Skip to main content

Jews and Unitarians dropped from Churches Main Committee

The Times reported today that Jews, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, and Seventh Day Adventists are being dropped from the Churches Main Committee. This is not the same thing as Churches Together. I can understand the reasons for being exluded from Churches Together, but this body deals with non-theological things like tax, charity law and child-protection where clearly it is much better to work together.

Well done to Steve Dick, and presumably the new communications consultant, for getting a good quote in there which manages to give a good sense of what Unitarians stand for. We seem to have a good relationship going with the Times now. We just need to develop that kind of relationship with the Guardian to get some coverage in there.

Comments

Naomi said…
Although the final descision on Unitarian and others' membership of the Churches Main Committee has now been deferred, it would do no harm to consider our response to any future discrimination against other churches and religious groups.

This is a copy of a Comment I sent to Ruth Gledhill's Times Online Blog:

"Writing as a Unitarian, I suppose one way of looking at the report of the proposals before the Churches Main Committee, would be to say 'Yet another example of the exclusivity of Christians and the sidelining of everyone else...'

Since most of us are not orthodox Trinitarian Christians, it might be more useful to regard this apparent slight as an opportunity to think about how members of any and every religious or spiritual group or community might be encouraged to meet to discuss matters of common concern. If this led to positive and effective political lobbying and also provided an effective means of communication between government and the various religious groups, so much the better. But if at the very least it gave members of different faiths the opportunity to talk frankly to each other and maybe come to understand each other a little better, this could be a very positive outcome of apparent ostracisation. I know such dialogue is already very important in some areas, but it would be good to see it developing into a more widespread and national happening.

The Churches Main Committee web site says of itself:
‘Its primary role is as a vehicle for conveying to the Government the views of the churches on legislation and other matters which directly affect them and likewise as a channel through which the Government can consult the churches as a whole on such matters.’

No reason that I can think of why the rest of the ‘faith communities’ should not aspire to such a role.

Naomi Linnell
Robin Edgar said…
Do you think The Guardian might cover this U*U news? ;-)

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