Sorry Peter, I couldn't even finish this. The eyelids grew heavy and the head nodded forward onto the keyboard.
My only comment from what I managed to read and adsorb is that you are kidding yourself if you think that your "theology" is not packed with political tinkerings that have accrued over the last 2 thousand years. Paul was a supreme politician. If the Uniting Church tinker enough and continue on this way they may all eventually end up as atheists....which will be proof that their spiritual journey has been properly conducted.

"The price to be paid for a political settlement with those who want to assert their unique culture is theological relativism"

Which is what happened with "the Niceno-Constantinopolitan consensus" - Tertullian's early 3rd century ( and thus post-gospel) notion of the Trinity was used to suppress the mystic and spiritual notions of the Chrestus that had been more prevalent.

Does this person actually know anything about his own religion? Attacking another Christian religion for making it up as they go along when this has been an entrenched attitude/tactic of all Christian religions from the beginning?

"but to sacrifice theological integrity"

Sorry but that lost me. Terry Lane once commented about theology along the lines that, "They all make it up as they go along". That says to me that it is all designed to serve a present purpose.

Was the article designed to divert attention from the present problems of the Vatican?

How can a NSW Bishop and the Roman Catholic members of ICCOREIS oppose the ethics classes trial in NSW when so many priests and even a bishop or three have been shown to be guilty of child abuse or the unethical cover up of such crimes by other members of the clergy?

Socrates, 2500 years ago, had a better idea of the road to a decent and fulfilling life than any modern religion.

Peter,

A change to the preamble is probably the LEAST of the Uniting Church's problems.

When someone mentions "Uniting Church" my reaction is similar to someone talking about Alta Vista. I say, "Oh, is that still around?"

It is:

http://www.altavista.com/

And so, after a fashion, is the Uniting Church. But how many "unique visits" do you get?

“theology is a response to the gospel. This excludes all other considerations.”
Says the Anglican deacon advising the Uniting Church. Who will he advise next? Will he tell the Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto – -- congregations where they are going wrong?

Careful Peter, some of those groups – the Muslim extremists who got cranky about Dr. Taslima Nasreen’s suggestion of dragging the Muslim gospel further towards modern social standards; they are not the only fundamentalists.
There are plenty of equally die-hard types in those other groups of disparate faiths as well. We would miss you if you were, like Taslima, hounded out of current society; perhaps in your case to take refuge in Canterbury Cathedral

Good grief! How many angels can dance on the point of a pin?

What absolute incoherent gobbledygook.

Peter

I very much doubt that Jesus would recognise you as a representative of his beliefs.

Just a question.

Why is Sells, an Anglican deacon, getting hot under the dog collar about the antics of the Uniting Church?

Turf wars? Brand awareness?

Or are they actually the same entity, and I'm just hopelessly out of date...

Pericles

You and me both mate!

But does it matter?

Peter, I think you’re overstretching your theology in this article.

True, the early church faced many internal conflicts over its pagan and Jewish cultural roots; however, the result was not the abandonment of these roots, but co-evolution. St Paul -“all things to all men” – understood better than any that cultural accommodation is necessary.

You should know better than to imply that the “stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” is Christian exclusivity. That stumbling block was the cross, as it still is today:

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1co&chapter=1&verse=23;

It was precisely the physically of the crucified Christ that scandalised the Greeks, with its implication that God can be met in the pain and messiness of the material world. I wonder if you risk the same error in your own theology, with its fierce denial that anything in the creation can point to the creator. What you call the Niceno-Constantinopolitan consensus was achieved not by common consent but vicious internal strife and schism. It was itself largely a cultural accommodation, and owes a debt to Plato and Neo-Platonism and to several hundred years of early (ish) church development in cultures steeped in Greek thinking. It represents neither the authentic origin of the church’s theology nor its highest achievement, but a step along the way of its development. Personally I’m quite happy that the modern church is rediscovering the materialism of the Jewish part of its heritage.

To repeat, the “stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” is the cross. Cultural exclusivity is, to my mind, a stumbling block mainly to a certain subset of Christians.

For once I agree with Peter. The original mad ravings on which most religions -- including Christianity -- are founded should be exposed in all their nakedness for everyone to see. I am sure Peter will agree, for instance, that all real Christians should hunt down and kill Wiccans, as laid down quite clearly in their Holy Book; and I am absolutely certain that Peter neither shaves his beard (it must have stopped growing by itself, if the photo is anything to go by) or eats shellfish, since both of those are clearly identified as abominations in the sight of the Lord. What a shame that there are so many apostates who regard these practices as quaint and old-fashioned! Clearly they are not real Christians! But when the six or seven of us remaining who DO observe all the Biblical strictures finally get together in Heaven, oh what a laugh we will have to see them writhing in the fiery pits! Won't we, Pete?

Peter

At least you tried sowing, only to be met by rocky ground.

The comments in response to your article remind me so much of the injunction against tthrowing pearls before swine.

The replies seem mainly to come from those with no vested interest in the argument, and who therefore should not have even bothered reading the article. It is like all those who complain that Sydney Anglicans will not ordain women as 'priests', where the same complainants don't even believe in God, let alone would consider attending an Anglican church whether or not a woman was 'priest'.

Dear Peter,

Churches are political institutions and do things for political reasons. Your blindness to that doesn't bother me since it is consistent with your statements in other areas.

However, what does distress me and which no other poster has mentioned is your title. The phrase is 'dire straits' not 'dire straights'.

Dire straights means disastrous, urgent or terrible heterosexuals. Possibly you did mean that. Maybe you are capable of subtlety.

DougtheBear,

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that most of the human race was in the grip of mad irrational beliefs which resulted in thousands of violent deaths every year, and somebody wrote a peevish piece suggesting that it wasn't really right for one particular minority set of mad beliefs to even try and accommodate a modern enlightened perspective.

Isn't this like complaining because atomic bombs are always painted such dull colours?

Peter's point is too silly to be worth arguing about. Peter's shared delusions, however, are dangerous to us all.

Dougthebear

If you want to engage in abstruse theological arguments with other believers there are more appropriate forums that this. Online opinion and its forums are designed for open conversations between people of different views and perspectives. Closing out or dismissing those not part of your belief system as people who “should not even have bothered reading the article” does you no credit.

I’m a practicing Anglican (happily not in the misogynist Sydney diocese that you apparently admire) and part-time student of theology, so by your criteria I probably do have a “vested interest in the argument”. How about engaging with that argument, instead of simply abusing those who disagree with you?

A courageous piece, Pete. I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' observation: "Our highest activity must be response, not initiative". Most of our difficulties (individual and collective) arise from an attempt to impose our frames and aims onto reality instead of using our gifts and talents to respond to reality as we find it. When our construction of "church" - or of anything else - becomes an image and likeness of ourselves, we have lost the origin and the meaning of things.

It is certainly courageous for one Church to point the finger at another for changing the story to suit the times.

DougTB
Perhaps it is not the ground but the wrong seeds being sown.

Most prefer the seeds of love, non-judgement and reason. What the world does not need ow is more divisinveness, hypocrisy and religious spin and powerplay.

the good news in all this babble is that Jesus Christ promised to build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Worldwide believers in the saving power of Jesus Christ is growing rapidly even in Islamic nations. The fact that many if not all mainline denominations continue to change, water down and apologise for Jesus teachings do not nullify this fact. Some denominations along with the cults are even dumb enough to believe they are the true church. Many young people in our own nation have a strong belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. Thankfully they have experienced the life changing power of the gospel and could not care less about silly little statements made by committees of men. They know that it is only the Scriptures that really matter and hence are making a real difference on this planet.

The problem is, Pelican, that we will all face judgement, and showing true love for others means trying to show them what the result of that judgement could be.

God is a God of love, but also one of judgement. When a church forgets that it forgets its purpose for being.

Pelican

Dunno about you, but wouldn't you think that Sells would be considering that the Catholic Church is in the most Dire of Straits right now?

Sells continues his private religious ruminations and narrative in a complete vacuum from what is actually going on in the world. This fits with his ignorance of atheism as much as his displacement of reality.

This article is symptomatic of Pete's triune neurosis. It begins with a denial of the essentially political nature of the Gospel and the Church. It fails to recognise that the Christian Church, its theology, liturgy and creeds are culturally determined in their entirety. And it reveals an irrational fear of change, raising the 'fearful' spectre of theological relativism as proof that his anxieties are well-founded.

Chill out Pete! It really doesnt matter if the UCA stuffs up its 'constitution' here and there. Very few people ever read it and a large percentage of those who do are intelligent enough to recognise its intellectual limitations anyway.

BTW, Pete, you seem to set a great deal of store by the notion of the 'mainstream' churches, by which I assume you mean those who are enough like yours not to be too threatening. Its another part of that trinitarian anxiety that afflicts you so. According to the Gospels Jesus loved everyone and the early church wouldnt have even known what you meant by trinity. Given the manner in which the trinitarian formula was thrashed out (literally) it is hardly a shining example of the ideals expressed in the Gospels.

What is more important, Pete? Your particularly quirky brand of theology or national reconciliation?

I'm an Atheist myself and all religion is political. Those who criticise soem denominations for expressing progressive views are the same ones that have no problem with the conservatism of the Envalegical/Pentecostal denominations.

"".. we will all face judgement, and showing true love for others means trying to show them what the result of that judgement could be.

"God is a God of love, but also one of judgement. When a church forgets that it forgets its purpose for being.""

Dougthebear, Sat 1 May 2010 10:06:48 AM

"what the result of that judgement could be" is a narrative. Such judgement is speculation.

To say "God is love, but also one of judgement" is just manipulative dogma.

Severin, indeed, certainly more dire than the Uniting Church's trivialities.

It is ironic when it was in effect a dummy spit by King Henry VIII over Catholic refusal to give into his whims, that formed the Anglican Church. If one wants to talk about a rewrite.

DougTB - judgement from whom I wonder.

According to some theists we can be as evil as we want on earth (apparently some believe all humans are evil despite being of God's creation or in his image) as long as we seek forgiveness. Obedience over goodness

Sells' article reminds me of my mother's stories about her childhood growing up as a Catholic. She was also schooled by nuns. From her recollections she only remembers the lessons about burning in hell, the guilt, hate and judgement. It was all about confession and repenting. Sometimes my mother would make stuff up for confession because noone could believe that a human being might actually have the odd good week without sin. There was not much in the way of love and compassion thrown into the mix.

My grandparents marriage was doomed from the start having been pregnant and 'forced' to marry even though my Grandfather was a protestant. He had to promise the children would be raised Catholics but I don't think My GM's family ever got over the shame. What a waste of a life to be spent on resentment.

Anglicans were thought of as heathens by the Catholics having (from their POV) changed God's word to suit the whims of a selfish King. Just look at the comical nature of English history, the various Kings, Queens and medieval hollowmen behind the scences at every historical turn. The poor commoners didn't know if they were coming or going, one minute having to forsake one 'faith' for the other or be beset upon by whichever of the royal moral brigades held power.

Some, more modern Christians accept evolution as part of God's plan which completely goes against Creationist thinking. Some Churches even accept women as equals and don't see menstruation as a wickedness by the devil. Women are no longer burned at the stake for nothing more than dissension or a slight taken by some vindictive neighbour.

Yes Churches have changed and thankfully they will continue to do so for the better. Playing the holier than thou card about whose Church is the purer serves no purpose.

Pelican, thank you for stating your starting position as to religion, it could be argued that you cannot see the doctrine of eithe rthe Anglican or the church of Rome except through the prism of your grandparents marriage.

So are your comments really just a way of rejecting what you think that the churches did to your family?

If you don't believe in God's judgment then that is up to you, but why bother entering into a discussion about something which really doesn't affect you, as you have already rejected Christianity?

DougTB
I don't see religion just through the prism of my parents' experiences, I am merely relaying just one example where religion did more harm than good. The example I gave was to demonstrate the ill-will and consequences when the various sects seek to outdo one another as is implicit in this article.

Sells also has a right to comment about the Uniting Church even though he is not a member, we all, theist and non-theist alike, have the same right to free speech even if it means on occasion disagreeing.

Even atheists can be affected by by policies that are influenced by a religious agenda whether it be indoctrination in public schools or revenue used to fund chaplains, in some cases whom possess very little to recommend them other than a religious faith.

Dougthebear wrote: If you don't believe in God's judgment then that is up to you, but why bother entering into a discussion about something which really doesn't affect you, as you have already rejected Christianity?

Dear Dougthebear,

One can reject Christianity and accept God. Muslims, Jews and Bahai'is also believe in God's judgment. All three are monotheistic religions without a primitive humanoid God figure like Jesus between the worshipper and God.

The Uniting Church's heterodoxy is leading it further and further away from the orthodox teachings of the Bible which have always undergirded Christian theology. Peter's article correctly points to fundamental doctrines which, if denied, are a denial of Christianity itself. Suppose I was to say I am an avid follower of modern Australian cricket, but then denied the historical reality of Ricky Ponting - would I be a true follower? Hardly! To deny that Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life" is to deny the historical reality of Jesus, or to say He was a liar (same thing). Jesus completed the Old Testament and thus was able to fulfill the Law which nobody else could (hence the changes instituted by the Lord in relation to the law - see John chapter 8), so no, Peter doesn't need to stop trimming his beard (!) The gospel is about what God has done to deal with man's sin - Christ took the penalty of sin in His own body on the cross so that we would be saved from God the Father's wrath in punishing sin. If we trust in Christ alone, we look to Him and his righteousness, not our own righteousness because we don't have any at all. This is not some whacky idea me and a few guys threw together down the pub last Saturday, this is standard Christian teaching from the Bible. Heterodoxy always denies fixed points of truth like Jesus, so it is not really surprising to see the UC purposefully slipping away from fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.

TAC

I don’t think the Uniting Church is about to deny that Jesus was a historical figure – even most atheists would accept that.

But it’s hardly radical to suggest that Jesus may not actually have said and done all the things the gospels say he did. This doesn’t make Jesus or the evangelists a liar, it just recognises that the gospels were put together over a period of decades using a variety of sources and literary techniques. Many recognised biblical scholars believe that the “I am” statements in John’s gospel do not go back to Jesus himself – which doesn’t invalidate them as scripture.

Peter’s past articles suggest to me that he’d accept this – he’s no biblical literalist

Thanks Rhian, you make a logical point.
I suppose the real question is whether Jesus was a literalist Himself. The equating of Scripture with God's Word is a prominent feature of His teaching and lines up exactly with other NT writers.
My point is that liberal theologians, who deny the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible (classic orthodox position because it is Jesus' own position) are becoming more and more involved in heterodox theology. The Uniting Church is very much non-literalist in its view of Scripture, I doubt anyone in the UC would feel I was misrepresenting them by making that point. The trouble is that without an objective, defining standard of doctrine, teachings like the Trinity can easily come under the hammer of liberal theology which does not hold to the authority of Scripture. To redefine (or "reimagine") the Trinty is really to redefine God and the actual identity of Christ as the second Person in the Trinity.

david f. The 'other' faiths that you quote do not believe in the God of Christianity, with the exception of the Jews, who, mostly, sought, and still seek, a worldly, political messiah instead of the actual messiah pointed to by their own scriptures.

All faiths cannot be correct, either one is correct, and the others are wrong. Christianity accepts Jeseus as the Son of God. Any faith group that calls itself Christian but denies that fact is not Christian, but is simply a group of people who think warm thoughts about what they are doing. It is also self-defeating.

The classic Uniting Church position can be be seen at the Paddingtom Uniting Church, the one that hosts the Paddingtom markets in Sydney. Thousands of people visit the market, but the church is nearly empty.

Just up the road is St Matthias Anglican Church, which does not hold markets but has strong Christian teaching, and which attracts large numbers to worship, pray and learn. In fact churches like St Matthias grow, whilst those in other diocese that do not teach Christ crucified and the resurrection shrink.

Dear Dougthe Bear,

Jesus is a humanoid god figure like the pagan gods. Christianity incorporated the pagan myth of a virgin birth. Isaiah in the original Hebrew prophesied that an almah, a young woman, will give birth. That is nothing unusual. Young women often give birth. However, when the Hebrew scripture was translated into Greek the Hebrew, almah, became the Greek parthenos, virgin. Then the myth of the virgin birth appeared which attracted pagans to the new faith as prominent pagan god figures were also born of a virgin.

The messiah in Jewish scripture was a myth that originated when Jews hoped for a military figure who would reunite the kingdoms of Israel and Judah to recreate the greater kingdom of David and Solomon. God is one thing and the messiah is another. Christians in their mythology united the two concepts.

All faiths cannot be correct as they contradict each other although proponents of one faith will often maintain that the others are wrong. If god created humans all humans are sons and daughters of god. In the Jewish view it is blasphemy to call a particular human the son of god as opposed to other humans.

Zeus went around impregnating mortal women in various forms. As a bull he impregnated Europa. As a swan he impregnated Leda. There are many figures in pagan mythology that were born from the union of a god and a mortal. The Holy Ghost impregnating Mary was a retelling of a pagan myth.

Mithra, a pagan god figure, was born in a cave on the 25th December. He was born of a Virgin, was a teacher of men. His great festivals were the winter solstice and the Spring equinox (Christmas and Easter). He had twelve companions or disciples (the twelve months). He was buried in a tomb, from which however he rose again; and his resurrection was celebrated yearly with great rejoicings. Osiris was a similar god figure.

However, all faiths incorporate some reasonable ethical principles. There is no reason for any rational person to accept Christian or any other myths.

Well said Peter - you can tell by the reactions that your points have struck home. May you continue to write courageously for the faith - it is a pity that more bishops do not stand up as often for the credal faith as us deacons.

Athanasius

>> Well said Peter - you can tell by the reactions that your points have struck home <<

What points exactly?

1. That while the Catholic Church has been making the head-lines for its reprehensible cover-up of child-abuse the United Church is in "dire" straits?

2. That Peter Sellick's version of Christianity is the one true one?

3. That ALL the other faiths devoutly and sincerely followed around this world of ours are completely wrong?

4. That all the previous posts noting the same valid points I have reiterated above, prove that Sells' writings "have struck home"?

Please expand your minimalist post - this being your second (I understand that you are an ordained Anglican) how does change within the church place it in "dire straights (sic)"?

Change has been a consistent part of religion since a Jew preached a memorable sermon on a mount - significant changes having been wrought by Constantine and Paul. All of which may, at those times, appeared to have placed your religion in upheaval. In fact if not for Constantine's ambitions what is called 'christianity' today may never have become as powerful as it clearly is.

As for Sellick's "courageous writings", his themes are always within the same narrow field: attack the ungodly atheists and whinge that many Christians see their religion from a different perspective to himself.

Nothing new to see here. Move on. Preferably into the 21st century.

Athanasius

Yes! Thanks to Sells articles, those of us who read them are now well aware of the Anglican obsession with Trinitarian Theology and assuming you Deacons are right then if your Bishops have not been diligent in proclaiming it then that would certainly seem to be remiss of them.

Your problem seems to be a mistaken idea that Christianity is limited to a few Trinitarian Churches and that God concerns herself solely with Christianity and its 'mainstream' denominations and wants everyone else in the world to become good little Anglican clones.

Is the arrogance of this attitude completely invisible to you?
Are you totally unconcerned by the somewhat dubious origins of Anglicanism?
What, if anything, did you learn from the Bishop Hollingworth affair?
(Your Bishops are less than perfect and are constantly fighting on too many fronts to be able to present any cohesive or coherent face to the world. But it sounds like you would be prepared to open up a new front for them, fighting their own Deacons. Well done!)

Perhaps it is no longer appropriate to try to maintain your medieval (and older) cultural artifacts in a modern world!
Thankfully your Church itself is becoming an increasingly irrelevant historical artifact. Just stick to your guns and you might see the process through to its logical conclusion!