words are God's words and not the ramblings of a mere human. Generally when the prophets spoke regarding the moral law of God there was a reminder of the blessings and curses listed in the Sinai Covenant. For those children of God who had advanced in rebellion to the Law one would expect to find the phrase "Woe to you . . ." indicating a disciplinary action was forthcoming.

>unfolded in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ,
>stands forever in truth and equity, -- forever? why then were they downsized
>to two commandments?

Ah! Now I understand which two commandments you are talking about. It is not a case of the Ten verses the Two. Jesus as God the Son cannot contradict the teachings of God the Father, they are one after all. So when Jesus lists the greatest commandment as Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength a practical application would be adherence to the first table of the Ten Commandments or commandments 1 through 4 which are, briefly, 1) No other gods, 2) no idols, 3) no blasphemy or taking the name of the Lord in vain and 4) remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Jesus' second great commandment "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" is summed up by the second table or commandments 5 through ten, again briefly, 5) Honour your parents, 6) no murder, 7) no adultery, 8) no theft, 9) no false witness and 10) no envy of thy neighbours things. Jesus in the sermon on the mount actually makes this table of the law more rigourous than the initial presentation making them crimes of heart and conscience rather than fact.

>and is not made void by faith, -- what does this mean?

That just because we have faith in Jesus the moral law of God is not rendered useless.
In the past some have believed that faith in Christ allowed them to do what ever they wanted to do. The Reformers argued that the Ten Commandments were not abolished by Christ's work on the cross but they stand forever as an indicator or the will of God. For example, my wife suggests that she would like some Doritos as a snack tonight, it isn't mandatory that I go and get them but because of my love for her I will brave the wind and freezing temperatures of a St. Anthony winter to bring her pleasure. The moral law of God has been fulfilled by Christ and because I am a new creation in Christ I am free from the condemnation that the moral law brings, however, to return in some measure the love that God has lavished upon me I examine the law to see what pleases the heart of God, the Ten Commandments do a wonderful job of explaining what pleases God.

>but on the contrary is established thereby. -- Why was the previous statement put in. This statement seems to cover it.

Prudence.

>We believe that
> God requires of every man to do justly,
> to love mercy, and to walk humbly with
> God; -- ahh, Micah, my Dad's favourite

Which also summarizes the Ten Commandments in terms of relationality and approvable action.

>and that only through this harmony with the will of God shall be fulfilled that brotherhood of man wherein the Kingdom of God is to be made manifest -- I like the intent but I would change the wording. We don't talk enough about the "How-To' that leads to the wonderful results that come about when God manifests.

Obedience to the law, loving God with heart, soul, mind and strength, loving one's neighbour, doing justly, loving mercy and walking humbly are all how-to's

John
Top Of Page

Art XV

From:
"John Maich" <jkmaich@nf.sympatico.ca>
Date:
11 Feb 2000 08:22:46 -0500
Subject:
Re: Article
 

Tea-Jay:

>Article XV. Of the Church
>
> We acknowledge -- a change from belief to acknowledgement.

Yes and no. I think the primary reason for using 'acknowledge' in this instance is
an attempt to eliminate denominational supremicism (My church is the true Church).

>one holy Catholic Church -- does this exclude anyone?

Yes, those who do not belong to the holy Catholic Church. Basically those who deny
the divinity of Christ are excluded.

>the innumerable company of saints of every age and nation, who
>being united by the Holy Spirit to Christ -- what an odd construct given
>that the two entities are are one and the same.

Same in nature but not in person. God the Father is not God the Son is not God the
Holy Spirit. One God, three persons.

>their Head -- Huh?

Primary authority. The Church is the body of Christ God dictates the activity of
the body in all its parts.

>are one body in Him -- which of the three does this ( pronoun )refer to

Christ is the last person mentioned therefore the pronoun applies to Christ.

>and have communion with their Lord and
>with one another. -- Is there more than talking implied here?

Presence, peace, wisdom, experience.

>Further, we receive it
>as the will of Christ,
>that His Church -- God's Church, right?

God the Son's. Traditionally the Church is described as those people that God set
apart at creation as a gift to the Son.

>on earth should exist as a visible and sacred brotherhood, -- the womenfolk
>are invisible and non-sacred?....

No. This is evidence of the limits of English language, visible and sacred family
is the intent.

>consisting of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ -- Do you know the
>concept of 'Fog Index'?

Yes but I don't think that it applies here. Jesus Christ is pretty clear. Fully
God and fully human.

>and obedience to -- I found another word besides resonance for obedience
>which I dislike because my actual life experience of obedience linked it
>with joylessness. It is entrainment.

My life experience has demonstrated a corollary. The happiest times in my life are
linked with obedience to God. Choosing to be obedient to an unjust authority is
not God's intent.

>Him, -- God's will

Christ.

>together with their children,
>and other baptized children, -- exclusivity?

Baptism is a symbol of participation, including those who choose not to participate
is not inclusivity it is impericism.

>and organized for the confession -- confession must serve a purpose

Not used here as confessing of sins but admitting attachment to Christ.

>of His ( pronoun )name, -- how 'bout confessing all three of God's aspects?
>for the public worship of God,

Amend that to 'persons' and I would agree.

>for the administration of the sacraments, -- the giving and recieving of
>the s.

Administration if the Theological graduates word conveying the giving and recieving.

>for the upbuilding of the saints, -- The saints themselves do not need up
>building so this must refer to some educational function???

upbuilding = edification (literally--building up) Saints most assuredly need upbuilding!
Contrary to the Roman understaning of "Saints" the Protestant understanding of "saints"
differs in that one is a saint because of the holiness attributed to one by God rather
than the presence of a demonstable miracle. I am a saint because God has listed
me among the holy, this is God's grace not my merit.

>and for the universal propagation of the Gospel; could you be upfront and
>say for the propagation of our version of the Gospel?

No because there is only one Christian gospel.

>and we acknowledge as a part,
>more or less pure, "Judge not..."

In determining that the phrase, "more or less pure" is judgmental have you not committed
the error you seek to correct? In fact you have judged, haven't you? In Jesus's
teachings concerning judgment found in the Sermon on the mount, (from whence the
quote originates) it seems that what is being condemned is hypociritical judgments
rather than those that are resting on a just foundation. The point, I believe that
Jesus was trying to make was that all of us need to be careful regarding our criterion
for judging.

>of this universal brotherhood,
>every particular Church throughout the world which professes -- not confesses

They are synonymous in this instance.

>this faith -- this aforementioned faith, the faith referred to perviously,
>.....
>in Jesus Christ

Yes.

>and obedience to Him ( pronoun )

Christ, Jesus, Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, take your pick.

>as divine Lord and Saviour. -- What do you say to those who rejoice that God
>is the most important thing in their lives?

I say its a beginning, God isn't content to be the most important thing, it is the
desire of God to be the only important thing. First in our hearts, minds and souls.
Any contender for the primacy of any portion of our being is an idol and God isn't
keen on competition. Of course when I say God I am implying God the Father, God
the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

John
Top Of Page
 
 

Art XVl

From:
"John Maich" <jkmaich@nf.sympatico.ca>
Date:
12 Feb 2000 19:17:30 -0500
Subject:
Re: Article
 

Tea-Jay"

>XVI. Of the Sacraments
>
> We acknowledge -- We have decided to incorporate into the life of the church
>and its adherents

By saying we acknowledge we are stating that we only recognize baptism and the Lord's
Supper to qualify under the heading of sacrament, as opposed to the Roman Catholics
which acknowledge five others (Confirmation, Extreme Unction, Penance, Ordination
and Matrimony).

>two sacraments, -- two sacred events, services etc.

Sacred events comes close but I wonder if 'sacred' is a more accessible word? Technically
the word sacrament is a transliteration of the latin 'sacramentum' meaning 'sacred
pledge'.

> Baptism and the Lord's Supper, --
>which were instituted by Christ, -- which we understand were
>to be of perpetual
>obligation -- no choice here, can you make it a joyful thing to do?

Why does joy cease to be a part of the sacrament the minute one comes to understand
that they are obligations? The sacraments are also part of the mission and ministry
of the Church. "Go and make disciples of all nations baptizing in the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" is a command not a suggestion to a bored
Church about what it could do on Saturday morning. "As often as you eat this bread
and drink this cup do it in remembrance of me" while not appearing to be a command
at
least implies that it should be celebrated frequently.

>as signs and seals of the covenant -- what else could be utilized as a sign
>What else could be a seal

Just these according to Christ.

>ratified -- this word is fraught with connotations from 'Ceasar's realm',
>how about mutualy agreed to

ratified fits because the Church is commanded to celebrate these two sacraments.
God doesn't say, "What do you think, is this good/okay with you?"

>in His precious blood, -- When one says this are they also saying that it
>is ok with serm that Jesus could die as part of the bargain. What if one
>thinks that that is a terrible deal. What if one thinks that a bargain where
>someone dies is sinful to the max?

God sets the rules. Doesn't sit well with what you think of God? Perhaps you need
to rethink how God interacts with humanity?

>as means of grace, -- what other means of grace are there?

Revelation, the Church are two that come to mind.

>by which,working in us, He -- so Non-Christians, feeling something at work
>in them, should use the term Holy Spirit, right?

If in fact it is the Holy Spirit that would be okay.

>doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and comfort our faith
>in Him, -- in that which one feels working inside them.
>and as ordinances -- rules? rituals?

the Law.

>through the observance of which -- practise of which
>His Church -- the people of this church are

Church is from the Greek 'ekklesia' or 'called out' The Church is a people, the church
is a building.

>is to confess -- profess? this is a strange construct or at least a strange
>verb

not strange just fallen into disuse.

>her -- pronoun! : ) At first I thought it was a typo. It could become 'their
>Lord', but whatever it is , in this day and age one would want to avoid the
>arbitrary choice of 'genderizing' a neutral noun. Especially if you are creating
>a one gender is obedient to another structure in the process. ( ATTN. Jayne
>Little )

the Church's

>Lord and be visibly distinguished from the rest of the world. -- This is
>truly representative of HUMAN emotion. This is not in God's 'repetoire'

Rather bold pronouncement! One might also say intolerant or anti-semitic. Tell the
Jews they aren't set apart by God from the rest of the world. The truth of the matter
God does set his people apart from the rest of the world, we may not be 'better'
but we most certainly should be 'different'. Read the narrative in 1 Samuel where
Israel asks for a human king so that it can be 'just like everyone else' up until
then, God was to be their king.

John
Top Of Page

XVII. Of the Ministry -- Off the Ministry of all believers

Of the Ministry of believers?

> We believe that Jesus Christ, as the Supreme Head of the Church, -- and where does this leave God? God the Son is still God.

>has appointed therein a ministry of the word and sacraments, and calls men and women to this ministry; that the Church, -- certain members of the church

Yes. The theory is that each individual is gifted by the Holy Spirit with abilities to edify the Church. The Church discerns the gifts of the individual and directs them to the appropriate ministry. For some it will be ordered ministry for others it will be participation in an office (i.e., elder) and for others it will be some other ministry (i.e, hospitality).

>recognize
> under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
> recognizes and chooses those whom
> He --pronoun

God.

>calls, and should thereupon duly ordain them to the work of the ministry.

Top Of Page

>Article XVIII. Of Church Order and Fellowship

>
> We believe that the Supreme and only  Head of the Church is the Lord Jesus Christ; -- again, God seems to be left out of the equation

Only if you labour under the presumption that Jesus is not God the Son.

>that its worship, teaching, discipline and government should be administered according to His will -- If you have two differeing ideas about, say, teaching what to believe about the loaves and fishes story then does it logically follow that one or both these ideas is NOT God's will? How broad is God's will?

No it does not logically follow that one or both ideas are contrary to the will of God but, that is a possebility that exists and one that the Church must discern. Personally I look at most ideas in two categories (initially) affirmation or denial. If an interpretation seeks to take something away from God (i.e., omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence) it will be difficult to accept as being of God's will. If the interpretation affirms the classic 'omni' attributes it stands a better chance of being embraced. As to the broadness of God's will I cannot say with any clarity, however Jesus did say, "Wide is the gate and broad is the path that leads to destruction . . . . but small is the path and narrow the road that lead to life" (Matthew 7: 13-14).

>by persons chosen for their fitness and duly set apart to their office; and that although the visible Church may contain unworthy members and is liable to err, yet believers ought not lightly to separate themselves from its  communion, but are to live in fellowship with their brethren, which fellowship is to be extended, as God gives opportunity, to all who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. --God also recognizes when we call upon God

Again, within a Trinitarian understanding one cannot call upon a single person of God without invoking the other two. I cannot call upon the 'Father' without the Son and Spirit being present also.

John
Top Of Page

Art XlX

 From John Maich:

Tea-Jay:

I'm a little dissapointed that you did not treat this article the same as the others.

I would also have to say that this particular faith statement does not reflect a 'typical' or historical/traditional understanding of the Christian faith.

>After death of the Body We think it very likely that after the death of the body the soul will continue to develop.

No, Christians don't. There is considerable debate about the exact sequence of events that follow our death. Does the Spirit enter a sleep-like state or does it immediately enter into the presence of God? "We will not all sleep" (1 Corinthians 15: 51) suggests that there is an intermediary stage between the earthly and the spiritual lives that is akin to sleep. The length of time spent in such a place would depend upon the time between the death of the individual and the Day of the Lord. "I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained" (Revelation 6: 9), seems to suggest that the soul enters into heaven before the resurrection. Either way, this is a non-issue in regards to the salvation of an individual, it does however lead to interesting theological debate if that is of any interest.

>After a review of the learning from life experience the soul
>can rest a bit and then move on to more learning experience.

Sounds too much like the notion of purgatory which the Protestant Churches have rejected. Primarily because it made the indiviudal too important to their own salvation emphasizing works over grace.

> Souls who do not want to follow a Divine plan are 'dismantled' for want of a better word, and their parts are recycled.

Reincarnation is not a possibility for the Christian. Technically, humanity is not incarnate in the first place so we cannot be re-incarnated. The human soul has a definite starting point it is not eternal in the same way that God is eternal.

Their awareness of themselves as entity disappears.

Reminiscent of the Great Mind? Jesus said "I and the Father are one" not "I am the Father." The notion of unity is to become joined with it is not the 'disappearance' of personal identity but putting identity in its proper context.

> God punishes no one eternally. This is a human concept imposed upon God

That is one of the current theories that is bandied about by biblical scholarship, which reminds me of something my advisor once said, "biblical scholarship isn't always biblical or scholarship" (Albert Wolters circa 1992). This particular 'biblical' position is not based on scripture but rather it is based on a system which systematically reduces scripture to rubbish. Without reservation I would label this particular line of thought as a lie of the first rate. In order to substantiate the reality of punishment (divine justice) one has to assert that Christ never taught about it (violence to the text and manuscript evidence).

God's punishment and the reality of hell are not things that are pleasant to talk or think about and I wish them on no person, not even my abusers. Stack up all the biblical imagery concerning hell and as terrifying as it sounds it doesn't even come close to the reality. I preach the gospel of grace in the hopes that God will use me as a tool to effect the salvation of my brothers and sisters in the world. If hell is the scare-tactics of humanity then surely heaven is humanity's day-dream.

If both are the product of human imagination, and I don't see how one can be rejected and the other embraced unless we are deluding ourselves, we Christians are to be pitied more than all others.

John
Top Of Page

>Article XX. Of Christian Service and the Final Triumph.

>
> We believe that it is our duty as disciples and servants of Christ, and of God to further the extension of His -- The Kingdom

The Kingdom of God.

>Kingdom, to do good unto all men, to maintain the public and private worship of God, public worship and private communion to hallow the Lord's Day, preserve the inviolability of marriage -- marriages that are temporal are not inviolate

Chronologically I agree, I was not married until June 1, 1991. This relationship could, if either party was willing, be dismantled by the courts of the world for practically any reason since the human heart is generally hard. Otherwise it will last until there is no giving in marriage, the Kingdom of God. It is the will of God that my marital relationship with my wife will reflect the relationship that Christ has with the Church, that is, a definite beginning and no ending. Anything less is not of God.

>and the sanctity --goodness

No. The family unit is meant to be a sacred place where children are nurtured and come to a knowledge of God and themselves.

> of the family, -- Does this imply Mum, Dad and 2.1 children under the same roof? Does this exclude the Gramma raising a grandchild because the child's mother is mentally ill and institutionalized and the child's father is absent because he doesn't even know of the child's existence?

I don't think that the 'nuclear family' is the family that was intended by this document. I think that the extended family was more the model that was the archetype. Regardless of how the family is structured it is to be a place of safety and instruction where children are nurtured in the ways of righteousness.

>to uphold the just authority of the State, and so to live in all honesty, purity and charity, that our lives shall  testify of Christ. --Let your light so shine.... glorify God..."

Yes.

>We joyfully receive the word of Christ, -- We joyfully connect with God

What is wrong with receiving?

> bidding His people go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, declaring unto them that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, --God's Self Who was doing the reconciling? Have you seen the bumper sticker that goes "FAR FROM GOD? ... Who moved?

God reconciles humanity to God's self. No I haven't seen that bumper sticker. Humanity of it's own freedom chose disobedience resulting in their alienation from God. We ran away.

>and that He ( God )will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. We confidently believe that by His power and grace all His enemies -- all the people that decided not to entrain their will with God's will change their minds about that.

How will this happen? When will this happen? Why will this happen?

> shall finally be overcome, and the kingdoms of this word be made the Kingdom of our God and of His (God's) Christ. -- and of God's Holy Spirit and of God's Father aspect.

The authors of the Basis of Union obviously had difficulty in seeing God as anything other than God the 'Father.' Since God and the Christ are already present the Holy Spirit cannot be far behind.

> P.S. As God fearing people -- Do not waste your time in fearing God. Love thy God with all thy heart, soul and might. If you were to decide to pray unceasingly then scare tactics could not enter in and distract you from single-mindedly focusing on your Creator

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." (Proverbs 1: 7)

Why do I fear God? I fear God because of my relative weakness in contrast to God's infinite power. I fear God because if it was the will of God to destroy me every aspect, body, mind and soul could literally disappear as if it never existed in the first place. God as sovereign could remove the deeds of my hands and memory of me from every corner of creation, if it was the desire of God.

How does this promote knowledge? By coming to an understanding of the extent of God's power (even if I can't understand infinity the word carries the connotations that it is much more than I could possibly imagine), and how God chooses to use that power. God Creates, God defines/limits (i.e., birds fly, fish swim, beasts crawl), God provides (sun and rain). These actions lead me to believe that God doesn't want to crush me and obliterate my memory, in fact they give me confidence that God is interested in humanity.

Through the revelation of scripture God speaks and shares some of what is on the divine mind, "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind; love your neighbour as you love yourself." God has spoken and God has taught/shown me that my love is valued by God and that I can bring pleasure to God by loving God and neighbour. Scripture also illuminates that God has particular designs on me as an individual. God has called me by name.

God has called me and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit God has assured me that I am loved and that love works upon me to transform who I am in to what I was meant to be. A holy child of a holy God.

Having come this far do I still fear God? Yes and know. I do not believe that God is waiting to catch me with my hands in the cookie jar but, because I am loved by God and I am pouring my whole being into returning that love I can't help but be frightened about how my faults and failures will hurt God as the object of my affections. Everyday, I have to make decisions about my ministry in St. Anthony, I'm finite/limited, I cannot be everywhere doing all things for all people I need to choose. My fear is that my choice will reflect what I perceive to be my needs rather than the needs of the community or God's desire for me this day.

Will God punish me if I make a poor choice? No. Will God's will be foiled because I wasn't in concert with God? No. God's will Will be done with or without my assistance. Should I die and meet God face to face after a brutal day of constantly missing the directions will God say, "John, you are such a screw up!"? By no means! Instead, even on my most dismal day as a disciple of the LORD I count on hearing, "Well done, my good and faithful servant." Is this a waste of time? My fear of the LORD has been transformed into fear of failing the LORD. And even though I am assured of entering into that rest I would much rather do that knowing that I was in tune with the will of God.

Fearing God ultimately is approved by God whereas being a fool earns God's contempt.

Back To Top
 

Return to Table of Contents