Article 1

As can be seen from this material, the general agreement is that we need to start
with God if we are to tackle the 20 Articles of Faith.
This material contains the start of the debate about Article #1.
 

The Significance of This Article as Article I

From: Brian Cornelius
Category: Article I. Of God
Date: 11/23/97
Time: 7:23:42 PM

Comments

As ordained minister who transferred into the United Church of Canada from the
Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, I was fascinated that this was the first article of faith. In the PAOC, the first article of faith is a belief in the inspiration and inerrency of the Scripture. I am glad to be a part of a tradition which puts God first, and does not make an idol out of Scripture. I belief that the choice to place this article as the first one, not only makes sense, but sets a tone for theological reflection within the United Church because the starting point is the expansiveness of God. With this first article, room is created for theological exploration within the Christian tradition. This is liberating, and I think no accident as that the founders put a stress on the dynamic of God over a stress on the literalism of Scripture.

Article 1

From: John Maich
Category: General
Date: 11/24/97
Time: 10:33:16 PM

Comments

If we are going to begin a theological study it is appropriate to start with the
beginning, and in the beginning we meet God. In looking at Article 1, I can't help but notice that it is one of the briefest articles of the Basis of Union. I am not an opponent of brevity; however, in order to avoid literalism the scope of theological imagery regarding the person of God needs to be broader. The language also needs to be reworked, if the United Church is going to continue to be an advocate of inclusivity the articles need to express that inclusivity. Since scripture provides Christianity with a multitude of images which are expressions of the "One True" God the Church needs to be more intentional about lifting the whole of that imagery up. One area of concern which I have heard mentioned here at VST is the disappearance of Christian memory, in order to combat this problem I feel that highlighting and marking portions of the articles which are direct quotes or paraphrases would help to encourage more of the faithful to personally engage in a study of the scriptures.

Re: Article 1

From: Peter VanderKam
Category: General
Date: 11/26/97
Time: 10:03:54 PM

Comments

Hello John,

Glad to meet you, even if it is only electronically.

> If we are going to begin a theological study it is appropriate to start with the
beginning, and in the beginning we meet God.

Good, we are agreed.

> In looking at Article 1, I can't help but notice that it is one of the briefest
articles of the Basis of Union. I am not an opponent of brevity; however, in order to avoid literalism  the scope of theological imagery regarding the person of God needs to be broader. ....

How would you do this?

> ... The language also needs to be reworked, if the United Church is going to
continue to be an advocate of inclusivity the articles need to express that inclusivity.

Would like to hear what you mean with the word :inclusivity"! Otherwise I am glad
to hear you use words such as "rewording" and "imagery". It has long been my contention that we need to re-image the biblical message. I am very interested to see and hear you expand on your ideas.

> ... Since scripture provides Chrisitianity with a multitude of images which are
expressions of the  "One True" God the Church needs to be more intentional about lifting the whole of that imagery up. ...

See my comments above. Care to share? Are you Unitarian by any change? Ha, in
your next sentence you speak of VST. This stands for....?

> ... One area of concern which I have heard mentioned here at VST is the
disappearance of Chrisitan memory, in order to combat this problem I feel that
highlighting and marking portions of the articles which are direct quotes or
paraphrases would help to encourage more of the faithful to personally engage in a
study of the scriptures.

Christian memory! Good way of putting it. Can it disappear? Really? I have heard
many folks say that they don't really need Christianity as people are doing good
deeds anyway. Just look at all the volunteer work that is being done. Next question: Do we need "Christian memory?"

Shalom,

Peter.

Re: Article 1

From: John Maich
Category: General
Date: 12/1/97
Time: 2:35:51 PM

Comments

Hello Peter. Sorry to have take so long to respond. For clarification, VST is the
jargonized form of The Vancouver School of Theology and I consider myself to be
Trinitarian. By inclusivity I mean that as the Church we should use more of the
available names, titles and attributes of the God we worship. Father and Lord are
viable and appropriate but are limited by contemporary understandings, I have
heard that initially these titles were intended to be subversive rather than normative.
Following the subversion argument more feminine imagery like "Mother" or
"Sophia" represent more of a challenge (in my opinion) to Christian tradition rather
than the ways of the world. Outside of subversion a standard stock of names, titles
and attributes eventually leads to exclusivity. If I use the term "Father" or "Mother"
I exclude not only a gender but a relationship as well. Relational terminology
appears to be the most potentially problematic, but what about the languag e of
attributes? Certain verses of scripture refer to God as "Our Provider" or "Our
Righteousness" true, an argument can be made that these are relational or narrow
but they do not appear, from my vantage point to carry the baggage which renders
traditional or contemporary imagery odious. I will put more thought into a revision
of Article 1 and post it for comment (I am a candidate for Ordination in 1998 so
don't hold your breath to long!)

Response to John Maich

From: John Shearman
Category: Article I. Of God
Date: 12/1/97
Time: 1:31:34 PM

Comments

In response to a couple of comments John Maich made, I would say that it would
be foolhardy for us to try to expand the theological imagery re God in Article 1.
The Bible contains countless such images. Furthermore, would we use the language
of the 19th century as it was used in 1909 by men who had been trained in the
previous half century; or would we use the language of the present generation. I
note evidence of the hymnody of the 19th century in the vocabulary and images of
Article 1. If we were to browse through the hymnody of the last two or three
decades as expressed in "Visions United," we would find a quite different set of
images.

John also suggests that we use terms that express inclusivity. I presume he is
referring to the masculine pronoun which is so out of favour these days. I would
agree, but also note that the combined form of "He/She" is a bit cumbersome. But
would using no pronoun at all and inserting the noun God (or God's, which actually
is an abbreviation of "God His" ) be any better? I do it all the time, but still have not
felt completely comfortable with that form.

Perhaps the best approach would be to draw attention to the fundamental source of
our God-language, i.e. the Bible, rather than try to describe what we mean by that word "God," as Article 1 appears to do. That might do more to achieve the goal John states in his last sentence: "to encourage more of the faithful to personally engage in a study of the scriptures."

Re: Response to John Maich

From: John Maich
Category: General
Date: 12/1/97
Time: 2:57:25 PM

Comments

Fool hardy or not I believe that an appropriate Christian response to a perceived
lack is to do better. Granted, choosing different theological images will not eliminate the problem of exclusivity but it may permit the Church to broaden its vocabulary and begin to speak adequately across the theological spectrum which it contains.

I think that it is obvious that the rhetoric of the 19th century needs to be avoided especially now that the King James Bible is no longer the version of choice. I think it also obvious that the language employed by the Good News version is inadequate as its limitations prohibit the use of specific theological terminology.

If the debate concerning the Moderator is any indication I believe that the United Church of Canada needs to radically rethink its approach to and use of the Articles of Faith.

Retooling the Articles will undoubtedly give rise to more heated discussion between
the poles of thought represented in the United Church of Canada, it may even be
potentially schismatic and I would not enjoy going down in history as the one who
broke up the largest Protestant Church in Canada. On the other hand if renewal and
reform are not possible the Church is either perfect or dead. The Articles are clearly
sufficient for some and insufficient for others, terms like "essential agreement"
only serve to widen the distance between the stances of the general membership. It
may even turn out that after all the tinkering I cannot agree with the reformulated
articles, that calls for a different kind of action on my part. To be quite honest I am
content with the Articles of Faith and I would confess to being in agreement with
them; however, others clearly are not. This state of affairs leads me to believe that
action is necessary, perhaps my course is wrong I welcome your guidance.

Re: Response to John Maich

From: John Shearman
Category: Article I. Of God
Date: 12/2/97
Time: 8:24:17 AM

Comments

I do not question that something should be done to revise the terminology and
perhaps the theology of the Articles. I merely want to express caution in doing so. It
is always easier to throw out what is old than to assess its true value.

Frankly, I do not believe that the vast majority of UCC members care a hoot about
what the Articles say or even have the faintest idea what they were meant to express in terms of a document with which we are intended to be "in essential agreement." On the other hand, as I have been reading in Douglas John Hall's "Professing The Faith: Christian Theology In A North American Context," the task is enormous and in no way bound to be successful or satisfactory. What astonishes me most, however, is that so many of the rising leaders of our church seem to rush to the barricades in defense of traditions that were espoused a century ago. That will not do for the 21st century when I and my generation shall almost certainly be silent.

Re: Response to John Maich

From: John Maich
Category: General
Date: 12/2/97
Time: 1:38:08 PM

Comments

Christianity is as relevant today as it was a century ago and the many centuries
before. I have no doubt that Christianity will continue even, if it doesn't radically
conform to the norms of the North American context.

The belief exists that God, through revelation has revealed truths about the character, qualities and attributes of the Divine. These truths are related to us within the church through scripture and though we may not agree about the interpretation or authorship of scripture we can isolate elements of the narrative which are truthful.

I submit that the truthfulness of these elements is recognized regardless of the context through which they are viewed, certainly we did not have to wait for the sixties to understand that God loves.

Tradition in and of itself is not a negative thing. The celebration of the Lord's Supper is one of our oldest traditions within the universal church, it has seen some modification as the institutional church grew and certain elements went the route of reform yet it continues to be relevant 20 centuries later. I for one would rush to any barricade and into any no-man's land to protect this tradition. Would I do this to institute weekly, monthly, quarterly or annual celebrations?

Well I couldn't accept celebrating only yearly but I doubt it would be an area where I would be frothing at the mouth. Despite the tired language of the current expression of the Articles I believe that they contain some substance which is will continue to be relevant for the Church, even if it is offensive to the North American or contemporary context.

The church loses its ability to be prophetic if it allows its doctrine to be determined
by popular sentiment, particularly where popular sentiment runs contrary to the
gospel. I guess that I qualify as one of those rising leaders within the United Church
of C anada, I have eight years of counseling experience with the United Church
Outdoor Ministries in Hamilton, London and the Bay of Quinte Conferences and I
am convinced that the problem in passing on the Christian tradition is not primarily
what is being said, it is how we are saying it (I would include the language of the
articles and the action of the church in relation to that language)

Where I was able to translate the teaching of scripture and the Articles into a
contemporary understanding and back that up with my interaction with the campers and other staff the message was considered genuine. It didn't always speak to everyone but it did plant seeds that facilitated an eventual trust and acceptance. I perceive that the majority of individuals inside and outside of the Church understand that the church needs to be differentiated from the broader context of society in some way and a reformulation of the articles needs to outline that differentiation in a manner that is easily understood by its readers.

Re: Response to John Maich

From: John Shearman
Category: General
Date: 12/2/97
Time: 4:05:50 PM

Comments

Congratulations on being able to speak in metaphors with meaning to the modern
generation. As I grew older and closer to retirement, I found that I lacked that
ability more and more. Now, five years post-retirement, I am finding new avenues
of expression in dialogue with people like yourself over the Internet.

But surely we need not go on conversing in what ought to be done with the Twenty
Articles. DO you thin we could brave the deeper waters of trying to update them so that they convey real meaning to those who will carry the responsibility of the church well into the next century?

Re: Response to John Maich

From: John Maich
Category: General
Date: 12/2/97
Time: 5:05:04 PM

Comments

I would need to have an operating definition of "Real Meaning," I am not so sure
that the current formulation of the Articles is altogether deficient of how I would interpreret real meaning.

Are the articles relevant? Antiquated, outdated, inefficient perhaps but irrelevant, I don't think so. Bill Phipps recently reiterated that language shapes reality, I would concur and add that language also shapes our theology. The original language of the Articles expresses a theology which is currently out of favour with a segment of the church and almost the whole of North American culture, yet interest in things spiritual is rapidly growing. In order to be relevant with the surrounding culture we need to learn that culture's language, nothing fosters irrelevancy quicker than the inability to communicate.

I believe that the Church is mandated to learn that language and to use it subversively to present the gospel, in much the same way "Lord" language was used. The problem will come when people hear the language and fail to recognize its subversive challenge to the dominant culture. In the past, empires and monarchies abounded, often claiming a state religious expression which the gospel could subvert. In contemporary society the operating form of pluralism greatly robs
the gospel of its ability to be subversive.

Why should the broader Canadian society be concerned when the Moderator connects helping the poor with salvation? My tax dollars support the social safety net therefore I care for the poor and my salvation is assured right? I think we would all argue that this kind of thinking is damaging not only to our own spirituality but to the health and welfare of our neighbours. I personally find "real" meaning in knowing that God first expressed Divine love to me, even before I was aware of that love. Now what does God require of me? Besides the Micah passage God requires my love. How can I show that love? I can love the ones that God loves in the same way I would love God personally, with the exception that I reserve all honour and glory for the Divine and put forward my all of my heart, soul and mind to the well being of humanity.

Maybe I'm being a tad too literal in my interpretation but unless my concern from
others flows out of my love for God it becomes the ritualism that God condemns
through the prophets. God is not limited but human vocabulary and expression are,
any expression which claims to contain the truth of the Divine is obviously mistaken
and may in time come to take the place of the Divine in the heart of Humanity.

In spite of this God attempts to reveal the very essence of the Divine through scripture, I am forced to believe that scripture contains meaning, and that the meaning contained is real and ultimately relevant. If we were not being deceived
by the belief that God has written the Divine law on the human heart and that God
has given expression of the divine law in Creation one can expect to see that
revelation expressed in the beliefs of folk who differ from ourselves. Yet we need
to bear in mind that while we can be in agreement with others and speak the truth
we can also be in agreement with others and speak lie. Agreement with the world is
not necessarily evidence of a shared truth. Before we begin to learn the language of
the world it is imperative that Christian's once more learn to speak their own
language fluently.

Re: Response to John Maich

From: John Shearman
Category: General
Date: 12/6/97
Time: 10:58:09 AM

Comments

As you might expect, I have several quibbles with what you said in your last
comment.

1) Subversive language: I was at the Halifax General Council in 1980 when the
policy on inclusive language was adopted. It was astonishing to see how some of our colleagues fought this policy tooth and nail because they felt it was subversive to the Gospel and to the 20 Articles. I find it fascinating that even this morning, the editor of the Globe and Mail made reference to the influence of this new standard of inclusive language which almost all media now espouse, let alone the church's publications.

2) You say: "In contemporary society the operating form of pluralism greatly robs
the gospel of its ability to be subversive." That does not square with what we know of Paul's Gentile mission from Acts and his various letters to the young churches. In fact, I would say that he was utterly condemned by his Judaic opponents for his pluralism that did subvert the Pharisaic Judaism in which he had been trained and from which Christ had freed him. That's how I read his Letter to the Galatians.

3) You also ask, rhetorically I presume: "Why should the broader Canadian society
be co ncerned  when the Moderator connects helping the poor with salvation?"
Well, apparently Mike Harris does, as do many of his political supporters in the
congregation where I worship. This past week, Harris thought the challenge of the
churches - our UCC included - significant enough to call some of their leaders them
to his office for a two hour conference and make some promises to be more
concerned about the poor and vulnerable whom his governments policies have so
severely hurt. Both parties to this consultation seem to have different spin on what
was said, but the fact that the meeting took place is in itself an indication that we
are still regarded as a force to be reckoned with. John the Baptist is still speaking as
is the Holy Spirit in the churches. In our local congregation, some members of the
Board who are also strong supporters of Mike Harris' policies asked our minister
the deal with Halton Presbytery's strong stand against those policies. I hear that it
was a rather heated debate which put our minister on an uncomfortable spot. He
did say that the Presbytery should have included in its statement a call for
reconciliation with the government as well as a challenge to the government about
its harmful policies in social welfare, education and downloading.

4) Again you say: "Unless my concern for others flows out of my concern for God
it becomes the ritualism that God condemns through the prophets." I think not. As I read the Gospel, God's Shalom is best symbolized by a dynamic, double triad of
relationships - God who is love, God' s love, for the world and God's love for me as an individual; then my response to God, to the world and to myself. I believe that is what John 3:16 is saying; and as Jesus and Paul said, to love God, neighbour (including God's creation) and self is the fulfillment of the law. Perhaps that has been best illustrated this week in those two significant international conferences on land mines in Ottawa and global warming in Vancouver. Knowing that Lloyd Axworthy is a member of Southminister UC, Ottawa, and has taught a Sunday school class there, I can see the work of the Holy Spirit iin what he has done in spearheading the land mines initiative. Similarly, I see the work of the Holy Spirit in the attempts to come to grips with the issue of global warming which may be of such significance in the next century. This is prophecy at work in the real world, is it not?

5) God's vocabulary is revealing the divine essence is not in scripture as the
literalists claim, but in the person and work of Jesus Christ known to us through scripture and through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. Long before the New Testament took its final shape in the middle to latter part of the 2nd century, God was speaking through the Christ of faith in the apostolic church. God still speaks in this way because the Word was made flesh; and in the words of scripture too, which is the most reliable evidence we have of who Jesus is and what he means for the world. If that's what you mean by learning "to speak our own language fluently," I would agree; but most of the time, the only scripture most people will read is the Word made flesh by those of us in whom Christ is made alive by the work of the Holy Spirit.