Project 2000 Closing remarks

The main reason for the existence of Project 2000 was nothing other than a defense against the pronunciations of the self proclaimed prophets who kept assuring us that they had secret connections in the great beyond who shared with them the secrets about the furniture of heaven and the temperature of hell. In addition they were the ones who knew everything there was to know about the expected 2nd coming of Jesus Christ in "power and glory". It would probably come as no surprise to anybody that these same spokesmen emphasized that they would be the first to be raptured in order to escape the violence of the expected end-times, but that they would  also be the first to return to earth in the retinue of Jesus to govern the world for the next 1000 years. 

There is no question that anybody can believe anything he or she wants. There is also no question about the freedom of individuals to broadcast their convictions and to recruit a following. 

Two observations compelled me to act:

a) The perceived observation that teachers of that kind are not interested in the well being of humanity, but are interested in establishing an autocracy. This, in my opinion would be disastrous as it would lead to a shutting down of all sorts of freedoms, with an emphasis on the freedom of study and religion.
b) The observed political swing to the right, the cutting down of services and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. Having to deal with diminishing medical services for seniors (which impacts my ailing wife and myself), and having listened to some of my children who are school teachers, I have come to the conclusion that unless folks stand up in opposition to a certain mindset, humanity is in for a rough ride as it (humanity) would simply be split along boundaries of wealth. The situation would then be ripe for the following scenario: They came for the Blacks and nobody stood up. They came for the Jews, and nobody stood up. They came for the Christians, and nobody stood up. Now they are coming for me, and there is nobody left to stand up. 

What do I want to stand up for? The Bible. Having been brought up in a traditional home with the Bible, that Book and its message are never far from my mind. 
Having been taught to take certain propositions at face value, it occurred to me that certain propositions are off the mark.

a) Christianity, as I know it, has always been presented as being one of a kind. If one makes any effort, it readily becomes clear that the same Spirit that guides us Christians is the same Spirit that guides the non-Christian.

b) Most Christians are weaned on the proposition that humanity became the bad guy, that they were therefore no longer capable of having a relationship with their God, but that the relationship could be restored with a payment of a sufficiently large redemptive sum. Since we are "only" human beings, we can not raise that amount. Humanity therefore is in need of a "Saviour" who can. Enter Jesus and the cross. The model of substitutionary atonement was born and has shaped society's thinking for centuries. Is that still the case though? 

Unless we are being deceived, more and more people are turning away from that model as being unacceptable. The majority of people these days are of the opinion that the substitutionary atonement is not necessarily the model to live by. An alternate model which is equally as biblical is the one of "salvation by return" which seems to have been the Jewish model. When did the change take place? With the missionary travels of the Apostles. The Christian message became exclusive and triumphalist.

Interlude:

A graphic illustration by the painter Rembrandt of
what Abraham was about to do with his first born son Isaac 
and God's reaction to it.
Human sacrifice was not an option.

c) Christianity is being touted as being liberating. We are told that Christians have freedom of choice and can choose to accept or reject God's gift of grace. This sounds liberating, but when one listens carefully, there is always a "but ....". If you don't accept, you will be severely punished. Upon examination Christianity is not so much liberating as it is exclusionary. This is not the "Good News" I expect to carry into the world.

I could go on for some time, but want to cut it off here.
Am I the only one who thinks this way? The answer is in the negative.

This General Council a report will be presented called: "Reconciling and making new: Who is Jesus for the world today?" It clearly states that only a "slight" majority of the members of the United Church believes that Christ is the only way to salvation.

Author Douglas John Hall quotes Emil Brunner in speaking of the humiliation of the Church. He asks the question if we can be assured that we are on the right path simply because Christianity has existed fifteen or sixteen hundred years. If we can't, isn't it time to re-think the biblical message in connection with the purpose of the Church and wonders if we don't have to return to being a foot-washing institution.

Douglas E Cowan asks us what the difference is between being a member of a congregation of the United Church and being a member of a lodge on the corner of the street. A further question; what it is that we can expect in the afterlife and how is that different for the Christian and the non-Christian? (Touchstone May 2000)

Read the report on our relationship with the Jews. It makes the point that Bible study is not at the top of the activities of United Church members.

Bundle all these observations together, sort them out and arrive at a plea to initiate a study of the question " What is *essential* to us, members of the United Church of Canada"?

Shalom,

Peter

Note:

As has been said previously this project could not have taken shape if it had not been for the participation of numerous people, both lay and clergy. If I started naming them I would invariably end up forgetting some. In order to prevent that from happening, I take this opportunity to thank all for their input. Your interaction has been much appreciated.

From day one this effort was meant to be a "gift" to the United Church of Canada on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. My perception is that this project has generated a lot of interest and thoughtful debate. In my opinion therefore I perceive Project 2000 to have "given" much to the Church, and hope and pray that it may be allowed to continue to do so into the future. PV.

Table of Contents