Why the Plan for UC was needed

Got some interesting comments yesterday about Vancouver, Seattle, and the whole "unity proposal" idea. Obviously, many folks "don't get it" (and I don't use that phrase pejoratively)regarding why the Plan for United Cooperation (UCP) was written and offered. That may be because these two reasons don't really apply to their personal or congregational experiences:

First, because of an enabled culture of slander that accompanied very needed reforms, many, perhaps most of our worldwide congregations spun into temporary confusion, including regarding basic doctrine. At such times of confusion, where almost everything we've believed was subject to emotional question, those of us who publicly agreed to the UCP felt the need to specifically and pertinently clarify where we stood. Yes, eventually, as the fog lifts, such a public banner becomes less and less prominent and important. Sola scriptura endures as an authority.

Second, in our relatively paranoid fear of "structure," many, many churches felt paralyzed on how to relate to one another in a given geography. The UCP jump started some basic brotherhood structure.

Speaking for myself only, I think it's helpful to see the UCP less as a "document" and more as a "call" to clarity and standards--the equivalent of having all leaderships in a room and asking, "all in favor of _____ raise your hands." This has been nice to know and has given us a good place to move forward.

In other words, in my opinion, we needed the UCP but we do not need a UCP.

And now, on to other more important things, like WEDNESDAY MY DAUGHTER IS GETTING BAPTIZED!!