Wednesday, June 22, 2005 AD
Do UCC what I see?
Hmm. Lots of excitement being generated by the likely rejection by the United Church of Christ of a resolution affirming that Jesus is Lord. I don't know much about the UCC, and what I do know I don't like, but I don't think we should be getting too giddy with excitement about this.
It's not like the resolution only says, "This synod affirms that Jesus is Lord". That affirmation is only one part of what is (whether you agree with it or not) a highly political resolution (PDF).
Putting the best construction on why people might vote no, here's what people who vote against the resolution could be regarding themselves as voting against:
I'm not altogether sure I'd want to vote for a resolution like that, just because I do not believe that the earliest Christian creed, a precious affirmation that should be life and health to us, should be used as part of a political powerplay. This is, of course, one of the inherent dangers of denominational politics, and one from which "conservative" Christians, not least within the Lutheran Church, are far from immune.
It's not like the resolution only says, "This synod affirms that Jesus is Lord". That affirmation is only one part of what is (whether you agree with it or not) a highly political resolution (PDF).
Putting the best construction on why people might vote no, here's what people who vote against the resolution could be regarding themselves as voting against:
"The greatest issue facing our denomination is whether or not to acknowledge the Lordship and divinity of Jesus".I'm not saying I agree with these responses. Just that there are reasons why a "moderate liberal" could vote against the resolution in good faith, without that being a rejection of the affirmation that Jesus is Lord."the UCC is often referred to as 'Unitarians Considering Christ'".
- Response: "but we don't think that is, in fact, at issue"
"It is highly detrimental to the health and growth of UCC churches and extremely embarrassing for UCC pastors and members to be viewed as non-Christians".
- Response: "I'm not going to vote for a resolution that endorses such an uncharitable and ignorant view of our church".
(It's a bit like the time the chairwoman of the Conservative Party in the UK delighted its political opponents by saying that people saw the Conservatives as "the nasty party". To which the general response was, "Oh, of course! That's the word we were looking for! Hadn't quite been able to put our finger on it before, but now you've nailed it for us. Thanks!")"...providing us the opportunity to boldly declare and celebrate that we are indeed a Christian denomination requiring that all of our pastors and churches adhere to the most essential, indispensable Christian doctrine of all, namely that Jesus is Lord."
- Response: "I don't believe that's happening. And in any case, why should we pander to the ignorance of others?"
- Response: "But that isn't in issue. What this is about is giving a political victory to one conservative group within our church".
I'm not altogether sure I'd want to vote for a resolution like that, just because I do not believe that the earliest Christian creed, a precious affirmation that should be life and health to us, should be used as part of a political powerplay. This is, of course, one of the inherent dangers of denominational politics, and one from which "conservative" Christians, not least within the Lutheran Church, are far from immune.
