Skip to main content

GA: Day Four

(Not exactly live anymore, I'm talking about last Friday, but I'm still faster than any other news source, barring the GA Zette, but you have to come along to get that)

The last business meeting dealt with the left over motions and the procedural motions, and some more reports.

David Dawson gave his address as the retiring President. He said one thing that is worth repeating. He might have said a couple, but I can only remember one now. He recommended we use a different 'brand name' as 'the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches' is rather too long and combersome. I agree entirely. David advocated 'Unitarians in Britain' which is fine. For me I'd want to call us 'The Unitarian Church' or when talking internationally 'The British Unitarian Church.' That's what I've written for my link on the right here. The trouble is of course that some would see it as a rejection of Christianity to drop the word 'Christian.' But we shouldn't get bogged down in that, it has to be about good clear marketing. And the debate about Unitarian vs Free Christian is a nineteenth century issue that I think is entirely irrelevant to where we are now. I'm glad David said it.

Celia Midgley was installed as the new President and led us in a act of closing worship that I really enjoyed. It was interactive and including the sharing of a sign of peace (something I really miss from my Anglican past). The closing song (I think) is from the new hymn supplement, and I love it. It's called 'Bring Many Names' and is brilliant in marrying progressive theology with deep emotion, something rarely achieved. It's a song that gives me something of the feeling of being in love with God, like a good charismatic praise song without being simplistic and all about the cross. It talks about a 'strong mother God.... willing to be changed' and recongnises the unknowability yet intimacy of the Divine 'joyful darkness far beyond our seeing, //closer yet that breathing.' There's my theology. Beautiful.

So that was that. Lunch then home. I've probably missed something out. I didn't realise there was a 'quiet room' until it was too late and would liked to have checked it out, but nevermind, I'm glad they're doing that.

As always talking with people in the bar and other places is often the most important thing. Lots of that was done. And overall GA was definitely a good one for me, which is not to say there still isn't a lot to do. Last year seemed to represent a turning point in seeing the Annual Meetings as a chance for worship primarily and not just business, and I think that's very much to be welcomed.

That was GA 07.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Thank you so much for posting these updates throughout GA!
juffie said…
Thank you so much for going to the trouble of doing this blog about GA. Not longer in Britain, but helped me still feel connected.

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th