What we believe???

[Jeff Fairchild]

I think I understand better now. Intelligent people can read the statement and either seek to find ways to disagree or they can seek to find ways to agree. If we say we value all people, we can either find it in ourselves to accept differing definitions of "all" and "people" and "value" and say we support the statement, or we can decide that we can not support that statement because we disagree with other's interpretation of the statement.

Or we can can disagree about the specific statement you quoted and still maintain our shared identity as UCC without creating false either or choices that are designed to make one's views look superior to the views with which we disagree.

I'm less interested in discussing the ways any new statement can be interpreted to create disagreement and/or the general dissatisfaction of some that any statement attempt to summarize any common beliefs of the UCC.

Good.  So let's agree that not everyone has to agree on any new statement for us to maintain our shared identity as UCC.

[ArthurStone]

Deb, I am actually not saying:

Arthur, I understand clearly what you are saying   You do not believe that we are a Trinity based denomination,

What I am trying to say is the the original documents carefully avoided the use of the word "TRINITY" because the word was too loaded from past history.  Instead words were carefully chosen that all could agree were good and left intrepretation open so that it was clear that we just didn't enforce one particular orthodox doctrinal view of the nature of God.  In other words, other understandings were allowed.

[Steven]

Arthur:

  I do believe you've nailed it incredibly well.

While I consider the UCC's formal corporate documents to confess a Trinitarian understanding of God, I would object passionately to actually using the term "Trinity" except in reference to the congregation where I was confirmed. 

As my early pastors explained it, "The Trinity" is our best attempt to explain a mystery described in Scripture but not entirely within our ability to understand. Thus, while some of the outlines are clear to some, it remains a theological problem imperfectly solved.  The same would be true of the Incarnation, Baptism, the Eucharist and such. 

Inherently, it can not be a test of fellowship except for those who oppose it as totally without scriptural support.

If memory serves, none of the ancient creeds or confessions of the Reformation use the word "Trinity", either.   

[debrev2002]

Ok Arthur, I guess I don't get it.  Because the statement says a "triune" God which to me avoids the word "trinity" and leaves open a wider understanding I think it nails who we are without going into "doctrine".  And from what you wrote, I guess I was thinking that you were saying that you believed in a more unitarian view of God.  But I obviously have missed it.

So for the sake of trying to understand,  let me ask you if is it merely the use of the word that you object to using in a statement about what "we" believe?  Or the concept behind it of a triune God? (the later being what I see the statement posting to).  Or am I way off with either of these?

Sigh...I hope this isn't like Calvinist Predestination in that just when I think I've got an understanding of it, I'm either told or realize I don't.   

Deb K.

[ArthurStone]

Well I am not unitarian like the Unitarians! 

God is One.  Jesus is one with God.  The Holy Spirit is One with God.  You can be one with God.  I can be one with God. etc.  Nature is one with God.  Math is one with God.   Science is one with God. . . . etc.

The "T" words are just too limiting for my understanding of God or the Biblical understanding of God.

[goodstoryteller]

The "T" words are just too limiting for my understanding of God or the Biblical understanding of God.

Yes!