Um, I think it was the mulatta (& possibly implicitly unwed) mother. Protestant denominationalism cuts largely along ethnic lines. She was dark-skinned & “other.”
The problem I have with their commercials is that (aside from the fact that I don’t consider even consider them a church in the sense most of you do) is that it’s quite deliberately drawing ann untruthful picture of events. In other words, lying.
Certainly the Catholic Church allows homosexuals to join. Anyone can. We don’t believe homosexuals (or anyone) ought to engage in sex outside of marriage (and marriage in the church is between one man and one woman). However, they are simply sinning in doing so. Sexual sins are not mortal (with a few rare and violent exceptions), albeit never encouraged. if they continue to sin in that matter openly, the priest might choose from conscience to withhold Holy Eucharistic Communion. Homosexuals without ongoing relationships are welcome even in the church leadership.
The church would not support trans-gender surgery, largely because it is spiritually (and certainly genetically) pointless. It amounts to making a mask, and does not change the fact. However, as far as sin goes, it’s not. Attempting to pass yourself off as a (whatever you look like after the surgery) could be a sin, and drawing someone into a sexual relationship under false pretenses most definitely would be.
Why not?
Does the commercial specifically mention the Catholic Church? If not, in what way are they lying?
Does your Church feel the same way about plastic surgery in general? If a woman with breast implants doesn’t tell people she has breast implants, is she sinning because she’s “passing herself off” as someone with big tits?
The example I almost posted was if a woman has breast reconstruction surgery, it serves no spiritual or genetic purpose. Does the Catholic church “support” this type of surgery?
I don’t know why you don’t consider the UCC any less a “church” than you would consider the SBC or the ELCA a “church”. Secondly, none of the ads ever mentioned the Catholic Church, and if you feel that the Catholic Church is completely welcoming to gays and lesbians, then there’s no reason for you to feel that the ad was directed to the Catholic Church.
That’s what I don’t understand about some people’s reactions to the UCC ad. It doesn’t mention any denomination, the church in the ad is fairly generic and can belong to just about any flavor of Christianity, and nowhere do they say that only UCC churches are welcoming. Critics of the ad tend to see their own church in that ad, when there’s no reason to.
On second thought, breast implants weren’t the best example. Reconstructive surgery is much better. Someone who’s born with a cleft palate, like this poor kid (Warning: Really gross), can have it corrected through plastic surgery. Does the Church support that? Would the kid be sinning if he let people think he was born with a normal lip? If not, why does fixing that birth defect get the Catholic blessing, but not fixing gender dysphoria? What other birth defects are not covered by Catholic doctrine?
Well, I can see why “promoting one religion over another” might be frowned upon; it’s not that far away from running negative ads attacking a particular religious group. It’s a “we’re right and they’re wrong” mentality. What if a fundie group wanted to run ads showing homosexual orgies taking place in “those other church’s” choir lofts?
Do you really want ads comparing your church with Brand X?
“We’ve secretly replaced the Christianity that Bob usually uses with UCC-brand Christianity. Let’s see if he notices the difference…”
Hmmm, might not be a bad idea, if it shakes things up a bit, catches people’s interest, maybe draws people to church who wrongly believed they wouldn’t be welcome there. But I can see a downside.
Puh-leeze. Do they reject commercials for the latest laundry detergent formula because they imply that other brands will leave your clothes smelly and dirty? Do they reject commercials for the new car models because they imply that other cars are lemons which will arouse only laughter from desirable babes/hunks?
I saw this ad on TV a couple of days ago. Didn’t pay attention to the network or if it was local or national.
I am curious as to what you consider the UCC to be, if not a church? Having grown up in a UCC church I am always curious as to the outside perception. Additionally, if a homosexual is involved in an exclusive relationship, they still are incapable of marrying in the Catholic Church. Sex outside of marriage is a sin, which makes them sinners in the eyes of the church. Above you state that they may be denied Communion because of this. How can you consider them a true member of the church if they are not entitled to all of the benefits?
While I was attending my church in junior high and high school, our youth group advisor was involved in an open lesbian relationship. When she joined the church and volunteered to mentor the youth group, none of the members of our congregation objected (at least openly) to her wishes. She had left her previous congregation because they had voiced concerns over her desire to become more involved with the youth ministry. They had no problem with her sitting in church and being a “member” but they did not like the idea of her as a mentor to the youth.
I find this interesting too, even though I’m a relatively new member of the UCC. What I find is that most people either:
*Don’t know anything about us or who we are
*Confuse us with other denominations, such as the Church of Christ, the Unity Church, or the Unitarian-Universalist Association
Perhaps smiling bandit has confused us with the Unitarian-Universalists? Many of my friends who do that also say that we’re not a real Protestant church, even though we’re quite different (we’re explicitly a Christian denomination, for one). The only other thing I can imagine being an issue is the fact that we are organized in the congregationalist model, and the freedom of belief in doctrinal matters that comes with this may not jive well with people who are more used to a “set” doctrine.
I suppose there is something uneasy about one church accusing other churches (even without naming any specific ones) of exclusionary practices, but I think it’s something that must be said, especially by the mainline/liberal churches. The fact of the matter is, we’ve been far too silent for too long while the conservative religious right has been busy convincing everyone that their brand of Christianity is the only legitimate one. In my opinion, raising awareness that there are other churches out there is a breath of fresh air and I for one am grateful.
Different churches have different models of membership - for some, it means attending on Sundays, for others, there is a significant induction period often involving evening classes resulting in some kind of “membership ceremony” (which could be baptism for example). In the latter case, there would be scrutiny of some kind to ensure that the person wishing to become a member supported the values/theology of the church, and if not and no resolution could be reached, membership would be denied.
I attended a Conservative Baptist Church in California for 5 months while I was visiting relatives during my gap year. As an Anglican, I had been baptised as a baby and confirmed as a teenager (after I had come to faith for myself). I wanted to join the choir at this Californian church, but was not able to, as only church members could join the choir - one of the requirements of membership was to have been baptised as a believing adult. I saw no reason to be re-baptised, as for me, the confirmation ceremony I had gone through as a teenager served the same purpose. I continued to worship there quite happily, attended the student bible study and even sang in the Christmas Choral Spectacular[sup]TM[/sup], but was not able to join the regular choir.
I doubt very much that people would ever be “ejected” from any church (exept in extreme cases), but I am certain that people who didn’t “fit in” (for whatever reason) would feel uncomfortable enough - by design or accident - to leave of their own accord and find somewhere else to worship.
Grim
I don’t know much about the UCC (read: anything) so I’m going to ask about how they’re inclusive. Is it “No matter what, here’s a place for you” or “There is absolutly nothing wrong with your lifestyle”?
Because if it’s the latter I honestly can’t see how it does any good at all.
Saw it yesterday, I think on a basic cable channel (AMC maybe).
Whose “lifestyle”?
If you’re talking about their being accepting of gays, then your post really doesn’t make sense. Are you honestly saying that a group of christians that doesn’t believe being gay is a sin does no good?
I don’t know if UCC says that or not, but there are many, many christians that do believe that being gay is not incompatible with being christian.
Sorry for the double post. Just wanted to clarify that if this isn’t what you mean then I apologize for jumping the gun. 
Although I’ll grant that he’s probably not recruiting, his (thankfully unsuccessful) runs for KS governor have been as a Dem.
I’m assuming you mean gays and lesbians when you say “lifestyle” even though, just to let you know, the term “lifestyle” is not considered a very polite or accurate term to use to describe the orientation of gays and lesbians.
And to answer your question- it depends. I would say the vast majority of churches in the UCC agree with the former, and many agree with the latter. Since, as I mentioned before, the UCC is run on a congregational model, each individual congregation has enormous flexibility in doctrine; thus, there are some churches that are more conservative, and some that are very liberal, while a good number fit somewhere in the middle. Right now, only a minority of congregations are labeled “open and affirming”; that is, they have undergone a process to educate themselves and declare themselves fully inclusive of gays and lesbians. However, a great many more (perhaps even most congregations) find that there’s “nothing wrong with the ‘lifestyle’” both theologically and socially. Thus, we became the first major mainline Protestant church to pass a resolution supporting same-sex marriage, with 80% of delegates voting in the affirmative, and the first to ordain gay and lesbian people to the ministry in the 70s.
Just a little bit of history for you: the United Church of Christ formed in 1956 as a merger between the Congregationalist-Christian churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church; these were some of the oldest denominations in the US. Congregationalists, as you may or may not know, are essentially what became of the Puritans and Pilgrims of New England.
I always chuckle when I think about what our Puritan ancestors would think about us today.