Talk:United Church of Christ/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive of discussions from 25 January 2007 through 25 January 2010. Note: discusssions may be refactored.

Other insights from the Wikipedia guidelines

"Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page." Hmm... perhaps like the so-called "Current Events" section of this article????? Emerymat 13:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Errors in "List of famous UCC members or attendees"

Could someone try to check some of these claims? I'm not entirely sure how accurate the section is. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why several Adams are listed as being associated with the UCC. They were alive more than 100 years before the UCC was started, and were Unitarianists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.243.237 (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with this statement, beyond the John Adams/John Q. Adams, and Abigail Adams, there are several other members listed who predate the founding of this church. Unless there was some 18th or 19th century time machine that I am not aware of, I do not see how this could have been possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.218.71 (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The trick is that you have to read the entire sentence introducing this list: "This section lists notable people known to have been raised in or current members of the United Church of Christ or its predecessor denominations." [emphasis added] This includes people from the denominations that formed the UCC: Congregationalist, Reformed, and Evangelical. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's refocus our efforts a bit

I appreciate everyone's contributions and efforts, and the attempt to see that the 'current events' type information is not getting too biased one direction or the other. But, I would like to propose that perhaps some of us regular United Church of Christ article editors (including myself) start turning our attention to some other content additions that are probably a bit overdue. For instance:

• History of the United Church of Christ (that is, not the history of our predecessors or the story of the merger, but our 50 years of history since 1957)
• Stances on social issues (and not just the ones that seem to be 'controversial' within the UCC)
• Traditions and Practices (now, this is obviously a difficult set, given the diversity of the UCC, but I am of the mind that there are probably at least some unifying things in this regard that probably apply to most, even if not all, UCC congregations and settings -- as an example, maybe the survey results from Worshipping Into God's Future could give some guidance on practices of worship)
• Theological beliefs (again, a difficult one for the same reason; but again, we might be able to settle on some descriptors either of unifying characteristics, maybe guided by the overall thrust of the wider theological families and histories that most of our congregations come out of [Reformed and Lutheran], or perhaps some description of the range of diversity)
• The PCUSA article has info on membership demographics. Maybe we should too?

Well, anyway, those are some of my thoughts, having looked at the wiki-articles of some of our other mainline Protestant counterparts (PCUSA, ELCA, Episcopal, United Methodist, Disciples). Other thoughts--or better, just go straight to contributing--are certainly welcome. Emerymat 14:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the description of it as "mainline." Even if the majority of members disagree, the announcement by 80% of the 884 General Synod Delegates that same-sex marriage should be supported sets it far out of what can be defined as "mainline." Lordmanwe 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article on Mainline (Protestant) is probably a good place to start for this. See their definition for what constitutes mainline; tolerance and acceptance for LGBT matters is part of their definition. The Association of Religion Data Archives also lists the UCC as mainline. Most polls in the US show about half of the population supports same-sex marriage or civil union (more or less depending on how the question is worded). Agreeing with half the country seems to be fairly mainline, even if you personally disagree. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Among Christians, the UCC is the most liberal denomination in the United States. Being indistinguishable in viewpoint from the the secular world would not make the UCC mainstream, if it were. But, in fact, the UCC is well to the left of the midpoint on the United States' political spectrum on social and political positions, even though most American Christians are to the right of that midpoint.

For example, the UCC is strongly supportive of a woman's right to abort her unborn baby, at any stage of pregnancy, by any means, and for any reason. The UCC even supports the now-illegal partial-birth abortion method.[1] But 62% of Americans think that abortion should be legal only in extraordinary cases[2], and among Christians that majority is even higher. That makes the UCC far to the left of the mainstream on that issue. NCdave (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's understandable to think that "mainline" is the same as "mainstream"; the words are very similar. However, especially when talking about "mainline protestant," the word has a very specific meaning and isn't simply a synonym for "mainstream." Mainline here essentially means "non-evangelical protestant." These are churches with moderate to liberal theologies. The UCC as a denomination may be more on the liberal end of that spectrum, but it's still within the group of mainline denominations. Also keep in mind that the "mainline" doesn't actually mean the majority anymore; that was the case at one point, but isn't now with the rise of evangelicalism in the US. Your personal opinions about the UCC are, frankly, not relevant to the article. Let's focus this discussion on what is included in the article, not your disagreements with the denomination's views or manufactured statistics which aren't supported by the sources provided. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I second WeisheitSuchen's comment. The UCC fits the definition of "mainline" as outlined in the Wikipedia article on "mainline." That article even states that evangelicals are now larger in number than mainlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aejnqb (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Needless Proliferation of Colleges and Universities

I propose the deletion of this category: "Other historical colleges and universities (unrelated)." If they are truly unrelated, then why list them?

The explanation given seems tenuous at best: "These colleges and universities no longer maintain any relationship to the United Church of Christ, but were founded by or otherwise related historically to the denomination or its predecessors." This is sort of like saying that Catholics founded Harvard University, because it was "founded by or otherwise related historically to the" people who actually did found it. Besides, it doesn't make any sense to say that they "no longer maintain any relationship to the United Church of Christ," because this church didn't exist when these schools were founded.

This denomination-as-unification has only existed for a handful of decades and this article should reflect that fact.

I also agree with the person above who called the listing of the United Church of Christ as "mainline" preposterous. Josh a brewer (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the Wikipedia article about the meaning of mainline. The UCC clearly fits this definition. "Mainline" is a church term describing a historical category of church types, not a synonym for "mainstream." [Unsigned comment by User:Aejnqb 00:38, 5 October 2008]

This section is basically about the history of the denomination, including its predecessors. If a university was founded by Congregationalists and remained affiliated with the Congregationalist denomination for decades afterwards, then it's part of the history even if that relationship doesn't exist now. When looking at the long-term history, the predecessor denominations are included. The statement about no longer maintaining a relationship is necessary to differentiate it from the schools like Beloit College that have a loose relationship with the denomination. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If the schools were founded by Unitarians or Congregationalists, then they should be listed in those articles (and they are, in some cases). Maintaining various versions of "weak" relationships in this article seems pointless. Again, the United Church of Christ has only existed for a few decades. These colleges predate this denomination. I'm changing the misleading and unattributed quote that begins the section in question. Josh a brewer (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the Congregationalists and the other three denominations formally and completely merged into the UCC, I think it IS completely legitimate for the UCC to claim their histories, just as I claim the lineage of my maternal grandmother. She does not lose her heritage simply because she has married and changed her name. The group formerly known as Congregationalists is undoubtedly the UCC today, and many UCC churches are still called by their old names. That goes for the other 3 UCC ancestor churches too. That said, I think this article needs to be trimmed and the list of no-longer-related universities would be a good way to trim. I suggest eliminating the now-secular-but-formerly-related universities list, but keeping the historically-related-aka founded-but-no-longer-officially-affiliated seminaries list because the seminaries list is more directly relevant to an article about a religious denomination. [Unsigned comment by User:Aejnqb 00:38, 5 October 2008]

There are too many lists in general. This is an encyclopedia article and should read like one. The lists should go on their own pages. Leadwind (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The UCC is easily the most liberal Christian denomination in the United States, a fact which just about everyone in the UCC knows. But from this article you'd think it is middle-of-the-road. In fact, the article says that survey results suggest that there is "a nearly equal balance between liberal and conservative congregations" within the UCC, which is utterly absurd. If the UCC is moderate, then all the other American Christian denominations must be "conservative" by comparison (a characterization which many within those denominations would surely find hilarious).

The only more liberal denomination of any significant size in the United States is the Unitarians, and they do not characterize themselves as Christian.

This article has a section entitled "Criticism of conservative critics," containing lengthy attacks on conservatives by John Thomas, yet the article says nothing else about the conservative critics who are being criticized. If the conservatives are "critics," then one supposes that they must have expressed some criticisms, but we're given no clue about what those criticisms might be. The only things we are told about the "conservative critics" is how evil they are: they "collude" and employ "hardball" tactics, they are disingenuous about their intentions, they are "intent on disrupting and destroying our life together."

That is just bizarre: not only is one viewpoint completely omitted from the article, the article has a lengthy ad hominem rebuttal of that omitted viewpoint, leading the reader to wonder what all the fuss is about.

There are two renewal movement organizations in the UCC, Biblical Witness Fellowship (BWF) and the Evangelical Association of Reformed and Congregational Christian Churches, which seek to return the UCC to Biblical fidelity. Why aren't they mentioned in this article, except (in the case of BWF) in a section devoted to attacking them (as "conservative critics")?

WP:NPOV requires balance, but this article seems to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid balance.

This article needs to have:

1) An accurate characterization of the UCC as liberal, not contortions to make it seem to be middle-of-the-road, which we all know it is not.

2) Coverage of the renewal movement, including Biblical Witness Fellowship and the Evangelical Association of Reformed and Congregational Christian Churches.

3) A balance between the two sides in the ongoing argument between the "conservative critics" and renewal movement folks on one side, and their critics on the other.

In the meantime, I'll tag the article with an NPOV warning. NCdave (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to rename the section "Conservative Criticism of the UCC" or something to that effect and add a summary of the other perspective, I think that would be fine. However, keep in mind that NPOV does not require undue weight to be afforded to this minority position. The summary of the criticisms should be no longer than the response from the UCC.

The Evangelical Association of Reformed and Congregational Christian Churches probably isn't mentioned because they aren't actually within the UCC; with one exception, these are churches that have left the denomination. Why should a group that isn't actually part of the denomination be featured here? I don't actually see that as an NPOV problem.

I responded to your confusion of mainline/mainstream above; I think this is more about understanding what "mainline protestant" means than anything else. If you have a reliable source which says that the UCC isn't mainline, by all means share it. I think that the section on "Studies and surveys of beliefs" in the article has a excellent summary of how much of the denomination is liberal, moderate, and conservative. Do you have a source to back up your assertion that those results are "absurd"? If so, add it for balance; that would be fine. It looks like your arguments are based on your personal experiences though, which fall under the category of original research. Simply saying "everyone knows" isn't enough to warrant changing an article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that there are any NPOV issues that can be resolved here with reliable sources. This hasn't made any progress in several weeks. Unless someone has an objection, I'd like to remove the NPOV tag. Any thoughts? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any further discussion on this topic in a month, I'm removing the NPOV tag. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to inform the reader that the UCC is on the liberal side of mainline. Leadwind (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is way too long

As a normal user, reading this article looking for information related to Senator Obama, I find the article to be so long that it is hard to get the totalt overview. Pleace fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.174.145 (talk • contribs)

This article is at 78K and over 11,000 words, so it is on the long side. According to the rule of thumb says this should "probably should be divided." Moving the Polity and Structure section to a new article would cut around 1500 words; the Current Issues section is about 2800 words. Since some of those issues (Still Speaking and the 2005 Synod resolutions) already have separate articles, maybe the current issues could be summarized more succinctly. What makes the most sense to pull out as a side article? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article is too long and contains information that provides unnecessary levels of detail that make it less useful to the average encyclopedia user. I recommend eliminating: 1)the list of acronyms at the end; 2)eliminating the list of "Other historical colleges and universities (unrelated); 3)eliminating altogether the Other Theological Publications and Colloquiums section; 4) eliminating altogether the UCC Beliefs Expressed to the World Council of Churches section; 5)Possibly replacing the "Other Theological..." section with a link to the UCC's theology page which provides a more user-friendly sampling of current theological stances on various issues (unless that's a Wikipedia taboo). There is nothing wrong with these sections except that the article needs to be shorter in order to be more useful to the reader. Aejnqb (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)aejnqb—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aejnqb (talk • contribs) 01:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with taking out the acronyms and now-officially-unrelated colleges. That's about 550 words. (Actually, I'd prefer to actually see the now-officially-unrelated colleges retained, as that only saves about 100 words, but it's a compromise I'm willing to make.)

Rather than eliminating the Other Theological Publications and Colloquiums, I'd prefer to see this information retained in a separate article. It has sufficient citations to stand on its own. A link to the theology page could be included in External Links; I think that would meet the guidelines. This section is about 600 words; with a summary and link to a side article, we'd save about 500 here.

I disagree with removing the UCC Beliefs Expressed to the World Council of Churches section. It's only 55 words, so it doesn't substantively help reduce the length. This section does help situate the UCC in relation to the World Council of Churches though. With the questions about the UCC's mainline status being raised here repeatedly, I think that association helps.

Summary: Here's what I propose to start with for revisions. This will only cut about 1000 words total, so more will be needed.

1) Cut the acronyms section

2) Cut the list of Other historical colleges and universities (unrelated)

3) Move Other Theological Publications and Colloquiums to a separate article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How about changing the wording of that section [UCC Beliefs Expressed to the World Council of Churches] to: "In 1982 the World Council of Churches published "Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry" [link to the document http://www.oikoumene.org/index.php?id=2638 ], a document that has served as a foundation for many ecumenical recognition agreements. As a WCC member church, the United Church of Christ issued a response [link to the UCC response] as part of the process to work toward a statement of common theological perspectives." Or footnote links to both documents if that is the common Wikipedia practice. This wording would clarify that the UCC is participating in this process as a full-fledged member....the current wording sounded to me like a rebuttal, and does not include a reference to the document it rebuts. Following the footnote link to the UCC response, the reader encounters a document that takes a long time to get to the point and appears to nitpick about language. After reading more about the WCC Lima document, I have come to understand that the UCC response is not a rebuttal but rather is one of many member churches issuing these responses as part of the process to eventually clarify the language and further agreement, rather than as a rebuttal, which explains why it appears to nitpick about language. This proposed new wording would clarify the UCC's role as an active and cooperative participant in the WCC and the links to both documents would provide the highly motivated reader with a lot of useful stuff about specific theological issues. Aejnqb (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)aejnqb

I think that plan sounds good. What's the next step to make that happen? Aejnqb (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)aejnqb

Ah, OK. I guess I didn't understand it fully. Your rewrite makes more sense. Footnotes or references would be the common practice, rather than linking within the text. I'll put it in with references so you can see one way to do it. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is way too long, continuation

Why didn't this happen? I think that there are several sections that either should be their own article or already ARE their own article but are still too long on this page.

I don't know about cutting the list of other historical universities that are now unrelated. The UCC isn't really a branch off another denomination the way so many current denominations are, instead it almost wholly encompasses the denominations that were merged together and renamed UCC. Therefore, their history is the UCC's direct history, just from four different and under four different names. I found it very fascinating to see the colleges/universities that were associated with the historical denominations but that no longer hold ties to the UCC next to the ones that do.

Cut the acronym list. What a strange feature for a Wiki article! The only acronym that I think is important is "ONA", since it is in many places for church listings, and many won't know what it means since it's kind of a strange acronym. It's probably covered elsewhere though.

Not addressed yet: the Criticism of Conservative Critics section is extremely long and almost kind of stiff to read and hard to understand. Also, I recently visited this page for the first time, and I found the lack of history is a little disappointing. I would like to be informed more about recent history since the uniting of the denomination in addition to the history about the earlier denominations that's already in the article. twobluestripes (talk) 9:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It never happened just because I got caught up with other things in my life. Sorry, I have no better excuse than that. Let's leave the no longer officially related colleges here for the long term perspective and start by cutting the others. If you have time to start a new article with the "Other Theological Publications and Colloquiums," that would be great. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What about cutting most of the detail about the churches that combined to form the UCC in 1957? This will save 500+ words and won't lose any content, since each of the origin-churches already has an entry. Jhietala (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I implemented this. Jhietala (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The entire Other theological publications and colloquiums should be deleted. It's too detailed and specialized for an encyclopedic entry. Thoughts? Jhietala (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I originally thought that should be spun out to its own article, but after looking at it again today, I don't think there are enough citations for that to meet notability on its own. I'd be OK cutting that section since the references are light.

The Still Speaking section is really too long to be a summary; a lot of that content belongs in the subarticle instead of here. The same could be said for the "Controversial Resolutions from General Synod XXV (2005)"; a few sentences as summary and a link to the other article would be enough. The "Criticism of conservative critics" is also long, as noted by twobluestripes. Perhaps that should be a separate article too? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked through the "good" article for Orthodox Church in America, and reread the UCC page a few times and feel a bit at a loss for how to improve it within the current structure. I think the article would be much better if it were reorganized into a bit more of a logical order, instead of the organic growth that it seems to have undergone. By doing this, patterns might emerge that will help us figure out what to do with sections like "criticism of conservative critics," which I struggle to put into context. I think this might be a good structure:

• Origin & Beliefs;
  • Foundation of the UCC (which would basically be the current Origins section)
  • Beliefs of the UCC
    • Congregational polity & Constitution
    • Statement of Faith
    • Other historical testimonies
    • Relationships with other denominations
• Structure of the UCC
  • Local churches
  • Larger organizations
    • Associations
    • Conferences
    • General Synod
    • National offices
      • Covenanted ministries
      • Associated ministry
      • Affiliated ministry
• Activities of the UCC
  • Social activism
  • Sex education
  • God is still speaking identity campaign
  • Same-sex marriage
  • Criticism of the UCC by conservatives
• Notable UCC Churches
• Notable UCC Members
  • Contemporary members
  • Members of predecessor denominations
• ...

What do you think? I'm totally not married to this exact structure, but I think that the best result will start with a reorganization. Jhietala (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a much better structure. Though I would reccommend the Origins and Beliefs be separated into a History and a Beliefs section. Ltwin (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ltwin. The origins/history is about where the denomination came from; beliefs is about where it is now. But otherwise I think this is a great start for the structure. Once we all see it, I'm sure we'll decide to do some more juggling. Thank you for putting in the work on this. It's great to have a fresh set of eyes here. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, did it. I think it needs work, but the basic structure seems more sensible now. Jhietala (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think now we need to look at what needs to be put back. The membership numbers, for example, seem to be an important piece. You took that out of the lead (although the lead is where it is in Orthodox Church of America). I moved it to the "Membership Trends" section and renamed that section to "Membership."

When we have subarticles that have been split off, the goal isn't to have no reference or link to them at all, as you did. The goal is to have a WP:SUMMARY in this main article and a link to the other articles. For example, the Resolutions of United Church of Christ General Synod XXV should be mentioned and summarized here. I appreciate your enthusiasm for whittling this down, but you went too far there. The criticisms section can't be completely deleted if we're going to maintain WP:NPOV either. We can move that to a separate article and summarize it here, but that can't just vanish. We can't just pretend the UCC doesn't have critics.

I'm also going to put back the "historically related colleges" list, as it doesn't seem like there was actually consensus for that. What had previously been discussed was removing only the last third of that list; you removed the whole thing, which is way more than was discussed. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be an overview of the article, WP:Lead. So, ideally it should give the number of members. However, the membership can be covered in detail later in the article. Ltwin (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was overzealous on the colleges section; thanks for catching that. Jhietala (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle on the need for a way more detailed "criticism" section. But I disagree that the previous section belongs in this article. It presents an incredibly detailed analysis of the interrelation of numerous committees and organizations that is hard to understand unless you are thoroughly versed in the topic. Plus, it was phrased as kind of a double negative; it was really devoted the the UCC's criticims of committees and organizations who have criticized the UCC. I'll draft up an expanded criticism section and call few things out and hopefully generate some high-level explanations of the controversies and criticisms. Help here would be appreciated. Jhietala (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on the General Synod section. Resolutions from each particular synod are too narrowly-focused and specific for a top-level article. Neither the ELCA entry nor the Presbyterian_Church_(U.S.A.) has this level of detail. Certainly, though, to the extent that a controversy or item of interest implicates the synod, it should be included (and note that the synod made the decision). What do you think? Jhietala (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need the detail of every general synod here. After reviewing it again, I saw that you did include summaries of the two controversial resolutions from Synod 25, so I just added a link to the other article. I don't want super-detailed accounts here, but linking to the articles where more details can be found is helpful for people who do want to learn more.

You may have a point about the old criticisms and counter-criticisms section; that may be too much detail for Wikipedia. It's certainly too much for this article. Do we think that a separate article should be created with all that old content, or should it just be cut entirely because it's too specialized? I'm not sure. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm stumped on this one. I don't know if we need a new section because I don't really understand the issues involved. I have browsed a bit on the web looking for a good explanation, but I can't find a concise explanation. Does anybody out there have their arms around this controversy? Jhietala (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

various edits

I just made a bunch of edits to the page. Some probably aren't perfect, so take a look.

First off, let me say that I don't have an ax to grind. I don't care one way or another about the UCC being liberal. It looks like it is, and that's fine by me. I'm not UCC, and I don't care whether they agree with me on topics of the day.

Second, I tried basically to make the writing better, especially the lead. This is an encyclopedia article and should read like one. If I've stepped onto a land mine in the POV wars while trying to improve the content, please blow up nicely. Leadwind (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology Resolution

Is a resolution passed in 1993 with no current controversy really relevant for the "Current Issues" section? If there was an overall church history section, I'd say we could put it there, but I'm not sure it really belongs in the origins section either. This doesn't seem important enough to include in an article that is already on the long side.

Any objections to me cutting the section? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

New General Minister and President

Rev. Dr. Geoffrey Black is the new General Minister and President as of 10/1/2009. We should edit this article to reflect that. Perhaps someone with good background info on him can develop a separate article on him.claimman75 (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claimman75 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2