Rev. Calli

Greetings to you all my sisters and brothers, I agree with our brother mark45. If I remember my ULC history correctly, Rev. Hensley used this passage out of the Gospel of John to justify ordaining anyone who asked for ordination: John 15:16 You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. So in a sense, the ULC does have a Christian basis to it But, and this is really key here, at no time Rev. Hensley ever intend the ULC to be just another Christian Church. The ULC was founded in large part because Kirby did not believe that any religion had it right in regards to God. All, without exception in his view, were wrong. To be perfectly truthful, the ULC was also founded as a tax protest movement. In the book "Con Men: Fascinating Profiles of Swindlers and Rogues from the Files of the Most Successful Broadcast in Television History" Morley Safer of "60 Minutes:" states that Hensleys mission was, in fact, to make every American a tax-exempt Minister. Now in fairness, we have to keep in mind that this was in the 60's and 70's. Personally, I believe that the UC has grown and become something very different than what Rev. Hensley originally envisioned. It is not a Christian church or an atheist church. It is a church that encompasses all beliefs and no beliefs. It is a church that empowers all people to proclaim their own understanding of God. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, It's not a problem at all. In Milwaukee for example, the Metropolitan Community Church first established a congregation that met in a meeting room in a small hotel. This situation went on for some years until they had enough of a congregation to purchased a small church. While they were meeting at the hotel, the money they collected during the worship services went to paying the small rent required for the meeting room. I'm not sure if the people of the congregation were able to deduct the offering or not on their taxes. But that is not the important part. The issue is if the people really desire to establish a real congregation, they will find a way to do it. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, Welcome to the forum. We're practically neighbors. I'm just across the lake in Milwaukee. In Solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, I don't believe that there is any one answer, as I think it will always depend on the situation. For example, living in Milwaukee as I do, I happen to believe that the Green Bay Packers are the greatest football team ever. I also have a great many friends in the Chicago area where I was born and raised who happen to believe the exact same thing about the Chicago Bears. Because I love my friends, I do not share (except in a humorous way) my view about the Packers to them because it's not really an important issue. When I discuss matters of science, I am always reminded of the truth that Science is never 100% certain about anything. True science is always open to the chance that something that was once taught as absolute truth may one day be found to be false as new information becomes available. But it is the responsibility of those who want to challenge the generally accepted facts of science to prove something once held to be true is in fact false. If a challenger does have compelling evidence that can be backed up using the scientific method, then a responsible scientist will be open to testing this new evidence, and if found to be true modify their own views. This past year I have been blessed to become a grandfather for the very first time. My granddaughter has some very fixed opinions about what she wants and doesn't want. For example, she now likes putting everything she can get her hands on in her mouth. Now, this is not a good thing when it comes to small objects that can be swallowed or sharp objects like steak knives. Alas, she gets upset with me when I take these things away. She thinks she is in the right. I, however, have very firm, inflexible views on this matter, and I must insist that she bend to my will. It is a safety issue. Regarding matters of faith. Indeed I do have some pretty fixed opinions. I share them with people who ask me to share them, and often with people who pay me to talk about them from a pulpit. More importantly tho, I try to live out my beliefs. One of my most cherished beliefs is that there is a spark of God within each of us, and God speaks to each of us in different ways. Because of that, I always want to be open to others views on faith, recognizing that, for whatever reason, this is how that person is experiencing (or not experiencing) God. That experience is true for them, and not something I want to directly challenge. Of course, I share what I believe here, hoping that my own faith journey can help others in theirs, and to be perfectly honest, in the hopes that I can help others to a loving relationship with Jesus. So what I share I try to do gently and respectfully (with the occasional lapse). And yes, recognizing that in matters of faith, I can only speak of my own views, my own experiences, and my own understanding of what Christ teaches. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, One of the greatest ministry killers is trying to start a ministry by getting a building first, then raising a congregation. One of the acknowledged experts in new church starts, Rick Warren (don't always agree with his theology but his church planting ideas are sound) gives some pretty good pointers on starting and growing a new congregation in "The Purpose Driven Church". To make this short, you start in small rented or donated meeting spaces, getting larger and larger spaces is your attendance grows. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, The house church model is an excellent way to begin a ministry. In my denomination (I'm an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church) our whole movement really began through the use of Covenant Groups,gatherings of 10 or so people who met each week (usually in people's homes) to study , pray and hold each other accountable for following through on their faith development. Starting out as a home church helps you to see if you really have the gifts of graces to run a larger congregation. If you don't have the skill set or ability to inspire at least a handful of others to share their faith and worship together on a regular basis, that type of ministry is probably not going to work for you. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my sister, I think the key is always to treat each other with respect, and recognize that we are not always going to agree on everything. The people here at the forum come from many different beliefs, and most at least have pretty strong feelings about why they believe the way they do. We want to share our beliefs obviously, but there is a big difference between sharing and demanding others see things the way we do.Sharing is good, demanding, not so much. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my sister, In my own ministry, I often like to say that faith without reasoning, without thinking, is not faith, but superstition. Faith ( or beliefs if you will) really are things we should struggle with, so that we understand why we feel the way we do. But we always have to remember that others may not see things the same way we do, and so we should respect their views, even if we don't agree. Their beliefs are their beliefs. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you all my sisters and brothers, I believe it's time to have a beer. I also believe that sometimes we forget that when we are talking matters of faith or lack of faith, we make the very great mistake to thinking we can prove the truth or falsehood of someone's deeply held beliefs in the same way we can prove 2+2=4. All we can do is explain what we believe and why we believe it, then live out those beliefs as best we can. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, I am reminded of a bit the late, great Bill Hicks used to do. One night he was performing in a small town way down in the Bible Belt. Afterwards, in the parking lot, he was approached by a few of the locals who said "Hey buddy, we're Christians, and we don't like what you said up there'" To which Mr. Hicks (blessed be his memory) remarked, "So, forgive me." In Solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my sister, I second the sentiment. Welcome to the group! In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my sister, Welcome to the forum. Considering the interest you expressed in Chaplaincy, you may wish to look at this link: www.acpe.edu This will take you to the home page of the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education. This is a national organization that certifies centers in hospitals and other institutions (like prisons and nursing homes) that provide chaplaincy training. This is a non-denominational and very ecumenical organization open to all faith systems. Most mainline denominations require that their ordained ministers take at least one unit of CPE before they are ordained. Many non-ordained people also enroll in a CPE program if they feel the desire to enter into chaplaincy as a lay person. Good luck! In Solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, Interesting. I suspect it is really a matter of the context in which you are using the word. If we are talking about a matter that can be proven or disproven using the scientific method, it is really a matter of what the physical evidence shows. I believe the earth revolves around the sun, I believe in evolution, I believe the Holocaust happened. These things are all generally accepted to be true by the vast majority of scientists and historians who actually work in these respective fields. I accept the generally accepted consensus of the experts in these fields of science and historical research. But I would also always qualify my belief by adding on the caveat "according to the best evidence we have available." This is because I realize that ideas we accept as facts of science or history can occasionally be proven false if and when new facts come up that disprove ideas that were once held to be true. In matters of faith though, belief can be based on other things. A lot depends on the cultural context we grew up in and even our own psychological makeup. Once you make the leap of faith (forgive the pun) and accept that a deity can work outside of physical laws that bind humanity, and once you accept moral precepts that resonate within you, it really boils down to this, "I feel in my heart this is true." For someone who doesn't have the same psychological makeup, faith makes no sense. For those of us who do, it's perfectly rational. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, Actually, I believe the quote is "Whom Gods destroy, they first make mad." In Solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, I would not disagree that there are faith paths that can be very dangerous. Christian Identity comes readily to mind. From my particular faith perspective though, I see God as wanting us to know, understand and love her freely. The idea that any form of knowledge of God (at least accurate knowledge) could be dangerous or harmful is not one I find acceptable. But hey, that's just my personal perspective. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, It is said that very early in his career, L. Ron Hubbard had quipped that the best way to make money was to start a religion. Many people (myself included) believe that he took his own advice. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, Actually, I think you were very close to the truth when you mention "a simple lack of devotion." As I understand it, the people of Israel believed in one God who created all things, who had chosen them to be the special people thru whom God would reveal himself to the world, and who had freed them from captivity to Egypt and Babylon. For a person to give their love and devotion to anything other than God was the ultimate in disrespect, worthy of the harshest of penalties. People worshipping Idols claiming that they were Gods were turning their back on the one true God. In Christianity, we often refer to this passage from Matthew as the Greatest Commandment. "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40 NRSV) Many of us in the Christian faith have come to believe that this passage refers to giving your ultimate devotion, your greatest love to any other than the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, the God who Jesus proclaimed. To give your greatest love to anything other than that God is to waste your love on something that is not lasting, something that is ultimately a false God We make false Gods out of all sorts of things. Power, money, sex, these things literally become God for some people, they spend their time worshiping these things, trying to acquire more and more of those things that they love the most. But these things are not lasting. Only our relationship with God is forever, as only God is forever. That is why, in the Christian view, our relationship with God is first and foremost. But next must come our relationships with each other. To show each other the love, care, and respect that is due to another being with whom we share a common Creator, a person who is loved by God just as much as anyone. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, IMHO, when the prophets use terms like "other Gods" I do not think that they believed that there were literally other Gods as much as they were speaking against giving your devotion to something that was in their view only a myth. There was only one true, real God. This of course is a matter of opinion. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, I think that is a bit of a reach. The root word EL is the common word for God among the Semitic peoples of the middle east in ancient times. Isreal is the name scripture says was given to Jacob after his encounter with God and typically is translated as "He contends against God (El)" Even if we reject the idea of a historical Jacob, it would seem to me to be a real reach to think that a people who became monotheistic with a vengeance would keep as their tribal name a word that referred to other Gods then the one they believed to be the only God. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, I can only speak for myself here. When I consider my own faith (a very liberal form of Christianity that is influenced by what is called Process Theology, and the Arminianism of John Wesley), I would have to freely admit that what I believe in cannot be proved by the scientific method. I know full well that because I was born into a Christian family and lived in a society where Christianity in its varied forms is pretty much the majority religion, I have a predisposition to be attracted to Christianity as the belief system that makes the most sense to me. Over the years through both formal study and independent research my faith has been modified to reject much of what I had believed in my youth (in my 20's and early 30's I would have been considered a neo-orthodox Christian). But my basic belief in Christianity has never left. Now I cannot prove that what I believe in is historically accurate. Within the Holy Scriptures are many inconsistencies, much that seems to be taken from older religious traditions, and evidence in the Gospels that the authors were more interested in making their personal points than in giving an unbiased view of the life of Jesus and his teachings. Frankly, there was a time in my life when I was really bothered by the fact that I cannot point to my faith and say I can prove that what I believe is the truth in the same way that I could point to the Sun and say I know the earth revolves around it and here are the reasons why, then give scientific evidence that cannot be refuted. Matters of faith though are not things that can easily be proven or disproven, especially issues of faith that are at the central core of ones beliefs. For example, there is no way to prove via the scientific method the existence or non-existence of God. It would be illogical even to try. In science, one can never prove anything with absolute, 100% certainty. That is one of the main points of Science. All that can ever truthfully be said is that, "according to the best evidence we have right now" such and such theory is believed to be true. Science is always open to new ideas, always ready to accept that an idea that once was considered the truth was in fact not so, as long as new evidence is produced that is convincing enough to cast doubts on old theories. Faith though is not dependent on evidence (though most people of faith have come to their belief system by taking whatever scriptures and teachings they have been exposed to, as well as their personal experiences) and used these as a way in their own minds to see the "truth" of their particular belief structure. Faith is like love, in that it is something we cannot always explain. I for example have no idea at all why my wife of 40 years would choose to love me. I have multiple faults, can be a royal pain in the behind when I get moody, have very little in the way of handyman skills. But yet, she loves me with all my faults and failings. Not really rational, but there it is. I love Christianity as I understand it with a passion. I know that historically Christianity has not always been a force for good in the world. I know much of what we consider to be Holy Scripture is historically suspect, and sometimes as our Brother Gnostic Bishop loves to point out, gives a picture of God that is not very flattering. But when I consider the teachings of Jesus that are in Scripture, when I consider the passion I feel toward him, and when I weigh the evidence as I understand it, I have the proof I need. It may not be convincing to others, and that's ok. I don't need to prove my own faith or disprove anyone elses. In matters of faith, all that is important is what you beleive, and what meaning it brings to your life. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, While I do believe that there are many valid ways to seek a relationship with God, I am very weary of any religious system that finds the need to trademark their scriptures and keep their core beliefs hidden from all but those who can afford to pay for the privilege of being enlightened. In Solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, Certainly, I would agree that the government has no business declaring a church to be legal or illegal, though in the case I cited above that wasn't the issue. What Judge Adelman did was help change the legal understanding of what actually constitutes a religion. Because the COTC does not recognize a deity of any sort, did that mean it wasn't really a religion? Judge Adelman said yes it most certainly is. His ruling broadened the scope of religious freedom in America. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, Interesting topic for conversation indeed. About 15 years ago in Wisconsin, a member of what was then called the "World Church of the Creator" (a white supremacist group that rejects the very idea of Gods, but holds the white race to be the pinnacle of creation, therefore something to be worshiped), was denied a promotion at his job because of his membership in this group. The rationale being that as someone who could be considered racist, he could not objectively supervise people of other races. He then sued his company claiming religious discrimination. The company he worked for argued that the World Church of the Creator could not be a religion in the accepted sense of the term because they expressly disavow belief in a deity or deities of any sort. The judge who heard the case ruled that the WCOTC was indeed a religion, stating that a belief in God was not necessary, only that their faith system was one that brouight meaning to the lives of it's adherents and occupied the same place in their lives as a more traditional religion. Now I'm not sure I would agree completely with the learned Judge Adelman, but in general, I would say that the difference between a religion and a philosophy is indeed how it impacts the life of the individual. For me, religious faith is a more personal, more powerful expression of what motivates my life than to say merely that I practice a philosophy of love and grace. Though I often fail, I do try to live my life in the way I understand Jesus taught us to livdon't do it out of fear or terror of punishment, but out of love for him and our Creator. So for me it's more than the intellectual acceptance of the philosophy of Peace and Love, but something I do out of love for him and my brothers and sisters. Much like I do things for my wife and children and friends. It's because I love and care for them. It's this personal connection that I feel can define the difference. A practice I would think could be defined as how we live out either the religion or the philosophy of life that we follow. I don't think practice has to have any religious connotation at all. The word "Church" can be challenging to define, as depending on the context it can be used to describe a couple of different things. Obviously it can define a building. There are parts of Milwaukee where you can find a church building on almost any block. Then of course, some people use the word church as a synonym for a Denomination. I am inclined though to use the definition from the classic song "I Am the Church" Refrain:I am the church! You are the church!We are the church together!All who follow Jesus,all around the world!Yes, we're the church together!1. The church is not a building;the church is not a steeple;the church is not a resting place;the church is a people.(Refrain)2. We're many kinds of people,with many kinds of faces,all colours and all ages, toofrom all times and places.I would add to this though (and this is a heterodox view I will admit on my part) that all belong to the church who follow the teachings of Jesus, even if they reject the standard Christian view of the divinity of Christ, or even deny the historical existence of Jesus. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, Thank you for your response, better late than never as some say. You come to this discussion with an interesting perspective as one who has both been the giver and the recipient of the gifts of others. It is indeed a paradox to hear an atheist say he acted in good faith. I do fully understand your position and in general, agree with you. However, I do not feel that your statement about judging others here is quite what is meant in Scripture when Christ says "judge not least you be judged." (This by the way might make a good topic in and of itself). Judging, as I understand it in the Christian context, is looking at someone, and holding them to contempt and scorn, or elevating them depending on things like their wealth, sex, race, education, etc, etc. It does not mean that you cannot look at someone's actions, and say the action is wrong and you will not support it. Not does it mean that people cannot be held accountable for their deeds. It does mean that even the worst sinner cannot be held in contempt, cannot be treated as anything less than the child of God that they are. All people are deserving of being treated with dignity and compassion, but that does not mean that people are to be given a free ride to do whatever they want if their actions harm another or themselves. If I may, tonight in my own devotions, I will light a candle in the memory of the child you lost. In solidarity, Rev. Calli

Greetings to you my brother, Sitting prominently in my bookcase is my cherished copy of "Alongside Night". If you've never read it, I highly recommend it. In solidarity, Rev. Calli