Talk:United Church of Canada/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  united and catholics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
thread_title: Huh??

message: 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)
thread_title: General Conference??

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  then largest and second largest? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bête-noire

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

text: Bear in mind that it needs to be documented: unfortunately, personal communication is not footnotable.Masalai 11:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The United Church and Native issues

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Stanley Knowles.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:More Voices.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title: Census

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crest information is WRONG!!!!! 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Caylfrye.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dr. Samuel Dwight Chown 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Evangelical" Protestant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edit warring over Indian Residential Schools 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:LifeofMargaretLaurencebyJamesKingcover.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ???? 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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."http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0008224 Concise, well-written, to the point.  Guinness323 (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Hymn Book

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Notable Church Members

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Role of the Church in the genocide of the natives 

message: 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)
thread_title: United Church in National Life: No references banner

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism from outside the church