Gospel and the Uniting Church

My original post on this matter (Universal vs Particular) was deliberately vague in an effort to distance myself from the motivation for the post. Iwas also very rushed (as many blogs are), so perhaps it did come across as slip-shod and ill-defined as Craig identified in his comments. It is definitely not as thorough as I would have liked. However, an excellent opportunity now presents itself to expand on my original post.

My response to this article by Petter Sellick posted on Online Opinion was informed by three things:

1. My experience of preaching at my local Uniting Church
2. An article I read in the Briefing (1 Oct 96, #188, page 8), from which I will quote below.
3. Some reading I have done in a document called “A True Hearing” available on line at http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/pdf/truehearing.pdf

To expand:

1. I do not wish to address this issue in this forum at this time. Allow me to say that these are things I have heard with my own ears. There is publicly available follow up material if anyone would like to explore this issue with me further.

2. The Briefing article, written by John Woodhouse and Greg Clarke, addressed the author’s concerns about A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA). It would not surprise me if Uniting in Worship 2 touched on the same areas of concern. These sections caught my eye:

“APBA, in contrast [to the Book of Common Prayer], is a different planet. There is a general shift from the emphatic ‘sin and judgement / redemption’ thought world of the BCP to a decidedly more ‘creation / providence’ frame of reference. In both books, God’s mercey and redemption alleviates suffering, but in APBA it is more concerned with the suffering of this world – famine, sickness, injustice – than is BCP. In BCP, there is a far clearer recognition of the darkness, ignorance and hopelessness of this world – just like the Bible!

“BCP unmistakenly and consistently speaks of us as sinners who without Christ are under God’s wrath and condemnation. APBA contains much less of such ‘negative’ material. BCP Prayers are addressed to ‘Almighty God…to whom it belongeth justly to punish sinners, and to be merciful to them that truly repent”. APBA, on the other hand, contains many prayers which appear unrelated to the redemptive work of Christ. They are, however, often related to the ‘creation theology’, which dominates.”*

* By ‘creation theology, I am not referring to theories of creation or evolution, but an approach to theology which emphasizes the doctrine of creation more than the doctrine of redemption. This leads to less concern with judgement and salvation, and more concern with improving the world and battling against its imperfections.

There is a lot more. The difference at first seemed very subtle to me, and I felt these guys were nit-picking. However, on reflection, this critique provides, I find, a helpful interpretive framework to understanding where the messages I am hearing are coming from. I am still grappling with that. But in my mind there is quite a large a gap between, say, how I approach the Bible, and what I have heard in my experience in the UCA .

3. Overall, the material from A True Hearing (a selection of materials for the Anglican Consultative Council in its ‘hearing’ on issues of human sexuality) I found particular helpful when re-grappling with the Resolution 84 question. I believe it should be recommended reading for anyone interested in this issue. But this particular section caught my eye:

“Summary: In the light of its recent actions, Anglicans elsewhere and in the Church of England are understandably asking: how did ECUSA reach this low point in it history? The answer is this: beneath all its liturgies and confessional statements (which may look impressive and orthodox) there is in fact a gaping hole. Or, to put it another way, its official theology is quite separate from its actual 'working theology'.

Recent events might initially suggest that ECUSA's problems lie in morality, but more truly they lie in theology. ECUSA suffers from a theological poverty that is truly monumental. We see this in its 'working theology', which is what a 'participant observer' (such as myself for the last 35 years) discovers by listening to what clergy say from their pulpits or to troubled parishioners.

A typical sermon
As a new tutor in one of ECUSA's seminaries, I listened to my first student sermon, and was simply taken aback by its vacuity. His entire sermon was this: 'God is love; we must love one another'. There was no mention of Christ's cross or resurrection, no Holy Spirit, no waiting patiently for the Lord's return, and no call to repentance and amendment of life. I have now heard the same sermon preached from pulpit after pulpit. The standard Episcopal sermon goes like this: the incarnation is a manifestation of divine love (in Christ's death there is no judgment upon humanity, but an affirmation of creation); so God wants us to love and accept each other, which involves an inclusive approach to all— particularly those marginalized by oppressive social practice. The rejected must be included. The result is a practical equivalence between the Gospel of God's Kingdom and this form of social justice.

This explains, by the way, why in the present dispute both sides see the issue as a 'Gospel issue' (for one side the Gospel necessarily involves holiness, for the other side, justice and inclusion is the Gospel). The resultant deadlock suggests that the Anglican Communion is faced with what in fact may be more a theological divide than an ethical one.

The first point makes it most clearly. I am wondering if there is a similar “gaping hole” in the UCA – that is, an official theology is quite separate from its actual 'working theology'. I would like to be reassured that here isn’t. This doesn’t mean that this is the experience of most Uniting Churches.

However, UCA's approach to its doctrines are in question here – that is, how they are understood and interpreted – see for example the study on UCA’s ‘official’ position on the Bible called “Unique, Prophetic and Apostolic” .

Finally, knowing what most of its ministers are taught is not as convincing to me as what the ministers themselves actually believe and teach. Which brings us back to the start.