Sentimental Claptrap….Sentimental Claptrap

As someone who grew up in a non-creedal church before coming to UUism, I must say I find it hard to fathom why so many people in this movement are so attached to the Ps-and-Ps.

Bill Dockery says that in calling the Ps-and-Ps sentimental claptrap, I am somehow belittling those who lost their lives in Knoxville. Huh? They died trying to protect the Ps-and-Ps? I thought they died trying to save lives. Maybe I got that wrong.

Yes, I believe the Ps-and-Ps are sentimental claptrap. I believe that we don’t need them. We have the Cambridge Platform. We don’t need anything else. Let each congregation come up with its own covenant.

That is why I’m all for church covenants. They are created by each individual congregation, not given to them from somewhere else. Or at least they are not supposed to be.

but I’m going to class now. more later.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Sentimental Claptrap….Sentimental Claptrap

  1. The Cambridge Platform?

    You’ve got to be joking, yes?

    That’s a proposition that the UUA cease to exist and that any congregations that aren’t willing to affirm that they’re Christian depart from association.

    “1. Ecclesiastical polity, or church government or discipline, is nothing else but that form and order that is to be observed in the church of Christ upon earth, both for the constitution of it, and all the administrations that therein are to be performed.

    2. Church government is considered in a double respect, either in regard of the parts of government themselves, or necessary circumstances thereof. The parts of government are prescribed in the Word, because the Lord Jesus Christ, the King and Law-giver in his church, is no less faithful in the house of God, than was Moses, who from the Lord delivered a form and pattern of government to the children of Israel in the Old Testament; and the holy Scriptures are now also so perfect as they are able to make the man of God perfect, and thoroughly furnished unto every good work; and therefore doubtless to the well ordering of the house of God.

    3. The parts of church government are all of them exactly described in the Word of God being parts or means of instituted worship according to the second commandment, and therefore to continue one and the same unto the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

  2. I’m being a little facetious here ogre. I’m not calling for the abolishment of the UUA. What I’m saying is that the Principles part of the Ps-and-Ps doesn’t need to exist. The Purposes part works because those are the purposes.

    Nor am I saying that all non-Christian churches leave the UUA because I think the Cambridge Platform is the document we ought to talk about. I’m saying that the Free Church has it’s founding document and that we don’t need to recreate the wheel.

    Hope that makes sense.

  3. “Bill Dockery says that in calling the Ps-and-Ps sentimental claptrap, I am somehow belittling those who lost their lives in Knoxville. Huh? They died trying to protect the Ps-and-Ps? I thought they died trying to save lives. Maybe I got that wrong.”

    Come on, Kim, you’re in grad school. You can read better than that.

    My post was about the tone that you and other posters take toward these non/creedal trappings. And I didn’t say that they died trying to protect the Ps&Ps. Greg McKendry died trying to protect PEOPLE who take participation in our congregation and our denomination seriously, including (to one degree or another) the Ps&Ps.

    Is going to seminary about acquiring the proper critical stance, distancing oneself from the day-to-day concerns of the great mass of UUs? What IS going to seminary about?

  4. Bill, I responded to your statement in the thread where you posted it. I made the point that Greg McKendry, or anyone else, giving their lives trying to protect people who take participation in any particular group seriously has little or no bearing on the validity of the principles and ideals of the group. Even if the principles or ideals of the group are very good ones the transgressive behavior of other members of the group may render them effectively “claptrap”, especially if most group members turn a blind eye to the transgressive behavior of the group members who disregard or violate the claimed ideology of the group. . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s