Talk:United Church of Canada/Archive 1

The non-concurring Presbyterians

This section does not reflect the Wikipedia "Neutral Point of View" policy. It remains a disputed question within Presbyterian and United Church history whether those who chose not to enter union were within their rights to re-constitute the General Assembly and continue as the Presbyterian Church in Canada. Who were the "continuing Presbyterians"? Whatever the case, a Wikipedia article is not the place to resolve this, or to push a particular interpretation. This article would benefit from a more robust discussion of church union, its reasons, the proponents and detractors, the decision process, and the disputed General Assembly. As well, a section on the later court challenges would be in order. Setting the 1925 church union in the context of relationships between the main Protestant churches in the preceding years would be helpful. The 1875 church union may also be significant, if one considers the 1925 union as part of a trajectory of unions within Presbyterianism. Njesson (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the "Presbyterian" church continues, the point of "right" or "wrong" seems a bit moot today. I believe the United church lost a court case regarding use of the name Presbyterian. Feldercarb (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement that 302 of 4509 Presbyterian congregations did not join the 1925 Church Union is incorrect. The reference given is to a newspaper article that was written almost 6 months before the actual union; however, this Wikipedia article treats the number as the final result. In the introduction and summary to this article the statement is made that 2/3 of the Presbyterian church did not join the Union. This is unreferenced and unclear as to if the 2/3 refers to individual members or congregations. The best reference I can find is the Historical Atlas of Canada, Vol 3 Plate 34, which states that 784 (or 814 according to the continuing Presbyterians) of 4512 Presbyterian congregations did not join the Union. Unless someone provides some references and clarification on this issue I'll rewrite it to use the Historical Atlas of Canada information. Meters (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Frmatt (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 18% non-concurring (814/4512 = 18%) seems very low compared to other sources.

From the United Church website, specifically "The United Church of Canada: A Brief History" (http://www.united-church.ca/history/overview/brief): "The United Church was inaugurated on June 10, 1925 in Toronto, Ontario, when the Methodist Church, Canada, the Congregational Union of Canada, and 70 per cent of the Presbyterian Church in Canada entered into an organic union. Joining as well was the small General Council of Union Churches, centred largely in Western Canada. It was the first union of churches in the world to cross historical denominational lines and hence received international acclaim. Impetus for the union arose out of the concerns for serving the vast Canadian northwest and in the desire for better overseas mission."

From a paper concerning Presbyterian Archive resources (http://www.presbyterianarchives.ca/FA10.pdf): "...about a third of the Presbyterian Church declined to enter the union."

From "Presbyterian Church in Canada - 1925 and since" (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Presbyterian_Church_in_Canada_-_1925_and_since/id/1861767): "About 30% of the former Presbyterians remained separate from the United Church at the time of the divide, although debate still continues over the actual vote."

Those three sources separately give figures of 30%, 33% and 30%. I would feel more comfortable going with the figure of 70% concurring, 30% non-concurring. Guinness323 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, but I'm not convinced that two of the three you quote are any better than the dozens of others on the web that quote the "about 70%" figure. The first of your references (http://www.united-church.ca/history/overview/brief) is just another unsourced web page. I see no reason to accept it as a definitive source.

The third ref (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Presbyterian_Church_in_Canada_-_1925_and_since/id/1861767) is not a valid reference for any wikipedia article since it uses wikipedia as its source.

The second reference (http://www.presbyterianarchives.ca/FA10.pdf) does indeed look interesting. Very possibly one of its source documents uses the 70% figure, but I'd have to do a lot of digging and reading to find it. As it stands it does not convince me that the Historical Atlas of Canada's count of 784 (or 814 according to the continuing Presbyterians) of 4512 Presbyterian congregations that did not join the Union (http://www.historicalatlas.ca/website/hacolp/national_perspectives/society/UNIT_37/U37_sources.htm) is incorrect. As you pointed out, this is about 18% far lower than tha the commonly quoted 30%. It is; however, quite close to the roughly 15% quoted in the out of context reference currently used in the main article (http://vicu.utoronto.ca/archives/Display/75-Display6.html).

Perhaps the difference is simply that the Historical Atlas of Canada and the article are counting congregations and the "30% of the Church" is counting individuals? Meters (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am planning on making a trip to the General Council Offices of the United Church where the archives are located. If it would be acceptable, I would be open to doing some research there and seeing if I can find out some more information? NOTE: I have a slight conflict of interest as I am a member of the UCCAN, as well as a former employee, and the son of two current employees. Anything that I bring back would be posted here for conversation (along with sources) before I add it in.Frmatt (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[redent] Re comments by Meters, the references I quoted were not meant to be definitive, but were the first three I picked off of a general Google search, and were simply meant to demonstrate that most relevant sources close to either church agree on a figure of 30% non-concurring; therefore any reference that deviates significantly from that number has to be backed up most fastidiously by other sources. In other words, what source was the Atlas using to arrive at its figure of 18%?

I think the offer of Frmatt to visit the archives of the UCC and delve into the matter would be the best chance of getting a reasonably accurate number from documents contemporary to the actual event. Guinness323 (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I thank everyone for their interest. I'm not a member of either Church and I have no vested interest in the correctness of either answer. The 30% figure commonly quoted seemed to fall into the "everyone knows" category, and I was surprised to see that the Wikipedia article not only used it without any references, but in fact was internally inconsistent. The following references for the Historical Atlas figures are also from the United Church Archives. If Frmatt could check also check these references we should be able to resolve this.

'The Act and Proceeding of the 51st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.' 1925

Church Union Collection. Box 8-13, 'Presbyterian Church.' Box 27, files 625-6, and Box 28, files 634-5, 'Bureau of Literature and Information' Meters (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

more details on rapid loss of members

Could someone please check the actual number of members and analyze whether, as is widely believed, the United Church is losing members faster than all other Christian denominations (with the exception maybe of similarly progressive Lutheran and Anglican denominations) ?

mitten Church

Gross misunderstanding of "L'église mitaine", it is not the mitten Church but the meeting(house) Church, mitaine in this sense being the way the French understood "meetinghouse".

---

This article states that Parliament passes a law creating this 25? Is this the state church of Canada ? If not does anyone know why parliament got involved with a church issue. Thanks Smith03 03:14, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

One method of creating legal bodies (seems to be survive provincially in Ontario, especially for some non-profits) is through a private Act of Parliament. Canada has no state church. - Cafemusique 11:15, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Could somebody clarify what it was Parliament actually did? Did it force the churches to unify in spite of their objections? Was it necessary to resolve complications about legal ownership of parishes, persons, or churches? Was it just politicians wanting to feel important? - Andrew 03:51, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Here is a link to the original act: [1] From the text there and what background I know, I believe the Act served three purposes: 1. to legitimise the process and protect those Presbyterian congregations who chose to exclude themselves from the union; 2. to ensure a smooth transfer of property to the new entity; and 3. to recognise the new entity for legal purposes (churches in Canada are recognised as charities and don't pay taxes, etc.) on a going-forward basis. The impetus for the legislation came from the churches and not vice versa.Carruthers 13:46, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's just what I wanted to know! --Andrew 20:52, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

united and catholics

Can someone please state the big differences between the two religions; United - (Methodist) & Roman Catholic.

Is it necessary for one to convert to the other for marriage ?

No! A gradual loosening of the restrictions on intermarriage were removed (on the part of Catholics) starting in the 1940 and were completed by 1967. The 1967 Ecumenical Directory (and the 1993 revision) and the revised Code of Canon Law (1983) clearly indicate that a "permission for mixed marriage" is still required, although this is given when the priest can advise the bishop that there is no danger of a defection of faith, i.e. that the Catholic spouse will not fall away from Christian faith. A "dispensation from the form of marriage" can be granted by the bishop to allow a Catholic to be married by a minister from another church (and obviously using the form of marriage of the other church as well). The "promise" to raise the children Catholic is also long abandoned. Now, the Catholic spouse is to be reminded of the obligation in Canon Law to raise one's children in the faith. However, the other spouse is only to be informed of the Catholic spouse's obligation, he or she does not need to agree to it. In fact, the 1993 Ecumenical Directory clarifies that the non-Catholic spouse may have a similar obligation in his or her own church. The couple is expected to share in the Christian education of their children. As well, Canon Law clarifies that a Catholic spouse does not incur any penalties if the children are not successfully raised in the Catholic church. The Ecumenical Directory clarifies that the health of the marriage is the primary good that must be preserved by the couple, and by their pastors. Njesson (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - I think the promise to raise children as roman catholics is still in effect. My wife (RC) was told by her priest that it is sin for her not to attend RC mass, but it is not a sin for me (Presbyterian) not to attend P. services - therefore, logically, we should both always attend catholic mass! You can obviously have a civil ceremony regardless of either party's religion; I imagine you could have a marriage in a United church provided one party was United, no?

You appear to be confusing the obligation to raise your children in faith with the Sunday obligation. The Sunday obligation is a canonical responsibility to be present at the Eucharistic liturgy on Sundays and other holy days of obligation. It is not a requirement to receive the Eucharist, but merely to be present (although one might hope that full and active participation will also occur.) Although Presbyterians do not speak about the responsibility to attend worship in quite the same terms, there is something akin to the Sunday obligation. The Catholic canon law has not yet evolved to the point of recognizing that it is more important for the family to worship together than the external compliance with the Sunday obligation. This is a matter that many interchurch couples will treat as a matter of conscience. Njesson (talk) 00:58, 4 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Regarding being married in a United Church, there is no rule against any interfaith marriage being performed in a United Church. From the UCC website: "We see people as unique, loved creations of God and welcome all people to the full life of Christian community, including marriage. We believe God intends loving relationships to be faithful, responsible, just, healing, and sustaining of the couple and those around them, and that such relationships require preparation and nurture. The United Church celebrates the marriage of same-sex couples, previously divorced people, couples of different religions, [and] all people who believe in Jesus Christ and want to live faithful to his way. Guinness323 (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

External Links

There is absolutely no reason to have 3 links to "Community of Concern" pages when it comprises such a small percentage of the church. If you want to link to a section on Bill Phipp's statements while he was moderator, find a neutral/objective site to link to. The term "orthodox" to describe COC is misleading and offensive to the vast majority of United Churches that don't subscribe to fundamentalism. Theolad 17:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

dab United Church and United Church of Canada

This discussion just occred on my talk page. It may be of interest to editors here. I am not pursuing it. -- Paul foord 05:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You've changed United Church to United Church of Canada twice on Winnipeg, Manitoba now. The reason I reverted your first change is that the source of those statistics says "United Church", it does not say "United Church of Canada". Any change of that might be considered interpretation of the data rather than just the data itself. Qutezuce 04:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

United Church is a redirect to United and uniting churches - a disambiguation page. Follow the links, if you go back to the census bureau you can clarify it - the level of interpretation is so trivial. Paul foord 04:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do a Google search on the Statistics Canada website (they are resposible for the census), there are 305 results for "United Church" (with quotes), but only 2 (actually only one, they are duplicates) for "United Church of Canada" (with quotes). There must be a reason that StatsCan never (or only on one old chart) uses the term "United Church of Canada". Based on this I plan on reverting your change. Qutezuce 05:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As a member of the UCC, i can verify that most definately, no matter what the census says, the United Church in Canada, is infact known as the United Church of Canada, not just the United church, but the orginization within Canada, founded on the 10th of June, 1925, is the United Church of Canada, or, in French, l'Église Unie du Canada. This refers only to the congregation in Canada. --Dave Foster 18:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)David Foster March 5, 2006

The United Church of Canada is always written with a capital-T in "The".

Glen's vent

• • • I've done extensive research on the history of the United Church as a state church, and it's pretty clear from the Parliamentary debates in 1924 that the ruling elites were obsessed about "cultural pollution" by Catholic and aboriginal peoples, and they saw the United Church as a way to ethnically cleanse these groups and keep Canada "British and Protestant". All the United Church leaders were in accord with this attitude. The sterilization laws sponsored by the Anglican and United Churches around 1929 (Alberta) and 1933 (BC)were aimed at non-Protestant populations, especially Indians. The church has yet to look at or admit their involvement in such genocidal acts as sponsoring the sterilization of women in their west coast Indian hospitals, and the apparent death of thousands of kids in their Indian residential schools. (www.hiddenfromhistory.org)

Glen, Summerland, BC

Glen - Kevin Annett has a "hate on" for the United Church, and has taken archival evidence and skewed it badly. If your info is taken from Hidden From History, then you should do proper research. There's plenty of stuff there which makes the church look bad, too - and it has the added advantage of not being skewed towards Annett's agenda.

Huh??

Talk about conbtradicting labels.....

Voices United in 1996 is perhaps a more authentically liberal Canadian Evangelical Protestant hymnal particularly now that the United Church is well out of the mainstream of general opinion.

Bacl-presby 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I see a lot of this article is not NPOV.....Bacl-presby 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

General Conference??

I'm not sure if this is the proper format for suggestions as I am completely new to wikipedia. Just a picky thing, but in the "About the United Church" section "General Conference" is mentioned. This should be "General Council." http://www.united-church.ca has the title of being of the "General Council Offices." I believe this is the proper term for the highest organizational body, but if anyone has other information I'd like to see it. JoeyETS 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be "General Council". It needs to be changed. --Gordon Laird 07:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

One wonders if this needs to continue to be a special item. The United Church takes the view that homosexuality is but one of many social issues: the UC is not the homosexual church; it is the liberal and mainstream evangelical protestant church. I am minded to fold this heading into the text, if that does not meet with vast objection. Comments? Masalai 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be okay. On a related note, I think the recent edit describing the Church's "radical course" is biased in its POV. It's only "radical" under certain assumptions in certain peoples' views, but I don't know how to change it. Any suggestions? JoeyETS 22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Just revert it back to the previous version. Masalai 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I question the use of the term "bete noire" to describe the homosexual issue. I say this not in a naive way, as I was a commission to the 32nd General Council (1988) where the MMHS report was approved and which gave assent to the possibility of homosexual persons being ordained. If you look up the defintion of bete noire it is very negative. Here is an example:

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

bête noire

is a French phrase meaning literally “black beast,” and it is used in English figuratively to mean “any person or thing that is to be feared, hated, and if possible avoided,” as in Algebra was always his bête noire. Pronounce it bet-NWAHR. It seems to keep its accent mark in English, and in the plural each word gets a silent final -s, bêtes noires. See FOREIGN PHRASES. End of quote

I think the discussion of the homosexual issue was rather the revealing of something which had been hidden for a long time. Therefore "revelation" might be used. I think there was a blessing rather than a curse in the open discussion which followed. --Gordon Laird 21:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think the term "lightning rod" might be used to advantage --Gordon Laird 09:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

One of my colleagues suggested "a controversial issue" as a more neutral term. I think that has more meaning than "a particular issue" --Gordon Laird 07:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

then largest and second largest?

Can we stop pretending on wikipedia that it's an agreed upon fact that Anglicanism is not protestant? john k 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the early date of the merger, though, I'd like to be sure that Anglicanism was indeed larger than Methodism in 1925 before I change it to say "largest and second-largest non-Anglican protestant church". john k 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian_census_results_on_religion has information from 1921. It says that (in 1921) the 4 largest Christian "denominations" were Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican and Methodist (in that order). Presbyterian and Anglican were almost the same size though, so that could have changed by 1925. I personally think of Anglicans as protestants, but the Wikipedia article just says that some people consider them protestant. Sewebster 22:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone except Anglo-Catholics considers them Protestant. This article, as it stands now, basically states that they are not protestant. So I'm going to say the two largest non-Anglican protestant churches. john k 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are we talking about?

As other Evangelical Protestant denominations have tended, particularly in the United States, in political and theological terms, to drift towards the right (indeed, the terms "Evangelical Protestant" and even the bare "Evangelical" have somewhat tended, particularly in the United States, to be somewhat co-opted by a considerably different religious tradition, though the United Church declines to have these traditional identities taken from it), the United Church has maintained theologically and politically liberal positions,

What on earth does this mean? The United Church of Canada is like the equivalent of if the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and the United Methodist Church merged. Why on earth should we expect such a church to be theologically conservative based on an American model? john k 06:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One wouldn't. However Canada does not have a significant conservative evangelical Protestant constituency correspond numerically to US Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist denominations more conservative than the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Methodist Church. Masalai 05:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but what does that have to do with the United Church of Canada? The United Church of Canada is the equivalent of the non-Anglican mainline protestant denominations in the US, which are very similar to it. I think this needs to be reworded. john k 06:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? Masalai 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The whole business seems to be one of those messy sentences that has been written by multiple people. The initial part, comparing the "evangelical" United Church with "evangelical" churches in the United States, appears to have been written by someone who didn't grasp that the word "evangelical" has multiple meanings, and assumed that a direct comparison with "Evangelical Christians" in the United States was appropriate. And then someone who had a better sense of the situation (you?) added an explanatory note about the different senses of the word, but without clearing up the original statement. I'm very open to smoothing out the wording, but I would suggest something along the lines of:

Although the United Church of Canada defined itself as an "evangelical" church, this is intended in the broader sense as a synonym for "protestant," rather than indicating sympathy for the ideals of Evangelicalism typically associated with more traditionalist denominations. The United Church of Canada, rather, has maintained theologically and politically liberal positions, comparable to those of mainline protestant denominations in the United States, such as the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Church of Christ.

What do you think? john k 21:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't think this quite does it. "Evangelical" is more complex than merely a synonym for "Protestant": the "Evangelical Lutheran Church," eg, or the "Evangelical" wing of the Anglican church (Donald Coggan versus Michael Ramsay). In this context it goes with "Protestant" as an adjective, not as a synonymous substitute. And despite Bruce McLeod having his doctorate from Union Theological Seminary in NYC, Robert B.Y. Scott having been on the faculty at Princeton and Northrop Frye having been courted by Harvard and Princeton throughout the latter part of his career, it would seem mildly invidious to define the United Church by reference to the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Church of Christ, it antedating all three by some years. (The Uniting Church in Australia would be another such.) I should have thought that the older definition of "the ideals of Evangelicalism" (as opposed to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson & Co.) is what the United Church aspires to. Can you let me cogitate over this for a bit and get back to you before we haul off and alter the text of the article? Masalai 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure - I'm not at all committed to any particular specific text - I agree that "evangelical" in this sense isn't exactly a synonym for protestant, but I wasn't sure how exactly to describe it. There's no need to mention the U.S. mainline churches specifically, if you think it's misleading - we could just say that its positions are comparable to those of mainline denominations in the US (we could also mention the Uniting Church in Australia and the United Reformed Church in Britain as analogues). john k 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An additional point - is it really right to describe the Congregational Church as an "evangelical Protestant" one? Wouldn't it be more useful to describe it as Reformed Protestant? john k 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Golly, one takes a holiday, and what is going on?? Bacl-presby 22:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as to the Congregationalists, definitely: the classic four Evangelical Protestant churches of North America were the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists and the Baptists. The Baptists were, obviously, considerably the most successful in their evangelism in the USA; the Presbyterians in Canada. Or perhaps in Canada it was more a matter of ethnicity. Or indeed language. Academic linguists tell an old story about small Ontario towns in the 19th century where there were three churches: Scotch [sic] Presbyterian, Scotch [sic] Baptist and Scotch [sic] Catholic — but only one was ever full: it depended which one had a clergyman who "had the Gaelic." Masalai 22:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(I should also have thought that it was not strictly accurate or fair to describe the United Church's positions as being "similar" to those of — well, similar — denominations in the USA given that it has so often boldly struck out on its own: its espousal of the Social Gospel in the early 20th c. surely had far more to do with English Evangelical Protestantism than with the USA. The identification of the United Church institutionally with the CCF (despite the historical voting patterns of many United Church people with the Grits or the Tories) — being comparable to that of the English Methodists and the Evangelical wing of the Church of England with the English Labour Party — also has no US equivalent. And also the leftist ethos of the Canadian West: one need only compare the radically disparate politics of otherwise similar jurisdictions such as North Dakota versus Manitoba; Montana versus Saskatchewan. Alberta is popularly regarded as the most large-C Conservative province in Canada but compared with any US State one could name it is wild-eyed radical, and while the leftish politics of British Columbia might seem to have affinities with those of Oregon, they are far more akin to those of the Canadian prairies.) Masalai 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an issue of reference. The term "Evangelical" means one thing in a commonwealth context, and something different in the American context. You are certainly right about the political affiliations of the United Church as compared to the theologically similar organizations in the United States. But it nonetheless remains the case that theologically, the United Church is very much comparable to the mainline churches in the US. Obviously, there are going to be differences, as the US and Canada are different countries with different ethnic make-ups, different histories, different political systems, and so forth. But there are also similarities. Anyway, since you know more about this than I do, I'll let you rewrite as you think best, but I do think this material needs to be rewritten. john k 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bête-noire

Not homosexuality itself but the issue of homosexuality as a matter of discussion in the church, surely. If you consult the history of the discussion you will discover that I in fact queried whether this needed to be a separate (and so highlighted) a section in the report of the history of the United Church. May I now assume that I can conflate it downwards? Masalai 08:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to address your concerns. Do you think the current text is to your liking? I am a passionate partisan of the United Church and I am attempting to formulate a text that accommodates partisans of all constituencies... Masalai 08:45, 14 October 2007

(UTC)

As I look up Bete noire in dictionaries and in the thesaurus I find it has a predominantly negative meaning. Indeed there were extremely negative things which happened in Victoria, BC in August 1988, but to call the whole subject a bete noire seems to be inaccurate. I acknowlege that many people would object to it being called a "blessing" nonetheless I think a better word could be found. "Lightning Rod" is suggestive, because it certainly was that, and that does not automatically mean something positive or negative. In fact a lightning rod is positive because it can avoid a person's death. But I am hoping there is a better word or group of words. --Gordon Laird 09:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I conferred with some colleagues on this subject. One suggested "controversial issue" and said this was a more neutral term.

I notice that the text has been changed to "a particular issue". I am not sure that says as much as "controversial issue". Thank you for working away at this! --Gordon Laird 07:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The United Church and Native issues

This discussion needs to be expanded by inclusion of at least the following: The All-Native Circle - which included United Church native congregations across Canada The "Healing Fund" to help repair the wounds of the Residential Schools The extensive work in B. C., not just in the Queen Charlottes, which elected to not join the All-Native Circle --Gordon Laird 09:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC) I have had some discussions with people in BC who are knowledgeable about the Native issues in the United Church of Canada. When something develops I am hoping this aspect may be made much more complete and accurate. --Gordon Laird 11:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add what you know. Masalai 06:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done some discussions with native people within the United Church of Canada to try to bring a more accurate description. They have referred it onto higher levels within the native aspect of the United Church of Canada. I will continue to monitor this with the hope of a group of people represent native issues coming up with a much fuller description of their relationship within the United Church of Canada. This may take some months. --Gordon Laird 11:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that it needs to be documented: unfortunately, personal communication is not footnotable.Masalai 11:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to interest people from the Church who have an intimate knowledge of the Church and the Native People, but so far have been unsuccessful. I have decided to put my attention elsewhere. --Gordon Laird (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stanley Knowles.jpg

Image:Stanley Knowles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:More Voices.jpg

Image:More Voices.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Census

Hi, I'm currently working on documenting the census archives on religion, and I was wondering if someone could let me know where they got info saying that the UCC was up to 25% in national census info. Canadian_census_results_on_religion is where I'm uploading my findings, and they have the UCC never higher than 21% throughout its existence. Thanks! Homagetocatalonia (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Crest information is WRONG!!!!!

Underneath the crest, there is a FALSE explanation of what each quadrant represents. Right now, it FALSELY states that the dove represents no specfic group, when it's REALLY a symbol of the Methodists. IN REALITY, the Alpha Omega represents no specific group. But somebody KEEPS PUTTING ON THE WRONG INFO!!! **You can verify that WHAT I'M SAYING IS RIGHT at http://www.united-church.ca/history/crest.

209.222.231.134 (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Ashley209.222.231.134 (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Caylfrye.jpg

Image:Caylfrye.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did the Canadian Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationists unite into one church?

Right now article makes no effort to explain the "basis of union", where by "basis" I mean the reason and rationale for a union. The article is much weakened by this omission.

Dr. Samuel Dwight Chown

Yes, it is.

It is my understanding that Methodists and Presbyterians began to unite in 1912 in the prairies, because it was impractical to have several churches in the small, rural towns. Uniting various churches nationally occurred for other reasons (beyond my scope, as I am neither a historian nor a geneolgist). I am a descendant of Dr. Samuel Dwight Chown. Dr. Chown was the moderator of the Methodist Church in 1925, when he led his union of churches into the United Church of Canada. When leadership of the new United Church was being decided, as a gesture of good faith, Dr. Chown, who represented the largest congregation, removed his own name from the ballet to allow the Presbyterian Moderator Dr. George Pigeon to win this honour.

I admit to being biased, but this story and possibly others would bring this article to life.

Dr. Samuel Dwight Chown has a brief write up in the canadianencyclopedia.com. Mount Chown in Alberta was named after him.

msklystron (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)msklystronmsklystron (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Evangelical" Protestant

Someone seems to take umbrage at the word "evangelical." This is historically the proper term for non-episcopal Protestant churches in the English speaking world. The other major Protestant denominations in Canada (though there are internal issues in Anglicanism as to the term "Protestant" which are no business of an article on the United Church) are the Anglican and Lutheran Churches, both of which are espicopal in ecclesiastical polity. Lately the term "evangelical" has been co-opted by fundamentalists but that is no reason for the United Church and its historians to abandon a historically perfectly neutral and non-normative term describing Presbyterianism, Methodism, Congregationalism and the Baptists, and thence the United Church. Masalai (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd beg to differ. Early Protestants adopted the term to stress their recovery of and emphasis of the biblical gospel, contrary to what they saw as the errors of Rome. "Evangelical" was the term of choice for most Protestants, as "Protestant" was first a term of derision. "Evangelical" refers literally to the Reformers' emphasis on the biblical gospel (gk. euangelion). We really ought to be using the word as historically understood, therefore using it to refer to those churches (and their descendants) that hold to the gospel as understood by the Protestant Reformers. While there are certainly such people within the United Church, the denomination in general really has no right to identify itself as "Evangelical" anymore. As is obvious from this article, the fact that the United Church today places such a great emphasis on the "Social Gospel" as well as other liberal theology -- especially Universalism -- really demonstrates that the core doctrine of the United Church has little to do with the core doctrines of the Protestant Reformers, or even their Methodist progeny. When briefly attending a United Church seminary, I found that the "Evangelical" writings and doctrines of the likes of Calvin and Wesley, the forefathers of those that formed the United Church, were held in derision by United Church teachers and leaders, who found them to be embarrassing. I've found the same to be the case in the vast majority of United Churches I've had the experience to be a part of. "Liberal Protestant" would seem to be the best label. "Liberal Evangelical Protestant" simply doesn't work. If one understands "Evangelical" to refer to the gospel taught by the Protestant Reformers, "Liberal Evangelical" becomes an oxymoron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.202.71 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The key here is your phrase and insistence that we must evaluate whether they have "the right" to use the term. You assert that one must hold particular doctrinal positions to have "the right" to use the term, and you insist--contrary to the use of the term in many countries, and by the UCC itself--that only your understanding should prevail. Tb (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where "right to use" came into this. The United Church (or any other group or person) has the "right" to call themselves or describe themselves using whatever terminology they wish. That's not the issue. I can call myself an Apple, but that doesn't mean it's true. "Evangelical" has a number of usages in other languages. In German, for example, it is essentially synonymous with "Protestant," but that isn't generally the case in English. The word has a meaning that is well rooted in its own history. I'm asserting that we need to stick with that meaning. If the United Church (or those here attempting to describe and explain it for an encylcopaedia article) choose to use the term in some other sense -- as is the case here -- then that new definition needs to be given within the context of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.202.71 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You introduced it. You said, "the denomination in general really has no right to identify itself as 'Evangelical' anymore." The point here is that the UCC does use the term to identify itself. You'll find that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America also uses the term in a way which you may not like. Indeed, your history is wrong. The reason that "Evangelical" sometimes has a narrower use in English goes back to the Anglican Evangelicals... but that's neither here nor there. The point is that the UCC (as the ELCA) uses the term as part of its self description, and your assertion that they have lost the right to do so, because you disagree with their positions--and this is frankly exactly what you are saying--is not kosher. Nearly every sentence in your objection reeks not of what words the group uses to describe itself, but instead whether they should use those words. Tb (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit warring over Indian Residential Schools

There has been recent edit warring over content related to the Indian Residential Schools. I'd rather not see the edit warring.

I'm doubtful that the proposed content is in the right place, and certain it needs rewriting and better citation. It probably should be integrated with the uncited material in the final paragraph of the "Causes (See also "The United Church in popular culture," below)" section immediately above it. As an aside, that is a horrible section title. GRBerry 14:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LifeofMargaretLaurencebyJamesKingcover.jpg

The image Image:LifeofMargaretLaurencebyJamesKingcover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hymn Book

This article is littered with unsubstantiated facts that appear to be someone's (or several someones') personal recollections, often in a writing style that reminds one of a very badly overwritten university English essay. (Example: "This interdenominational hymnal, promulgated in anticipation of an institutional union between the United and Anglican Churches, was a somewhat radical departure from traditional hymnody and widely eschewed, at a time when United Church of Canada churchmanship still remained a major determinant of public opinion.") However, despite the need for a complete rewrite in plain English, I am more concerned about the number of statements in this article that have no references or citations to back them up. Guinness323 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This criticism is characteristic of the recent observation in the New York Review of Books that "Anybody can 'pull the trigger' on an article (as Broughton phrases it)—you just insert a double-bracketed software template. It's harder to improve something that's already written, or to write something altogether new, especially now that so many of the World Book–sanctioned encyclopedic fruits are long plucked. There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work—even to the point of laughing at nonstandard 'English.'" So you don't like the lack of references or citations? Provide them yourself and improve what is there rather than idly criticising! Masalai (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not mocking the English used, I am pointing out that it is more dense (or as the writer might have put it, "more obtuse") than necessary. The article would be more readable to the average viewer if the Latinate structures and high-toned "plummy" phrases were translated into plain English. This isn't a case of someone who has problems writing in English, but quite the reverse--someone who revels in showing off his or her facility with the language, to the detriment of the article. If you would like to check the article's history, I have made a small attempt to make the first few paragraphs of history near the top of the article more readable, as well as providing some references. However, this requires a lot of work--hours to find just a couple of references, since I have little knowledge of the subject. It would be much easier for the original writer(s) to do this work with sources they probably have at their fingertips.Guinness323 (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

One suspects that such writer wouldn't, in fact, refer to articulate prose as "obtuse." What, precisely, is the objection to literacy? The object of the exercise is surely not to reduce the article to grade 7 Reader's Digest level. Or is it? Masalai (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the same argument used by lawyers in defence of their "legalese"--important subjects need to sound important. However, using plain English is not an attempt to bring the language down to the lowest common denominator, but an attempt to communicate ideas in as transparent a fashion as possible. In the example I referenced above, what is the harm in saying "When it seemed likely in the late 1960s that ongoing talks would lead to a union of the Anglican and United Churches, this new hymnary was written as an attempt to incorporate both church's traditions. In the staid world of church hymnody, it was a radical departure for the time." (Note that I dropped the reference to churchmanship being a major determinant of public opinion, since there is no reference for this; and also, the word "churchMANship" is very jarring, appearing as it does in an article about a church that, in trying to institute more "gender inclusive" language, has largely expunged the male case (that is, words like "man", "Lord", "His" and "Father") from their latest hymn book and church literature.Guinness323 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You will have to do better than this. What is "plain English"? Articulate English? Le mot juste? Stating the truth of the matter in "plain English" does not involve, surely, reducing one's expression to Reader's Digest prose. Masalai (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

???? The promotion of "Plain English" is an international movement that has particularly taken hold in England, the motherland of the mother tongue. See Plain English for a brief explanation, or http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ for a more involved discussion.Guinness323 (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I realise. I am in Australia, where the "plain English" movement has been rampant for decades. The thing is, you see, that Australian lawyers actually do indulge in legalise. Canadians have no idea, pick up on the notion and attempt to "reform" their English when it's in no need of reform. Possibly you are also a victim. Masalai (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If, as a Canadian, I can speak for fellow Canadians--and it is something we usually try to avoid since we don't like making assumptions about others--we do not much enjoy florid phrases of overwritten prose. Or at least that is a possible conclusion one could draw from reading the works of our best-known authors such as Margaret Atwood, Margaret Laurence, Robertson Davies, Pierre Berton, Michael Ondaatje, Mavis Gallant, Mordecai Richler, Irving Layton, Alice Munro, etc. (See Canadian literature for a more in-depth examination of our national character as revealed through literature.) Compare the over-written phrases this article to the same topic from the Canadian Encyclopedia: "The United Church is Canada's largest Protestant church, with a confirmed membership of over 3 million (1991 census, latest figures available). The most self-consciously Canadian of all churches, in principle it includes all ethnic groups. The bulk of its members are of British descent, but the background of recent moderators have included black, Korean and native Canadians." Concise, well-written, to the point. Guinness323 (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable Church Members

Some of the members of that particular section are no longer or were not at the time of either their death or notability professing United Church members (either lapsed, as Margaret Atwood, or converts such as Vincent Massey). Should they be removed from the list of notable church members? It seems ridiculous to highlight them as examples of church members in the public eye if they are at best only nominal members.137.122.14.20 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this. If they wet to Sunday School as a kid but never went as an adult, remove them. If they made a decision to stop going and this change of attitude showed in their acomplishments, keep them and make note of it. In addition, all these people already have separate wiki articles, so the long descriptions of who they are and their contributions to Canadian society could be edited down considerably to how they made their contributions in light of their membership in the United Church. For example: "Lester B. Perason, former Prime Minster of Canada, was the son of a minister, which had a strong effect on his world-view of international peace." (would need to be appropriately sourced, of course.)Guinness323 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is hue and outcry, I'll make the following changes to this section:

• Remove Nellie McClung as I am unable to find any solid reliable sources that connect her to the United Church.
• Remove Bertha Wilson as it appears that her only claim was in being a Minister's wife (just being a minister's wife doesn't make you a member of the United Church).
• Remove Lester B. Pearson as it appears that his only claim was in being a Minister's son (see above)
• Edit the lengthier descriptions down to a sentence or two. Frmatt (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd want to look into this further to confirm an actual connection, but Nellie McClung's historical plaque in the small village of Chatsworth, Ontario is located on the grounds of Chatsworth United Church, which would seem to indicate some sort of connection to it.Guinness323 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

McClung was a member of St Aiden's United Church in Victoria BC.Masalai (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not necessarily raising a hue and cry but I do register an objection to reference to these people being deleted. It is not only people who participated in the United Church's activities to their life's end who are relevant in discussion of the church; it is also people whose upbringing in the United Church (or in the case of the Masseys and others, its antecedent denominations) affected their outlook, whether expressly or inferentially. Atwood, for example, describes herself nowadays as agnostic, but she was once a United Church Sunday School teacher and the connection with her work is obvious in her biblical literacy as evidenced by her Handmaid's Tail just as such connection is apparent in Laurence's Stone Angel. The article shouldn't only address the church in and of itself but also the church's effect on the culture and politics of Canada. Masalai (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

However, the effect of the theology of the United Church of Canada' on the person--not just the effect of a general Christian upbringing--has to be demonstrable (and obviously well-sourced) for the person to stay in this article. What role did the United Church have on this person's thoughts and subsequent actions, and how is it apparent that this would not have happened had the person been raised as a Catholic, Presbyterian, Mormon, etc.? Guinness323 (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Indent Reset Guinness323: I'm a little wary about going that far as the impact for most of these people often cannot be reliably verified. Because faith is such a personal thing, unless a subject has explicitly stated that membership in the United Church has had an impact, I'm not sure that we'd be able to reliably source it. I'd settle for having some reliable information that they were a verified active member of a United Church. Masalai: I'm not entirely sure where your objection comes from...the people you reference are not people who I've proposed removing from the list. As a United Church member, there is nothing I would like more than to keep such notable Canadians as McClung, Wilson, and Pearson on the list, but a cursory search shows little to know evidence that their connection with the United Church was notable. Frmatt (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that verifiability would be difficult. But church membership often has little effect on a person's life work and mission. Taking Nellie McClung, for instance, was it her church membership that influenced her, or her membership and work within the Women's Christian Temperance Union that gave her the fire and confidence, or something else? Also, the United Church is a very large denomination. Any prominent non-Catholic Canadian from 1925 onwards had a good chance of being raised in the United Church--how many prominent Canadians do we want to have in the article? Guinness323 (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The ones who had a high profile in Canadian life and whose United Church affiliation at whatever stage of their life clearly informed their ethos. Masalai (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[Redent] In light of the above discussion, I would recommend the following:

Eliminate

• Egerton Ryerson (died long before the United Church was formed)
• J.S. Woodsworth, who left the Methodist church a decade before church union over his inability to reconcile his belief in social justice with Methodist ideology. There is nothing in his wiki to suggest he had any influence on the United Church or its policies after union (and vice versa, that it had any influence on him), nor that he had any connection to it.

Conditionally eliminate

• Jack Layton, unless sourcing is provided confirming his church membership
• Bertha Wilson, unless sourcing is provided confirming her husband was a United Church minister (her Wiki article only lists him as Scottish Presbyterian minister)

Since this article is supposed to be about the UCC, and several of these "bios" go into unnecessary non-church related detail that can be found in the person's individual wiki, I also suggest the following be substantially shortened to only include a brief mention of their notability and their connection to the church:

• Stanley Knowles
• Vincent Massey
• L.B. Pearson
• Northrop Frye
• Nellie McClung

Comments, as always, welcome.Guinness323 (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll keep Jack Layton (about 4/5 of the way down in this article: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/layton.html) and his affiliation with Bloor Street United is well-documented in many places...including Jack Layton! No problem with removing any of the other three. Frmatt (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Role of the Church in the genocide of the natives

Why is their role so diminishing ? Why does there not exist a parallel article which entails the genocide of the natives in Canada.

What diminishing role are you talking about? The United Church has been a leader in working with Native leaders in many initiatives to provide reconciliation with those who are still suffering from the legacy of Residential Schools. There is more information available about the Residential School system, including the allegation of cultural genocide. In order to provide for good discussion, please ask questions to which answers can be provided instead of vague questions such as yours. And in the future, please sign your posts. Frmatt (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

United Church in National Life: No references banner

There are seven assertions made in this section which could not be considered "general knowledge", but only two of them have been sourced. The other five assertions should be either sourced or removed, and until that time, the "no references" banner should be left in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness323 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism from outside the church

I noticed a recent change to include some references to the United Church Observer, specifically Rev. Al Forrest, a former editor of the magazine. I'm a little concerned about the phrasing, specifically the sentence that reads "...and by extension, the United Church itself..." My biggest concern comes from the fact that the United Church Observer has never set policy for the United Church of Canada. If an editor or writer is attacked for their writings, it is the magazine that is attacked, not the overseeing body. I'd be happy if we could remove this sentence as the magazine has not ever set the policy of the United Church of Canada. COI ALERT: I am a member of the United Church of Canada, and while I do declare a COI, I think that in this case it is a benefit as I am able to provide insight into the UCCAN. Frmatt (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't but that's not how things were perceived at the time and not how the controvery unfolded: Bruce McLeod and others were obliged to set things straight and smooth relations between the United Church and the Jewish community. (Rabbi Gunther Plaut also entered the discussion, indicating that in his view AC Forrest was not anti-semitic.) Masalai (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Break it down?

I'm looking at this, and seeing the fancruft tag and realizing that its actually accurate. There is a lot of detail on this one article, and I'm wondering if it would be better off to break this down into several articles with a short statement about each and a link to find out more. I'm thinking: "History of the United Church of Canada", "The United Church of Canada and Social Justice", and "The United Church of Canada in National and Everyday Life". Comments? Frmatt (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was initially drawn to this idea. However, taking a fancruft-filled main article and dividing it up only results in a host of smaller fancruft-filled articles.

Perhaps what we should work on first is to edit the material so that the fancruft tag could be removed. First step would seem to be to remove all the unsourced statements that have been tagged since March--obviously the editors who wrote them are not interested or are unable to provide sources. That would shorten the article significantly, as well as removing a lot of the fancruft.

The next step might then be to consider how to make the article more informative about the actual church. There's seems to be a lot of pretty basic info missing at the moment--how the church is structured, the qualifications required to be a minister or staff associate, the two sacraments that require the presence of a minister, the role of a general council, how the moderator is chosen, etc.

Once that was done, and general agreement was to remove the fancruft tag, consideration could be given to divvying it up into separate articles. Guinness323 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)