Response 4: "Post-Modern Lyrics" - A Song of Faith 2006

Our Words of Faith:
Cherished, Honoured, & Living
Response Sheet

Name: ______________ Date: __________ (optional)

Session 4: “Post-Modern Lyrics”

“A Song of Faith” 2006

How do you respond to the ‘Preamble’?


How do you respond to Appendix A – “Intended Audience”?


How do you respond to Appendix A – “Status”?



Read through the statement – what shape or sections can you find?



Look closer, at the words and phrases, the diction: what jumps out?






Our Words of Faith:
Cherished, Honoured, & Living
Response Sheet

Name: ______________ Date: __________ (optional)

Session 4: “Post-Modern Lyrics”

“A Song of Faith” 2006

Are these “our” words of faith – in the group, the congregation, the wider church?


What group, or part of the wider church would buy or reject them anytime?


Are they ‘cherished’, ‘honoured’, ‘living’? Which word fits this creed best?


Do these words express and inform, or reflect:
a) Continuity with historic, older ways…?
b) Current practice of the United Church… as it is emerging?
c) Local practice of Thornhill UC…?

What parts, lines, or words were easiest for you to say with us?



What parts, lines, or words were hardest for you to say with us?
Here are notes from participants' responses:
Session 4: “Post-Modern Lyrics”

“A Song of Faith” 2006

How do you respond to the ‘Preamble’?
• A statement for OUR Time? – standing comfortably side by side – good attitude!
• I think this statement is a brave attempt to provide a verbal picture of our faith in the UC. It is long (too long) but if it could be shortened it would be more acceptable and easier to read.
• Agree with the intent reflecting the spirit fo UCC – ‘for our time’ are important words
• Good – especially last paragraph

How do you respond to Appendix A – “Intended Audience”?
• This generation
• This statement will most certainly appeal to new ordinands
• The suggestions to reach out to others to find similarities discuyssion with other faith groups is a good idea – I like the reference to spiritual freedom
• Lengthy – but good

How do you respond to Appendix A – “Status”?
• Not intended to replace ‘historic’ statements made by former generations – sounds OK!
• ‘Comfortably side by side’ is misleading. The 1925 Articles have evolved into the Song of Faith – there is progressive movement forward in time, eg to much more inclusivity
• Like the idea of standing ‘side by side’ – don’t see a need for the 1940 statement of faith except historically

Read through the statement – what shape or sections can you find?
• We still talk a god who is addressed as if ‘he’ is a supernatural being with dimensions. I don’t.
• Purpose and intended audience
• Social justice has increased in emphasis very significantly
• Too many – quite repetitive

Look closer, at the words and phrases, the diction: what jumps out?
• God is the creator
• Acknowledgment of past hurts, failure of church to live up to its vision
• No desire to tell church what to believe ‘seems to believe’ – is that typical of UC thinking?
• Recognition that the practical use of the document will be determined by the use it finds in the life and work of the church.
• Less theo speak and much more secular common, current language, while maintaining a high level of English – inclusive of wide range of belief
• Overall, a positive ‘feel’ – long, but easily read


Are these “our” words of faith – in the group, the congregation, the wider church?
• Yes
• Yes, yes, yes
• I think if I were to read it every day it would become part of me!
• For the most part I tink the group understood this as ‘our’ words of faith. The congregation (TUC) will I think find the statement too long and words flowery
• ?

What group, or part of the wider church would buy or reject them anytime?
• Those who wish more definitive exclusive terms
• Traditionalists perhaps, people who grew up in the church

Are they ‘cherished’, ‘honoured’, ‘living’? Which word fits this creed best?
• Living
• Too early to be cherished and honoured – many are still unaware it exists!
• Living
• Living – more attuned to this day!
• Honoured..

Do these words express and inform, or reflect:
a) Continuity with historic, older ways…?
• Check
• Yes
b) Current practice of the United Church… as it is emerging?
• Yes
• Check
• yes
c) Local practice of Thornhill UC…?
• Open
• Check
• Yes

What parts, lines, or words were easiest for you to say with us?
• A statement for our time
• God is holy mystery beyond complete knowledge above perfect description’
• Paragraph beginning ‘the fullness of life includes…’
• P5 worship – scripture p6 peace, justice, p7, p9
• 95% was easy to say
• ‘God’ of many names, creator, redeemer etc
• We witness to Holy Mystery that is Wholly Love
• Most of pages 3-9



What parts, lines, or words were hardest for you to say with us?
• None, really. However, I like to think of G.O.D., not a god, God with dimensions implied – G.O.D. is beyond dimensions..
• We speak of God as one and triune
• P6 God bears the sin, grief and suffering of the world in Jesus’ resurrection
• The parts that personify God
• Triune, heaven (a place), risen Lord (from dead)
• Triune God… God bears the sin etc – is this the same as Jesus died for our sins?
• God’s Mission’ Isn’t it our mission too?
• Christ’s return? What does that mean?


Notes from final sessions on Song of Faith, Dec 11, 13:
• Need editor – long, repetitive
• Gobble-dy-gook
• Explain us to ourselves, explain us to others, in conversation
• ‘essential agreement’
• Song of Faith easier for ordinands
• Subordination, or side-by-side?
• Covers it all: God Jesus Spirit, sin – inclusive, easier to read – simple, poetic
• New younger generation finding a voice, reclaiming older truths missing in mid-century words – joyful, celebratory, less comfortable for my style, but good for the church
• Beautiful – says a lot of good – but flowery, says a lot at length – how many will read it?
• Sounds progressive – but then orthodox and body flesh incarnation and evil terms
• Admitting church is imperfect, sin is not just personal
• Sin can be passive acquiescence, by government, to earth, wealth, power
• Can be a helpful complement to too-succinct New Creed
• What the tolerant must tolerate – diverse voices
• Primary mission of the church is reconciliation? Proclamation? Commendation? Transformation?
• Really like song of faith progressing beyond old words
• Despite long flowery speech, lots of good stuff in it
• Expected it to be dry – wasn’t – new creed favorite, affection, song of faith spongy and elusive, hard to get into – will new reader give it time?

• Ambitious broad goals – trying to be all things to all people?
• Broad spectrum – broader now – trying to please everyone, ends up pleasing no-one?
• Last page ‘weasel words’, denial of responsibility
• Motherhood, mamby-pamby nothing left out, no-one offended – not a business plan!
• Not for all time, but for our time, spirit vast and wild – opening up
• String of one-liners, hard to find order –
• Need topic, theme – can’t focus in reading it
• 1st 3 lines popular
• Excludes the narrow
Closing Notes (cont’d)
• If the audience is 40 year old lapsed former UC – missed
• Audience is our generation in the church?
• These words sound like clergy, from that subculture, not real people
• Reflects the elite of the mainline UC
• Recognized ideas I hold – so I’m not the only one!
• Upper class talk – not short clear for average retail use
• Run on and babble
• Too long, unwieldy
• Padding – like a student trying to reach a word count and sound smart
• Psalms managed brevity – why can’t our song?
• Mamby pamby broad inclusive – that’s what UCC is…
• Ambivalence: can’t get past size and variety of language, like a group wrote it
• Works for ordinands’ scruples – anybody can fit in
• Attempt to make intelligible failed – poorly executed – but spirit of inclusivity in it
• Convoluted, repetitive, nothing to object to – or believe in – but not divisive
• State your case, live it, get on with it – this is a big creative writing exercise that tries to be everything and ends up nothing

• Not (yet) our words of faith – not well known enough
• Can’t think of any group in the UC that would reject it, so all encompassing that it should offend no one.
• Can’t say it is cherished, honoured or living – but it might someday be considered honoured, don’t see this as ever becoming a living document – way too long and wordy, I only see this ever being reference material which dooms it to sitting on a shelf
• Easiest parts – much is truly eloquent and beautiful, but way too long, some portions seem redundant, then towards the end it comes across as though the committee was working through a checklist and at the last minute needed to address a few elements to cover all the bases. A pity because I really like much of it, however I find it uneven overall. Nevertheless, I can appreciate the opinion that it should be adopted because I saw that it did speak to many in the discussion group, and would be valuable (necessary?) for new ordinands, so that we don’t have just the basis of union.
• Hardest parts – One quibble – still talks about God incarnate