|
-------- Original Message --------
It appears, and correct me if I am wrong, that your conception of the truth connects closely with the 'creed' in your second paragraph. As someone who has recently been a 'lamb to the slaughter' (oh woe is me, I have been befuddled and waylaid, with no integrity or strength of my own convictions) may I make some responses about different UTC leaders' perspectives your list? (These are my perspectives and I am happy to be corrected - individual results may vary!) 1) I know of no one in leadership at UTC who doesn't believe that Jesus was a 'real historical figure'. In fact a non-Christian friend of mine once lent me a book of history which questioned whether there was one Jesus of Nazareth or whether the stories of many wandering preachers were attributed to him. I raised this question with a lecturer and was quite promptly put in my place. 2) Same for dying, and dying on the cross (not of old age or something else) - though the lecturers would (obviously) be aware of different theories... 3) There were different ideas about whether the resurrection was 'physical' or 'spiritual' but both were held with integrity. As someone who believes in a real physical resurrection (but not an historical one!) I was challenged and my faith grew stronger, not weaker because of it. 4) The biggest diversity of opinion at somewhere like UTC would come with your last statement. To say that 'salvation is available to people through the death and resurection of Jesus' would, quite rightly, be responded to with 'what do you mean by that?'. If you mean that repeating the statements 'that Jesus died and rose again' means that your eternal soul will go to heaven when you die - then many would disagree with you. If you mean, as I suspect you do, more than that, then there would be some levels of agreemnent. Personally I believe God in Jesus has saved and will save the world (not just us nice individual Christians) - How that plays out is God's business, but as it happens I will try to live as a kingdom person (The kingdom of God has much more biblical weight in the New Testament than ideas like substitutionary atonement...) One final thing before I finish... I get quite miffed by comments made by some local (conservatively trained) pastors and ministers about the need to be biblical - implying that the Uniting Church is not. When I engage them in a biblical study their range of proof-texts and their canon within the canon is so small that they largely gloss over much of the New Testament (as well as the Old). The Uniting Church takes some of the hard bits of the bible very seriously... I would agree that there are many who try to fit the bible into a broader theological framework too comfortably (Eg social Gospel, God is Love, etc)... I feel this is a pity because constantly struggling with scripture, and God's Word speaking to us, is critical to my faith... Yet, those who do this from a 'liberal' perspective are little different from those who squash scripture into the 'conservative' 'God, Fall, Sin, God Hates Sin, Someone must Die, Jesus Dies in our Place, those who 'believe' go to heaven when we die' credo. Having said all that we all try to put God in a box - I would hope that we have the maturity (most of us are adults?) to trust that God can speak to us through difference as well as similarity. Niall 'one o' the lambs' McKay Charles Worthington wrote: To My Dear Friends on the Insights List |
