One of the consequences of this
approval will be that other denominations will no longer accept
United Church baptisms as valid, and will require a second
baptism when United Church members transfer to these orthodox
denominations. Futhermore, this change is a clear contradiction
of the doctrinal section of the 1925 Basis of Union that clearly
speaks of “Baptism with water into the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit …..” (Article 16).
2. Is the
United Church Trinitarian or Unitarian?
The idea that the “image” of
Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer is equivalent to the “name” of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit …” suggests
that the United Church is open to the ancient heresy of modalism.
Modalism argues that there is one God who reveals himself in
three different ways at three different times. First this
Unitarian God reveals himself as the Creator; at a later time he
reveals himself as the Redeemer; and yet again at another time
as the Sustainer. Is this what the United Church intends to
teach? Does the ideology of inclusivity demand the inclusion of
Unitarianism? If so, why not admit that the United Church is
becoming a Unitarian group and not a Christian Church and in
fact would not qualify for membership in the World Council of
Churches?
3. Does the
United Church intend to worship the Mother Goddess?
“A Song of Faith” implies that the
name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be replaced by the
“images” of Mother, Friend and Comforter. These images are open
to the objection that they are another expression of the
modalism heresy. But even more objectionable is that they open
up the church to the worship of the Mother Goddess. Israel
struggled against the synergistic worship of the Mother Goddess
alongside Yahweh (2 Kings 23) and the Apostle Paul was nearly
lynched by the worshippers of the Mother Goddess in Ephesus
(Acts 19). No previous doctrinal statement of the United Church
has approved worship of the Mother Goddess. Such worship is
clearly contrary to Scripture and therefore contrary to the
teaching of all churchs of the Reformed Tradition.
4. Does the
United Church intend to abandon the authority of Scripture?
It is clearly unbiblical to reduce
the “name” of God to an “image” which can be replaced by any
number of other “images”, but it is even more unfaithful to
subordinate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to the unbiblical
notion that “God is Holy Mystery”. The Father, Son and Holy
Spirit is reduced to an “image” and is mentioned in the
statement only once. However, in “A Song of Faith” God is
spoken of as “Source” three times and as “Holy Mystery” four
times. In fact, we are assured that God “is” Holy Mystery while
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are only images. Pastorally this
means that we cannot trust that Jesus or the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit are the ultimate reality. Behind their back stands
this “Holy Mystery” or “Source” who may be either partly or
entirely different. God is not referred to as “Holy Mystery” or
“Source” or “Timeless One” or “ground of all being” anywhere in
Scripture. These images reminds us of the elitist God of
Gnosticism and the Mystery religions of the early centuries.
Bishop Irenaeus in the second
century said that the Gnostic heretics abandoned the Christian
tradition and felt free to invent new names and images for God.
“A Song of Faith” speaks of God as Holy Mystery, Source,
Timeless One and “ground of all being”. These are invented names
for God and deserve the same satire with which Irenaeus
responded to the invented names of Gnostic theology. He wrote,
“There is a royal Proarche above all thought, a Power above all
substance, indefinitely extended. Since this is the Power which
I call the Gourd, there is with it the Power which I call
Super-emptiness. This Gourd and Super-emptiness, being one,
emitted, yet did not emit, the fruit, visible, edible, and
delicious, which is known to language as the Cucumber. With this
Cucumber there is a Power of like quality with it, which I call
the Melon.”(Against Heresies,ca.170AD ) When we hear of Holy
Mystery, Source, Timeless One and “ground of all being” we
should feel free to think of the Gnostic’s Gourd, Cucumbers,
Melons and Super-emptiness!
5. Does the
United Church intend to deny that Jesus Christ is Lord?
“A Song of Faith” nowhere
confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord! This is possibly the first
and only “statement of faith” in the history of the Christian
Church that refuses to declare that “Jesus Christ is Lord”.
The 1925 Basis of Union doctrinal
statement has an entire article entitled “Of the Lord Jesus
Christ” (article VII), and the 1940 statement of faith speaks
clearly of Jesus as “our Saviour and our Lord” ( article II.
Jesus Christ) and “the Living Lord” (article X. The sacraments).
What has happened in the United
Church that it no longer can confess that Jesus Christ is Lord?
Is it the domination by radical feminist ideology? Is it
domination by the ideology of inclusivity? These questions
raise the sixth and concluding question.
6. Does the
United Church intend to give its members a chance to reject this
new statement of
faith?
In regard to all of the five major
questions that are outlined above, the new statement contradicts
the 1925 Basis of Union and the 1940 Statement of Faith. “A
Song of Faith” does not simply restate the beliefs of 1925 and
1940. Instead it confuses, contradicts and denies them. Surely
such major changes should require the approval of members of the
denomination by means of a remit to be voted on in every
congregation. Indeed, congregations that disapprove of this
statement should be given the right to withdraw from the United
Church if it persists in promoting this very dreary and
unfaithful “Song of Heresy”.
