Jump to content

Talk:United Church of Christ/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Archive of discussions from 21 April 2005 through 24 January 2007. Note: discusssions may be refactored.

Note on reversion, 21 April 2005

I just reverted changes from 64.233.197.49, which were justified simply as "Revert to original, unbiased version." I do not see what bias Mr. 64.233.197.49 objects to. He really needs to discuss these changes, as his "unbiased version" tells very little about the church and I question its relevance. IF there are sources for the allegations this version makes, I can see including them, but NOT by deleting the church's history and the other things contained in this version. Dave Farquhar 17:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits removing conservative bias

I edited/removed some content under the "current issues" section because it seemed to have a somewhat conservative anti-General Synod bias.

Particularly in discussing the "controversy" after the General Synod's Marriage Equality resolution vote, I strongly belive in the "less is more" maxim--just say there are some dissenting voices, but that there are also some now interested in joining, and there you go: situation described without danger of bias (particularly the danger, in this instance, in over-billing the dissent).

Also, in discussing the Israel-Palestine related resolutions, the best way to be unbiased is to actually use the same (or similar) language to what the resolutions themselves said. The previous version of this wiki only mentioned "divestment", while that was only one of a number of issues addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerymat (talk • contribs) 05:24, 28 October 2005

  1. Good edits and good edit philosophy in general. BUT... I think it is important to document the not insignificant efforts going on to vocalize unhappiness with the marriage resolution and with the national-local rift. I added a general current issues blurb at the top talking about the rift. two more links for you to look at: [1] and [2] corroborate that there is a rift.
  2. I also added an edited version of the congregational dissent paragraph because President John Thomas has has negatively characterized the efforts at vocalizing dissent as being alternatively mean-spirited or the product of an external conspiracy to pull churches out of the UCC. [3] If the President and General minister is making speeches denouncing dissent, then I think it is significant enough to document what exactly the dissenters have said.
  3. Re: The divestment resolution -- I think it was a good idea to take it from the text of the resolution. That reduced POV-ness. MPS 17:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
From my point of view, I think there are forces both inside and outside of the UCC that tend to melodramatically 'overblow' supposed "conflict" within our church, trying to proclaim gloom-and-doom for the UCC because we're supposedly all a bunch of Bible-ignoring heathens and sinners. Now, I agree that we should not be trying to cover-up the diversity of viewpoints; however, as an 'encyclopedia' article, the entry shouldn't descend into gossip or sniping either (the bit titled "Liberal identity??" points down that road, in my view). Compare this article to the article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, for instance.
On this issue of 'overblowing' conservative dissent: for about two decades, there have been those proclaiming gloom and doom for the mainline church as a whole, saying we keep loosing members and churches. Recent studies have shown that this supposed 'downward trend' just isn't true anymore. The mainline churches as a whole are not loosing membership--we aren't gaining significantly, but we're not loosing either. In the UCC case, we're hearing all this current talk about "all the churches that are going to leave". While in Cleveland just this month for the Midwest Seminarians Gathering, a high-up Cleveland staff person (who did not want to go on record with this, and so I will not share her/his name) said that all indications are that maybe 30 or 40 congregations maximum will leave when all is said and done, and that the vast majority of those congregations did not maintain strong ties with the denomination anyway. Besides that, the same person had word of at least 15 to 20 congregations that are beginning conversations about joining. I don't see a net loss of 10 to 25 churches in a denomination of over 5500 (which would equal 0.5%) constituting a huge dissent movement. emerymat 5:30 pm (CDT), 29 October 2005
Leaving the denomination is but one way that congregations have expressed dissent. The article mentins BWF and the Lexington confession as the biggest organized movements, and both of these organizations have, as of Oct 2005, both explicitly encouraged congregations to remain within the denomination. So if you only look at the congregations that have left, you are ignoring the many congregations that are expressing their dissatisfactio in other ways. The Southern Conference (one of 39 conferences) senior pastor has written a letter [4] to the whole conference stating his opinion on the divisive effects of the Lexington confession proponents.) The latest United Church News ran a story about how congregations throughout the 50 or so years have written angry letters to the editor over Synod actions and then published three angry letters about the EMRFA resolution. I think these facts show that the denominational leadership acknowledges that there are more than a few people unhappy with EMRFA. MPS 18:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Edited to add: It's not gloom and doom for the UCC to say that UCC people are in conflict with their leadership. It's the tradition of the UCC to be a "heady and exasperating mix," and it's very much the Reformed Church tradition to stand up to your church leaders and tell them how you think they should change their ways. You also have to consider the POV of church leaders who are (a) wary of more congregations leaving and (b) suspicious that there is some organization(s) out there trying to coax away UCC congregations. They have declared their feelings as such and so we have to take official proclamations from the UCC as at least partially reflecting that POV. MPS 18:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
One more comment: Re: Liberal Identity I agree that we shouldn't resort to gossip and hearsay, but at the same time there are people within and outside of the UCC who consider it to be Liberal and at the same time there are people who think it is neither liberal nor conservative but sort of a mix of everything. IMHO, these are in clear tension within the UCC but we can reframe it so that it does not just sound like nasty rumors. Would you agree that this tension exists in some form? I think it is a prett NPOV fact but I want to get a feel for your thoughts on this so we can find middle ground. MPS 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The article inaccurately said Naim Ateek spoke in favor of divestment. Sabeel's representative at the UCC Synod in July was Jonathan Kuttab. [Unsigned comment by User:68.163.184.56 02:43, 26 December 2005]
I just made two edits:
One to add to the General Synod divestment resolution the concerns that were raised by Michael Downs of the UCC Pension Boards. As the referenced letter indicates, the process in which the resolution was approved was not clean. The committee charged with studying the issue at General Synod originally submitted a resolution that intentionally did not include divestment language. This language was revised at the last minute by leaders of the church to include divestment language without consultation of the committee or the Pension Board.
The other change regards the number of churches that have left the UCC. As of today, the number is 61 (which is much different than the original language that there was only a "handful" that left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.241.175 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 10 January 2006
Two edits:
- updated the number of churches that left
- undid a previous edit that removed UCCtruths.com and added UCCunity.org. Following the PCUSA example, external links need not be based on "official" status as long as they are relevent. [Unsigned comment by User:UCCmember 15:31, 27 January 2006]
Food for thought: I think it might be appropriate to add a couple of new sections under current issues that cover the general dissent within the denomination and a section about unity and growth within the denomination. I think this will add value a give a fuller picture of what is happening within the church and it may consolidate some of the pro/con that's getting inserted on each issue. I'll wait for feedback before I recommend a major change like that. [Unsigned comment by User:UCCmember 15:45, 27 January 2006]

Project Massachusetts

To answer some questions, this article is part of Project Massachusetts only insofar as the United Church of Christ has a large presence in the Commonwealth and is related to congregationalism.--AaronS 21:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Famous UCCers

I think we should start a category like Category:Lutherans, which raises the question of what to call them.

  1. Is "UCCers" the right word?
  2. Another question is whether to include people like Cotton Mather and others who were congregationalists but not members after 1957.
  3. A Third question is whether people "raised" UCC who may or may not attend a UCC church should be counted, for instance David Letterman.

Well, anyways, I'll add the strawman list below and you can feel free to add to it. MPS 18:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that "UCC members" would be more accurate. I have never heard of the useage of UCCers. Assawyer 05:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

List of famous UCCERS

Same-Sex Marriage

I have installed an NPOV-section on this topic as I believe it conveys a liberal bias. Speaking in such term as equal marriage rights for all people, regardless of gender this tends to present same-sex marriage in a liberal light. A more appropriate approach would be a matter-of-fact statement of when and how the Church inagurated its policy of performing same-sex marriages, and may include direct quotation from this church's guiding documents.

The disputed language smacks of proselytizing propaganda pandering to liberal people, and a subtle diatribe against those churches who affirm the 'traditional' form of marriage, i.e., mixed-gender only.

Constitutionally, it does not appear that same-sex unions of any sort were codified as a fundamental right, the creation of such a right would be a clear innovation. The approach taken previously seems to assume that it is such a right, and would thus not only be a netrality violation, but a factual error as well. [Unsigned comment by User:KriZe 19:10, 29 December 2005]

I hear you that equal marriage rights for all people, regardless of gender smacks of bias, but that is the language used in the resolution. [link to resolution... see lines 15/16. The resolution itself is titled "In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All". This is the resolution's language, not Wikipedia's language. You will also note that the section is entitled "Same Sex Marriage Controversy" and that the article states "This decision was considered highly controversial by some local congregations ..." Much of the controversy around the resolution is due the resolution being biased towards one particular policy of performing same-sex marriages . Because of the congregational nature of the UCC, doctrinal decisions like definition/understanding of "marriage" should not be dictated from a central Synod. I think the article fairly conveys the facts of the case, so I am removing the NPOV tag. I will try to add a little more about congregationalism so readerrs see that the language in the resolution seems biased rather than Wikipedia. MPS 20:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Conservative bias in Same Sex Marriage section

As I've stated before, the excessive writings in the Same Sex marriage section are undoubtedly biased toward a dissenting/conservative viewpoint. It is fair to include the paragraph on dissent and the various movements that have publicly commented on the issue. However, I have out of necessity cleaned up the wording of this paragraph.

The extended paragraph on John Thomas's comments, however, seems frankly unnecessary. Personally, I don't see anyway that this paragraph could be re-written in a way that is not biased either in favor of the "liberal" or the "conservative" viewpoint. Furthermore, if you look at the articles on our sister denominations, especially the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, there is none of this sort of chatty attempts to dissect the stances and speaches of church officers. This is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia, not someone's 'blog'. Emerymat 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1. from conferences and associations the reader will be confused into thinking that 834 people were elected by the UCC and that 80% of the UCC agrees with the resolution. page 26 of the GS25 handbook says the following "The General Synod is the representative body of the United Church of Christ and is composed of delegates chosen by the Conferences from among the members of its local churches, the voting members of the Boards of Directors of Justice and Witness Ministries, Local Church Ministries, and Wider Church Ministries, and of ex officio delegates; these shall constitute the voting delegates."[8] So now we have to determine whether 834 is the delegates or the voting delegates. If it's delegates, then we should say "834 delegates chosen by the Conferences" if it's voting delegates, then we should say, "834 delegates from Conferences and the national offices."
2. ONA program run by LGBT affairs The UCC Coalition page [9] says "The United Church of Christ Coalition for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Concerns is officially recognized by the United Church of Christ as a related, self-created organization." That is to say, they are not an official appendage of the UCC. SELF CREATED AFAIK, that means the UCC ONA program consists only of previous GS resolutions. The Coalition has chosen to follow up further and promote ONA, but again, they do this on their own dime. Look at the speech to the Coalition prior to Synod.. it was held offsite from the GS25 because it was not a UCC function. Do you have better sources to verify your claim? If so I may fully retract.
3. overall bulkiness, conservative bias, and blogginess (a) Wikipedia is not paper so we can include as much encyclopedic information as necessary (b) If we were the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, we could say, "see also, the bla bla bla catechism" and that's Lutheranism. UCC is different because the doctrine is more nuanced and "wherever two or three are gathere there are 4 opinions." We need to document the multi-factededness of the UCC. If you think we a re leaving out the liberal parts, by all means include them, but I think it's funny that various posters have come to this page and claimed that the article is variously too liberal or too conservative depending on their preexisting POV about what the UCC is. (c) What the national officers say reflects on what people think the UCC stands for. Look at how people mistake [[Pat Robertson]'s comments as representative of Christianity. IMHO, this article, especially the SSM controversy section, does a darn good job of laying out the facts. I do think it dissects the Prodigal son story too much, but I didn't want to enter into a revert war over that one. MPS 01:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
First, Re #2: From http://www.ucccoalition.org/programs/ONA/ONAdocs.html: "Following the United Church of Christ's 1985 General Synod's adoption of an Open and Affirming (ONA) resolution - which encouraged all UCC churches to become ONA - The Coalition began listing churches which responded to this call. In 1987, it (as in The Coalition) established the ONA program to assist congregations in learning more about this witness, develop study materials, and provide support during their ONA process. ... UCC settings (local congregations, campus ministries etc.) become "officially ONA" by adopting an "Open and Affirming" statement expressing this welcome and sending this (with date adopted, body which took the action, and request to be publicly listed as ONA) to The Coalition's ONA Program (address below)." The 1985 General Synod ONA resolution merely called upon the settings of the church to become Open and Affirming; it did not create (or call for the creation) of any sort of programmatic support or provide for an official listing of ONA status. Thus, while the '85 synod may have called on settings to become ONA, the actual ONA program was created and is still maintained by The Coalition, not the denomination.
Re #1: I personally don't see how saying "834 delegates" implies that all 834 were elected by a general election of the entire populace of the denomination. If I were to say that a bill in the US House was supported by 80% of the 435 representatives, I think few would jump to the conclusion that all 435 are elected by US-wide general elections. If, though, it is felt that we must specify this, it seems more logical to explain the origin of General Synod delegates in the above section on Polity/Organizational Structure, and leave this "current issues" section just saying 834 delegates--if an explanation of General Synod makeup is sought by a reader, the polity section would be the natural place to look for that.
Re #3: I agree we should document the multi-facetedness of the UCC. My comment about encyclopedia vs. blog is not about space/length, but about style. I will agree that the SSM controversy section is doing a good job of laying out the conversation if the John Thomas / prodigal son paragraph is either removed or significantly rewritten. Emerymat 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Re:2 - ONA I agree that The Coalition has an ONA program, but what I am not convinced of is that The Coalition runs a UCC ONA program. Do you see my distinction? It's like saying the New York Times runs the United States' news program because the NYT has a Washington bureau that reports news about the Federal Government. With respect to ONA, there are no official UCC regulations with respect to how to become ONA. All the discussions, the text of the ONA resolution, and the declaration are made by the congregation. There is simply no UCC paperwork to fill out. No program. My contention is that the Coalition has taken it upon themselves to take a periodic census of how many churches have declared themselves ONA. Bottom line is that we should say that the Coalition runs an ONA program, but not the UCC's program.
Re:1 - representatives If 435 representatives passed a resolution by majority vote, you would think that this was federal law. That's the problem. Since GS speaks "to but not for" the UCC, we have to say who spoke via Synod. The fact of the matter is that Conference-apponted delegates and UCC National officers were doing the speaking. Look at the meaning of delegate. These delegates were "delegated" by somone ... but who does their voice represent? not the UCC! Let's shift gears here... would you be opposed to saying "834 Conference and headquarter-appointed delegates"
Re:3 - Thomas paragraph I think his comments about "the Older Brother among us" but friendly comments towards Lexington confessioners should stand. IMHO there is a nasty misperception within the UCC that any conservative-leaning UCCer who voices public criticism is inevitably associated with the neo-con funded BWF and the Institute for Religion and Democracy. If you look at the IRD article "what links here" [10] you will see that not a whole lot of other articles on WCC/[[[National Council of Churches|NCC]]-affiliated churches refer to IRD. I will try to trim that paragraph down but I think it's important to document the nuance of being conservative but not IRD-affiliated. MAybe we need a separate section in the article on the conspiracy theories within the UCC that accuse IRD and the Evangelical Association] of prepping UCC congregations for church stealing. MPS 15:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Re #2: Ah, but you see, if you go to the UCC's website and then to the "Find a Church" link, every church listing has a field titled "Listed ONA" with either a 'Y' or an 'N' indicating whether they're "officially" ONA. The source for this data is The Coalition's directory. This would seem to indicate that The Coalition operates either the only ONA program or at least the only one with official recognition by the national setting. Besides all that, the sentence I included in the actual article reads "The Coalition ..., whose ONA congregation program includes over 500 UCC congregations, ...". Thus, I never actually made the claim that it was the UCC's program. I feel a little bit like we're arguing in circles here, as I originally said "The Coalition's ONA program includes...", then you said that it wasn't the Coalition's program but the UCCs, then I said it was indeed the Coalition's program, then you said OK-it is the Coalition's program but not the UCCs--which seems a lot like where I started from. So anyway, I still hold that the wording I inserted is accurate.
Re #1: You say "but who does their voice represent? not the UCC!" I am not sure I would be so hasty in saying that, myself. If the UCC were infact a denomination with congregationalist polity, perhaps such a claim would be accurate. However, the UCC's polity is not purely congregational. Our "covenant polity" is a combination/merging of congregationalist and presbyterial systems. The way General Synod representation is constituted comes more out of the presbyterial side of that conglomeration--if we were truly congregational, like the Disciples of Christ or the American Baptists, then every congregation would have delegates to the synod. In an entirely presbyterial system, it would not be fair to say that the General Assembly voice does not represent the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) just because delegates come from presbyteries and not individual congregations--that would be judging their polity under the standards of a different polity. I understand well the assertion that the General Synod speaks "to, but not for" the other settings of the church; however, I'm not sure it's fair to judge General Synod make up by the standards of pure congregationalism when that is not our polity. Furthermore, I would say that the General Synod voice does represent the UCC, as constituted in that setting. It may not represent the UCC as constituted in another setting. In our polity, we hold that each setting of the church is fully the church--just like pure congregationalism asserts that the local congregation is the full church (and that there is no other), our covenant polity holds that each setting of the UCC is the full church.
Anyway, all that polity-theology machination aside, I think it would be a good idea in the earlier section on "Polity / Organizational Structure", when discussing General Synod, to discuss how General Synod representation is made up--that's a position I hold irrespective of this particular section. And, I disagree with your language of "headquarter-appointed delegates" because that's simply not accurate. The portion of delegates not from the conferences was the membership of the boards of the 4 covenanted ministries, which themselves are bodies elected by the General Synod. This is not an issue of Cleveland appointing General Synod delegates. Each covenanted ministry board is elected by the General Synod itself and is comprised of members nominated by individual conferences and members from the recognized historically-underrepresented caucus groups (all of which are officially independent from Cleveland). Also, as specified by the Bylaws, conference delegates make up no less than 675 and no more than 725 of the voting delegates, making them between 76 and 82% of the total representation. (Oh, and we've been tossing around this number of 834 delegates, but I was just looking at the official General Synod minutes and the Credentials Committee report on page 1 lists 884 voting delegates). All this said, I think it would be beneficial to describe the make up of General Synod in the Polity section (regardless of what we do here); and if we adequately do so, I'm not sure duplication is necessary in this section on EMRFA (we'd have a busy dishwasher if we had to spoonfeed against every possible misconception, especially if people refuse to read the whole United Church of Christ article to actually see how it all works).
Re #3: I'd like to take some more time to think about this part--maybe even see if I can draft my own alternate paragraph that might work instead. Emerymat 18:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Very good edits Emerymat - you make every effort to present balanced information. UCCmember 08:23, 29 January 2006
I think so too. Good Job E. MPS 19:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oberlin College?

Does anyone out there know with some authority about the history of Oberlin College (and/or its former school of theology)? I have been under the impression for a long time that Oberlin was founded by or closely related to the Congregationalists, but as I do some cursory web searches on the subject, I'm not coming up with any difinitive answer. It does seem clear that Charles Gradison Finney, who was a Presbyterian, was the first professor of theology. The reason I'm curious regards whether or not to add Oberlin to the "Other Historical colleges and universities (unrelated)" section of the page.

Its always been interesting to me that the UCC claims the Vanderbuilt University Divinity School as a historically related seminary, since its founding was Methodist. However, in looking around at this issue re: Oberlin, I see that in 1965 Oberlin decided to close its school of theology, and the faculty and students who were in it at that time moved to Vanderbuilt. If Oberlin were indeed Congregationalist related, that would explain the UCC claim of Vanderbuilt as historically related, wouldn't it? Emerymat 15:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As with Congregational churches in New England, First Church was THE church in town and it was congregational.
"The Oberlin religious society known as "The congregational Church of Christ at Oberlin" was formed in 1834, and it was the only church in Oberlin until the eighteen fifties. All of the College faculty and their families and practically all the other residents were members. Religious services were held at first in various College buildings or in the big, circular tent which was erected for the purpose near the center of the square, All students were required to attend. The preaching was done by members of the College staff as a part of their regular duties. Father Shipherd, the Founder, was the first pastor, succeeded by Professor Finney. But Mr. Finney was often absent, preaching in the East or in England, and then the pulpit would be filled by Professor John Morgan, Professor Henry Cowles, or Professor Henry E. Peck The choir, which was identical with the student musical association, was directed by the professor of Sacred Music." [11]
Finney was the preacher there for 37 years. In 1860 it was the largest church in the United States. More than a worship center, it was the site for many abolition meetings as well as other political and secular meetings. First Church WAS Oberlin. Oberlin Ohio, Oberlin College. All of the above. The town fire truck was in the church basement. [12], [13], first church website. MPS 20:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Oberlin was founded by Congregationalists and was closely related to the Congregational churches for more than a century. "Tappan Square" in the center of the town was named in honor of the famous Abolitionist leader, Lewis Tappan, who was a member of the church. Finney served both Presbyterian (New York City) and Congregationalist (First Church of Oberlin) churches, so was recognized by both denominations. You could say he began his ministry as a Presbyterian and ended as a Congregationalist. Oberlin, however, has long since moved beyond that identity and is no longer a member of the UCC's "Council for Higher Education." It's a critical piece of Congregationalist history, especially with reference to Abolitionism and 19th-century revivalism.
Re. Vanderbilt: it's not listed in the UCC Yearbook as a "Seminary of the United Church of Christ" but, as you pointed out, as "historically-related." So are other ecumenical seminaries with a proportion of UCC students, like Howard Divinity in Washington or Union in New York. Your suggestion that Vanderbilt inherited Oberlin Divinity School after it disbanded is intriguing, and may be the reason it's on the list. But the UCC is definitely not claiming it founded Vanderbilt. :-) --langohio 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lane Rebels

An interesting story that dates to the beginnings of Oberlin is the arrival of the Lane Rebels which has been re-enacted at the college. I know a little bit about this story, but, perhaps someone else is more informed. There is no page as yet for this subject. [Unsigned comment by User:Williambrandes 04:22, 6 March 2006]

Check this out: Lane Theological Seminary. MPS 15:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the NACCC piece really necessary here?

Is the NACCC reference really necessary here? It seems more relevant on the page(s) on the Congregationalists. As a comparison, if you go to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America page, there is not a reference to every little dinky spit off group that decided not to join every time their predecessors merged. Sure, the Congregationalist dissent / NACCC piece was significant at the time of the 1957 merger, but given that the vast majority of Congregational churches did end up joining the UCC, I'm not sure that now 50 years later, it's hugely relevant to the UCC article.

Ideally, when I get time, I would like to write up a much expanded History of the UCC section for this article--one that covers pieces of the merger story and our history since 1957. Currently, the page only gives historical perspective to our pre-1957 roots. In such a history section, perhaps the NACCC piece would be relevant, but I don't think it is in its current context in the article. Emerymat 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of the IRD paragraph?

I really don't see the point of the IRD paragraph. What John Thomas (or another UCC leader) says about some other organization--how is this relevant to an encyclopedia article about the United Church of Christ? Should we start detailing every comment a UCC leader makes about the Bush administration? Should Presbyterians add a new paragraph to the Presbyterian Church USA article everytime Clifton Kirkpatrick opens his mouth or the ELCAers everytime Bishop Hanson speaks about something? I happen to agree with Thomas's viewpoint about the IRD and wish more people would hear this IRD criticism; however, in the context of an encyclopedia article about the United Church of Christ, I don't see how this paragraph seeks to do anything other than to cast some ideological point of view about UCC leadership. Emerymat 06:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you are following all the discussions on the UCC forums and Chuck Currie's UCC seminarian blog, but at this point pretty much every quasi-conservative "renewal group" within the UCC has been accused (by the UCC leadership) of being associated with the IRD . This comes back to the liberal? section that was around last fall:
For over 20 years UCC has been in a struggle over its identity. Some believe that the UCC is primarily "United and Uniting" church that merges Christian traditions and gets along despite doctrinal differences, and others believe that the pronoucements of the church indicate it is a gay-friendly, progressive social justice church. In 1999, John H. Thomas was elected General Minister and President of the UCC because of his experience at the local level and with the hope that he could help heal the perceived rift between local and national leadership [14]
It looks like the national leadership of the UCC is 'very public about its desire to dissociate with conservative political influences, to the point of issuing press releases against conservative bloggers that may or may not have anything to do with politics or with the IRD. [15]
As far a current issues in the UCC, I think criticism of the IRD has been consistent over time and is not just from one speech. I just now posted another speech last fall (Older brother in our midst) where John Thomas suggests that resistance to gay marriage resolution within the UCC may have something to do with IRD and its negative political organizing within the mainline. MPS 17:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, see our previous discussion on Conservative bias in Same Sex Marriage section. The thread #3 of that discussion is where IRD was discussed. MPS 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not disagree with you at all that criticism of the IRD is not new (and I will add, I think it is well deserved--but that is not the issue here). Where I disagree with you is whether this discourse is relevant in an encyclopedia article about the UCC. There may well be a place on Wikipedia where this is very relevant; I am inclined to think that place is on article(s) about the IRD.
(Also, I do occassionally check out the UCC forums, but there is not an iota of doubt in my mind that the run of conversation there is not representative of the UCC as a whole [esp. regarding the so-called "Theology" forum].) Emerymat 03:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I just read through your recent addition. I do not dispute the accuracy of the comments. They are a critique of the IRD, though, not really all that helpful as information about the UCC. In fact, to be honest about my feelings, the insistence on deploying them in this article on the UCC, rather than in an article about the IRD, reveals an intent to convey a particular POV about UCC leadership. I understand from your user page that you set out as regards same-sex marriage related articles to help ensure NPOV. I would hope that you would have the same goal as regards the UCC and its leadership. Emerymat 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
hmm... You have obviously heard of IRD. You have obviously heard the UCC's harsh repeated criticism of the IRD. What I don't understand is why you think this harsh criticism does not beloneg in the article. You have said discussion about the IRD is "not really all that helpful as information" in an article about the UCC. From a practical "improving the article" perspective, I would be interested in hearing more of your opinion about this. Please elaborate on why you don't think IRD is worth mention...
Here is my take on it: As a matter of fact, the leadership of the UCC is clearly, repeatedly, and angrily accusing IRD of being "intent on disrupting and destroying our [the UCC's] life together." Destruction of the UCC? If that sort of action is not a current issue to the UCC I don't know what is. We are not recording the UCC's position on flag burning, or the UCC president's favorite ice cream or other issues that are asides to the UCC. The encyclopedia article is documenting President John Thomas' (and other UCCers') vehement warnings and perceptions that the IRD is out to "[[use] marriage equality, and our commitments to Palestinian people as a wedge to divide unsuspecting UCC folk and churches." This isn't at UCC talking head making a run-of-the-mill speech saying "the UCC supports or is against X issue" it is the president of the UCC saying the IRD is attacking the UCC, creating "campaigns of disinformation that seek to discredit church leadership." If this accusation is true, then it is clearly very important and encyclopedic issue facing the UCC. If this accusation (G-d forbid) is false or misleading, then it's also important to document because of the vehemence with which it is being proclaimed by the president of the UCC. MPS 20:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
PS -- If the President of the UCC said that the Bush Administration is attacking the UCC, I would definitely want to document that in Wikipedia. MPS 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
PPS My commitment to neutrality should definitely be assumed. I would hope that you would have the same goal towards the UCC and its laity. MPS 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
What is curious to me about this piece, or even our much-hashed over discussion of the marriage equality resolution, really has more to do, perhaps, with proportionalities. This encyclopedia article has more space devoted to the "Current Issues" (all of which seem to hit on the culture war 'liberal-conservative' divide) than it does on any one of UCC history, UCC polity, UCC theology, or UCC practices. (Likewise, I would think it is safe to argue that the "leadership of the UCC['s] ... clearly, repeatedly, and angrily accusing [of the] IRD" is overall a rather small proportion of what they do, or even of their public speech activity.)
Now, I will offer that this is my own fault as much as anyone else's. I am very knowledgable about UCC history and polity, and could do a much more extensive job of "improving the article" in these regards. I in fact would like to do this, but I simply don't have the time until school lets out in May. Emerymat 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, I think Wikipedia:Recentism applies here. If you have some specific ideas for further development of the article, maybe you could start an outline of potential topics and we can start fleshing out content. Good luck with your studies! MPS 16:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

United Church of Canada

My most recent edit had edit line "per old discussion" as I seem to remember a discussion here concluding that there are no UCC churches in Canada. I can't seem to find this discussion. Did I have it somewhere else? I don't know. So anyways, I deleted the "there are two UCC churches in Canada" bnecause it is my understanding that the United Church of Christ is only in the USA and that UCC sightings in Canada are probably United Church of Canada. If I am wrong about this please provide a source when you add it back in. MPS 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I will begin by saying that I was not the person who inserted the Canada congregations information. Nevertheless, the UCC Yearbook does list two Canadian congregations, both in the Northern Plains Conference: Josephburg UCC in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, (UCC congregation #48-1090) and Filipino United Community UCC in Winnipeg, Manitoba (#48-1122). (I will hazard a guess to say these two congregations might be why the conference is not simply named the "North Dakota Conference"?) As I said, I didn't put the "two congregations in Canada" disclaimer in the article in the first place, and quite frankly wonder if its a level of minutiae unnecessary--especially in the "introduction" section of the article. Emerymat 06:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless a blog is substantive and/or exclusive to the UCC, I believe these types of links should not be included. For instance, if the UCC had an an official blog, that may be relevent. However, a typical blog that isn't exclusive to blogging about the UCC should not be included. Thoughts-- UCCer 19:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, A compromise is to start assembling all known UCC-ish blogs on the talk page until we get enough "candidates" to really assess what makes a UCC blog. Are there really that many UCC bloggers out there? *Googles* Maybe we could advertise UCC blogrings like this one and then let the reader discern what is spam and what is real. For now I would recommend listing blogs and then we can talk more. MPS 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I am not the person making the blog edits, I would like to confess that IM-not-so-HO, the utter trash that gets put up by the so-called UCCTruths.com blog also should not be linked from this page, either. I agree that these two other blogs are only tangentially related to the page, but garbage by a different name still smells like a landfill, right? :-) Emerymat 01:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as UCCtruths.com is concerned, I don't believe it is a blog and as long as a source has verifiably accurate information that is relevent, it should be permitted. Our own biases need to be kept in check but, if there is incorrect information, it should be edited out. UCCer 17:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not so comfortable trusting wikipedia editors to say in a neutral point of view, "my friend joe runs a good UCC blog, but this other guy Bob has a terrible UCC blog." Judging which blogs represent UCC opinions is a bit like asking which words in Webster's dictionary represent English. One useful criterion for "blog notability" is whether or not UC news or other "formal settings" of the UCC have referenced the blog address in an article. That would probably include chuck currie, UCCtruths, philosophy over coffee. By that criterion, it would also include any blog that is referenced by a UCC Local Church web page. Just some thoughts... I don't think I have seen have "the answer" yetMPS 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Acronyms section

An acronyms section??? You've got to be kidding me--I swear this article becomes less and less like an encyclopedia article by the minute. Emerymat 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh... what is wikipedia's guidance/policy on acronyms section? It's not verboten, is it? MPS 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Evangelical" Disambiguation link repair - You can help!

Hi, by "Evangelical" do you mean Evangelicalism or Evangelism. Bear in mind that the former has stong connotations of "conservatism," and the latter of "outspoken sharing of the Gospel." If you can't agree to either of those, perhaps you should consider simply removing the link (but not the text, since it is important in context) to Evangelical. At present it only links to an unhelpful disambiguation page, and linking to dab pages is kinda discouraged. Thanks, --Ling.Nut 01:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, lingnut. Within the UCC, Evangelical means a lot of things to a lot of people. I would say linking to the somewhat ambiguous definition would be appropriate in this case, since the UCC's German Protestant roots evoke "Evangelisch but people who say evangelical also might mean good newsism and evangelism. UCCers are generally not likely to identify the UCC as a conservative organiazation although about 25% of UCCers do consider themselves conservative or somewhat conservative and perhaps evangelical. MPS 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave it linked to the dab page.. but I can't promise that some other person won't come along and change it in a month or two. So... I dunno, if it is an important link, maybe you should check it once a month or so. Thanks for the reply! --Ling.Nut 22:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Resolutions of the United Church of Christ

Check it: Resolutions of the United Church of Christ. MPS 07:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Tillich/Reinhold Niebuhr

On german Wikipedia Benutzer:Hansele doesn t believe, that Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr were members of the UCC after 1957. Have anyone here a good link, where that is written ?GLGerman 23:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should do your work for the german wikipedia there and not attack other users here... --84.160.58.246 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have no connection to this page, but saw it could use a bit of editing so I stayed around. I've begun implementing detailed ref tags if anyone would like to help out and switch the current references over to the detailed reference format used in the beginning of the article. I'll plug away at it when I have some spare time. Hewinsj 06:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

another local church website

I'm just a UCC member, and I noticed the link to the Woodmont UCC page (http://www.woodmontucc.org). If such links are welcome here, may I suggest another: http://www.campbellucc.org

Disclaimer: I'm a member of the Campbell church, but I have nothing to do with the webpage. Gawbl 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no--it is not appropriate to have links to individual congregations here, and so the Woodmont link has been removed. Emerymat 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

myspace

If we are linking to notable "unofficial" links in the external links section, I don't see where WP:EL implies we can't link to http://groups.myspace.com/uccstillspeaking ... which is apparently the only UCC myspace group out there. An even more compelling reason that this link should stay is that the first forum post in the group was by somone neamed Sora Sol... and she claims to be somone working in the stillspeaking office. If the GISS people are posting on this particular myspace group in an official capacity, then I argue that it is more notable than your average myspace group. MPS 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Most average myspace groups aren't notable in the first place. What makes this one have information that's relevant to the article? Shadow1 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reread what I just said... multiple posts by Sora Sol... aka this girl whose name should be obvious but I won't type here, the web content Coordinator for the UCC's God Is Still Speaking, campaign. It is clear from her posts that the campaign attempted to use myspace as part of their official communications to young adults. [16] I can provide more links MPS 21:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Um... do note that we are not a linkfarm. If people want to find the myspace group they can use a search engine. Please don't forget that we are an encyclopedia. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
there are plenty of links that we have already eliminated.... you will see above that we discussed linking "UCC bloggers" but I personally believed that to do so would be promoting wiki-link-spam. ... Listen, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think you are taking the word "avoid" in WP:EL too literally. I agree that we need to reduce/eliminate superfluous external linking withing wikipedia, but in this case I think you have gone over the top in forcing the issue on the United Church of Christ page. I understand that there is no cabal, but I am starting to feel bullied by shadowbot's nasty Rv messages and the multiple personal talk messages I have received from wikispam project users reminding this experienced wikipedian that there is a policy called WP:EL. I get it. I really do. I am glad you are eliminating wikispam, but I just feel liek your approach feels overly aggressive and not tinged with the appropriate dose of wikipedia:wikilove and wikipedia:assume good faith. Grace and Peace, MPS 21:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am not in any Cabal and am nearly a member of this church (well, my mother was a congregationalist anyway) but this article does have a serious link issue. For example, see section "United Church of Christ institutions". When we are referring to other institutions which have their own page on Wikipedia it is highly unconventional to put an external link to the institution next to the internal one when listing them. In the odd cases where I have seen it I have cleaned the external link up (i.e. deleted). Here we have about 30 inappropriate links which ought to go. I suggest that you do this yourselves to avoid other people getting involved. There are also a number of references not meeting WP:EL and a section of "Websites of other UCC related groups" which isn't really part of the article and basically adds no comment except as a link-list which we are not. Some work to do in fact. --BozMo talk 11:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am moving the links here... and deleting them from the article. MPS 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

At some point we need to make new articles for all the red linked schools. MPS 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Seminaries

Colleges and universities

These 19 schools have affirmed the purposes of the United Church of Christ Council for Higher Education by official action and are full members of the Council.

Secondary academies

"These colleges continue to relate to the United Church of Christ through the Council for Higher Education, but chose not to affirm the purposes of the Council. Though in many respects similar to the colleges and universities that have full membership in the Council, these institutions tend to be less intentional about their relationships with the United Church of Christ." (from the United Church of Christ website)

Archive 1Archive 2

Lutheran Connections?

I see that two different editors have made the unsourced claim that the UCC is within the Lutheran tradition. Can anyone provide a source for this? If not, I think it should be removed. Reform tradition and Lutheran tradition are the not the same thing. Neither the Congregationalists nor the E & R churches are part of the Lutheran tradition, so I'm really not sure where this comes from--unless you're trying to claim that anything not Catholic is Lutheran? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"The denomination, therefore, looks to a number of historic confessions as expressing the common faith around which the church gathers, including:

"The Evangelical Synod of North America traced its roots to later waves of 19th- and early 20th-century German immigration, which settled primarily in the Midwest (especially Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan). Members of this group largely came from the Evangelical Church of the Union, which formed in 1817 as a union of the Lutheran and Reformed churches in Prussia. The group often identified as primarily Lutheran (usually depending upon a local pastor's preference and/or background), but held a mixture of both Lutheran and Reformed beliefs and practices—so much so as to prevent this group from merging with other Lutheran bodies. Evangelicals looked to both the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism and Luther's Small Catechism as their confessions (and eventually developed an "Evangelical Catechism" for confirmation training of youth, which merged views of both)." Also note that when "Evangelical" is used it refers to Lutheranism.Ltwin (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Using Luther's Small Catechism does not demonstrate that the UCC is "generally considered" to be within the Lutheran tradition today, as the lead implies with the use of present tense. I'm afraid you're going to need a stronger source than that to refute what the UCC says about itself, which is that it is from the Reform tradition, as in Our Reformation Roots. Conflating evangelical with Lutheranism simply confuses the point further, and doesn't support your argument. Who is it that you believe "generally considers" the UCC to be part of the Lutheran tradition? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok well take a look at the page on the UCC site explaining the Lutheran/Reformed Formula of Agreement] of 1997. Skip down to the last paragraph and read where it expressly says "The United Church of Christ is the only church in the relationship that has roots in both the Reformed and Lutheran heritage. Our "German Evangelical" tradition drew from the wells of both Reformed and Lutheran Christianity. Many UCC congregations of our "German Reformed" tradition—especially in historically German-American communities in Pennsylvania—have lived together with Lutheran congregations as "union churches" since the 18th century." Ltwin (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you; that's what you should have used in the first place. If you feel strongly enough about it to edit war on it, I expect you to be able to back it up with a reliable external source. However, I don't think that shows that the two are on equal footing, as your current phrasing in the lead implies. What about "primarily in the Reform tradition, but also historically influenced by Lutheranism," which seems to more accurately reflect how the UCC tells its own history? After all, there's a section for "Our Reformation Roots" but no parallel section for Lutheranism. The current phrasing gives undue weight to Lutheranism. If it seems too complex to tease out that relationship in the lead, then I'd prefer to just see it cut and dealt with later in the article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with saying it has roots in Lutheranism. Ltwin (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009
Done. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No, not done. The connections are too vague and the claims are made with too much license. UCC is about everything Lutheranism is not about, including the primary Lutheran theme of justification by grace through faith for Christ's sake; something which few UCC, at least no one writing this article, would claim. It should be noted that the UCC has fellowship privileges with nearly every other denomination EXCEPT the primary, confessional Lutheran bodies, including the LC-MS. Being German is hardly enough to justify connected oneself to the world's premiere protestant theological heritage. I take offense and will remove the statement. 67.172.153.122 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter if you take 'personal offence' or whether the UCC is not in communion with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod or other confessional Lutheran bodies. Heck, the LCMS is not in communion with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. It is also irrelevant if you feel Lutheranism is the world's premier protestant tradition. Also, it is dubious to imply that the UCC disclaims justification sola fide, sola gratia. Argue from NPOV not from personal animus. The fact is that one of the heritage bodies in the UCC came from the Church of the Prussian Union; and Lutheran elements have become part of its self-understanding. It does not matter if you or I agree or disagree with the UCC's theology or history. IACOBVS (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Prominent Churches

The two churches cited are very large and perhaps prominent in terms of newsworthiness, but they very atypical and unrepresentative of UCC churches. There are only ~16 UCC churches with over 2,000 members (2008). In terms of numbers of churches, financial strength, and Congregational history, the New England conferences are very prominent, but none of them had churches over 2,000 members in 2002 - except Wethersfield CT, which has since left the UCC. How to present a more realistic picture? Albany45 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Some churches mentioned in this section are prominent, but most are not.--IACOBVS (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As a UCC pastor I have an issue with the entire concept of "prominent churches" in this denomination. There are several congregations listed in this section as of today without any explanation as to why they might be there. I'd propose either deleting the entire section or reframing it as "notable congregations." Inclusion in such a section would have to come with explanatory text and references. Otherwise it's an arbitrary list that misrepresents the subject denomination. Bikerbudmatt (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This issue isn't whether a UCC church is 'typical' of the denomination, Albany45. It is also not an ecclesiological issue ('church' vs. 'congregation'), Bikerbudmatt. It is whether a 'local church' (to use UCC parlance) is prominent in the typical sense of that word. Most people have no idea about the UCC's polity and probably don't care. Prominence could be architectural, historical, or by association with a person or persons or events. It seems some have simply listed their local churches as 'prominent' when they do not pass muster. I have deleted those churches and left the ones that do have some noteworthy aspects. IACOBVS (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Would you consider Umstead Park United Church of Christ suitable for this list? I just created the entry, my first on Wikipedia, and am looking for suitable references so that it is no longer an orphan page. Pvandors (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Relationships with Other Churches

Eliminated the sentence beginning with "Page two...". It points to one clause among several that leads to "We now declare ourselves to be one body." The grammar is problematic, and the point of including this is unclear. The referenced document stands by itself. --Albany45 (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Progressive Christianity article link

I have removed a link to the Progressive Christianity article from the "See also" section. I believe that it expresses a POV of the United Church of Christ as a "progressive" denomination. While there are some in the denomination who would claim that mantle for themselves, there are many others who would not, and the United Church of Christ has never, in any authoritative capacity, declared itself to be a "progressive" denomination. As the article states, this is a diverse denomination, and the present article needs to honor that fact. Cheers, aliceinlampyland (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC).


They do consider themselves progressive.

http://www.ucc.org/about-us/ucc-firsts.html

http://www.progressiverenewal.org/welcome/about-us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.154.235 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the church itself has declared itself "progressive" or not. What matters is that, despite what diversity may exist, at the national level at least, it is nicely located within the progressive wing of American Protestantism.
The first of the two links is an historical presentation, not a statement of theological identity. The second is a link to a parachurch organization, irrelevant to this discussion.

I think it matters very much whether the church has declared itself "progressive" because otherwise it is an interposition of categories that are not indigenous to the denomination. It is an interposition of a left-right dichonomy that is not reflective of the actual lived church life of many people in the denomination. It is also, quite frankly, a simplistic characterization of the theological situation within the United Church of Christ, which has a strong representation of people influenced by Neo-Orthodoxy who are usually ok with leftish political statements but who are religiously quite traditional and critical of liberal theology. I still contend that the link represents impermissible POV. aliceinlampyland (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

I would also further add that within the UCC, 'what the national church says' is not generally indicative of 'what the UCC is'. That is, because of its rather unique polity, the national body is generally understood as speaking 'to' but not 'for' the denomination as a whole. This is a sensibility that is widespread in the denomination. aliceinlampyland (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

Calvinist vs United and Uniting

I have changed the orientation of the UCC from Mainline/Calvinist to Mainline/United and Uniting - see the Wikipedia article on United and uniting churches. While the UCC and most of its predecessor churches have their origins in the Reformed wing of the Protestant Reformation, it is difficult to defend the position that the UCC is in its present form a truly Calvinist denomination. By way of illustration, the history of the New England Congregationalism that is still dominant in the UCC begins with the the 17th century Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. They were indeed Calvinists, but by the time those churches evolved into Congregationalist churches in the 18th century, there was already a sharp move away from classical Calvinism. By the early 19th century, the Unitarian controversy emerged, splitting the churches along doctrinal lines. By this point, the "orthodox" Congregationalists who maintained a Trinitarian understanding of God were nonetheless already far removed from the beliefs of their Puritan forebears. The Congregationalist churches began to steadily embrace progressive causes such as the abolition of slavery and were chief among the exponents of the Social Gospel movement. By the 20th century, all the predecessor denominations were largely non-evangelical (in the conservative usage of this word), embraced ecumenism and church unity and were often deemed liberal. These trends resulted in the creation of the UCC as one of the United and uniting churches in 1957. While the UCC, like many United churches, has roots in the Reformed branch of Protestantism and maintains membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, stating that the UCC's present orientation is Calvinist, as that term is commonly defined, is inaccurate. I invite further comments for those who may oppose this change. --Jm3106jr (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

United Methodist Church not in full communion with the UCC

I deleted the reference that the UCC is in full communion with the United Methodist Church. The UMC was not part of the 1997 Formula of Agreement between the participating Lutheran and Reformed churches in the United States. The reference given in this section to the UCC's webpage on ecumenical relations mentions the UMC only as an ecumenical partner via Churches Uniting in Christ, but CUIC has not yet resulted in a full communion agreement among its participants. If you look at the footnotes, the UMC along with the Episcopal Church is specifically noted as not in a relationship of full communion with the UCC, but only in ecumenical partnership as currently provided by CUIC. --Jm3106jr (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Changed UCC Polity from "Modified Congregationalist and Presbyterian" to simply "Congregationalist"

I have changed the polity listed for the UCC from "modified Congregationalist and Presbyterian" to simply "Congregationalist". The local church is supreme per the UCC Constitution and thus its form of Congregationalism is not at all "modified" - it is pure Congregationalism. There is no actual Presbyterian polity in operation in the UCC. This was not the case for the pre-merger Evangelical and Reformed Church which did indeed have a modified Presbyterian polity, but that polity did not survive the merger in 1957. In effect, the E&R congregations became congregationalist local churches overnight once the merger was completed. While other UCC bodies, like the general synod, state level conferences, and area associations have influence and can make recommendations, they cannot direct or order a local church of the UCC to comply with its decisions. The only definitive action an association or conference can take against a local church of the UCC is to terminate fellowship with it. This would in turn mean that the local church in question would cease to be a congregation of the UCC, but it would remain a Congregationalist church with all its assets intact. --Jm3106jr (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that Conferences are not always "state level" bodies. Two examples:
  • Northern California Nevada Conference covers roughly half of each of two states
  • Pacific Northwest Conference covers Washington, North Idaho and Alaska --Tony Lewis (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

National Council of Congregational Churches of the United States

Note to all interested editors, I've created an article for the National Council of the Congregational Churches of the United States. This was the first formal nation-wide denominational structure established by the Congregationalists and existed from 1865 until 1931 when it merged into the Congregational Christian Church. It's still pretty much a stub, so any expansion would be appreciated. Ltwin (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United Church of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on United Church of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on United Church of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on United Church of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Church of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

An American church?

Does this church originate in the United States? If so, perhaps something should be added to the lead as there is no mention of geographical scope there at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is American. I added mention of it in the lede. Ltwin (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

God's revelation

Praise our Lord Jesus Christ, I am pastor Paul Wekulo. Have been searching for Evangelical church of Christ for a very long time. Having learned of the merger to form ucc, as a family we're happy and thankful to God for his direction. I am a Kenyan citizen aged 43 years with a family of four children. Luciah, Henry, Hillary and Hadassah. My beautiful wife is Caroline. Will be happy to hear from you. Thanks and Happy new year of Divine Establishment, 2chronicles 20:20. Pastor Paul Wekulo Simiyu (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Church_of_Christ/Archive_1&oldid=1137283271"