Talk:United Church of God/Archive 1

Archive 1

I removed a number of edits which were POV, as well as links throughout the article for various UCG publications and website articles. The idea of a Wikipedia article is not to promote a particular organization, enterprise, etc. but to strive to give as unbiased information as possible. In that light, perhaps we might want to add a section for criticism of the United Church of God? I've also noticed that the general category of denominations heritaged in Hubert W. Armstrong's teachings needs work. We may want to group the various articles into one category, then work on coordinating them. (Needless to say, that will take the input of those, such as me, who are unaffiliated with any of Armstrong's churches.) -- SwissCelt 07:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Doing more editing to try to bring this article to NPOV. One section I deleted stated the following:

The United Church of God (UCG) traces its origins to the Church that Jesus founded in the early first century. They follow the same teachings, doctrines and practices established then. Their commission is to proclaim the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God to all the world as a witness and teach all nations to observe what Christ commanded.

There's no way any of that could be substantiated. -- SwissCelt 12:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

POV dispute

I see now this has taken on the earmarks of a full-fledged POV dispute, as (a) certain anonymous user(s) won't work with me to try to bring this article to a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a venue for the promotion (or, for that matter, the denouncement) of a religion or religious organization. I'll admit, for the record, that my natural POV is one against this church. However, I'm doing my level best to overcome that POV. It's obvious that at least one person is not returning the favor. -- SwissCelt 05:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been three days. Since no one has come forward to discuss this, I'm reverting the edits of the anonymous editor at 24.236.150.52. -- SwissCelt 00:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You said: The United Church of God (UCG) traces its origins to the Church that Jesus founded in the early first century. They follow the same teachings, doctrines and practices established then. Their commission is to proclaim the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God to all the world as a witness and teach all nations to observe what Christ commanded. There's no way any of that could be substantiated

Nonsense. I would guess that nearly all Christian churches trace their origins to the Church that Jesus founded in the early first century. After all, this IS when Christianity began. This is a valid statement of fact by any Christian church and is definitely a neutral point of view.

The second part "They follow the same teachings, doctrines and practices established then" is also true. Any church member will tell you that. Those outside of the church, or affiliated with another religious organization, will of course disagree. In order to bring it to a neutral pov I could agree with the wording "Members declare that they follow the same teachings, doctrines and practices established then."

Hmmm, so if I founded a church tomorrow and declared both that my church traces its origins to the Church that Jesus founded, and that this church follows the same teachings, doctrines, and practices established then, you would agree this is an NPOV statement? More to the point, how would I substantiate such a statement? -- SwissCelt 03:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to swisscelt: You would substantiate it biblically.

You would compare your teachings, doctrines, and practices to those found in the New Testament and see if they match. 24.165.120.211 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And it is my position that the teachings, doctrines, and practices of the United Church of God do not match those found in the New Testament. For example, the United Church of God proscribes pork. This contravenes the practices and teachings found in chapters 10 and 15 of the Acts of the Apostles. Moreover, the statement infers that other Christian denominations do not follow the same teachings, et al of the early Church. (To wit, why mention it if it's characteristic of all Christian denominations?) This is certainly POV. -- SwissCelt 12:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to swisscelt: Your INTERPRETATION of Peter's vision in Acts 10 is not relevent. What is relevent is Peter's interpretation of his vision, which was:

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Peter's interpretation (the only one that counts) is that God showed him that no MAN is to be called common or unclean. He didn't say "and that we can now eat pork."

In Acts 15, I presume you're talking about the letter to the gentiles. Is it your position that the only requirements for the gentiles converts to Christianity were listed in the letter? That it was an all inclusive list? Could gentiles steal? Could gentiles take the Lord's name in vain? Could gentiles worship other Gods? Clearly it's not an all inclusive list.

Early Christians, the first converts to Christianity, clearly did biblical things, such as keeping the 7th day sabbath and observing the food laws. Your bias is that you don't believe this is true despite biblical evidence.

This is a red herring. The claim was made that the UCG follows the same teachings, et al of the early church. This claim must be substantiated, or else it doesn't belong in the article. Finito. So far, the only thing that has been said to substantiate this claim is that all denominations will naturally claim to follow the same teachings of the early church. While I concede this, I counter that it's not a sufficiently strong "proof" to warrant the inclusion of the claim. If this is true of the UCG, then it's true of every other Christian denomination and thus does not warrant inclusion in this article anyway. -- SwissCelt 01:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this approach: Is there something about the beliefs, doctrines, and practices of the United Church of God that makes the denomination unique amongst Christian denominations? If there is, let's substantiate that with hard evidence. If there is not, there's no need to mention it, as we're already stating that the UCG is a Christian denomination. That's not bias, that's just a succinct statement of the facts. -- SwissCelt 01:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary of reasons for deletions in Doctrines section in last revision

I removed a few statements from the Doctrines sections, so I thought I should include an explanation of the removed sentences here. A statement without a source cited does not necessarily cause a problem, but since some of these statements contradict the cited information that they are intended to summarize, they need to be discarded as incorrect unless they include a citation of supporting information.

"They maintain that these distinctivities prove their identity as God's one and only true church."

No source cited, and is implicitly contradicted by the UCG Fundamental Beliefs at the cited link, in which they define "the Church" as a spiritual organism (rather than the physical, incorporated body of UCG).

"Orthodox Christians believe that they prove merely that the PCG is an heretical, non-Christian cult."

Again, no source cited. Who are these Orthodox Christians, and when did they say this? Additionally, it is unclear if "PCG" is a typo of if this statement was intended to refer to another group entirely and was lifted from another article. In fact, this exact sentence does exist in another Wikipedia article, Philadelphia_Church_of_God.

• Denial of the Matthew 24 Gospel message and belief that the "true gospel" has not been preached for 2000 years

No source cited; The cited Fundamental Beliefs directly contradicts this, embracing the Gospel message and citing Matthew 24 as a source.

• Belief that all true believers (i.e. members of the UCG) will become gods "as God is God"

No source cited, and again is contradicted by UCG's cited Fundamental Beliefs regarding the definition of "the Church" (see above).

• Belief that Saturday sabbath-keeping is required for salvation

No source cited, could not find in UCG's Fundamental Beliefs or other available literature.

Overall, I think many of these inaccuracies are probably due to a simple, unintentional misunderstanding on the part of the author, as they appear to have either been written about, or written using information about, another (probably similarly named) incorporated group.

More on the doctrinal differences

Hi,

I have re-inserted, albeit in modified form, two doctrinal distinctives which were previously deleted:

• Denial that the gospel is about the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but rather, is about the promised future, visible Kingdom of God on earth

• Belief that true believers will become gods, sharing "even God's divine nature"

These points reflect the UCG's teachings in their booklet entitled "The Gospel of the Kingdom", found at http://www.ucg.org/booklets/

These doctrines are discernable throughout the booklet, however as a starting point, I would refer readers to pages 9 and 36 of the pdf.

On the former, I would also refer readers to the UCG statement at http://www.ucg.org/booklets/CJ/truegospel.htm which states that, "Sadly, this message is seldom understood and rarely taught in churches. Many have accepted "a different gospel" (Galatians 1:6) that distorts and obscures this vital biblical truth. You will read in the next chapter how this "other gospel" (verses 8-9), as Paul labels it, evolved and spread throughout the world."

Good job on the additions! These seem to be much more consistent with the sources being summarized. I might adjust the wording of the first statement slightly; it appears to be correct, but it may be misunderstood to suggest that the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an integral part of the gospel message as UCG sees it. I may adjust it to read something like,

Denial that the gospel is limited to the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but rather, is primarily about the promised future, visible Kingdom of God on earth

65.27.184.190 00:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It gets a bit complicated because even though they believe in Jesus' death and resurrection, most UCGers I've met assert that he was the messenger (of their interpretation of the gospel), not the message per se. Still, I quibble. No real argument here re the proposed re-phrase.

pepsimax 16:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion of previous material

On 29 April, another user deleted a substantial body of material pertaining to the UCG's doctrinal divergences from orthodox christian belief (as defined in the Nicene and other traditional creeds).

This material had previously been through a number of iterations and amendments with other users. All materials were verified against the UCG's statement of beliefs and published literature.

No explanation or justification was provided for this deletion.

Based on the material inserted in other sections, I suspect that the user who made these amendments is themselves a member of the United Church of God, and his/her changes were made with the intent of using Wikipedia as a promotional tool for their religion. I remind that user that that is not a legitimate use of this resource.

If you have a change to make, please ensure that it is objective and please ensure you explain major changes in the discussion section

Pepsimax, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with having the "Exit and Support Network" link in a new "Critical Commentary" subsection of the External links. Does anything in the article reference this source? If not, could you add something to the article that references it? We really can't make this a links list; also, the article itself should be the place to put "critical commentary", instead of leading the reader outside Wikipedia for that. -- SwissCelt 11:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi SwissCelt. Sorry, meant to add an edit to the introductory section pointing out that Armstrongist churches' claims to be Christian are rejected by a number of cult-watchers and cult-watching organisations. This was the basis for the Exit & Support Network link. Unfortunately, I got called away (pregnant wife) and forgot to finish what I'd started. Will complete edits now. Feel free to edit away if you had something else in mind. Thanks for the friendly reminder. --pepsimax 22:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Replay to pepsimax: Clearly your statment above proves that you do not have neutral point of view toward United, but a hostile one. You characterize it as an "Armstrongist" church, you say that members of united "claim" to be Christian. You imply that United is a "cult" with all the negative baggage associated with that word. You have a dog in the fight but are not being honest.

Interesting. You accuse Pepsimax of "hav[ing] a dog in the fight but [...] not being honest," yet you neglected to sign your name to this comment so that we may evaluate your comment and question you on it in turn. That may be a simple error (per WP:AGF, I'll assume this is the case), but frankly it could be seen as dishonest as well. The policy outlined in WP:NPOV does not mean that we all must have a neutral point of view concerning the articles we edit. Instead, it demands that we give due consideration to points of view other than our own. Also, "due consideration" means exactly that: We give consideration to the degree it's due in a particular scenario. No more, no less. -- SwissCelt 14:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and links. It was error, I created an account. I did make some, but not all of the revisions. I will readily admit that I am a Christian who attends services with the United Church of God. I have no previous history with the Worldwide Church of God. For the record and in the interest of laying all the cards on the table, what religion (if any) and what denomination do and Pepsimax belong to and what is your history and experience with United? Okaythere 16:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Okaythere, Pepsimax here.

Kudos for coming back and joining in the discussion. I respect your willingness to enter into dialogue. I will also readily admit that I am a Christian - a theology student, of evangelical protestant persuasion. I would not describe myself as "hostile" to you or your fellow UCG members however I do take issue with a number of your doctrines which diverge from mainstream Christian belief.

Thank you. I look forward to entering into a dialogue. Okaythere 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is on the basis of those doctrinal divergences that I use the term "cult" in describing the UCG. I do not use it in the colloquial sense of the word, but its true definitional sense. Wikipedia itself defines a cult as "a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream".

I don't buy that argument. As you realize, in popular usage the word "cult" has extremely negative overtones. It brings to mind images of Jim Jones, Heavens Gate and mind control. It is decidedly NOT a neutral term to the vast majority of readers.Okaythere 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I, and many other Christian groups, argue that the body of beliefs known as Armstrongism are so far removed from mainstream Christianity that the denominations that subscribe to them cannot be accurately described as Christian. Denial of the Trinity is an example of a foundational Christian belief rejected by the UCG. I would, however, emphasise that whilst I do not believe the UCG to be a Christian denomination, I do not question the christianity of individual members. Please accept my previous use of the word "purport" as referring to the corporate denomination, not you or your fellow members personally.

What body of belief is known as "Armstrongism" and to who is this known? I had never heard this term applied by the United Church of God to itself or by groups sympathetic to the doctrine espoused by the United Church of God. The only time I have heard this term used is by individuals who are disparaging the corporate body or the beliefs of it's members. The term implies that the doctrine espoused was essentially manufactured by Herbert Armstrong. This is demonstrably untrue. Armstrong founded a corporate church (the Worldwide Church of God) which embraced doctrine that had been embraced by others throughout the years. The United Church of God is an entirely different legal corporation with entirely different bylaws, charters, leaders and leadership structure. United does embrace much, but not all, of the doctrine, that Worldwide embraced. But embracing some of the same doctrine does not make it "Armstrongism" any more than a Southern Baptist church is a "Popish" church.

Along those same lines United calls itself a non-demoninational Christian organization, hence the first line of the Wikipedia entry.Okaythere 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure that's true, the UCG should not be the only source of information for this article. Otherwise, why bother having a Wikipedia article at all? I cited two sources which maintain that the UCG is a Christian denomination. I don't see that usage as problematic, as it states what the UCG is in a non-partisan, matter-of-fact tone. -- SwissCelt 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I ramble. My point in originally editing the UCG article was based on my view that someone looking to understand the UCG has a right to know specifically where its beliefs diverge from mainstream Christian belief. If they're cool with those differences, then that is their choice.

So you, whom presumably have never sat through one service held by the United Church of God, feel qualified as an expert to set these seekers straight? I too believe that seekers should know the difference, but not from someone who has no real experience with the organization. United does not engage in any deception as to doctrine. All of it is outlined and expressed in various articles, booklets, sermons, sermon audio, sermon video, and a variety of other sources which are all freely and readily available via the internet or print sources.Okaythere 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific point, then please edit that specific point. If you have a problem with the language used, then please object specifically to that language. However, I do maintain that you have no right to simply remove information that is fully accurate and objectively correct, simply because you don't like it or because it is inconvenient in some way.

Noted.Okaythere 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

On that basis, I am going to re-post the doctrinal differences text that you previously removed. In the spirit of compromise, I will however tweak the language so that it is softer. Also in the spirit of compromise, I will make no edits to other sections of the article (i.e. will not continue to push the "purport" argument, or the link to the Exit and Support network)

And on that basis I am going to delete the doctrinal differences and explain why further down. Okaythere 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Best regards, --pepsimax 19:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Okaythere! Though s/he and I come from different perspectives (more on that momentarily), I agree with Pepsimax here as concerns the article itself. It's useful to presume that all of us intend to collect and write accurate information for this article, irrespective of our individual opinions about the UCG. I'm here-- and I presume you and Pepsimax are here as well-- because we believe in the Wikipedia project as a whole, not because we intend to "spin" an article on this project dealing with the United Church of God.

To that end, a detailed discussion of my history and experience with the UCG would not quite be appropriate here. (I am, however, willing to discuss this outside this project; e-mail me through WP's "E-mail user" utility if you wish to do so.) Briefly, though, I can tell you that I'm a Marcionite revivalist, and thus have little interest in characterizing the UCG as a "cult" or whatnot. My own beliefs are plenty heretical to the Christian mainstream; I don't need to be the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. I can also tell you that I have an aunt and several cousins who have been members of the United Church of God since its days as part of the Worldwide Church of God. I strongly disagree with the church's theology, but as I've said that's not why I'm here. I'm here, specifically on this article, because I want the article to be as complete and informative a work possible about the UCG. I owe that not only to myself, but to my late aunt. That twin perspective should suggest why I'm not wanting this to be a spin zone. -- SwissCelt 20:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In that regard, I have to point out a major assumption you are making. One, the "United Church of God" has never been "part of the Worldwide Church of God". Many members (but not all, myself included) DID come from the Worldwide Church of God and then became members of the United Church of God, but that's it. It was a church split because of differing beliefs. Maybe you misspoke, or worded it wrong. It's possible you may have a bias because of treatment relatives suffered IN the Worldwide Church of God, but that is not a reason for suspecting doctrine or the motives of the United Church of God.Okaythere 01:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a poor word choice on my part, and I thank you for pointing it out. I'm aware of what prompted the split. And honestly, my relatives are treated quite well in the United Church of God, even as they were treated relatively well in the Worldwide Church of God. My "bias", as it were, is purely due to theological differences I have with the UCG, the Worldwide Church of God, and my own relatives... nothing more. I simply meant to say that they (my relatives) were involved in the old church, the split, and the new church... which is to say that they've been with the UCG since the beginning. That said, there's nothing I can say from my relatives that doesn't match what the UCG says about themselves. (I couldn't use my relatives as a source anyway, as that constitutes original research.) -- SwissCelt 02:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for deletions to Pepsimax additions to doctrine section

The primary reason is that the doctrine of the United Church of God is already linked. Interpretation of that doctrine is ALWAYS going to be biased by any Christian organization that hold different beliefs. That's why religion and politics is never discussed among polite company. Specifically, here are the major objections:

UCG's beliefs diverge from normative Christian beliefs on many doctrinal issues

First, there is no "normative" Christian belief. Catholicism differs greatly from Latter Days Saints doctrine. Southern Baptist belief differs greatly from United Church of Christ belief. And even if one were to accept that there was such a thing as a "normative" Christian belief, then in the interest of neutrality you should also list all of the ways in which the doctrine espoused by the United Church of God AGREES with normative Christianity.

Belief in a a non-Trinitarian concept of God (denial of the deity of the Holy Spirit)

The sentence is vague. Who decided what is a "trinitarian" concept of God? Members of the Catholic church will tell you that is a derived doctrine that was developed and refined over the centuries after the death of Christ. This belief didn't become codified in traditional Christianity until well into the 2nd or 3rd century. The second part of the statement is also questionable. Part of the fundemental beliefs of United is "We believe that the only hope of eternal life for mortal humans lies in the resurrection through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit." Clearly United espouses that the Holy Spirit is part of the divine equation. Indeed, we would not be Christians without God's holy spirit. We differ on the role and personal nature of the holy spirit, but that is all.

Belief that true believers will eventually, at the end times, becomes gods, sharing "even God's divine nature"

Your sentence implies that United teaches that we are going to become "gods", a blasphemous notion if true. Instead, United teaches that biblically, all Christians and most of humanity will one day become literal children of God. We will not become God the father, or Christ, but the children of God, with Christ as our elder brother:

Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God

Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God

.

Sharing "even God's divine nature" is completely biblical:

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Belief that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation

Absolutely untrue and unsupportable. However, if your idea of faith alone is that our works should not reflect our faith then you are on weak biblical grounds:

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Faith without the attendent works, according to holy bible, is not sufficient.

Belief that the gospel is less about the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but primarily about the promised future, visible Kingdom of God on earth

Jesus Christ primarily preached the "gospel of the kingdom" :

Mat 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

Mat 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Mar 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Paul also preached the coming kingdom:

Act 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

The gospel, "good news", about Jesus Christ, his life, death and resurrection does not negate the message he himself preached. United DOES teach it, extensively. In fact, the reason for his death was so that we could be atoned to the father end enter into his kingdom.

Belief in British Israelism (the theory that the USA, United Kingdom and most nations of Western Europe are the physical descendants of the 'lost' 10 tribes of Ancient Israel)

Essentially true, but lacking much explanatory detail, which makes it inappropriate.

Belief that a number of the laws and worship festivals given to ancient Israel are still binding on Christians today

Again, a number of issues with the statement. It implies the belief that the commandments were only given to "ancient Israel". I believe, and United teaches, that various laws and observances were given to the "children of Israel" as statutes and rules throughout generations. If you're going to give YOUR interpretation of United doctrine than it's incumbent on you, as a matter of fairness, to also to include United's interpretation.

Belief that traditional Christian celebrations (e.g. Christmas, Easter) are pagan and displease God

Again a misrepresentation. United teaches that many of the customs and practices associated with Christmas and Easter are in fact pagan in origin, a fact that is not disputed by hardly anyone. Biblically speaking, God does despise pagan practices and customs. And again, this information is readily available in United's literature.

UCG believes that its doctrinal beliefs are rooted in the "Word of God" (the Old Testament or Tanakh and the New Testament together) and that all writers of the Holy Bible were equally inspired by the Holy Spirit. The UCG believes that information contained throughout the Scriptures have direct applications to Christians today.

Generally true, but United would say that only the writers original works were inspired. Translations are flawed and subject to human error, unless one believes that every translator of every translation of every version is equally God breathed.

In short, it's been demonstrated that the additions in the doctrinal section are merely your flawed and biased opinions about the doctrine of the United Church of God. They are not even close to representing a NPOV. Okaythere 02:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

---

With the greatest respect Okaythere, all you have demonstrated is that you believe you have solid scriptural beliefs for your distinctive doctrines. For the record, I was already aware of your main arguments and prooftexts, having studied your literature fairly thoroughly. However, the issue here is not whether those beliefs are right or wrong (in fact, on the issue of the kingdom aspect of the gospel message, I have some sympathy for your view). It is whether they differ from mainstream Christianity.

Again, I have made no explicit comment in the body of the article on the merits or otherwise of your beliefs. I have simply stated that your beliefs differ from mainstream christianity. You have not refuted this.

By way of example, I cite your treatise on the non-trinitarian nature of God. You defend your belief in a binitarian view of God, which is your right. However you cannot deny that the UCG's position on this matter is at odds with the trinitarian view of God proclaimed in the Nicene Creed, and held by Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the vast majority of Protestant denominations, irrespective of the merits of that view.

The same applies to all of your arguments above. What you have argued is that your beliefs are objectively true. Obviously I have a different opinion, however that's not what I've written in the article proper. All I have noted are points of difference, and you have not addressed that particular issue.

Until you can prove that my edits, as worded, are untrue, I'm afraid I must again re-insert the disputed text. It is pertinent information that is factually true. You have no basis for removing it.

Frankly, if you believe that your views are so easily defendable and provable from scripture, I can't see why you would care if your distinct doctrines are highlighted. Why is it that you are so opposed to the general public being able to make an apples-with-apples comparison between your belief system and those held in common by the majority of Christianity?

That said, in the spirit of compromise again, I will:

• remove the point on salvation by grace alone, given that the ambiguity in UCG literature
• adjust and tailor the language to improve its neutrality
• add introductory text to the effect that the UCG has many beliefs in common with mainstream Christianity.

I have also ensured that concepts such as non-Trinitarianism, British Israelism, etc. are linked through to their own Wikipedia articles so that readers may explore them more fully at their leisure. This should address your objections above to a lack of information on some points.

--pepsimax 17:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Here's the problem in a nutshell: For whatever reason, you have an axe to grind against United and/or the doctrine it teaches.

You keep using words like "mainstream" and "traditional" Christianity. Where is this homogenous group of Christians you're referring to? There are well over 30,000 different Christian groups/denominations worldwide. Presumably there are that many because they disagree on doctrinal points. Yet you want to create a group that you define as "traditional" and then point out, according to some standard that you've established, how United differs from this mythical group.

What about the Latter Day Saints? What about Roman Catholics? Seventh Day Advendists? Look at all of the entries on Wikipedia for these groups. Their doctrinal pages are free from editorial comment from those who disagree. And that's exactly what your comments are...editorial.

Your opening statement:

The UCG's beliefs are in line with traditional Christian beliefs on many matters, however they also diverge on some doctrinal issues:

"In line"?? As if one has to be "in line" or one is "out of line"? No bias there, nope.

"Traditional Christian beliefs"? Again, there are over 30,000 Christian denominations with various doctrinal beliefs. Who are you to make yourself spokesman and define "traditional" beliefs? And then to go ONLY to the United Church of God entry in Wikipedia and ONLY focus on the doctine you want to point out and use inflammatory language to point it out. Amazing.

Belief in a non-Trinitarian concept of God (specifically, denial of the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit)

Incomplete, inflammatory and vague. What is this "trinitarian" concept that all Christians believe in? How come you're not over at the Judaism page and pointing out that they believe in a "non-Trinitarian concept of God? How about popping over to the LDS page and inserting your opinion? In order to be consistent, you better get cracking. And the usage of "denial" indicates that the position you're adovcating is the correct one. And "deity" is vague and undefined. I believe the Holy Spirit IS the spirit of God. It's about as divine and holy as you can get.

Belief that true believers will eventually, at the end times, becomes part of the God family, sharing "even God's divine nature"

"True Believers" when used in the context of criticism denotes a belief absent of reason. And as far as the rest, do you not believe that the bible says that Christians are and will be "children of God". Further, the bible says:

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

You have not proven or even indicated that this belief is outside of the mythical homogeneous Christianity you're advocating.

I'm not even going to get into the rest because it's so similar. I'm just going to delete it. I'll have more respect for your editorials when you're more consistent in applying YOUR standards to every religous group on Wikipedia. Okaythere 19:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

All I can say is, this is why it's important that we cite our sources. All of us need to take care that what we put into this article is representative of what is written elsewhere... NOT our personal opinions. And yes, that goes for me as well as others. -- SwissCelt 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi SwissCelt - as always, you are a voice of reason.

Your point on ensuring appropriate support is well taken. As you may recall, you helped guide earlier edits of mine to the UCG article, to the point where all doctrinal differences cited could be referenced from their own literature or materials. It is a shame that Okaythere has shown such implicit disrespect for that iteration process.

Given that you seem very experienced in Wikipedia matters, could you please clarify the procedure for resolving the difference of opinion that we appear to have above? I'm sure that none of us want to spend the next few weeks going back and forth on this. :-) --pepsimax 17:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please

Folks, we seem to be going around in circles concerning how the UCG is similar to-- and how it differs from-- other Christian denominations. In an effort to resolve this, I propose the following:

1. Assume good faith. We're not going to get anywhere with this if we cast aspersions on one another's religious beliefs. As I said, I'm willing to presume that all of us are here because we intend for this article to be an informative part of the Wikipedia project.
2. Wikipedia is a collection of facts, and thus our personal beliefs just do not belong. Somebody is saying that the UCG is wrong. Okay, who? What did they state, and where did they state it? Somebody else is saying that the UCG is right. Likewise, what did they state, and where did they state it? We need to stay to the facts. This means that claiming what an amorphous collection of mainstream Christians believe concerning the UCG is not enough. This also means that claiming what the Bible says concerning the UCG is also not enough.
3. In that vein, we should start to mark our edits with appropriate reference citations. You'll see I've done this with the opening paragraph.
4. Maybe we should also agree upon some basic terminology. I would submit that "Christian denomination" is a neutral term, and much less problematic than phrases such as "cult" or "non-denominational Christian organization." Perhaps we can find other terms that speak the plain truth of the UCG without embellishments or degradations.

Thoughts? -- SwissCelt 03:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Okaythere,

I would like to make some general comments, followed by specific responses to your points above:

GENERAL COMMENTS:

• I have no axe to grind against the UCG per se. I know a number of UCG people and have even attended one of your services - thoroughly nice people. You are however correct in noting that I disagree with many of your doctrines. However, again, my posts are not about the merits of your views vs mine. They are about the fact that they UCG doctrines differ from mainstream Christianity in many key respects. More on this shortly.

• More generally, I must protest against your approach thus far. I've tried on a number of occasions to seek compromise, yet you have shown no interest in anything beyond outright deletion. A dialogue, which you seemed to agree to enter into before, must be more than the automatic deletion of content which is not factually inaccurate. If the wording is too loose, then let's work together to arrive at something which we both believe to be fair. Simply deleting content without proposing anything in its place is hardly contructive.

SPECIFIC RESPONSES:

"You keep using words like "mainstream" and "traditional" Christianity. Where is this homogenous group of Christians you're referring to? There are well over 30,000 different Christian groups/denominations worldwide. Presumably there are that many because they disagree on doctrinal points. Yet you want to create a group that you define as "traditional" and then point out, according to some standard that you've established, how United differs from this mythical group."

• Okay - I'll cop to this one in part. I have been too vague. So, let's rectify that.

First things first - yes, there are thousands of Christian denomination. No - they don't agree on everything. However, a survey of the larger denominations within Christianity reveals that most differences are liturgical, or on technical matters of doctrine. However, these differences should not obscure the fact that there is substantial agreement among the major denominations on many key doctrines.

At this point, I reference Wikipedia itself[[1]], which suggests that there are a little under 2 billion professing Christians in the world. By my count, well over 90% can be said to be either Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, Reformed and/or a member of the NAE/Evangelical Alliance/etc. Please take all previous and future references to traditional or mainstream Christian belief as referring to any doctrine held substantially in common by all of the above groups. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity - that "God is a single Being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three persons", is held in common by all, notwithstanding some differences in view on second-level detail.

When so many distinct denominations, representing such a vast bulk of Christians can agree on a given doctrine, I submit that is fair and reasonable to label it a mainstream view. This does not make it correct, but it does make it mainstream.

""In line"?? As if one has to be "in line" or one is "out of line"? No bias there, nope."

• Oh come on Okaythere. I added this in specific response to your very own suggestion above suggesting that, in the interests of neutrality, I reference the ways in which the UCG agrees with mainstream Christian doctrines. I thought that at least a general statement to that effect would be well received, but it seems you're more interested with pedantic nitpicking.

That said, I will however, change the language again. I trust it meets your approval. Or will you just search for some other excuse to delete everything again?

"Again, there are over 30,000 Christian denominations with various doctrinal beliefs. Who are you to make yourself spokesman and define "traditional" beliefs? And then to go ONLY to the United Church of God entry in Wikipedia and ONLY focus on the doctine you want to point out and use inflammatory language to point it out. Amazing."

• Actually, I've never claimed to do any such things. All I have done is compare the UCG's doctrines against those held in common by the vast bulk of Christian denominations (as per above), and highlight difference.

More generally, it is unreasonable and unfair to suggest that it is somehow beholden upon me to go through and replicate this exercise for other denominations. The reality is that I have not studied those denominations' doctrines in depth and couldn't possibly make an informed contribution to the Wikipedia process. I also lack the time and energy to engage on such an exercise, especially given my experiences thus far editing this article. However, it is spurious to claim that my inability to repeat this exercise in all cases somehow invalidates my contribution in this case

"Belief in a non-Trinitarian concept of God (specifically, denial of the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit). Incomplete, inflammatory and vague. What is this "trinitarian" concept that all Christians believe in?"

• Please see Wikipedia's own Trinity and Non-Trinitarianism entries. I believe you'll find that the respective terms are very clearly defined, and expressed in terms consistent with those I've used above. The fact that my edits link through to those articles completely negates your allegation of incompleteness. Alternatively, please see your own booklet on the issue: http://www.ucg.org/booklets/WG/isgodatrinity.htm. Your own authors seem to understand Trinitarianism perfectly well. They just disagree.

"How come you're not over at the Judaism page and pointing out that they believe in a "non-Trinitarian concept of God? How about popping over to the LDS page and inserting your opinion? In order to be consistent, you better get cracking."

• Are you serious? Why would anybody go to a non-Christian article (Judaism) and call out differences between Christian doctrine and Jewish doctrine? Moreover, even if it was relevant (which it's not), do you think anyone would disagree? Re the LDS, I again cite my own lack of knowledge and time constraints, as explained above.

"And the usage of "denial" indicates that the position you're adovcating is the correct one."

• Possibly. Which is exactly why I previously changed the bulk of the section to lead with "Belief in". Please supply alternate wording for this section if you are still unhappy with the residual use of "denial"

""deity" is vague and undefined.

• Actually, it's not. Deity is defined at Dictionary.com as the "essential nature or condition of being a god". To be divine is to be of the same essential essence and being as God.

"I believe the Holy Spirit IS the spirit of God. It's about as divine and holy as you can get"

• Again, not getting into an argument about who is right and wrong here. But, here is what the UCG says about the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit: Not a Personal Being". And here is, for example, what the NAE members all subscribe to: "We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.". You cannot dispute that those positions are wildly at odds.

"True Believers" when used in the context of criticism denotes a belief absent of reason"

• fair comment. will change

"And as far as the rest, do you not believe that the bible says that Christians are and will be "children of God".

• What I believe is actually irrelevant. What matters for the purposes of my edits is whether the UCG beliefs, as outlined in http://www.ucg.org/booklets/WG/divinenature.htm differ from those held in common elsewhere. The UCG's statement on this issue is "we will be the same kind of beings as both the Father and Christ, not just created spirit beings like angels, but spirit-born divine beings who are part of Elohim, the universe-ruling family of God!".

The same booklet also states: "In the resurrection believers will be on the same plane of existence as God and Christ—having been transformed into the same kind of beings They are... We will all partake of the divine nature in the most ultimate sense—being divine members of the very family of God for all eternity!"

This is again at odds with the views of the denominations outlined above on both the nature of God and the eschatological fate of believers. I refer you to their respective catchetisms, theology tracts and statements of belief.

CONCLUSION:

I believe I've explained, on multiple occasions, that: a) My point is not to argue who is right vs wrong. My point is merely to highlight difference b) Simply deleting content is not a respectful or reasonable response.

Okaythere, I respect your right to ensure that comments regarding your church are suitabily specific and reasonably expressed. I call upon you to respect my view that theology is important and it is both pertinent and reasonable to highlight major points of theological differences.

As yet another sign of good faith, I will further adjust the language previously used. I call on you to also demonstrate the good faith to which SwissCelt has referred. Can we please work constructively towards a reasonable outcome?

---

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Until I get the answers, I'm once again deleting your entry.

Question 1: I could list all of United's doctrine in the doctrine section of the entry. All of United's doctrine is linked. None of it is hidden. It's all readily discernable. Why do you feel it's important to select just some of the doctrine, redefine it in your own words, compare it against a group of Christians *you* define, and then point how United differs? Why is it neccesary for you to do so?

Question 2: What denomination are you?

This is why I refuse to grant you good faith. I honestly and truly believe that you're letting your personal feelings about the doctrine and/or the United motivate your entry. I think you believe that you're defending the faith and consider this doctrine heresy, or somehow a threat to your beliefs and so you're attempting to "spin" it into a negative light. Okaythere 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Okaythere, this is an unfortunate position you're taking. Some might see your words here as indicating that you will not allow Pepsimax to edit this article until s/he explains hirself to you. That's not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. Do you suppose there is a way to allow Pepsimax to edit the article as a peer, rather than an adversary? I've asked that the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal be involved in this as well. -- SwissCelt 04:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Pepsimax editing the article. What I have a problem with is Pepsimax altering the doctrinal statements of United Church of God to his/her interpretation, defining a subset of Christians, and then pointing out how United differs from the subset he/she created. Pepsimax has already admitted that he/she does not consider United to be a Christian church. He/she has a clear bias against the church. I think it's only fair to see where he/she stands doctrinally AND ask the reason WHY it's relevent to the article for Pepsimax to alter United's doctrinal statements.

As a compromise, I am in favor of inserting the "Fundamental Beliefs" of United Church of God back into the article, as it was previously. Okaythere 15:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

mediation

Hi. I'm the mediator from the mediation cabal who took the mediation request. Let me introduce myself to establish my non biased credentials since this is obviously going to be heated.

• I am a Jewish atheist, so I have no personal position about the doctrines under discussion
• I am very familiar with church history for a layman
• I am knowledgeable about theology and understand protestant theology

If anyone wants to start this in email please feel free to email me. I'm going to try and start this on the talk page.

Lets start with the latest debate [2] There what is the disagreement regarding these 5 points. We have an excellent description already going on as to the debate. So lets try and focus it. By in large the position of wikipedia on religious organizations is they believe what they claim to believe.

1. It appears based on the quotes to me the UCG does not claim to believe in a trinitarian God? They claim that the Holy spirit is not a person. Okaythere are you disagreeing with either of the following two claims
   1. That those are in fact the beliefs of the UCG
   2. That those beliefs disagree with majority christian doctrine
2. As for "normative". Are "Orthodox" or "Nicene based" acceptable? There needs to be some sort of a but I think if the UCG has a term they use that would be a very good choice. I would agree that "normative" sounds a bit loaded I'm hoping we can come up with something more NPOV. We can explicitly define the term in the article with something like "for purposes of this article the term mainstream will be used to denote any doctrine held in common by 'Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, Reformed and members of the NAE/Evangelical Alliance" (as was suggested in the talk) Would it then be acceptable?
3. This one is for "Pepsimax33 "Belief that the gospel is less about the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but primarily about the promised future, visible Kingdom of God on earth" I'm not sure if I follow the claim here. Taking into account Summary of Christian eschatological differences can you explain to me what is outside the "normative" with regard to UCG in your opinion?
4. Its my opinion you need more than one sentence to describe UCG with regard to old testament law. Every "normative" christian group sees some of the laws as applying and other ones not applying. By in large they all agree on which ones (murder applies, heave offerings don't). I don't see evidence for a major doctrinal difference here. What I do see some evidence for is a difference in observance / practice. Would everyone accept a rephrase it in those terms?

Hope this helps jbolden1517^Talk 16:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response jbolden1517. The main point I'm making is the need to include this information in the first place. Why is it a given (or is it?) that we need to include this information? The point I was making is that United has already spent countless hours forumulating and stating it's doctrinal points. The way I see it, PepsiMax wants to restate only certain elements of that doctrine based upon his/her prejudicial attitude toward the church, choose a group of Christians, assume that they disagree with that doctrine based on Pepsimax's understanding of that doctrine, and then point out that all these other groups disagree.

To engage in point by point refutation of Pepsimax's addition is silly since it hasn't been established that it's even needed. That's why I'm doing wholesale deletion. Okaythere 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much all the denomination articles have a "doctrine" section Lutheran#Doctrine, United_Church_of_Christ#Doctrine_and_Beliefs, Presbyterian#Doctrine, Anglican#Doctrine. So there is going to have to be a doctrine section (assuming we agree this is a denomination).

I think you may want to look at Unitarianism where you have a quasi-Christian organization which is very far removed from mainstream Christianity which is describing its doctrines relative to "normative" Christianity clearly. I can understand you objecting to the tone of Pepsimax's post. If the problem is tone rather than content that's different. Take a look at these other denominations and tell me what you think. jbolden1517^Talk 19:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

It's not so much the fact that there's a doctrinal section, it's the fact that the doctrinal section is being developed by someone (pepsimax) who has a verifiable antagonistic bias against this church and others. As proof, I cite the following evidence:

On April 16th, 2005. Pepsimax made his/her first addition to the doctrine section of the article on United Church of God. It's available in the page history, but this is what he added:

By way of summary, UCG beliefs diverge from mainstream Christian beliefs on many doctrinal issues. They maintain that these distinctivities prove their identity as God's one and only true church. Orthodox Christians believe that they prove merely that the PCG is an heretical, non-Christian cult.

Key doctrinal distinctives include

Denial of the Trinity

Denial of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone

Denial of the Matthew 24 Gospel message and belief that the "true gospel" has not been preached for 2000 years

Belief that all true believers (i.e. members of the UCG) will become gods "as God is God"

Belief that the USA, United Kingdom and most nations of Western Europe are the physical descendants of Ancient Israel

Belief that ancient Israelite dietary laws are binding on Christians today

Belief that ancient Israelite worship festivals are binding on Christians today and that traditional Christian celebrations (e.g. Christmas, Easter) are pagan and of the Devil

Belief that Saturday sabbath-keeping is required for salvation

What's interesting is the bolded "PCG" in the phrase "PGC is an heretical, non-Christian cult". PCG is the abbreviation for the "Philadelphia Church of God". If you look at the wikipedia entry and the edit history for the Philadelpia Church of God you will see that Pepsimax, on the same day, April 16, 2006, made the exact same edit to their page. In fact, he cut and pasted the same information, but in the case of UCG, he made a mistake and forgot to change the "PCG" to a "UCG".

This shows three things:

1. Pepsimax has an agenda against what s/he considers "Armstrongism".
2. Pepsimax put no thought into the original addition to the United Church of God, but automatically cut and pasted the same addition as s/he did to the Philadelphia Church of God.
3. Pepsimax has been dishonest and/or non-forthcoming about his/her motivations in editing the article.

This is why I do NOT ascribe good faith to Pepsimax's edits and object to even discussing his additions. Pepsimax's original intention was to denigrate, smear, and impugn the United Church of God. I think Pepsimax still wants to denigrate, smear and impugn the United Church of God, only with nicer language. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. The original intent of Pepsimax is still the intent of Pepsimax and that's why I find his edit objectionable and offensive. Okaythere 22:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I can understand your feelings. Basically people take the time to make changes to wikipedia for a variety of reasons. By in large people who take the time to edit wikipedia articles are motivated by some sort of passion. Good articles come from fans and foes. Remember our goal is to create a great encyclopedia. If we can utlize Pepsimax's hatred of UCG to create a very good article, that's a net plus. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith refers to his attitude towards wikipedia, not his attitude towards UCG. Lets assume for the purpose of argument that Pepsimax believes that UCG is a horrible heretical cult, and wishes that America had heresy laws like they had in the middle ages so that it could get shutdown. That still doesn't disqualify him from editing the article; ass editors our goal would be help channel that energy into creating good content for wikipedia. Only in the case where Pepsimax was unable or unwilling to create quality content would we disqualify him and I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

Now that this is out of the way. Reading your response it appears you do think a doctrine section should be developed by someone more friendly to UCG. Why don't you write what you consider to be a section which describes their doctrines fairly (again you may want to use the example I posted above of other denominations). Remember the goal is to describe their doctrines not to argue them (though you should certainly link to arguments). jbolden1517^Talk 23:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation about motivation and Wikipedia article editing. It helped clear up some issues. A decision on the expansion of the doctrinal section is pending. Thanks again! Okaythere 13:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How can I help with this, Okaythere? I admit to being fascinated with UCG's doctrine, even as I happen to disagree. (Nothing personal, I hope you understand. As a Marcionite, I'll naturally disagree with the doctrines of most Christian denominations.) Perhaps we can set up a temporary subpage to work out this edit and expansion? -- SwissCelt 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi All,

Wow! A guy takes a fews days off for the birth of his first child and comes back to an absolute pounding. :-)

First of all, welcome to jbolden1517. Sincere thanks for your contributions thus far.

Secondly, I must go on record to deny the multiple slurs cast by Okaythere. I freely conceed to having a strong dislike for the Philadelphia Church of God (for reasons not relevant to the UCG), but have no such emotional reaction to the UCG. I have a number of friends who attend the UCG, and have even attended worship services with them. I have found them to be genuinely lovely people.

To reiterate, my concern with the UCG wikipedia entry is PURELY theological. Yet, Okaythere has repeatedly slurred my motivations and my person, on no basis other than the fact that he disagrees with me. S/he's behaviour has increasingly resembled that of a bully. And then s/he wonders why I have not divulged irrelevant personal information to him/her.

In short, I have found the lack of decency and civility in this process greatly off-putting. If this be the fate of Wikipedia contributors, the project may become an irrelevancy on any issue of controversy.

Thirdly, yes - I was lazy in initially starting with a copy-and-paste job and then leaving the task unfinished. SwissCelt kindly provided guidance, which led to the substantial chain of revisions thereafter. I am still a Wikipedia novice and am still learning. I think an examination of the Talk discussion above will bear out the improvements that have come through that learning process.

Moreover, I point out that I have consistently demonstrated a willingness to edit and amend in response to criticism. I have made many overtures to Okaythere, explicitly offering and calling for compromise. Please look at the discussion record above.

I also note that Okaythere misleadingly cited only my initial (flawed) post. Whereas, at last edit, the entry actually read:

The UCG concurs with many beliefs held in common by the world's largest Christian groups and associations (e.g. Roman Catholics, Orthodox churches, Reformed churches, Evangelical protestants, etc).

However, it also diverges in a number of key areas from points of Christian doctrinal consensus. These differences include:

• Belief in a non-Trinitarian view of God (specifically, belief that the the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person of the Godhead)
• Belief that Christians will eventually, at the end times, becomes full members of the God family as "spirit-born divine beings who are part of Elohim, the universe-ruling family of God"
• Belief that the gospel is less about the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but primarily about the promised future, visible Kingdom of God on earth
• Belief in British Israelism (the theory that the USA, United Kingdom and most nations of Western Europe are the physical descendants of the lost 10 tribes of ancient Israel)
• Belief that a number of the laws and worship festivals given in the Pentateuch of the Old Testament are still binding on Christians today
• Belief that the pagan origins of traditional Christian celebrations (e.g. Christmas, Easter) render them inappropriate as Christian celebrations

If you examine the most recent article histories, you will see that the entire doctrinal section I wrote is supported by citation to UCG's own work's, and largely described in the UCG's own language from it's own articles and booklets.

Fourthly, I wish to re-emphasise (for the umpteenth time), that my edits to the article do not make comment as to right vs wrong; correct vs incorect. Obviously I hold particular views, but the language I have used in the article proper is purely about difference, not objective truth. On this basis, given that all differences are fully cited, I do not see on what basis Okaythere can reasonably continue to delete posts, given their factual accuracy.

Fifthly, Okaythere there consistently asks why a simple link to the UCG's statement of beliefs is not sufficient? In addition to your comments on the issue I respond that a) Okaythere's method would see the Wikipedia project become little more than a Google-lite aggregation of links to third party sites b) the document to which Okaythere links is quite high-level, and is silent on many of the doctrinal divergences contained in the details of their booklets. The single link that Okaythere has consistently reverted to is incomplete and insufficient.

I welcome your call to Okaythere to write his own doctrinal section. I also welcome Okaythere's surprising response, to the effect that s/he would consider it. Thus far, s/he has absolutely refused to constructively engage on this issue, instead preferring to appoint him/herself as Grand Imperial Censor, who gets to decide the limits of what can and can't be explored in a Wikipedia article.

Sixthly, to respond to jbolden1517's question, it's a more subtle distinction. The UCG, like the vast majority of Christians believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ purchased "salvation" for believers. The difference lays in that conception of salvation. The "normative" view of this is that salvation is in the here and now. It is a primarily a spiritual act of "justification", in which a believers sins are replaced in God's eyes by the holiness of Christ. The believer is thus saved in the present age, at the moment of repentance, baptism and other sacraments. The Kingdom of God is a present reality (albeit in only spiritual form at present). The gospel message is therefore focused on the life, death and resurrection of the Son of God.

The UCG position is somewhat different. They argue that that the Kingdom of God is not currently in force in any way, but is entirely to come. For them, the spiritual and physical Kingdom will arrive at once, so salvation is about salvation into that future, visible kingdom of God on earth. Their gospel message reflects this view on the Kingdom of God. Given that they believe that salvation is salvation INTO that physical Kingdom, they argue that the gospel is the good news that that Kingdom is coming (made possible through Jesus).

I invite you to peruse their articles on this issue where they lay out their doctrine and freely argue their difference from the "normative view": http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn18/understandkingdom.htm and http://www.ucg.org/booklets/GK/kingdomherenow.htm are just two examples.

To be honest, I think that they make some peruasive arguments. I probably sit closer to the UCG view than the "normative" view. However, as I said above - the issue is not what I believe to be right or wrong. The issue is that they hold to a different definition of the gospel message than their counterparts in the the bulk of other Christian denominations.

In closing, I assume the next step is to wait and see what Okaythere comes back with in terms of doctrinal summary. If it is a reasonable, transparent summary of their key doctrines, you'll get no argument from me. In essence, this is all I wanted all along. So, over to you, Okaythere.

Out of respect for this process, I will naturally refrain from re-posting past edits or posting new edits.

Best regards, --pepsimax 11:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)