There are some really good discussions on the URC Facebook page at the moment, stimulated by a woman called Carol who’s left the URC for the Unitarians.
In the course of one these discussions she asked a good question: “If I can’t agree with the creed and I’m only here for the friendship and the charity then what’s the point?”
In asking this question I’m wondering whether Carol is my alter-ego that I’m subconsciously using to be more direct than I normally am. Because I’ve often felt the same. “You don’t believe in the God of the Bible, the facts of the crucifixion and the resurrection… Why are you here again?”
Carol draws attention to the Apostles’ Creed but the URC has an expanded confession in the Basis of Union. Many no longer know it’s there. Or if they do they are willfully ignoring it. Because there are many in the leadership and ministry of the URC that do not believe in the confessed faith of the URC – or Christianity itself.
So the question remains what’s the point? Especially when there is the position of integrity open to those people. As J. Gresham Machen wrote:
Finding the existing churches to be bound up to a creed which he does not accept, he may either unite himself with some other existing body or else found a new body to suit himself. There are if course…disadvantages in such a course…But there is one supreme advantage which far overbalances all such disadvantages. It is the advantage of honesty. The path of honesty in such matters may be rough and thorny but it can be trod. And it has already been trod – for example by the Unitarian Church. The Unitarian church is frankly and honestly just the kind if church that the liberal preacher desires – namely, a church without an authoritative Bible, without doctrinal requirements and without a creed
.
Well done Carol for acting in honesty. May your tribe increase.
While not disagreeing with your core point I wonder how you know that there are “many in the leadership and ministry of the URC that do not believe in the confessed faith”. My impression is that the number who would regard themselves as not believing is actually rather small. You might regard the nature of their belief as unsatisfactory (and in some cases I might agree with you) but I’m not sure that we can really be confident in telling what other people do or do not believe, especially in the face of their own statements.
So those (like me) who you might describe as “neo-orthodox” and those we might be describe as “liberal” will mostly think of themselves as believing in the core doctrines of the faith while re-describing them in ways you (and sometimes I) regard as gutting them of real content.
If someone feels able to affirm the creeds (and this is a sticking point for me) then the inner nature of their faith and conscience seem to me a matter between them and God. This does not preclude lively discussion of the theological adequacy of their beliefs but does enable and (in my view) dictate generosity between us.
We can only judge by what people profess and by their actions. Why do I say many? Because of hearing them speak, reading Reform, chatting with them in an informal setting etc.
The fact that there are any people in ministry/leadership who have to cross their fingers during the apostles creed is a terrible judgement on the URC.