1. You’re right Cheryl – we do lose something. We lose yet one more pointer toward a sense that the Uniting Church is a place which is safe for asking questions, for exploring ‘unorthodox’ (I hate the whole ‘orthodox’ label!) ideas and expressions of faith. It’s a shame…

  2. Cheryl

    yes, you’re right.

    though i do have to say that being the one who was the visible face of that particular pointer, it comes with a cost. i’m looking forward to not being the recipient of the pent up anger and disapointment of those who don’t want the uniting church to be the things you suggest.

  3. Fair enough Cheryl. No one person should have to take on the world’s vitriol.
    I’m glad you’ve made it simpler.
    =) Blair

  4. It is indeed fair enough – but I suspect Blair that it was less the world’s vitriol than the church’s – which makes me sad.

  5. Robyn

    Hey Cheryl,
    I am so proud of you and proud of the UCA for giving you the opportunity to explore and share the journey with us – by us I mean we who read your blog (not the UCA). I’m pleased that the identifier has been dropped if it protects you from the passionate angries who are always looking for targets for their fear. You don’t have to put up with it!

    BTW remember that for every harsh response to your precious words, there are many of us who find them as healing as phoenix tears (there is a Harry Potter reference for every situation – and you introduced me to him so you should know!) – forgive us when we fail to let you know how encouraged we are by you.


  6. steve collins

    it’s funny, i never thought you so very unorthodox… 😉

    which makes me think about how creeds can be used as maximal statements of orthodoxy rather than minimal – the end of belief rather than the start of it. i have a mental image of centred-set and bounded-set diagrams. a bounded-set approach to the creeds says, “everything inside this boundary is the creed, everything outside is not, and you must believe all of it and not any of those other things.” a centred-set creed is ‘fuzzy orthodoxy’, where some things are definitely held as the centre, and there are things further out that we might hold to less, or take a percentage of. but there’s no hard boundary to be in or out of orthodoxy.

    i find myself wondering about the trinitarian nature of ‘orthodox’ creeds – since i think that the trinity is an abstraction of how we have experienced god and may or may not be god’s actual structure [which may not be conveyable to humans in any other way], the creeds become an aide-memoire within a particular framework which i would want to rewrite. and yet i don’t feel that my potential rewrite is anything other than orthodox, ie factual and christian. i think orthodoxy is about truth about god, so i’m open to the ‘unorthodox’ in case it contains truth.

  7. Cheryl

    steve – the fuzzy / bounded thing is great. i need to think about it more, but haven’t got head space at the moment. maybe over a beer at greenbelt?

    to be honest, the thing that bemuses me most is when people [especially those who have never met me, and obviously haven’t done any research on me] speak with far more certainty than what i have about what i think and believe. i don’t recognise myself in any of their comments!

    some people do research, of course… a friend told me that someone ended up at her website by googling ‘cheryl lawrie false prophet’!!

    but there’s a whole broader question i’ve been thinking about in terms of faith and doubt. one of the most patronising things christians can do is assume that anybody who doesn’t ascribe to ‘orthodoxy’ [of whatever version] is doubting. doubt assumes that the thing in doubt is the right point to which we should return. i’m not doubting it. i just don’t believe it. and i don’t want to end up back there.

Comments are closed.