Conference yukon::christian_v7

    WHere is our Holy Church?
    
Where is our holy church?  Where race and class unite as
equal persons in the search for beauty, truth and right.

Where is our holy writ?  where'er a human heart a
sacred torch of truth has lit, by inspiration taught

Where is our holy One?  A mighty host respond, the
people rise in every land to break the captive's bond.

Where is our holy land? Within the human soul,
wherever free minds truly seek, with character the goal.

Where is our paradise? In aspiration's sight,
wherein we hope to see arise ten thousand years of right.

From Singing the living Tradition  hymn 113.
    
    
    THis hymn does a wonderful job of providing a view of Unitarian
    Universalism.  
    
    While many in here may disagree with some of the principles of
    Unitarian Universalism, I do hope that what is being disagreed with
    accurately reflects our UU beliefs

>Where is our holy church?  Where race and class unite as
>equal persons in the search for beauty, truth and right.

According to the bible, it is the body of Christ, his holy bride.

Where is our holy writ?  where'er a human heart a
sacred torch of truth has lit, by inspiration taught

According to the bible, it is the sacred scripture of the Old and New
Testament.

>Where is our holy One?  A mighty host respond, the
>people rise in every land to break the captive's bond.

According to the bible, the Holy One of God, Almighty Jesus, God in
Man made manifest, born of Mary the Virgin in Bethlehem, reigns now
in heaven in the unity of the Father and the Holy Ghost, One God.

>Where is our holy land? Within the human soul,
>wherever free minds truly seek, with character the goal.

According to the Bible, our holy land is the heavenly Jerusalem.

>Where is our paradise? In aspiration's sight,
>wherein we hope to see arise ten thousand years of right.

According to the Bible, our paradise is in eternal life with Jesus.

/john

>    While many in here may disagree with some of the principles of
>    Unitarian Universalism, I do hope that what is being disagreed with
>    accurately reflects our UU beliefs

I think so, Patricia.  I understand that the UU church is a real and genuine
attempt to understand God.  I've never questioned the sincerity of UU belief.
I understand the intent and desire to find God wherever God can be found.

The point of disagreement is very simple: Jesus made it abundantly clear that
He is the only way of salvation, that contrary to the UU belief that there
are many paths to find God, there is only one path, and Jesus is that path.

The UU church may be a very religious body, devoted to seeking God.  But it
is not a Christian body.  I equally recognize that Hindus, Moslems, Bahai's,
etc are seeking God.  But unless a body recognizes that salvation is through
Christ alone, they are not a Christian body.  And as followers of Christ we
are bound to remind one and all "There is no other Name under heaven by which
we are saved."

There are other differences between Christianity Unitarian/Universalist
belief, but they pretty much all stem from that basic difference.

Paul

    Paul,
    
    I agree with your reply.
    
    There are clear cut differences between Unitarian Universalists and
    those Christians who believe that the Bible is the Inerrant word of
    God.
    
    Discussing and even refuting specific beliefs that are different and
    believed right or wrong is appropriate discussion.
    
    Misrepresenting and ridicule a belief structure  is clearly very different
    than that.   
    
    I know that this discussion may not be appropriate here so I won't
    continue it.  I just would like people to have a fair understanding of
    what   my faith community is.
    

>    There are clear cut differences between Unitarian Universalists and
>    those Christians who believe that the Bible is the Inerrant word of
>    God.

I think there's a bit more to it than that.  What it sounds like you are
saying above is there are differences between Unitarian Universalist
Christians and Biblical-inerrancy Christians.  Now I think it is perfectly
possible to be a Christian without believing the Bible is inerrant.  It's
risky and unstable, but it's possible.  I know, I was one :-).  There are a
wide range of 'Christians,' who hold many varying beliefs, many of which I
disagree with.  Most of those beliefs do not preclude a saving faith in the
Lord Jesus Christ.  But so long as someone proclaims that Jesus was
God-as-man and salvation is from Him alone, I believe that the title
'Christian' can be applied to them, and it is before their master that they
will stand or fall.  I may fight against what I believe to be false and
harmful doctrine, but if having the perfectly right doctrine were the key to
heaven, then none of us would make it.

Not to offend, but I cannot extend the title 'Christian' to the Unitarian/
Universalist church.  The unique sufficiency and necessity of Christ, which
is the absolute core of Christianity, is explicitly denied.  Unitarian/
Universalist is essentially another religion altogether.

Paul

    Paul,
    
    For me the incarnation of God's love in human form is the core of
    Christianity.
    
    It is Christ dwelling within each human being that makes human love
    possible.
    
    When we respond to another person out of genuine love, we respond to
    Christ within that person.
    
    To live in Christ is to live a life of Love for oneself and  one's
    neigbors.   This is my beliefs.  I do not find these beliefs to be
    inconsistent with Biblical faith.
    
    There are lots of doctrinal issues where you and I may disagree.  I
    think though that the First commandment, and therefore the first
    requirement of a Christian is to love God with all one's soul, heart,
    and mind, and to love one's neighbor as themself.
    
                                          Patricia

    Patricia how do you reconcile your belief with the scriptures which
    speak of the quickening of one's soul?  How can something be dead and
    made living in each of us?
    
    Nancy

    Hi, Patricia.
    
    Your dialog is with Paul, so feel free to ignore my comments and
    questions if you'd rather not address them.
    
    On the surface, saying "the incarnation of God's love in human form is
    the core of Christianity" sounds/looks good.
    
    However, the Bible says "In <the Word> was life; and the life was the
    light of men...<the Word> was the true Light, which lighteth every man
    that cometh into the world...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
    among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten
    of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (Jn 1:4,9&14, KJV)
    
    "<The Son of God's love> is the image of the invisible God, the
    firstborn of every creature...For it pleased the Father that in Him
    should all fulness dwell." (Col 1:15&19, KJV)
    
    The core of Christianity is God in the flesh, Jesus Christ.  God's love
    was manifested in Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith.
    When we respond to others out of (agape) love, we are responding to
    Christ within US.  When God first loved us (while we were yet sinners),
    He was not responding to Christ within us.
    
    1Jo 4:15 (KJV) says "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of
    God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."
    
    I guess I need to see/hear you explicitly agree that Jesus is the
    Christ of God, that He came in the flesh, and that salvation is in no
    other in order to deem your beliefs consistent with Biblical faith.
    
    See note 824.46.
    
    /Wayne

    Wayne,
    
    As I said, Follow Jesus' command to love fully, In my opinion takes
    priority over ambiguous doctrinal issues.
    
    I see an inconsistency in your two postings.  One suggests following
    and loving Jesus, the other requires assent to a particular
    Christology.  

Er, how does one love Him with all one's soul and all one's heart and all
one's strength when one refuses to recognize who He said he was?

    Nancy,
    
    A friend of mine once quotes, the "We are able to love because God
    loved us first".
    
    One who cannot love, is dead inside.  All love is from and of God. 
    When a person who is dead inside, first responds to love, which is in
    fact God's love, that person comes to life.
    
    A transformation is very visable.
    
    Is that what you mean?
    
                                        Patricia

    John,
    
    Jesus said, That unless we become like little children, we will not
    inherit the kingdom of heaven.
    
    Now how do little children love?

    
>    Jesus said, That unless we become like little children, we will not
>    inherit the kingdom of heaven.
    
 
  I believe Jesus was not talking about love, per se, but trust and faith.
  Little children, learn to trust and believe their parents.  Jesus wants
  us to trust and believe Him in the same way.  Yes, love is a part of that,
  but trust (faith) is the key.  We need to put all of our faith and trust
  in Jesus, that he will deliver on the promises he's made, much like
  a child trusts his/her parent. 



 Jim

    Hi, Patricia.
    
    So be it.
    
    There is neither inconsistency nor ambiguity in what the Bible says.
    
    /Wayne

    By the way, Patricia, how would you respond to Jim's query in topic
    824?  Who is Jesus to you?
    
    /Wayne

>    For me the incarnation of God's love in human form is the core of
>    Christianity.

I agree.  But Christianity does not merely think of this as a noble
principle, or a general revelation.  Christianity regards the particular
human form in which God actually dwelt as a unique and unrepeatably precious
revelation of God's nature, and it regards what God said and did when He was
in that human form as of supreme importance.  Unitarian/Universalist does not
do this.

>     It is Christ dwelling within each human being that makes human love
>    possible.

I'd disagree with this.  If what Christ said about Himself is true, He does
not dwell within each human being, only in those who have accepted Him.  And
human love is a poor substitute for the love of Christ that is available when
Christ IS dwelling within us.

>    When we respond to another person out of genuine love, we respond to
>    Christ within that person.

The thing that sets Christ's love apart from human love is the ability to
respond in genuine love even to those who have no spark of Christ within
them.  "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

>    To live in Christ is to live a life of Love for oneself and  one's
>    neigbors.   

To live in Christ RESULTS in love for oneself and one's neighbors.  The
reverse is not true, though - a human attempt to love oneself and ones
neighbors does not result in living in Christ.

>    I think though that the First commandment, and therefore the first
>    requirement of a Christian is to love God with all one's soul, heart,
>   and mind, and to love one's neighbor as themself.

Amen.  So said our Lord.

So far, so good, pretty much.  But this is where things really begin to break
down:

>    As I said, Follow Jesus' command to love fully, In my opinion takes
>    priority over ambiguous doctrinal issues.
>    
>    I see an inconsistency in your two postings.  One suggests following
>    and loving Jesus, the other requires assent to a particular
>    Christology.  

Jesus said very clearly, and repeatedly: "If you love me, you will follow my
commands."  And He said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  Whether
Jesus is the one-and-only fully incarnate God in human flesh, whether He is
the only way of salvation, are not 'ambiguous doctrinal issues.' They are who
He said He was.  By rejecting what He said about Himself, about creation,
about anything, as perfectly authoritative you effectively reject His claim
to be God.  The "particular Christology" which Wayne referred to was the
'Christology' of believing what He said about Himself.  A 'Christology' which
denies that He was who He said He was is a 'Christology' that results in
non-christian belief.

John's question is well put:  How does one claim to love and follow someone
and revere Him as 'God incarnate', while rejecting huge portions of what He
said about Himself?

Paul

    Christ is the incarnation of God's love in humanity.
    Jesus is the human in whom God's love is perfectly reflected.  He is
    the first fruit of the New Creation.  He is the image of his Father.
    
    All humans have God's love reflected in them.  The more we follow
    Jesus, the more perfectly we are incarnate with God's love.  The more
    we abide in Jesus, the more Jesus abides in us.  We become by adoption
    sisters and brothers of Christ.
    
    "Jesus is the truth, the Light, and the Way" is equivalent to "Love is
    the truth, the light, and the Way".  Jesus is God's love in human form.

>    Christ is the incarnation of God's love in humanity.

Well, the word "Christ" means "Messiah" or "Anointed One".

In the Bible, Christ is not some sort of abstract concept; he is Jesus;
he is God.  He is the Saviour of the World.  He is the Only Name Under
Heaven by Which We are Saved.

>    "Jesus is the truth, the Light, and the Way" is equivalent to "Love is
>    the truth, the light, and the Way".  Jesus is God's love in human form.

Yes, God is Love.  And that is why this is true.  But it is true because of
the specificity of the salvation brought by Jesus.

Any honest attempt to search for God's love will ALWAYS lead to Jesus Christ;
it is the ONLY place it can go; the ONLY salvation possible.

/john

 "Behold, the Lamb of God which takest away the sins of the world!"

|   Christ is the incarnation of God's love in humanity.
|   Jesus is the human in whom God's love is perfectly reflected.  He is
|   the first fruit of the New Creation.  He is the image of his Father.

** Again, on the surface this statement seems good--we use the same words.
   However, the subtleties and implications are not consistent with God's
   Word.

   I would say:

   Christ was God in the flesh, made in our likeness.  Being fashioned as a
   man, He humbled Himself unto death on the cross whereby we perceive (agape)
   love because Christ laid down His life for us.  He was raised from the
   dead as the firstfruit of God's new creation.  Christ is the exact
   representation of God.
    
|   All humans have God's love reflected in them.  The more we follow
|   Jesus, the more perfectly we are incarnate with God's love.  The more
|   we abide in Jesus, the more Jesus abides in us.  We become by adoption
|   sisters and brothers of Christ.

** "In Him was life; and the life was the light of men...<Christ> was the true
   Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (Jn 1:4&9, KJV)
   That is NOT the same as saying that all humans have God's love reflected in
   them!

   The rest of your statement I would not say differently.  And we must surely
   hear Jesus say "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every
   branch in me that beareth not fruit He taketh away: and every branch that
   beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye
   are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I
   in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the
   vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the
   branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much
   fruit: for without me ye can do nothing...As the Father hath loved me, so
   have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye
   shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and
   abide in His love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might
   remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment,
   That ye love one another, as I have loved you." (Jn 15:1-5...9-12, KJV)

   Jesus went on to say "Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy
   Son also may glorify thee: As thou has given Him power over all flesh, that
   He should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given Him. And this is
   life eternal, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom
   thou hast sent...Sanctify them through thy truth: thy Word is truth. As
   thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the
   world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be truly
   sanctified. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
   believe on my through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father,
   art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world
   may believe that thou hast sent me." (Jn 17:1-3...17-21, KJV)
    
|   "Jesus is the truth, the Light, and the Way" is equivalent to "Love is
|   the truth, the light, and the Way".  Jesus is God's love in human form.

** Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
   Father, but by me.  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:
   and from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." (Jn 14:6&7, KJV)

   Saying that Love is the truth, the light, and the Way is NOT equivalent to
   confessing that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life!  The Bible says
   that God is love and that love is of God, but nowhere says love is God--
   BIG difference!  Bottom-line: The object of our faith is the PERSON of
   Jesus Christ, not the concept of love per se.

   Again, Jesus was God in the flesh, made in our form.  In Him was manifested
   the love of God toward us.  In other words, to respond to Jesus Christ is to
   respond to God's love, and to respond to God's love is to respond to Jesus
   the Christ of God.

/Wayne

   > Christ is the incarnation of God's love in humanity.
Christ is the incarnation of God as human.  (see below)

   >Jesus is the human in whom God's love is perfectly reflected.  
Jesus is the human in whom God is perfectly reflected.

>He is the first fruit of the New Creation.  He is the image of his Father.
We are in God's image.  We are not Christ.  Christ and the
Father are one.  
    
>    All humans have God's love reflected in them.  The more we follow
>    Jesus, the more perfectly we are incarnate with God's love.  The more
>    we abide in Jesus, the more Jesus abides in us.  We become by adoption
>    sisters and brothers of Christ.

The precondition to following Jesus is to know who he is.  He, and the other
writers of Scripture, told us who he is.
    
>    "Jesus is the truth, the Light, and the Way" is equivalent to "Love is
>    the truth, the light, and the Way".  Jesus is God's love in human form.

Jesus is God in human form.  The confusion may come in that God is more
than love.  God is a being, separate from us, separate from and different
from creation, who has many attributes.  He is loving.   He is also the
Creator.  And holy.  And Eternal.  And many other things.  It's a wonderful
journey to discover who God is.  

In addition, God may not seem like love when we meet Him.  It may not
 seem  "loving" to discover a God who is displeased with our
unholiness, but that's what happens, and is totally consistant with
 God's nature.  

Unfortunately, it seems to me that UU people follow a different God and 
a different Jesus.   The confusing thing is that the same names are used...
Following (through belief and action) the Jesus of the Bible makes one
a Christian.  Following another Jesus makes one not a Christian.

You must feel pretty set-upon, Patricia.  I see you trying to find the place
of common ground that we can agree upon, and actually we can agree on quite a
bit.  We can agree that God is incredibly loving toward His creation (though
we might disagree on that pronoun :-).  We can agree that God reaches out
toward the human beings that He created to draw them into His Love.  We can
agree that the goal of life, the greatest commandments, are "Love the Lord
with all your heart and mind and soul and strength," and "Love your neighbor
as yourself."  We can agree, at least, that Jesus was a special revelation of
God's love for human beings.  And I'm sure there's more that we can agree on.

You seem to very much desire us to recognize that this core of agreement is
within the confines of what can be called 'Christian.'  But what I believe,
what the Bible teaches, what historic Christianity believes, and what this
conference is based upon, is more than that.  Jesus wasn't just an
incarnation of God's Love or even *the* incarnation of God's Love.  He was
the incarnation of *GOD*, Himself.  There's a huge difference.  As Jesus
spoke, *HE*, the person Jesus, and not an abstract concept of Love, are "The
Way, the Truth, and the Life," and "No one comes to the Father but by Him." 
As He said over and over, there will be many who do NOT choose Him and thus
do not come to the Father.  Ever.  The core of Christianity includes these
beliefs, and without them, we can't agree that a belief system is
"Christian."  Unitarian/Universalism in general, and you in particular in the
past in this file, have disagreed with these core beliefs.  I'm very sorry if
you find this offensive, Patricia, but we just can't agree that this is
'Christian.'

I appreciate your attempt to find the common ground between us, and we can
very much agree that we have that common ground.  But I think we're going to
have to remain in disagreement about whether the common ground we share can
be included under the umbrella of Christianity.  

Paul

      Sometimes I wonder if people are brought into truer relationships
      with God by a little more encouragement and a little less hammering
      at points where our belief systems differ.
    
      I mean, I know we want this Conference to represent the truth
      (especially for silent readers) and I think this string has already
      done that!  Are we really bringing someone closer to Christ by
      requiring that they be where we are?  "The Lord has given me the
      tongue of the learned that I should know how to speak a word *in
      season* to those who are weary.  He awakens me morning by morning.  
      He awakens my ears to hear as the learned."
    
      Patricia is at where Patricia is at.  My own discernment is that
      to dissect where she is at and to point out what we think are
      points of conflict will, at this time, DO NOTHING to lead her to
      where any of us think she ought to be.
    
      Why take her faith and flush it down the toilet?  Does doing so
      uplift anybody?  How???
    
      I just don't see how such a practise leads anyone to a better
      way.
    
      I would have summarized the fundamental differences perhaps once
      for the sake of the readership and thanked Patricia for the
      good things she did say.
    
      In fact, I think I'll do that right now!
    
      Thanks Patricia for desiring to love God with all your heart and
      your neighbor as well!  Thanks for desiring to know the truth!
    
    						Tony
      
                             

 It is one thing to debate minor doctrinal issues.  It is quite another
 to debate the person of Jesus Christ, as the whole of Christianity rests
 on who He is, and that is what I believe the point of discussion to be.
 What does the Word of God, on which this conference is based, say about
 who Jesus is?

 We are not here to offend Patricia or anybody who does not believe as
 we do.  However, any discussion that perports Jesus to be someone/something
 different than the Word of God states, immediately sets us at odds (for
 purposes of discussion).



 Jim

The point, Tony, is not that "Patricia (or anyone) is at where they are at,"
or whether they can (or should) be convinced of anything.

And though some previous reactions to what Patricia has said have been less
than civil (including some by me), I think this particular note and this
conversation have been very respectful.  I don't think anyone is "taking her
faith and flushing it down the toilet," any more than I've flushed your faith
down the toilet in places where I've disagreed with you.

And let's note here also that it's not as if the base note were entered and
then 20 replies were entered in response without any further response.  This
has been a dialogue.

It's a question of: what response is appropriate in what context?  The
appropriate response to the EXACT SAME statement made by a person in several
different contexts may differ widely based on the context.  For example, take
the statement of belief: "Jesus Christ was not God incarnate."  Now think of
how your response to this statement might differ in these contexts:

 - The person is just someone you haven't met before who you're talking to
   on an airplane ride.

 - The person is someone you work with who you've never heard speak about
   religious issues.

 - The person is someone you work with who is constantly ridiculing 
   Christians.

 - The person is someone you work with who you have sensed is intrigued by
   how your life seems different from those around you, and who seems
   potentially open to the Gospel.

 - The person is a member of your church.

 - The person is a visitor to your church.

 - The person is an elder in your church.

 - The person is your pastor, confiding this to you in private.

 - The person is your pastor, preaching this from the pulpit.

The appropriate response to the EXACT SAME statement would be vastly
different in all these circumstances.

How does that apply here?  Well, there are files all over the net, for
conversation on most any subject you can imagine.  There are files for most
any religion you can name, including Unitarian Universalist.  There's a file
(CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE) which seeks to talk about Christ but in any way that
anyone wants to talk about Him, regardless of what the Bible says about Him
or who Jesus says He is.  And this is a file for discussion of Biblically-
based Christianity.  If this were CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE or UU, then my
response would likely be exactly what you suggested - a single posting of how
what the Bible says differs with the perspective presented, then a respectful
withdrawal.

But a persistent attempt to portray a non-christian view as christian, or a
non-biblical view as biblical, has to be stood against if we desire to remain
who we are.  If we simply, as you suggest, 'summarize the fundamental
differences perhaps once,' and then allow the unbiblical position to be
expounded without any counter, we become CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE, a place where
any view of God or Jesus, based on anything, can be expounded as truth.

There already is a CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE on the net, we don't need another.
It's as Mark Metcalfe analogized a while back (note 713.85).  Patricia, and
anyone else, are welcome to believe whatever they desire to believe, and no
one here is going to try to track them down and convert them to another form
of belief.  But if Patricia, or anyone, desires to come here where we desire
to live according to Christ as the Bible presents Him, and present a view
which does not match the Biblical Jesus, then that view WILL be confronted.

Paul

>    "Jesus is the truth, the Light, and the Way" is equivalent to "Love is
>    the truth, the light, and the Way".  Jesus is God's love in human form.
    
    not exactly.  Your equivalency should read "Agape is the truth, the
    light, and the Way."
    
    God's love is Agape and can only be expressed by God Himself (which
    Jesus is).
    
    Mike

    Re: .23
    
    Tony, where do we draw the line in these verses?
    
    thanks,
    Mike
    
    Ephesians 4:15
    But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things,
    which is the head, even Christ:
    
    2 Timothy 4:3  
    For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after
    their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching
    ears;
    
    Titus 1:9,2:1
    Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able
    by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
    But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

      Hi Mike,
    
        I suppose one reply, as I suggested, wouldn't have been
        enough.  After reading Paul's reply especially, I suppose
        I was off-base.
    
        I would have clearly portrayed the fundamental points of
        difference (for the readership of the Conference) perhaps
        a couple of times.
    
        I don't think I would have bothered with a point by point
        rebuttal to Patricia's position (except where the above
        does so to an extent) as I just don't think it would have
        done any good.
    
        Patricia already understands full well our fundamental points
        of disagreement and so my concern would have been for other
        readers of this Conf.
    
        As to a specific answer to your question, I suppose it all
        boils down to what is most effective for the heart, what the
        person is spiritually receptive to.
    
        Perhaps I am wrong, but point by point rebuttals are often
        not receptive by people and thus their intent is not satisfied.
    
        Again though...I am not unaware of the need to provide some
        rebuttal for other readers of this Conf.
    
    						Tony

>        Patricia already understands full well our fundamental points
>        of disagreement and so my concern would have been for other
>        readers of this Conf.
    
    I'm not sure I share this perspective.  In some cases it's true, but I
    don't think it is in all cases.
    
    As for the matters of the heart with respect to a diligent
    seeker/learner, I agree.
    
    Mike

    Paul,
    
    I have appreciated your replies in this string.  They have been very
    specific and valuable.  I believe true dialogue has occured.
    
    As someone else has said, (I believe Jim H.) the question does boil
    down to "Who is Jesus Christ?"   The answer to that question can be
    very different  for those who hold the Bible innerrant and those who do
    not.
    
    Personally, not holding the Bible to be innerrant, I read many
    different answers to that question within the Bible.  The Jesus of Mark
    and of Luke seems to be very human.  The Jesus of Matthew is more
    divine.  The Christ of Paul seems is all divine and not human at all. 
    John's Gospel is very symbolic.  To believe that the Bible is
    innerrant, means that each of these aspects are seen as equal characteristic
    of the Divine.  To read the Bible as a collection of human
    understandings about the Divine, leads me to the conclusion that the
    Mystery of Jesus Christ has not been, and cannot be fully revealed to
    humanity.  I don't read each of the descriptions as equal and actual
    characteristics of the Divine, but as fallible human attempts to write
    about that which is only dimly understood by humans.
    
    	Therefore for me Christianity is about being open to the Mystery of
    Jesus Christ.  Standing in Awe of him who we cannot fully comprehend. 
    Faith, for me is trusting in the Mystery.  God will reveal to me and
    every other human who seeks God, what we need.  If I read what the
    different human authors of the Bible write, and I perceive that each is
    saying something a little different.  That each is identifying a
    relationship with God, different one from another, then I have to be
    more open and accepting to different relationship that I witness people
    having with God.  Being open to the idea that there are different paths
    to God, I can begin to see real similarities in all people who live
    spiritual lives.  And those similarities, I believe come from God,
    Godself.  Those similarities are the "fruit" aluded to in Matthew.  A
    good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
    
    The conclusions that I reach are directly related to my beliefs about
    the nature of biblical authority.  I am beginning to understand how the
    conclusions you reach are also directly related to your beliefs about
    the nature of biblical authority.

>    Personally, not holding the Bible to be innerrant, I read many
>    different answers to that question within the Bible.  The Jesus of Mark
>    and of Luke seems to be very human.  The Jesus of Matthew is more
>    divine.  The Christ of Paul seems is all divine and not human at all. 
>    John's Gospel is very symbolic.  To believe that the Bible is
>    innerrant, means that each of these aspects are seen as equal characteristic
>    of the Divine.  To read the Bible as a collection of human
>    understandings about the Divine, leads me to the conclusion that the
>    Mystery of Jesus Christ has not been, and cannot be fully revealed to
>    humanity.  I don't read each of the descriptions as equal and actual
>    characteristics of the Divine, but as fallible human attempts to write
>    about that which is only dimly understood by humans.
    
    Patricia, you just gave a pretty good case against limiting Christ to a
    human-only nature.  Now take it 1 step further.  Assuming all these
    human perspectives are true, how do you reconcile all these
    truths into the single person of Jesus Christ?
    
    Mike

    "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
    Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver,
    precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made
    manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by
    fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If
    any man's work abide which he hat built thereupon, he shall receive a
    reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he
    himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."
    
    "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
    dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God
    destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man
    deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world,
    let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this
    world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in
    their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the
    wise, that they are vain. Therefore, let no man glory in men. For all
    things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or
    life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
    And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's."
    
    "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and
    stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards,
    that a man be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that
    I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine
    own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified:
    but He that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the
    time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden
    things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts:
    and then shall every man have praise of God." (1Co 3:11-4:5, KJV)
    
    We who believe in Jesus Christ are the temple of God.  The foundation
    of God's Holy Church is Jesus Christ.
    
    May the indwelling Holy Spirit bear witness with our spirits that we are
    the children (and temple) of God.
    
    /Wayne

    Mike,
    
    That is my point.  If one feels that there is a need to reconcile all
    these human understandings of God, into one potrait, one gets a
    different answer that if one assumes that all the human understandings
    are limited and therefore cannot be merged into one collective picture
    of God.

   > As someone else has said, (I believe Jim H.) the question does boil
   >down to "Who is Jesus Christ?"   The answer to that question can be
   >very different  for those who hold the Bible innerrant and those who do
   >not.

   > The conclusions that I reach are directly related to my beliefs about
   >the nature of biblical authority.  I am beginning to understand how the
   >conclusions you reach are also directly related to your beliefs about
   >the nature of biblical authority.

My reaction is that this is a pretty thoughtful answer.  I'd hope to be
doing the same sort of  "beginning to understand" too.   

I agree with the most recent notes - my intent isn't to bash Patricia F.
Notes gives us a dialog, which hopefully adds to all of our understandings.

The key question is exactly the "Who is Jesus Christ" question.  The primary
source of information on the subject has to be the Bible.  It's the most 
complete and reliable source.  And, as the most reliable source, if it's 
contradicted by other sources, it has to take precedence.  

My hope is that all who are reading this series would take the time, it
being Christmas, to go to the source, and carefully and prayerfully, get
to know this Jesus.

Unitarians herald the birth, if not the belief
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Copyright 1995 Nando.net

The Boston Globe

BOSTON -- Sunday night and Monday, Catholic and Protestant churches will be
packed to overflowing, as even those who do not usually attend Sunday
service gather to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

But in an odd theological twist, some of the most popular and well-attended
Christmas services take place at Unitarian Universalist churches, many of
which add extra services to accommodate huge turnouts.

What is surprising -- and disturbing to some mainstream Christians -- is how
Christmas can attract so many people to a denomination that does not believe
Jesus was the son of God.

While Christians are united by the belief that Jesus was the Messiah,
Unitarians generally do not believe in Jesus' divine birth, regarding him
instead as a great prophet and teacher.

"I find it difficult to comprehend how a denomination that is not Christian
and rejects one of the most central tenets of Christianity can sing
Christmas hymns and tell the Nativity story," said Rev. Paul Fuester, a
Pentecostal minister in Providence. "It seems a little bit misleading."

But Unitarian ministers and congregants say the importance of Christmas is
not just celebrating Jesus' birth but reflecting on what his birth means.
"It's not a time to dispute the theology, but a time to celebrate the memory
of Jesus," said Rev. Ken Sawyer, minister of First Parish Unitarian church
in Wayland.

Unitarians say they view Jesus' birth as the arrival of a man who influenced
the Western world and was one of the greatest role models in human history.

"His birth is worthy of celebration because of what we know about him and
because the way his life inspires our own," said Rev. Helen Lutton Cohen,
minister of the First Parish Unitarian Church in Lexington. "The symbols of
the story -- the star announcing his birth, the angels singing, the loving
mother and father, the shepherds and the wise men, the animals in the stable
-- bring all the world, great and small, rich and poor, human and animal,
together in celebration of this love and goodness."

Rev. Jory Agate, a Unitarian Universalist minister who nonetheless considers
herself an atheist, said she still finds great meaning in Christmas Eve
services.

"I don't see Jesus as the son of God but I see his story as the story of the
miracle of a birth," said Rev. Agate, the director of youth programs for the
Unitarian Universalist Association. "Every child's birth is a miracle. And
every child brings with him or her the possibility to bring peace, redeem
the world and bring light to our lives."

Several worshipers who attend church only on Christmas said they prefer
Unitarian services to Christian celebrations because they are less steeped
in the trappings of ritual and religious doctrine.

"I am a lapsed Catholic so I would feel hypocritical going to a Catholic
church on Christmas," said Frank Latorre, who lives in Malden, and has
attended different Unitarian churches on Christmas Eve for the past five
years. "I think Jesus is one of the most important persons in history and I
think his values have influenced me and the way I've raised children. But I
just have a hard time with all the heavy prayers about Jesus as the Savior
and the Messiah. I don't necessarily believe that's the most important part
of the Christmas story."

Rev. Victoria Safford, minister of the Unitarian Society of Northampton and
Florence, said her church's Christmas celebration attracts many first-time
worshipers seeking a moment for spiritual reflection in a season dominated
by commercialism. This year the church is holding two Christmas Eve services
because last year's single service was so crowded people had to sit in the
aisles.

"I think a lot of newcomers want to hear this transcendant story but for
whatever reason they may no longer be willing to hear it in the church of
their childhood because it carries too much weight," Rev. Safford said. "If
people are longing to sing that old music and hear that old story
unadulterated and without any changes, this is the chance to do it."

Ruth Weisman has a good reason for attending a Unitarian church on
Christmas: she is Jewish. "Even though I'm Jewish and obviously don't
believe Jesus was the son of God, I still believe he provides an important
lesson for people of any faith," said Weisman, who lives in Natick.

"I think people are drawn to the beauty of the story of justice arriving to
us in the form of an impoverished baby instead of through powerful kings or
generals," Rev. Safford said.

The pluralism of the Unitarian church, which has helped its membership grow
in recent years, is also a major challenge at Christmas time. Unitarian
congregations include everyone from Catholics to Protestants to Jews to
Buddhists to pagans. "We do not have a collective response to the Christmas
story," Rev. Safford said. "So we pull a lot of different traditions
together."

Like many other Unitarian ministers in Massachusetts, Rev. Safford spends
the Christmas season not only talking about the birth of Jesus but also
about Chanukah, the Jewish festival of lights, and the winter solstice, a
change of seasons that pagan or nature-based religions celebrated long
before Christianity was born. Many Unitarian churches include a menorah
along with a Nativity scene.

At the Christmas Eve services at the First Parish Church of Stow and Acton
in Stow, the celebration ends with the lights turned off in the sanctuary.
Rev. Ralph Galen said he will speak about "the universal light" that Jesus
represented as the sanctuary is slowly relighted.

Similarly, at First Parish Unitarian in Framingham, the sanctuary at the end
of the Christmas Eve service will be darkened and then every congregant will
be given a lighted candle. "I will read this beautiful passage about
bringing light into the world and then we will sing 'Silent Night,"' said
Rev. Cynthia Chetwynd, the Unitarian church's associate minister.

"The Christmas, solstice, Chanukah season is rich with symbolism and deeper
truths which speak to the heart of all human experience," Rev. Chetwynd
said. "If you notice, they all embrace metaphors of light: Jesus is the
light of the world, the longest night welcomes the coming of the light and
the temple light keeps burning to dispel darkness.

"Whether we are Christian, pagan, Jew, humanist or atheist we can all
appreciate the sacredness of creation and the hope that is born with each
new babe."

    Amen!
    
    Thanks for posting that!
    
    Patricia

er, "Amen" wasn't exactly my reaction.

/john

	I agree.....with Patricia. :-)

And I agree.. with John.

So now what do we do?  :-)

Paul

This was posted in this file last year.  I think this conversation is a
remarkably appropriate place to post it again:

Paul

*****************************************************

IN OUR IMAGE
Meditation for Christmas, 1992

When He came the first time
They wanted a King
NOT
A helpless Baby
In a manger.
They had salvation--
The Pharisees and Sadducees
Were in charge of that, and they
Were quite sufficient.
But they wanted
Deliverance.
The hot and dusty mile
Trod unwillingly, the rendering
Back to Caesar of the hard-earned coin
That bore his image--
These they hated.  So they looked
For one who could, with signs and wonders
And a strong right arm,
Set up a kingdom earthly
Of which they would, naturally, be
The pinnacle.  The manger and the cross
They could not accept.  And so the Cornerstone
Became to them
A stumbling stone, rock
Of offense.

When we heard about the Baby
We said,
"What a lovely story!  What was wrong
With those stiff-necked Jews?"
And--for awhile--
We heard the angels sing
And made the arduous journey
With the Wise Men.
A daring few labored with Him
To the cross and found the glory
Of Resurrection.
But those who stayed behind said,
"There is no Resurrection"; and the cross
Became something smooth and shining
To be made from gold and hung
Around the neck.  The story of
The sinless Baby, born of a virgin
Dimmed to a dusty myth, an excuse
For annual celebration.

But....
We keep the concept, anyway.
Because now
We want a helpless Baby
NOT
A king.  (One needs
Some religion, of course.  And
As the dust has gathered on the Word
We can hope it wasn't true--
That He was flesh and dwelt among us--
And His hard sayings remain only
An uneasy memory.)

The Baby, though, is rather nice,
Sweet and dimpled, non-threatening.
We need nothing beyond the manger;
We have salvation, too:
Democracy, Multiculturalism, World Peace
(If we ignore the distant thunder
In Croatia, the fisticuffs in Russia);
Psychotherapy, Equal Rights for women,
Dogs, cats, fish, and 'specially spotted owls
And trees--rights for all
(If we ignore the silent scream of those unborn);
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY
And we see not
That we are poor, blind, naked serfs
Clutching to ourselves the miserable rags
Of our psychological self-righteousness
While our Lord delays His coming.

Whether we like it or not
He will return and sweep away
Our refuge of lies.

      They wanted a King--
      They got a Baby;
      We want a Baby--
      Our knees shall bow before
      The King.

                      --Ardella M. Crawford (c) 1992

2 Timothy 4:3
    For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
    after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having 
    itching ears;

| <<< Note 835.39 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| And I agree.. with John.
| So now what do we do?  :-)

	Pray that the new year gets better! :-)

| <<< Note 835.41 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
| after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having
| itching ears;

	I thought itching ears happened if someone was talking about you??? :-)

    The article does a good job of describing the Unitarian Universalist
    celebration of Christmas.  I respect honest disagreement.  If the
    article fairly represents my faith, I can respect that Paul and John
    might find what is presented a lack of faith.  I do not find it a lack
    of faith.
    
    During every service, we UU's as other churches do welcome both the
    active members and visitors.   I see visitors as soujorners on their
    own spiritual journey.  I believe that my faith community offers
    something very unique.  I know it is not for everybody, but it is for
    many.  The faith community seeks to accept and affirm every person who
    enters its doors.  We accept and affirm each other regardless of where
    each of us is on our own individual faith journeys.
    
    Most UU's have struggled with our individual celebrations of Christmas. 
    But struggle is a source of renewal.  As we embrace the struggle, we
    embrace the meaning of Christmas.
    
    I say Amen to the posting because it does reflect my understanding of
    my own faith community and I can affirm it with pride.  I can also
    accept that others view it differently than I.
    
                                  Patricia
    

Is there any particular meaning to be found in the fact that the address
of the Unitarian Universalist parish in Harvard Square is

			"Zero Church Street"

??

    Other than they're the first building on the block??? 

    could be the last too.

    The Unitarian Universalist Church in Cambridge is one of the oldest
    churches in this country.  I don't know what the significance of Zero
    Church Street is.  Perhaps I could write a book of UU Trivia and
    include that fact.
    
                               Patricia

	I think Zero Church Street has to do with you don't need to go any
further cuz you found Home. :-)

    John says in 835.18 (sorry I've been out a week):
    
    >Any honest attempt to search for God's love will ALWAYS lead to Jesus
    >Christ; it is the ONLY place it can go; the ONLY salvation possible.
    
    Actually I can totally attest to this.  What I believed was very close 
    to what the UU beliefs defined here were.  I would have used the term
    higher power as opposed to Jesus but other than that its pretty close.
    The idea is to try to reflect love and to seek the higher power. Its
    a good goal.  I did this for years and learned and grew a lot.  It was
    my path.  But eventually I got to a point where I couldn't seem to get
    any further.  I couldn't learn any more or climb any higher.  Thats
    when I met Jesus.  :-)
    
    Jill2

    .50
    
    Amen!

    While I do not hold to any faith other than Christ Jesus, I also am not
    at all pleased with what appears to be insulting comments towards
    Patricia.   Consider this a moderator notice that these comments will
    be deleted.
    
    Thank you,
    Nancy

It is interesting to note that Unitarianism began in Boston as a rejection
of the doctrine of the Trinity, just like the Jehovah's Witnesses after
them and the Arians before them.  Rejection of complete understanding of
the orthodox formulation of this basic doctrine in the bible and as expounded
upon in the first four councils is the beginning of almost every departure
from Christianity

Initially, at their founding two hundred years ago, that was the Unitarians'
most important "difference", and was the reason they called themselves
"Unitarians" -- to distinguish themselves from orthodox Trinitarian
Christianity.

Without their focus on Christ as God, they began (as Peter did, when he
looked away as Christ called him across the water) to sink into a pure
humanism.  Then, about thirty years ago, they joined with the Universalists,
who have since become the dominant force in their union.

My Unitarian friend Janice says that Unitarians are "seeking".  My message
to them is that I hope that their "seeking" is an honest search and leads to
the only place possible -- to Jesus Christ as the Universal and Unique God
and Saviour.

All other searches are incomplete.

/john

>Unitarians are "seeking".

I've said before, and likely will again:  A UU setting may indeed be a good
setting for 'seeking.'  And as long as people remain 'seekers' they may be
comfortable there.  And some people remain seekers for their entire lives.
All of us hopefully remain seekers after MORE for our entire lives.  But a UU
setting not a very good place for actually 'finding' anything.  And if
someone does 'find' something there, for example if someone finds Jesus
Christ, they will likely discover that UU is no longer a welcoming setting.

'Finding' implies discovering truth, which necessarily implies exposing
falsehood.  And UU doesn't do well with proclaiming any one view of God as
truth, and it particularly doesn't do will with proclaiming any view of God
as false.

Seeking is indeed important.  But for seeking to be important, there must be
something to find that is equally or more important.  I for one consider that
'something to find,' namely Jesus, to be infinitely more important than the
process of seeking Him.  And once found, my seeking changes from the seeking
for some abstract truth to seeking to know the One who IS Truth.

Paul

    Patricia
    
    Sorry I'm entering this discussion so late in the day - I haven't had a
    chance to get into notes for months.
    
    I used to believe that all roads led to God, you just pick the one that
    suits you. I believed that love was the answer and that if we all
    learned to love each other then the world would be a better place. 
    
    Unfortunately I learned that human love wasn't perfect (in fact I saw the
    worst example of love in myself :-( ). I tried to change myself and make
    myself a better person but there would always appear something, or
    someone, who would prove to me that I was a long way from perfect.
    
    I realised one day that I could not have a perfect love by my own
    efforts - I needed that True Love to be born again into my soul.
    1 Corinthians 13 shows the standard of love that God has and expects -
    and it shows to all of us that we fall very short of this standard
    (scripture syas that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of
    God) - this is why we need a Saviour. 
    
    I found the True Love nearly 6 years ago when I was born again - the
    Light and Truth and Love was born into me - perfection became a part of
    me (not that I claim to have reached perfection yet myself ;-)). Jesus
    now lives in me and He is making changes all the time (scripture says I
    am being changed from glory unto glory - conforming to the likeness of
    Christ).
    
    The term "Christian" literally means "Christs ones" (i.e. belonging to
    Christ) - so we can only claim to be christians if we belong to Christ
    (i.e. Jesus is our Lord).
    
    I sincerely hope and pray that you will soon find the one you are
    obviously seeking - Jesus, the perfect Love and Truth and the only one
    who can be your salvation.
    
    love     
    Ben