Talk:United Church of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calvinism Portal

United Church of Canada falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Christianity Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is supported by the Methodism work group. (with unknown importance)

Assessment comments

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)

[edit] 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 ?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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".

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

BetacommandBot 08:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)