Uniting Church acts to prevent offense

Uniting Vote 08
foto

An update on the sad story of Francis Macnab and St Michael’s Uniting Church.

The Uniting Church Synod voted today to request St Michael’s remove freeway signs and other media related to its “new faith” advertising campaign because it causes “deep offense to many Christians, Jews and Muslims”.

The denomination is in a dilemma. Macnab has pushed a secularized “faith” to it’s logical conclusion. If we’re free to recreate the Christian faith in our own image, what’s wrong with Macnab’s “new” form of Christianity?

The statement says nothing about the truth or otherwise of Macnab’s beliefs as a minister for life at St Michael’s. He was not censured because his message is untrue but because it may cause offense to some people. But if Macnab offends some Christians, Jews and Muslims by calling the 10 Commandments “negative”, what if he puts up a banner commending the 10 Commandments and that offends other people?

Macnab is out of step with the Synod because his actions have “the potential damage to ecumenical and interfaith relationships”. But what if the Uniting Church’s own statement of beliefs proclaims “Jesus is Lord” causes offense to other faiths?

Uniting Church moderator, Jason Kioa called for restraint by outraged church members, saying it was important to be aware how public statements would be perceived within and beyond the church. “I remind all members that we are called to be a fellowship of reconciliation,” he said.

In its Basis of Union, the Uniting Church aligns itself with the Holy Scriptures and the witness of the Reformation and the teachings of John Wesley.

It promises to:

. . . commit its ministers and instructors to study these [Reformation and Wesleyan] statements, so that the congregation of Christ’s people may again and again be reminded of the grace which justifies them through faith, of the centrality of the person and work of Christ the justifier, and of the need for a constant appeal to Holy Scripture.

The Uniting Church is in serious decline. Within the next 15 years, it will lose half of its adult constituency. Macnab is not the problem. He’s a symptom of a movement that has lost its way.

If he can not longer support the core beliefs of his denomination he should have the integrity to resign or be removed. If the church congregation wants to go with him, let them have the building.

The Uniting Church should return to its evangelical heritage and seek God’s forgiveness for straying from it. It’s not too late. And even if it is too late for the institution, God’s favour is worth far more than institutional survival.

5 Comments

  1. Posted 29 September, 2008 at 5:02 AM | Permalink

    Spot on Addo! I wonder if there is a way back from liberalism when it has got to this stage?

  2. John D'Alton
    Posted 30 September, 2008 at 9:50 PM | Permalink

    Good call Steve. But the issue doesn’t stop there. The bigger issue for all of the evangelical denominations, which have at their heart an individualism and renegade-ism that leads ultimately to lots of deviations and has no way to stop this sort of madness happening. Its basic to *protest*-ant-ism, which was a valid reaction to RC excesses but still a reaction, a protest. The better answer is to go back to the church as it was before RC excesses. back to the community decision-making of bishops and people together. Back to the original churhc that has kept the faith! :-) You know where I’m going. That’s why I became Orthodox. Its the only real answer to Nacnabism going right thru evangelicalism. Like McLaren is basically doing :-( Go well.

  3. Danni Addison
    Posted 2 October, 2008 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    Love it Dad. Contraversial, well written and like Alan said ‘spot on’!

  4. Posted 20 October, 2008 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

    A couple of things, just to make sure people understand the makeup of the UCA, and to make sure that when people read this article they are sure of a couple of things…

    I’ll keep to the topic of the UCA as apart from “New Faith” or Macnab as I don’t know him or his community or those connected to or a part of the church and don’t want to further demonize those involved on either side of the “New Faith” dialogue.

    Firstly, in this article we’re talking about the Uniting Church Synod of Victoria and Tasmania. Synods are gatherings of the Churches in a state (or in the case of Vic/Tas or NSW/ACT a couple). This does not mean the entire UCA has made this decision, this is a regional gathering of people within the Victorian and Tasmanian region. (For example the NSW and ACT Synod met over the week of 27 – 30th of September).

    Secondly, When talking about the decision making process of the UCA we’re not really talking about a centralised decision making hierarchy, instead we’re talking about a number of different councils (congregation / Presbytery (regional) / Synod / Assembly that ar in relationship with each other rather than in a hierarchical system. This is important to understand when we’re talking about how or what different councils make decisions of. It’s also important to understand this because it explains how the UCA that you see in one part of Victoria (for example) can be vastly different to one in Adelaide, or NSW, or, in another area of Victoria.

    Thirdly, I find it hard when people say “the uniting church should…” because, we’re not talking about a denomination (as much as some would say it is, or as much as some inside it wish it would be) as much as we’re talking about a movement of people from all over the place who are journeying together and struggling to live out faith and community in such a relationship when we’re not all the same. I think it’s easier for denominations to be “something” than a movement, a lot of that has to do with centralized decision making structures, hierarchy’s and Episcopal leadership.

    Fourthly I have issues with is people on the outside saying what others in the inside should do, (I won’t go into that in any depth).

    And finally I also have an issue with people saying that these are the things that the (UCA/AOG/Anglican or Catholic church) should do in order to be more like other churches that may be growing or changing. The UCA is not an AOG church, nor is it Anglican and it never will, and if it does die as a movement, (either because of a lack of missional connection or because of it’s own choice) then that will be their “decision.”

  5. Ian Dow
    Posted 30 June, 2009 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

    I’d suggest readers explore the confessing movement in mainline denominations, worldwide.

    In Christ alone is our hope.

    -Ian

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*