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.