Talk:United Church of God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

(The preceding template was added by SwissCelt 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC).)

I moved the old page intact to Talk:United Church of God (Archive 1).

Contents

[edit] cuts from archive 1

Here is a summary of the productive parts of the archive:

We started with 4 questions:

  1. It appears based on the quotes to me the UCG does not claim to believe in a trinitarian God? They claim that the Holy spirit is not a person. Okaythere are you disagreeing with either of the following two claims
    1. That those are in fact the beliefs of the UCG
    2. That those beliefs disagree with majority christian doctrine
  2. As for "normative". Are "Orthodox" or "Nicene based" acceptable? There needs to be some sort of a but I think if the UCG has a term they use that would be a very good choice. I would agree that "normative" sounds a bit loaded I'm hoping we can come up with something more NPOV. We can explicitly define the term in the article with something like "for purposes of this article the term mainstream will be used to denote any doctrine held in common by 'Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, Reformed and members of the NAE/Evangelical Alliance" (as was suggested in the talk) Would it then be acceptable?
  3. This one is for "Pepsimax33 "Belief that the gospel is less about the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but primarily about the promised future, visible Kingdom of God on earth" I'm not sure if I follow the claim here. Taking into account Summary of Christian eschatological differences can you explain to me what is outside the "normative" with regard to UCG in your opinion?
  4. Its my opinion you need more than one sentence to describe UCG with regard to old testament law. Every "normative" christian group sees some of the laws as applying and other ones not applying. By in large they all agree on which ones (murder applies, heave offerings don't). I don't see evidence for a major doctrinal difference here. What I do see some evidence for is a difference in observance / practice. Would everyone accept a rephrase it in those terms?

We have the possibility of a new version of the doctrines being created.


Now that this is out of the way. Reading your response it appears you do think a doctrine section should be developed by someone more friendly to UCG. Why don't you write what you consider to be a section which describes their doctrines fairly (again you may want to use the example I posted above of other denominations). Remember the goal is to describe their doctrines not to argue them (though you should certainly link to arguments). jbolden1517Talk 23:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation about motivation and Wikipedia article editing. It helped clear up some issues. A decision on the expansion of the doctrinal section is pending. Thanks again! Okaythere 13:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is supported by the other editors:

How can I help with this, Okaythere? I admit to being fascinated with UCG's doctrine, even as I happen to disagree. (Nothing personal, I hope you understand. As a Marcionite, I'll naturally disagree with the doctrines of most Christian denominations.) Perhaps we can set up a temporary subpage to work out this edit and expansion? -- SwissCelt 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I welcome your call to Okaythere to write his own doctrinal section. I also welcome Okaythere's surprising response, to the effect that s/he would consider it. .... Out of respect for this process, I will naturally refrain from re-posting past edits or posting new edits. (by pepsimax33)


We had an answer to my question #3 by pepsimax

Sixthly, to respond to jbolden1517's question, it's a more subtle distinction. The UCG, like the vast majority of Christians believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ purchased "salvation" for believers. The difference lays in that conception of salvation. The "normative" view of this is that salvation is in the here and now. It is a primarily a spiritual act of "justification", in which a believers sins are replaced in God's eyes by the holiness of Christ. The believer is thus saved in the present age, at the moment of repentance, baptism and other sacraments. The Kingdom of God is a present reality (albeit in only spiritual form at present). The gospel message is therefore focused on the life, death and resurrection of the Son of God.
The UCG position is somewhat different. They argue that that the Kingdom of God is not currently in force in any way, but is entirely to come. For them, the spiritual and physical Kingdom will arrive at once, so salvation is about salvation into that future, visible kingdom of God on earth. Their gospel message reflects this view on the Kingdom of God. Given that they believe that salvation is salvation INTO that physical Kingdom, they argue that the gospel is the good news that that Kingdom is coming (made possible through Jesus).
I invite you to peruse their articles on this issue where they lay out their doctrine and freely argue their difference from the "normative view": http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn18/understandkingdom.htm and http://www.ucg.org/booklets/GK/kingdomherenow.htm are just two examples.
To be honest, I think that they make some peruasive arguments. I probably sit closer to the UCG view than the "normative" view. However, as I said above - the issue is not what I believe to be right or wrong. The issue is that they hold to a different definition of the gospel message than their counterparts in the the bulk of other Christian denominations.
(subsequent clarification: I concur re the gospel message needing to focus more on the coming physical Kingdom of God. I do not concur with their view that the Kingdom of God is not in spiritual force today --pepsimax 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
This is a late interjection, but better late than never. It is not quite true to say "They argue that that the Kingdom of God is not currently in force in any way, but is entirely to come". For clarification on this, see How Are We 'Translated Into the Kingdom'? --Atimco 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] time frame

OK I'm still waiting on an answer to question #4 from pepsimax and a final choice from okaythere. Pepsimax if we don't get a yes by the 21st go would you be OK with a go ahead and put your changes in with one alternation use the word "orthodox" in place of "normative"? jbolden1517Talk 18:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, jbolden1517. The sudden absence of sleep is turning my brain to mush. To your question 4 above, I'm not about to quibble over language and would happily re-draft the point along the lines you suggested.
Re your suggestion re normative vs orthodox, I will change it as per your suggestion.
And finally, re your question re the 21st, I suggest giving Okaythere another couple of days (s/he may be seeking input from local or denominational UCG leaders and it would be nice to give them every opportunity to improve the UCG article by making a positive contribution). How about end of week (26 May)? Thoughts?
Cheers, --pepsimax 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with waiting until the 26th. jbolden1517Talk 17:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi guys. I see jbolden1517 has restored the doctrinal section, as per the thinking above. Apologies for not actioning this myself on 26 May as agreed (health problems). Thanks all for your contributions. I think we have a better outcome than we started with. Best regards, Pepsimax33 --pepsimax 21:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctrinal Differences

Hi everyone. I appreciate the consideration shown here and I'm sorry about the long delay in a response. Instead of re-writing the doctrinal section, I thought I would just tweak the current doctrinal section. Most of the changes have to do with further explanation of doctrinal distinctions of the UCG.

For example, the first point originally read:

"Belief in a non-Trinitarian view of God (specifically, belief that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person of the Godhead)".

This may lead the casual reader to conclude that the UCG must believe that there is no such thing as a Holy Spirit. This is incorrect. I changed it to read:

"Belief in a non-Trinitarian view of God. Specifically, the belief that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and of Christ Jesus and is not a separate person in the Godhead."

This gives the reader a better understanding of the UCG belief.

Point two originally read:

"Belief that Christians will eventually, at the end times, become full members of the God family as "spirit-born divine beings who are part of Elohim, the universe-ruling family of God"

There are a number of points here that misrepresent the belief of UCG. For example, the use of the phrase "end times" is ambiguous. The UCG belief is that Christians are reborn as eternal, spirit creatures at their resurrection at the return of Christ. Also, the term "full members" is also ambiguous. The UCG belief is certainly that physical Christians are full members of God's family, just not yet in spirit form. So I changed it to read:

"Belief that Christians are part of the family of God and will eventually, at their resurrection, be "spirit-born divine beings who are part of Elohim, the universe-ruling family of God""

Point 3 originally read:

"Belief that the gospel is less about the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but primarily about the promised future, visible Kingdom of God on earth"

The use of the word "less" implies a negative concept of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nothing could be further than the truth. These things are paramount to Christian salvation. However, the gospel that Christ taught primarily, and that he charged his followers to teach, WAS about the kingdom.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

So I changed it to:

"Belief that the gospel that Jesus Christ taught was the promised future, visible Kingdom of God and that the gospel is more than just the life, death and sacrifice of Christ"

Point 4 read:

"Belief in British Israelism (the theory that the USA, United Kingdom and most nations of Western Europe are the physical descendants of the lost 10 tribes of ancient Israel)"

The UCG does not believe in a belief called "British Israelism" and does not use that term. This term has been co-opted by "Christian Identity" movements and as such is often linked with racist ideas, bigotry and hatred. As the link to "British Iraelism" points out, there is no one unified belief that explains that term. At best it's an imcomplete statement. So I removed the link. I also changed the wording to more accurately reflect countries and occupants. For example, the ten tribes of Israel are not restricted to the USA, UK and Western Eurpose, but include other countries on other continents.

Changed to read:

"Belief that the USA, United Kingdom and some other nations around the world are composed in large part of the physical descendants of the lost 10 tribes of ancient Israel"

Point 5 read:

"Belief that a number of the laws and worship festivals given in the Pentateuch of the Old Testament are still binding on Christians today."

A couple of things here, the use of the word "binding" denotes a belief that it is a hardship, or a burden, you are tied up, you are bound. UCG members take delight in God's law and holy days and don't consider it a "binding". Second, the term "worship festivals" is ambiguous. There's no such term used in the bible or UCG literature. They are called "feast of the Lord". I also changed "given" to "enumerated" because the belief of the UCG is that these laws and days existed, and were known by, biblical figures such as Abraham before they were specifically listed elsewhere in scripture.

Changed to:

"Belief that a number of the laws and feasts of the Lord as enumerated in the Pentateuch of the Old Testament are still applicable to Christians today."

Point 6 read:

"Belief that the pagan origins of traditional Christian celebrations (e.g. Christmas, Easter) render them inappropriate as Christian celebrations"

Not much wrong here, except that the UCG belief is that they are offensive to God, which is why Christians should not observe them.

Changed to:
"Belief that the pagan origins of traditional Christian celebrations (e.g. Christmas, Easter) render them inappropriate as Christian celebrations in the eyes of God"

Where neccessary, I added links to UCG literature supporting the statements.

Thanks again...Okaythere 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

I believe the first paragraph is rather POV-oriented. Using scripture to defend or describe an organisation smacks of apologetics and does not seem like it belongs in an encyclopedia. I will put forward another proposed beginning. RelHistBuff 09:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I didn't see this in the talk before I added the intro paragraph back. My real objection to this is that you removed sourced material in the article without replacing it with other cited material. The idea is for this article to be based more on outside sources, not less. That said, I agree that the first paragraph after the first sentence needs some work. The first sentence (to wit: The United Church of God (UCG) is a Christian denomination.) is, I believe, NPOV; moreover, it serves as a good introduction for those unfamiliar with the topic. -- SwissCelt 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the "references" for the first section are linked to anything! I'd like to see the references for -UCG is a christian denomination- Dr d12

[edit] World News and Prophecy

"The World News and Prophecy alleges the rise of the European Union, the decline of U.S. and British power, and the moral decay of Western culture." There's something missing in the sentences. Alleges *what* about these things? I think perhaps the writer means "decries" in this context, but I'm not sure.

I think you're right. Any objections to making this change? -- SwissCelt 02:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exit & Support Network

This external link has been removed at least twice from this article. What is it about the site that mandates its exclusion from this article? -- SwissCelt 13:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_Church_of_God_1dae.html"