The Renewal/Reform Groups of the United Church of Canada
The Spirit of Methodism
Dr. Victor Shepherd
Ontario Theological Seminary
December 11, 1997
Statement of acknowledgement and thanks
This paper would not have been possible without the generous help
of Gail Reid, editor of
Fellowship Magazine, Dr. Graham Scott of Church Alive,
Irma Salmon, and especially Dr.
John Trueman, president of the Community of Concern, Dr. Bob
Blackburn, the secretary-treasurer
of the National Association of Covenanting Congregations and
Mrs. Verna Blackburn, chair of the
United Church Renewal Fellowship. Thanks are also extended to the
OBC/OTS library for having a
substantial collection of The Small Voice, Al Clarkson and
Katherine Mercuri for the
newspaper articles, Dr. Victor Shepherd for his teaching,
insight and inspiration, and my mother,
Carol Eileen Neilson Zachar, who believed I was ready to
reexamine my roots in the United Church
of Canada, so that I would rejoice and not be shamed. Thanks
also to Tony Copple for e-publishing
this paper and for Ron
Piggott for
his HTML
coding.
I hope the paper encourages you in your faith, especially those
remaining in the United Church of
Canada. Laurie-Ann
Zachar
This ecumenical desire to respond to other views was helpful
in the outreach of the 'social
gospel', but the horizontal dimension of the Christian faith must
always have its core the vertical
relation with Christ first. This balance was evident in the
twenty articles of Faith from the Basis of
Union (which are available in appendix A). This balance may be
understood through an analogy of
Christology, in that Christ is understood as both fully divine
and fully human. Descending
Christology, is often at the core of worship and liturgy,
particularly in the deeply meaningful seasons
of Christmas and Easter. Ascending Christology, that of focus on
Christ's human attributes is
embedded in his mission on earth: that of healing,
reconciliation with God, missions, and an
egalitarian focus in love. It is essentially the core of the Law
in fully loving God and neighbour (Matt.
22:36-39). Yet, if the authority factor in the vertical
relationship with God is compromised, and there
is more of an emphasis on love of neighbour, there is not only a
decreasing of holiness and the
power of the Holy Spirit, but also an increasing reliance on
adaption of culture. Contextualization
is an essential for Christian missions and apologetics to reach
those outside of the Church. Yet,
when this adaption turns into an adoption, there is a serious
decline.4 The core aspect of the vertical relationship that
has come repeatedly under
attack in the United Church concerns the authority of scripture
and the personhood of Christ. What
will be examined in this survey are these issues of imbalance,
the birth of the United Church
renewal/reform groups and their fight to "uphold the historic
Christian faith within the United Church
in Canada."5
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Precipitating Cause of Renewal
Movements: New
Curriculum
"He recalled [that] Ernest Long, then Executive Secretary of General Council, predict[ed] that if the church continued in the direction she was going --- at the rate she was going --- we would be out of business in ten years . . . In a desperate effort to reverse the trend, a decision was made to publish 'The New Curriculum.' That action aroused many of us who had been apathetic about the mission of the church. It revealed the fact that, for many years, our ministers had been taught a theology which did not accept the Bible as the inspired, authoritative word of God. They were taught to look critically at the Scriptures rather than [or instead of] seeking the message which God had to teach them through His written word. That realization sent shock waves throughout the church. It was evident that executive positions in church headquarters had been filled by theologians who were committed to a liberal theology which explained away the miracles and avoided any reference to the necessity of the new birth through faith in Jesus Christ. [italics mine]"10
McCaig believes that the New Curriculum was the 'writing on the wall' for those who could read it.11 "The innovative 'New Curriculum' Sunday School material, published by the church in 1964 and 1965, became for the renewal-minded the warning-call to arms. At issue was the way the material quietly questioned many of the biblical miracles, focused on Jesus' humanity while minimizing his divinity, and sidestepped such topics as the need for personal forgiveness and the 'new birth.' In the name of 'biblical scholarship' and 'relevance', the authority and the clear teaching of Scripture were being compromised [italics mine]"12 This also led to a conflict between the gospel message and social service. Says Cumming, "this was very unfortunate, because we realized that the two are inseparable and interdependent."13Even the advance of the gospel was understood in a variety of ways "by people in the United Church. [Says Chambers], it may mean a preaching mission for some, or work for social justice for others. Some church members would describe themselves as evangelical; others would not."14 There was also another contributing factor to the increasing secularization to both the church and the surrounding culture in Canada. Crysdale attributes some of this change of attitude among the laity as well as the clergy, to the effects of urbanization. His findings were due to the results of a poll of United Church members and adherents in the 1960's. He believes that "people whose style of life was not highly urbanized preferred the traditional interpretations of belief, whereas highly urbanized people had a preference for liberal theology."15
Some members of the United Church began what would be a
steady exodus at this time.
Says Cumming, "many members took the attitude that they could
not remain in a church which to
some extent denied the authority of God's written Word and they
left to join other denominations.
Some of that number felt that they were no longer welcome in
their churches where they had been
trying to uphold the historic scriptural doctrines of the
Christian church."16 Yet, God was faithful, and did not leave
the United Church without a
witness. A handful of concerned ministers and lay people began
meeting to formulate a response.
In 1966 the Renewal Fellowship was born.17
Return To The Table Of
Contents
United Church Renewal Fellowship 1966
"The United Church Renewal Fellowship began as a response to a growing rebellion in society and the church. A growing number of people refused to remain in a denomination that permitted and encouraged such rebellion. Others expressed the need to promote from within the Biblical foundation of the Church as the Body of Christ."18 Cumming also notes that many members and adherents in the United Church were not growing spiritually, due to lack of nurture (no small groups and few mature Christians willing to mentor new believers), and very little scriptural teaching. There were so many starving Christians!19 He believes that the Spirit, Truth and fellowship are essential for growth. All three were to be essential elements in the UCRF, as well as prayer, evangelism and missions, social service and discipleship20. Concerning the importance of fellowship, Cumming shares some of his own story: "If I could prepare a graph illustrating my spiritual growth over the past thirty years, I am sure it would indicate the most progress during the periods when I was closely involved with a group of fellow Christians who were studying the Word and praying together. At times when that kind of fellowship was lacking, I was surely backsliding or, at best, making little progress."21 The emphasis on small groups was also one that resurfaced in the UCRF in Fellowship 1993.22 [Which ironically the Observer finally addressed in June 1997]23
The concern about the lack of scriptural authority in the church, and the increasing alienation from the roots of the United Church were part of the call of the Renewal Fellowship. As a result of the increasing liberalization of the clergy, the "lay people, who sat in the church pews Sunday after Sunday, were being underfed and the Church was suffering from acute spiritual malnutrition [italics mine].24 Thus, During the summer of 1965, one young United Church minister, Rev. Ronald McCaw,25 was deeply concerned about "the need for a fellowship where Christians could join together in sounding a clear scriptural message with one voice to the church. After much prayer, [he contacted] Rev. Bill Thornloe who shared the same concern for the church. [They in turn] called on Rev. Vic Wood who was one in the Spirit with them. ...[and were so encouraged that they believed there were many more who would have the same vision]."26 Although it may have been clergy who were the originators with the vision, this fellowship was not to be exclusively a clergy community. It was to include "all kinds of ordinary grass-roots people within the United Church of Canada who wish to uphold the [original] 20 Articles of Faith [that were] agreed upon by the uniting churches in 1925. ... [It was also to become] a 'place' within the United Church where ... the basic common concern was biblical teaching... encouragement and Christian fellowship, [which was not meant to] replace congregational worship and fellowship, but [instead] to strengthen it."27
The next step was a gathering at the Sundial Restaurant in Orillia in early October, 1965. There were ten ministers and their spouses in attendance. After a prayerful confirmation concerning their meeting, they agreed to meet again. Charlotte Mackenzie, a clergy spouse, offered her services as secretary, and faithfully continued this ministry until 1981.28 Lay involvement began early in the UCRF, and two new members were added to the nascent ad-hoc group. On March 12, 1966, the members were challenged by the "need of a rallying point within the Church" by Rev. Bill Hincks, a missionary who was home on furlough (from Zambia).29 Says Cumming, [they] accepted his challenge and advice, and the United Church Renewal Fellowship was officially organized.30 A constitution was prepared, the objectives were articulated, and the original articles of faith (from the Basis of Union) were upheld as soundly based in scripture. Says Cumming, we established a membership which was open to all United Church members and adherents who subscribed to our statement of faith."31 A prayer letter was sent periodically to the members who identified with us. It [eventually] became a little magazine which [was] called The Small Voice, [and in 1987, the higher quality Renewal Fellowship Magazine which later became Fellowship Magazine in 1993].32 Says McCaig concerning the evolution of the magazine, "The Small Voice evolved into Fellowship Magazine and has become an independent freestanding renewal publication managed by representatives of all the renewal groups. With its mandate to portray faithfulness to Jesus Christ and to the orthodox Christian faith. Fellowship Magazine is still growing in readership and influence."33 Members of the fellowship were also encouraged to gather into regional 'chapters.'
The first plan of the group was fervent prayer,34 and it was soon discovered that those who desired renewal also needed it themselves.35 In 1972, Lloyd Cumming was reluctantly but sovereignly led to become the Field Secretary of UCRF. This was to be a lay position that was apostolic and pastoral in his travels across the country; and he was to encourage and minister to the regional Chapters.36 This position was later sovereignly filled by Bailey and Ethel Snow in 1984, while also continuing leadership at the then thriving Woodbridge United Church.37 During his office as Field Director, Cumming increasingly began to see the United Church as a mission field,38 and when he was interviewed by David Mainse on 100 Huntley Street, he began to formulate the understanding of the group as a grass-roots movement, when he defended the intentions of UCRF to stay within the United Church of Canada.39 He thus believed that the lay leadership of UCRF would be an added precaution that would prevent a splitting off into another denomination. Says Cumming concerning this insight, (with the memory of the group being sovereignly led to not have an ordained person as Field Secretary): "I realized that, if we had followed our own way ... we would have sent out one of our outstanding preachers as an evangelist, who could , conceivably become a John Wesley. The Renewal Fellowship could have become a movement which was focused on one dynamic leader, [and he or she] could have [unintentionally] led a large number of members out of the United Church. Surely, God spaced us from falling into that trap."40
Even though the fellowship was no splinter movement, it was
at times misunderstood as a
threat; and at other times, it was ignored by the official
administration of the United Church. Says
McCaig, "from the beginning, the official structures of the
church refused to acknowledge the
renewal movement. Unlike the Roman Catholic and Anglican
Churches, which have always accepted
and recognized their 'renewal wings', the United Church dismissed
its renewal movement as
irrelevant at best, and as harmful and divisive, at worst. The
irony was that for many United Church
Christians, the Renewal Fellowship was the only sustaining link
that kept them from leaving. In the
end, however, the Renewal Fellowship could not stem the tide."41 Although the early years did meet with
opposition, a spiritual breakthrough
came in the autumn of 1976, and continued through the early
1980's. This breakthrough was the
Charismatic Renewal, which had "an emphasis on the manifestion
and operation of the gifts of the
Holy Spirit in personal lives."42
The Charismatic Renewal was essential in some congregations
in bringing in new Christians
into the United Church, and in bringing new life to the grass
roots in some areas. The members of
the Fellowship had been involved in evangelistic and discipleship
preparation through Dr. Robert
Coleman's Master Plan of Evangelism.43
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Charismatic Renewal Affects Grass
Roots in Certain Locale
Dr. Clark Pinnock also contributed an article to The Small Voice in the autumn of 1974, on the charismatic movement. He not only defended the issue of including the work of the Spirit so to avoid 'bitarianism,'47 but he also suggested to avoid the two extremes of views on charismatic gifts. UCRF was seeking to include both charismatic and non-charismatic members, and that experiences of this type were in no way to be a source for pride, or a condition of membership. Pinnock also pointed out that extreme of insisting on the gift of tongues as the only evidence of the Spirit was not biblical. Of the other extreme, that of refuting all charismatic gifts, Pinnock goes into greater detail. He says,
"A minority of us would go further and argue that all supra-normal gifts ceased being given after the close of the apostolic age. This view, first developed by Augustine, has become has become influential among present day evangelicals through the writings of B.B. Warfield. ... Even if it could be established (which it cannot) that the supra-normal gifts were withdrawn, we could not safely conclude that the Spirit is incapable of bestowing them again should the need arise. We have no right to try to bind God's hands with a tenuous theological theory that has the effect of denying him the power to grant spiritual gifts to his Church." 48Cumming believed that this article had a tremendous benefit for UCRF in clarifying confusion. "Dr. Pinnock's thoughtful article proved to be an invaluable help as we moved forward in our renewal ministry within the United Church. As I met with [regional] groups in different areas, I discovered a wide variety of emphases on the Holy Spirit's movement. Some groups had been exposed to para-church ministries which were placing a strong emphasis on the charismatic gifts, and they were experiencing a freedom and joy in their worship and fellowship. Other groups had not progressed in that direction but were growing in grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18)."49 Although there were a number of whole congregations that were affected by the renewal50 much of the work of the Spirit affected individual members in a sovereign way. Says Cumming, "we had gradually realized that [God] was at work in individual life and through them the church was growing spiritually. We heard God saying to us, 'you pray and I will renew My church'. That took the pressure off and set us free to concentrate on encouraging His disciples wherever we found them [in the United Church]."51
At times during the UCRF family camp meetings (which began
in 1980 after
discovering the need),52 there were calls to
absolute surrender, as more and more members were called into
active lay service. Since the
movement was thriving, there was also need for legal protection
against growing opposition.
At the Fifteenth Annual meeting, delegates " worked their way
through a difficult business
session as confirmation was given to the boards' action in
establishing the Renewal Fellowship
as a legally incorporated organization. The purpose was to
give legal status to
[UCRF] and to provide a measure of personal protection to the
board members."53 One form of opposition
to renewal came in the
form of presbytery's response to the turmoil that often comes
when new or renewed Christians
become involved in a power struggle between traditional Church
members, who should have
been available to mentor the younger Christians. "It became
increasingly evident that many
of the influential people in the [church] bureaucracy viewed
the movement as a threat,"54 and this is shown in
the following scenario.
Says Cumming, "[the] mature members failed to recognize their
responsibility to nurture the
new Christians and help them grow. Tensions built up and
resulted in outright divisions in
many congregations. Presbytery officials were called in to
discharge their responsibility to deal
with those explosive situations. The procedure has been to lay
the blame on the pastor ... for
failing to maintain the peace and welfare of the congregation;
[and often pastors were put on]
the discontinued service list."55 The UCRF
came to the defense of these pastors by emphasizing that it was
the fault of the Church as
a whole and the seminaries for not giving adequate training for
the pastors to handle renewal,
and that presbytery was unclear concerning pastoral function.
Says Cumming, "when a
presbytery executive condemns a minister who has been trying to
follow [the outlined]
objectives [in ministering in sacrament, Word and pastoral
care], it would appear that they are
aiming at [another] list of [unknown] priorities."56 Yet, on a small level, many lives were being
affected and made stronger
as Christ's disciples in the United Church. The church historian
Ian Rennie also has expressed
optimism even as late as 1987. Says Rennie, My contacts within
the United Church make me
feel there is a strong Methodist sentiment which stresses
evangelism and personal religion."57 Surely, Dr. Rennie was
thinking of
UCRF.
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Positive Focus in Theology,
Discipleship, Evangelism and
Prayer
The UCRF always encouraged prayer, evangelism,
discipleship and sound
theology. Often the faithful were prompted to pray throughout
weekend retreats, the regional
chapters and in nearly every issue of The Small Voice.
It was the Fellowship's very
first mandate, and they never forgot it. Donald Lamont
encouraged the intercessors in the
context of faithfulness in continuing when the task seems
impossible. He declared:
"Throughout scripture, we see God working patiently through a
faithful people who have stuck with
it even when it seemed an impossible task; [and he reminded
them of a renewal that happened in
a dying church in Dewberry Alberta, and that presbytery had
granted permission for their four point
charge to be reorganized so that ministry could be invested in
them]. [He reminded the readers
that] there are major phrases concerning praying for a renewed
church. [These are] the [praying
and] faithful remnant, the turning point, and [then]
renewal."58
Concerning urgent prayer and apologetics for orthodox yet
nondogmatic theology, UCRF
responded to the Inclusive language issue and organized a
prayer vigil for the General
Council during August 15 - 24, 198059. Says
Riordan, "for the Renewal Fellowship, the signs of 'moral decay
[were] clearest in matters of
gender and sexuality."60
Reluctantly the
Fellowship was forced to protest issues, rather than the
exclusive ministry of evangelism,
discipleship and fellowship, although Bob Taylor exhorted the
UCRF to "never forget the
purpose of the organization."61 They
were to be first a people who seek first the kingdom of
God and his righteousness (Matt
6:33). This meant that the members had to walk a very fine line
as intercessors, but they could
not remain silent about the increasing liberalization in the
areas of Christian initiation, inclusive
language, and the issue of homosexuality in the pulpit (Eze.
3:17, 33:6-7). In 1974, 1988 and
1991, God was to raise up other groups for that purpose, but UCRF
was still like the watchman
on the wall. Concerning a positive theological focus, Garbe
called attention to the Reformation
doctrines of the United Church, such as justification by faith,
the authority of scripture,
and the priesthood of believers (thus encouraging grass roots to
be active even if ignored). UCRF
also published two books about historical doctrines, to help
nourish those interested in the roots
of their church, and for the many who needed an anchor and
structure that was grounded in
scripture. These were Our Inheritance: On its 50th Anniversary
The United Church of Canada
has special opportunity to renew its faith through a study of its
official doctrine, in 1975, and
We have an Anchor: A Searching Study of The Basis of Union of
the United Church of
Canada, in 1985. The first book contains doctrine from the
United Church's forbearers and
the Twenty Articles, as well as a reminder of the evangelical
heritage of the Evangelical United
Brethren who on the basis of agreement with the [original
Twenty Articles], became a
part of the [UCC] on January 1, 1968.62 The
second book was concentrated on the Twenty articles with
accompanying homilies that
expanded and applied the doctrines of God, Revelation, Divine
Purpose, Creation and
Providence, Sin, the Grace of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy
Spirit, Regeneration, Faith and
Repentance, Justification and Sonship, Sanctification [including
the Wesleyan doctrine of
Christian perfection], Prayer, the Law, the Church, the
Sacraments, the Ministry, Church Order
and Fellowship, Resurrection, the Last Judgement and Future Life,
and on Christian Service and
the Final Triumph.63
Concerning evangelism and discipleship, the book Master
Plan of Evangelism
became the text and goal in the Fellowship for evangelism and
discipleship.64 In 1971, John Griffin
was concerned about the
structure of confirmation classes, and that it should not be
merely disseminating information, but
also imparting new life through evangelism. Says Griffin,
"Confirmation is the beginning of
a new life, not the point where you have learned so much
material that you deserve
to be a church member."65 Gordon Hunter
declared in 1982 that there [was] no alternative to evangelism,
[and it was important] to get back
to basics."66 This
discipleship concern was also
reflected in the care and nurture of emerging leadership. In an
1980 issue of The Small
Voice, there was a highlight on newly ordained promising
theological students, and a call
to prayer to raise up clergy dedicated to UCRF principles.67 At least one hundred new evangelical clergy were
'prayed in' by a
Newfoundland chapter of the UCRF,68 due to a
call to prayer about 260 pulpit vacancies in 1977.69 This was surely an answer to prayer, because
there often was a bias against
evangelical students entering the ministry. Says Cumming,
"The discrimination against evangelical students in our
theological colleges is becoming
more intense, to the extent that, in some cases, evangelical
candidates for the ministry are being
discouraged from enrolling. These and other threatening
issues must be addressed if the United
Church is to be saved from self-destruction [italics mine]."
70
However, the grass roots did not share this attitude toward
emerging clerical leadership or lay
executives, and this was shown through the example of a
congregation being led to support
UCRF leadership through the Mission and Service Fund.71 Yet this support was not always available
through official membership. Many
United Church members and clergy supported and prayed for the
Fellowship, agreed with the
sound theology, yet did not join "for various reasons."72 Some of the reasons were out of fear, as the
UCRF was labelled as being
narrow-minded, militant and exclusive.73
However, unceasing prayer and watchfulness continued to be a
priority as another reform group
was raised up.
Church Alive
This organization started as an ad-hoc group that was
concerned about the
theological drift of the United Church from her roots, but still
affirmed and cared for the Church.
Dr. Graham Scott, a founding leader of the group, had been active
long before the establishment
of Church Alive. According to Riordan, in 1968, he called the
New Creed [which is in Appendix
C] sub-Christian and implicitly heretical; [because] it
downplayed [Jesus'] divinity, and thus took
a unitarian rather than a Catholic [Trinitarian?] stance."74 Riordan asked why Dr. Scott did not join the
Renewal Fellowship, and was
given a reply that he was essentially a liberal evangelical and
not a conservative one. Said
Scott, "The UCRF was inclined to see the Scriptures as
infallible, I cannot accept that it is
infallible.75
Though I admire the UCRF, I could not join it because I could
not buy that particular party
line.' So, says Riordan, in 1974, he and five others formed
their own group, Church Alive."76
This group became a theological association and
spiritual fellowship that
emphasized both "head and heart faith in Jesus Christ. It was
founded out of a felt need for
critical Biblical scholarship and an emphasis on
the sacramental life."77 Says Scott, "The name
'Church Alive' is best
understood as a prayer to God the Father that His Church may be
truly alive in His Son
Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit."78
An adhoc committee of concerned United Church clergy (from the
Montreal and Ottawa areas,
Scott, Gordon Ross from North Bay, a former Presbyterian Kenneth
Barker (who was to be the
editor of the organization's publication, Theological Digest
and Outlook), and Professor
Kenneth Hamilton of Winnipeg )79 was formed
in 1973.80
Convinced of the need for
ongoing ministry, this committee incorporated as Church Alive on
May 28, 1974. "The Founding
Directors were the late Dr. G. Campbell Wadsworth, Dr. Victor
Fiddes, Dr. C. Daniel Matheson,
Professor Kenneth Hamilton, Dr. Graham Scott, Rev. Gordon Ross,
and diaconal minister Judith
Richards (now [married to] Gordon Ross)."81 The
next step was to become incorporated for legal protection through
the "Ministry of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs. This allowed them to obtain charitable,
tax-exempt status, which later turned
to be useful."82
According to Hoover, Kenneth Barker was at first reluctant
to officially join the group,
because he believed it created an "unnecessary polarization [and
reduced their concern] to a
mere 'party' within the UCC."83 He was
concerned with what could be construed as party spirit,
polarization, negative dogmatism and
traditionalism. Said Barker, "I prefer an approach which affirms
positive support for the
historic Christian Gospel and a far more positive attitude to our
heritage."84 On February 14, 1974 in Montreal the
group produced a manifesto
entitled '15 Affirmations of Lent' ; "an urgent call to
the Church ' to a more serious
commitment to its theological foundations and to a more positive
affirmation of Christian faith.85 This manifesto, was
revised by the group in a
positive declaration of faith (this statement is
available in Appendix D). "This document
was circulated to all Ministers of the United Church for
signature, and by June 30 [1974], it had
been signed by over five hundred Ministers and members; [and] it
was reviewed sympathetically
in The Princeton Seminary Bulletin in the Summer of
1974.86 Of note, one of the theological practices that
the Affirmations attacked, in
true Wesleyan fashion, was that of innovation and doctrinal
distortion (that was to continue to
rock the church).87
"[The Affirmations were also
mailed to all 2,000 United Church ministers at that time, with
eventually 200 ministers and 300
members subscribing to it. The United Church Observer
under A Forrest gave it
sympathetic coverage,"88
as did the widely
publicized "Appeal for Theological Affirmation, [an
interdenominational] American
publication produced in January 1975."89
The objectives of Church Alive became fivefold: that of
making a clear Biblical Witness
to Jesus Christ crucified, risen and exalted; to encourage
rigorous theological enquiry and
discussion; to challenge doctrinal inadequacies; to encourage
spiritual growth through prayer,
Bible learning, sacramental worship and other means of grace; and
to encourage a truly
prophetic approach to the culture and society in which we live.90 The first official publication of Church Alive
was called Affirmations,
which was edited by Rev. Ed McCaig. "Special mailings were
sent to the commissioners of
the 1978 and 1984 General Councils on the subjects of the task
force on Ministry and of sexual
orientation and eligibility for the order of ministry."91 It was truly for this witness that this group
was called, and more. A second
publication, the Theological Digest, which later
added 'and Outlook'
to its title also became a widely distributed bulletin. Says
Scott, "In 1984 Ken Barker, alarmed
at trends in the United Church, suggested a newsletter digesting
theological journals and with
Board approval published the first issue of Theological Digest
in January 1986. The July
issue included an article on inclusive language, and quantities
were shipped to the General
Council meeting in Sudbury. Barker served as editor from 1986 to
1989.92
The first retreat took place at the monastery of the
Anglican Society of St. John the
Evangelist in Bracebridge; the first conference was held at
Victoria Park Church in Scarborough
and included a paper by Professor David Demson of Emmanuel
College."93 Theologically stimulating retreats were
to continue, at Cedar Glen and
other places; and Church Alive would continue to be a cosponsor
of the conferences Faithfulness
Today I, II and III.93
The long term goals that
were being discussed in 1993 also included publishing "TD&O four
times a year, and providing
chaplaincy support for theological students who find their faith
challenged and/or undermined
at seminary. [Says Scott,] We see the need for a theological
college that would build up
students' faith and enable lay leaders to strengthen their
faith."94
"continuing cooperation with the other renewal groups [may
lead] to an intermediate goal, the
creation of an umbrella organization that would make unified
financial appeals and hopefully provide
solid and substantial funding for all four renewal groups. ....
Meetings with renewal executives from
American denominations [also has suggested] that we have more
in common with renewal people
in other denominations that with the practicing agnostics,
selective relativists and politically correct
ideologues who seem to dominate our own church courts. Besides
continuing to renew their dying
denominations, renewal leaders are looking to share the Gospel
with the unchurched of our
continent. Will we be able to explore interdenominational
renewal cooperation in discipleship and
evangelism, while also striving to cooperate in relief,
development and community-building? This
could prove to be the most exciting long-term goal of all." 95
Church Alive was also influential in the start of one other
renewal group, the Community
of Concern in 1988, and also was influential in the covenanting
movement in 1991. The role of
Church Alive in this fashion shall only be briefly discussed.
In March 1988 a report called,
'Sexual Orientation, Lifestyles and Ministry' (SOLM), burst among
United Church people. On
March 17 Kenneth Barker, Graham Scott, Bill Fritz and Dr. A.
Gardiner Skelly, all of Church Alive,
and Rev. Allan Logan, met at Central Church, Weston. "The group
accepted Barker's draft of a
statement of dissent and called for a meeting of interested
persons at Central on April 8. [Over
250 people were present from throughout the country, and the
Community of Concern was born.
Church Alive continued to endorse this new group, but was not
identical with it]."96 After this Declaration
of Dissent was signed by
32,000 lay people and 1,022 ministers and missionaries, and four
moderators, it was sent to
Council.97
"Congregations also sent petitions to
General Council in unprecedented quantity --- 1,983 in all,
opposing ordination of practicing
homosexuals. TD&O produced a special issue in May and mailed it
to all General Council
commissioners -- all to no avail, since Council approved a
statement concocted during Council
called 'Membership, Ministry and Human Sexuality' (MMHS)."98
This unfortunate decision was anticipated and in turn, the
response was the covenanting
movement. Scott and his associates in both Church Alive and
Community of Concern drafted a
covenant now known as 'The Commissioners' Covenant" [in
Appendix F]. "The
covenant, along with a commentary, were published in a special
August 1990 issue of TD&O. At
the same time, concerned people in Alberta were writing a shorter
covenant. The result of
individuals and congregations signing one or other covenant (or
both) was the formation in
September 1991 of the National Alliance of Covenanting
Congregations, with Rev. Rick Prieston
as first president [it is now Dave Snihur]."100
Thus, Church Alive was essentially apostolic in helping other
movements come into being, as well
as handling issues itself.
Remit on Christian Initiation and the
Inclusive Language
Issue
This next issue again concerns scriptural authority. Within
this remit on Christian initiation
was an attempt to revise church membership on baptism only,
which was a contradiction of the
necessity of conversion as well as the Articles 9, 10, 11, 12.101 The Session of Scotland, Ontario included a
critique to this remit in a 1983
issue of The Small Voice. Concerning ambiguity of initial
membership, they asked, "What
will take the place of 'confirmation?' The church has a
responsibility to bring people to
commitment in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. What will provide
the motivation for young
people and how will this be accomplished under the new system
if they are already
considered members?"102 However, this
issue did not pass the votes of the congregations. According to
Cumming, the presbyteries
were divided, but the congregations voted it out by a 2/3
majority!103 Cumming believes this
action was significant
for the following reasons: because it signified more acceptance
of scripture's authority by a
majority; and it "also provided a precedent that the grass
roots could affect church
government decisions." Many church leaders are insensitive to
ordinary members, and often
have arbitrary imposed agendas, but in this issue, it really was
'majority rules.'104
The second issue, which was introduced in the 28th General
Council in 1980, was the
inclusive language concern. Says Cumming:
"A motion was passed committing the church to eliminating
'male' words in church publications.
These would include hymnbooks, the Manual, Service Book, the
New Creed, Christian Education
resources and other Divisional materials . . . The whole
concept had been instigated by a [radical]
feminist movement which was crusading on behalf of women who,
they felt, were being subjected
to discrimination and injustice. They objected to the 'male
oriented' language of the Bible and they
were insisting on changes that would give women equal status
with men."105
Thus, God was to become Father-Mother, and Jesus became the
Child, even when portraying
the adult Jesus. This was not fully put into practice in every
congregation when it went beyond
the simple Sons of God to Children of God.106
At times inclusive language could also be clumsy and awkward,
which was the main critique of
writer and UCRF member Maxine Hancock at General Council. She
understood this issue from
three perspectives: that of her "allegiance to the scriptures;
... by honouring the Living Word,
Jesus Christ, who addressed God as 'Father'; and third, by
giving respect to the
English language which was being misused by the clumsy
expressions in the inclusive
language which our church leaders were trying to thrust upon
us."107 Again, the issue was scriptural
authority, as well as opening the door
for feminizing God. God the Father was never scripturally
portrayed as male, but as one
who gives a fatherly relationship.108 John Tweedie continued to raise awareness of
this issue as symptom of
the cultural change that was connected with the erosion of church
doctrine. As the church
continued to adopt more and more of the surrounding culture in
the name of relevance, the very
foundations were crumbling. Says Tweedie:
"This is but one example of the communication problem that
exists within the church. We, in the
Renewal Fellowship, have raised our voices of concern all
across the church, a concern that is well
documented in our publication on inclusive language. Let us
pray that our expression of concern will
be given serious consideration at all levels of the church's
life . . . As those who seek renewal for
the church, let us never be afraid to speak out for what is
true. Let us also be diligent in praying that
those who have responsibility for decision-making in the
church, will have 'Ears to hear
what the Spirit is saying to the church' through members in
numerous congregations across the
land."109
Crisis: the Issue - 1984 Precursor and
1988
The issue of homosexuality in the church was considered by
1984 General Council, and
then in a different form in 1988 concerning the ordination of
practicing homosexuals
(despite clear scriptural teaching that would condemn the
practice). Since the late 1970's and
even stronger in the 1980's the UCRF emphasized that homosexuals
can be healed through
Jesus, that it is learned behaviour, and they continued their
tradition of testimonials especially in
this area. Cumming gives an example of one of these testimonies,
that also happened to be the
first field assignment of Bailey and Ethel Snow. Says Cumming:
"One of the Field Secretary team's first assignments was to
present the Renewal Fellowship at
the historic meeting of General Council in Morden, Manitoba.
We had arranged for three healed
homosexual persons to be there. Bailey introduced them to the
appropriate sessional committee
where they had an opportunity to share their testimonies of
how God had delivered them from the
bondage of homosexuality. Many commissioners had their eyes
opened, for the first time, to the
positive side of the issue that was dividing, not only General
Council, but the whole church. We
believe that impact of the testimonies of our three friends was
a strong influence in defeating the
motion to ordain homosexuals [in 1984]"110
The leaders of UCRF believed that there was an initial victory
that day. Says Cumming, "While
we breathed a sigh of relief, it was evident that, even though a
strategic battle had been won, the
war was not over. The next day after the crucial vote was taken,
wheels were set in motion to
prepare church members to accept practicing homosexuals into the
order of ministry four years
later."111
A highly
acclaimed professional video
called "Homosexuality . . . a new direction" was produced in
1985,112 and one of those on the study group
concerning homosexuality was
a former homosexual himself, John Howard. This section deals
with 'the Issue' as it is called by
Riordan.113
When the
Issue first surfaced, the
renewal groups had to reluctantly deal with it although they
declared that it was already declared
as sin in scripture. Said Cumming in 1983:
"[The UCRF] receives letters from many United Church members
expressing deep concern about
the evident movement to ordain practicing homosexuals in the
United Church. We regret the
necessity of becoming involved in this controversy. We have
tried to maintain a positive emphasis,
sounding the message of the gospel of Jesus encouraging people
to receive him, and to respond
to His call to discipleship. We believe that, as our people
grow in that experience, the church
will be renewed and we will have no time to waste even
discussing issues where the Scriptures take
a clear position. However, we are faced with a situation
where leaders in our church are trying
to influence us to accept self-declared, practicing
homosexuals into the order of ministry. This was
very evident in the sixteen page copy of 'Issue' published by
Division of Communication (paid for
by our givings to 'Missions') which is evidently trying to
soften us and melt down our resistance to
the point where we will accept their distorted position
sometime in the not-too distant future.114
The UCRF stance continued to be their version of 'hate the
sin-but-love-the-sinner.' The
smokescreen of the report of being neighbourly was not to cloud
the concern of considering
homosexuality as a sin, and that Christians are to treat the
homosexual person the same as any
other sinner. Says Cumming, "Our mission is, hopefully, to
introduce him/her to our Lord who is
waiting to forgive ALL who turn to Him in repentance and accept
each one into His kingdom,
deliver each one from the bondage in any way, cleanse them from
all unrighteousness [etc.]."115 The Renewal Fellowship
members were
encouraged to not waste energy in becoming defensive and
dogmatic, but to continue mentoring
disciples for Christ.116
Ralph Garbe also was concerned about the attack of
scriptural authority in this matter,
and spoke out in The Small Voice and CBC radio. Says
Garbe,
"The teachings of Scripture on the matter of homosexual
practice are clear. It condemns it. Recent
pro-homosexual interpretations of passages such as Genesis
1:27, 2:24, 19:1-29, Leviticus 18:22,
21:13; Romans 1:18-32, 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 as
being too ancient to apply
to our day, unclear, wrongly interpreted in the past, based on
ignorance or insufficient in number
to build a case against homosexual practice is one of the most
flagrant attempts to wiggle out from
under Biblical authority. .... This matter becomes crucial for
the future of Biblical authority that can
be confirmed by observation of natural phenomenon and reason,
how shall we ever accept Biblical
authority in matters that are beyond natural observation and
reason, especially if someone decides
that these teachings are uncomfortable, inconvenient, offensive
to one's sensibilities or disagreeable
to a certain group? What happens, for instance, to Biblical
authority in teachings about Christ,
heaven and hell, sin and salvation, [and] the nature of
God? [see Phipps issue] Will what we believe about these
things be determined by what seems
'reasonable', 'nice,' 'inoffensive,' or by Biblical
authority?"117
The UCRF paid for a full page advertisement in one
of the fall issues of the 1984
Observer, and urged that the grass roots that the 'time
had come' to stand up and be
counted.118 The
pro-gay group Affirm did
the same with another issue of the Observer.119
Other voices echoed the UCRF concerning the attack on
scriptural authority, such as Donald
Faris:
"The homosexual ideology like a TROJAN HORSE, will bring
[non-Christian] underlying ideologies
into the church. If these non-biblical, or one might even say
antibiblical, ideologies can
capture the church, in what sense will the church remain
Christian? If the authority of the
one Word of God, Jesus Christ, as attested in the Scriptures,
is replaced by the authority of
ideologies from the dominant culture, are we still dealing with
Christianity? Are not these ideologies
being granted the status of a new revelation, superior
to the revelation in Jesus Christ?"122
At the 30th Council in 1984, the major controversy
specifically focused on acceptance
of self-declared practicing homosexuals into the
membership, by affirming their
humanity; thus bearing the image of God. Chambers does not
mention about the
attempt to accept the ordination of homosexuals until a later
council. Says Chambers, "[The
Council] rejected any exclusion from church membership
solely of the basis
of sexual orientation, included in the report, Gift,
Dilemma, and Promise adopted
by the General Council. While there were various understandings
of this statement, and varying
degrees of agreement and disagreement, it had become a public
policy of affirmation of the
United Church and, when it came to the matter of who was eligible
for ordination and
commissioning, this position launched the debate."124 However, the church had, quietly affirmed the
human rights of homosexual
persons since 1977, when DMC's Department of Church in Society
passed the following
motion:"We affirm the right of persons regardless of their sexual
orientation to employment,
accommodation and access to the services and facilities that they
need and desire.'"125 Sadly, this was the
same issue, that was
addressed in a different package in the 1988 second attempt. Both
Church Alive and the UCRF
responded to these issues through publications, pronouncements,
prayer vigils and radio shows.
In the midst of this upheaval between the deciding General
Councils of 1984 and 1988,
the Division of M.P & E and the Division of Mission in Canada
were to approach homosexuality
as a whole. A coordinating group of 12 people appointed, and
would include people from
various groups, including Affirm (a pro-gay group in existence
since 1982), and a former
homosexual (who was in ministry to homosexuals), John Howard,
who was a delegate from the
evangelical Collier St. United, from Barrie. Says Cumming, "The
group . . . met and agreed on
a schedule that will climax in a report to the 32nd General
Council in 1988. A budget of
$268,000.00 [had] been accepted to finance this study . . .
[This] study group was given the
ponderous name of 'The National Coordinating Group on Sexual
Orientation, Lifestyles and
Ministry. [NCG on SOLM]"126
SOLM was critiqued by David Chotka, (who was one of the
dissenting voices recorded
in the Report) in Renewal Fellowship Magazine. Chotka's
understanding of the
presuppositions are as follows: "a radically 'updated' view of
marriage and the family [as a social
human institution only]; a heavy dependence on psychological
theory of the last two decades;
an apparently unquestioning acceptance of current
feminist-homosexual tenets; and cavalier
dismissal, by means of 'biblical reinterpretation of scripture
[italics mine]"127 Chotka further
critiqued the report by
challenging SOLM's re-interpretation of the Wesleyan
quadrilateral, that of scripture, tradition,
experience and reason. He pointed out that until the
Confessing our Faith materials
"showed up [recently], the four modes of understanding [that are
referred to in SOLM] were
simply never mentioned as United Church tools of interpretation.
Ever since that time, this so-
called 'Wesley quadrilateral' has been applied sporadically in
some isolated contexts within the
church [ in a manner that was not Wesleyan at all].128 Chotka also further elaborated that Wesley's
context was entirely different
from that of SOLM, and therefore the use of Wesley's name and
thought was unwarranted.
Again, the UCRF expressed regret on having to keep
readdressing the issue. The UCRF
proclamation reminded the United Church that "We thought it
was settled at General Council
last August, and so it was, when the Division of Ministry
Personnel and Education report was
soundly defeated. However, the next day, on the same conference,
wheels were set in motion
to raise [the very same] issue under a different title to
prepare the church to approve
the ordination of self-declared, practicing homosexuals at the
32nd General Council in 1988."129 No doubt a good reason
for this was to
desensitize the grass roots of the church to the persistent
agenda toward liberalization and
acceptance of unrepentant practicing homosexuals in the pews and
the pulpit. The emergence
of Community of Concern was to show the liberal bureaucracy just
how strong the grass roots
were.
Community of Concern
The connection between Church Alive and the Community of
Concern has already been
discussed. Ross Salmon connects the COC as arising within the
reaction to the 1988 SOLM
report. Says Salmon, "Like no other event in UCC history, SOLM
served to focus the attention
and unite the efforts of concerned United Church members.
Much of this effort was
centred in the Community of Concern."130
Kenneth Barker's formed response was expanded into the
Declaration of Dissent, through a
Steering Committee of thirteen members.131
Says Riordan, " Bill Fritz and a team of volunteers [from his
church] mailed the Declaration of
Dissent to every minister and congregational board in the United
Church. By mid-July more
than a thousand ministers and missionaries had signed, and some
32,000 lay people. Across
the country individuals and groups, some with discontents that
long predated The Issue, formed
themselves into Community of Concern chapters. This group had no
official status in the United
Church, and neither did its petition. But virtually overnight
the Community of Concern was
a force to be reckoned with."132 All of the
renewal groups that had formed to that date were at this General
Council. It was a struggle
between agenda and reform. Another paper on The Issue, called
A Place for You, was
easily approved by Council with few amendments.133 Meanwhile, at the same conference, were
representatives of the renewal
groups and Affirm. Says Riordan,
"Commissioners joked later that if anyone had wanted to get any
really outrageous policies through
General Council, this would have been the year to do it. Who
would have noticed? Outside the
auditorium, commissioners had access to several information
tables. On one side the [UCRF]
showed its 1985 video, Homosexuality: A New Direction.
Next to it was the Community of
Concern, where one could still sign the Declaration of Dissent.
[Graham Scott of Church Alive was
also in attendance.] Next door to [COC was] Homosexuals
Anonymous, [which] offered 'a healing
ministry for homosexuals' under the auspices of John Howard . .
. At [yet] another table, was
Affirm, [complete with a display of pink balloons, punch,
videos, answers to often-asked questions
about homosexuality and ministry, and two kinds of buttons:
pink triangles and those with the slogan
'we affirm.']"134
The moderator called for both parties to negotiate their
differences to find a way to heal
the split in the Church. Two teams of six members, the first team
from the Sub-Executive of the
General Council, including Howie Mills, the second was a
steering committee of noted United
Church clergy and laity. This second committee included Dr. Allen
Churchill, Ian Outerbridge;
the legal counsel for COC, Dr. Victor Shepherd, and Kenneth
Barker as Chairman.138 Additional members
were Dr. Phillip Cline, Frank
Lockhart, Dereck Parry, David Reeve, Anna Russell, Dr. Graham
Scott, Dr. Gardiner Skelly,
Donna Mann and Dr. Dorothy Wilson.139 On
November 7, 1988, the groups met and drafted what became known as
the Cedar Glen
Agreement, which promised clearer communication, no boycott of
M&S funds, pastoral address
of issues, the right for clergy loyal opposition, and the need to
change decision making and
structures in the Church.140 However, after
some time, the General Council Executive chose to reject the
Cedar Glen agreement. Instead,
a letter was issued to the Church that was full of generalities
and no reassurance. COC issued
a statement that included this comment: "We are concerned that
this rejection [of the Cedar Glen
agreement] will be interpreted by the membership of the Church
as yet another failure by the
senior courts of the Church to acknowledge the hurt within the
membership. The statement does
not even acknowledge the crisis in the Church which was
recognized at Cedar Glen."142
COC also came under increasing opposition described as
"bitter attack and
misrepresentation."143
Despite the widespread
support of COC by clergy, laity, four former moderators
and many "former Conference
presidents, the [COC] was branded an ultra-rightist organization.
Such a characterization is a
gross misrepresentation . . . The [COC] embraces a wide range of
liberal and conservative
theological opinion . . . from within the mainstream of
Christian theological tradition."144 The bitterness between
COC and the General
Council grew during the attempt to reverse the 1988 decision.
Howie Mills had stated to the
media that parts of the COC were "seemingly demonic and
possessed", and Ross responded
by a suit for libel against Dr. Mills and the United Church
administration. However, on May 25,
1990 both issued a joint statement of apology to the Church for
their 'regrettable' actions.145 Also, despite COC
being very careful to
otherwise have moderate, balanced remarks, the reform group
received hate literature.
In 1989, COC held its first annual meeting in Etobicoke's
Westway United. Despite the
decision of the General Council, the COC now had an established
coast-to-coast network.The
vision of the COC was unchanged, but concerned more than just the
Issue, to rebuilding a strong
UCC founded on "biblical authority, respecting Christian
tradition and our ecumenical decision.
We want theological education which truly equips our
graduates for the ministry and the
mission of the Church of Christ. We love our church and we pledge
our time, talent and energy
to build up a church which seeks to daily witness in alignment
with the holy will of Christ, the
Head of our Church."146
Gordon Ross was
appointed as Executive Director effective July 1, 1989. It was
time for more full-time leadership,
and he was installed in another service held at Westway United
on September 23.147
In 1990, there was another defeat in the attempt to
persuade General Council to
reverse their decision. For many, this Council was their last
hope, and when it failed, again
another wave within the exodus poured out of the UCC - including
many COC members. Others
stayed, and believed that SOLM and MMHS were symptoms of the
real problem and not the
problem itself. Says Salmon, "substantial numbers of clergy
remained, perhaps with more
determination than before."148 This struggle left
COC with considerable debt, so reorganization of the group was
essential as well as loans and
financial appeals. At the same time, says Salmon,
"[the] COC was asked to undertake the formation of another reform
group, the National Alliance
of Covenanting Congregations."149
The Great Exodus
The Exodus, which grew to crisis proportions from 1988-90,
and still continues,
exemplified a need for healing and reconciliation in the church.
"Graham Scott was one of twelve
ordained ministers who were invited by the moderator to form a
theology dialogue group, yet
another attempt to search for common ground in the church. His
only comment was 'God help
me.'"151
The UCRF also
believed that much was
theologically unreconcilable. John Howard declared after the 1988
Council "[The SOLM]
discussions were held in an atmosphere of cordiality and mutual
respect. We talked about our
differences and looked for paths beyond them. We even dared
to believe we could find
common ground beyond the August General Council. Regrettably,
those paths no longer exist.
Unless the decisions of August can somehow be reversed, we have
come to the place of
irreconcilable differences. Indeed, even if a reversal of policy
occurred, we would continue to
have irreconcilable differences because there is wide
disagreement in the church where the
authority of Scripture is concerned."152
John Tweedie, gave a very strong statement in the
September/October 1988 issue of the
Fellowship Magazine. [He later was to leave the United
Church in 1989 to join the
Congregational Christian Church in Canada, a tiny denomination
that would expand from five
congregations in 1987 to 93 in 1997 (most of them former United
Churches)]153 Tweedie compared the
1988 decision with the
1960 General Council [which had] said homosexuality is a sin in
four ways. Ultimately, in 1960
homosexuality was a moral problem; in 1988 homosexuality has
become an acceptable alternate
lifestyle --- acceptable, that is, to those for whom the
Scriptures are not authoritative where
homosexual practice is concerned!"154
Ultimately, the church was in dying, and Kowalski noted this even
in the continuous decline of
membership over 22 years in an Oakville United Church. He called
the United Church a "cut
flower church [that was completely cut off from its roots]."155 Another UCRF leader, Joe Campbell called for a
choice between
"Christianity and Churchianity; [and so many from the UCRF left,
as well as many other
members and adherents as well]." Since August 1988 after the
General Council's decision,
many United Church people who were either 'kept in the dark' or
were sleeping, were now awake
and questioning all around them. Says Cumming, "the exodus, which
had already begun, gained
momentum. Sad to say, [many of] those who were leaving, did not
leave as a body, they left as
individuals and families. In some cases, these people were
welcomed into the fellowships of
other denominations; but others seemed to be wandering in a
wilderness. Some, . . . even a
year later, were still not attending church anywhere or they
[had] not settled into a church
home."156
McCaig also calls the 1988 decision more than the catalyst
that widened the whole in the
restraining dam of the United Church. He calls the reaction to
this decision as "the largest single
exodus of members in the church's [entire] history; [greater even
than that caused by the New
Curriculum, which was a loss of 92,410 Sunday School students
alone in the first year.157 The national church
itself estimates the
number at 20,000, but the true figure may be significantly
higher. Tragically for the renewal
movement, many of those who withdrew were renewal-minded
Christians who felt they had been
pushed out of the United Church. Those leaving included the
majority of members and leaders
of the Renewal Fellowship. The dream of a renewed and united
church had ended."158 Many of the former
UCRF members ended up
in the Congregational Christian Churches in Canada, a tiny
denomination of five congregations
that grew almost overnight to a new national denomination of 93
congregations with an estimated
membership of 14,000."159 "The remainder of
the Renewal Fellowship regrouped and continued as before, but
membership dropped from
around 4,000 to around 1,000 by 1990. By 1996, membership was
under 350."160
Riordan also confirms that the United Church has been losing
members since the mid
1960s; but grew in momentum in the seventies and eighties as the
more conservative evangelical
churches gained more members. Says Riordan, "In [the sixties, it
reached] an all time high of
1,064, 033; In 1972, it dropped below one million, and in 1982
below nine hundred thousand
. . . In 1984 it slipped by more than ten thousand."161
Yet there were still some in the renewal groups who had the
hope to stay, including
Graham Scott of Church Alive. Said Scott, "The church has always
been tempted by apostasy;
right from the beginning. Though some of my best friends have
left [for various denominations],
I cannot imagine the conditions that would force me to leave. In
any case, all the
[mainline?]churches are so problematic now, what is the point of
leaving this one and going to
another? If God were not in the church somewhere, it would have
fallen apart a long time ago."
162
National Alliance of Covenanting
Congregations
The NACC was formed by the Community of Concern,
while Church Alive also
formed a similar covenanting movement. Many United Church people
believed that now was the
kairos timing for a renewal group that ministered
congregationally. "Previous reform and
renewal groups until [1991] only allowed for membership by
individuals."163 Church Alive's organization, led by
Graham Scott, had a 'Day of
Covenanting' for interested congregations at Appleby United
Church in Burlington on December
1, 1990. A covenant now known as The Commissioner's
Covenant, was
available for congregations to covenant with, and unlike NACC,
individuals were welcome to join
the organization.164
Meanwhile, the COC organized a similar association,
based on the shorter Alberta
Articles, which was inaugurated at Westway United on November 24,
1990.165
Rick Prieston, the
original leader of NACC,
illustrates the precursor of the covenanting movement: "In
1989-90 . . . a group of four ministers
met to discuss a major concern: the exodus of individuals and
congregations from The United
Church of Canada, and the even more alarming withdrawal from the
church courts of many more
congregations. What would happen if the congregation being asked
for its opinion of the MMHS
felt even more isolated and alienated by the actions of
the church courts? What was
needed to stem the exodus and to ease the feeling of isolation
or alienation? What was needed
to stem the exodus and to ease the feeling of isolation or
alienation?"166 The answer was evidently the covenanting
movement.
The core of the creed was the Alberta Articles, which were
at first part of a vision of "a
network of Alberta congregations that would enter into a covenant
relationship as an association.
And so . . . drafts of the 'Articles of Association' [were
sent] to every Alberta congregation in
September 1990, with the invitation to meet in Devon to re-draft
the articles and to form the
association we had originally envisaged."167
It was the right timing, for these Articles were adopted "and
discussed at the national Community
of Concern meeting in September [1991]. A dramatic wave of
interest and excitement brought
the articles attention from coast to coast. The Alberta vision
had become a national phenomenon!
With nothing more than the simple theological principles of the
articles and similar covenanting
statements, meetings were held across the country to discuss
forming regional associations."168 Yet there was also a
need for national
coordination. The Community of Concern set up a committee of
five, which grew to 15, to draft
a proposal for a National Association. "In the meantime, regional
associations sprang up in
London (Southwestern Ontario) Alberta, Hamilton-Toronto (Central
Ontario), and the Maritimes
(Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island)"169
[and later British Columbia, Eastern Ontario and Newfoundland]"170
Dr. 'Bob' Blackburn, the secretary-treasurer of the NACC,
has a dynamic story to tell
concerning his own congregation of Streetsville United. He
almost left the United Church himself,
but was given hope after hearing about the Alberta Articles. Says
Blackburn, "I heard of the
Articles of Association being drafted in Alberta, and changed my
mind. There was a way
to satisfy my own conscience, help hold our congregation together
within the church, and
perhaps in the long run to help influence policy and
structure, in that order of priority.
[italics mine]."171
This option provided hope and
in Lori Gwynne's words, "a place to stand [in] a fellowship of
like-minded United Churches that
will not be bullied into a corner but who, together,
affirm our heritage of faith with
pride."172
According to
Blackburn, there were
five choices (which briefly summarized) were: "To swallow my
conscience and continue as usual
[he could not do it]; to resign but continue to attend
[he did not think that was good
enough]; To resign and join a different denomination [but the
church at large would not notice];
to join with our whole congregation in seceding from the United
Church, with the intention of
continuing in our own building and with our own choice of
ministers. [this was perceived as too
drastic, there would be legal problems, and Presbytery would lay
claim to the building and
assets] or, to join with the whole congregation in endorsing the
Alberta Articles, and become part
of the nation-wide association now being formed within the United
Church - an association now
being formed within the United Church -- an association committed
to maintaining the historic
Christian faith."173
The end decision was the
latter option with an overwhelming majority and Streetsville
became a founding member in
NACC. It helped the church "stay together, and we are even
gaining new members. [Thus it] has
been the right decision for us at Streetsville."174 There are many others who were given
hope through this
opportunity and fellowship between like-minded congregations. It
caused many congregations
within the association to blossom in safety. According to the
NACC guidelines, the congregation
could be much better prepared to select a ministerial candidate
for their church. The pamphlet
So your Minister is Leaving? is particularly one filled
with hope, as the grass-roots within
the church are given an opportunity to carefully choose for
themselves. This is also clearly shown
in the following suggestion within that brochure: "Experience
has shown that a clear
understanding of at least the basic theology of each candidate is
absolutely critical. The
Committee should be prepared to ask specific questions about such
central issues as the divinity
of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the authority of Scripture,
the Articles of Faith, and 'God
language.' Adequate preparation for this will likely involve
your representatives in some serious
study and discussion."175
According to the 1991 constitution, "[membership is to be]
limited to UCC congregations
that have adopted the Articles of Association, the
Commissioner's Covenant, or
a cognate statement acceptable to the board of directors of the
Corporation, and have informed
the secretary of the corporation of such action."176
Much work is also done at the regional level. "Here
is where the work of fellowship
gatherings, clergy support groups, educational seminars, family
camps, pulpit exchanges, and
resource and idea sharing is most effective. Because of the
regional emphasis, 'national' activity
if relatively limited: its purpose is to spread information about
the covenanting movement, to be
a contact and registrar for all member congregations, and to be a
vehicle of coordination and
information sharing. From the outset, it was planned that the
NACC would be responsive to, and
financially dependent upon, regional associations and member
congregations."177
This emphasis on community was also mirrored in the group's
stance on Christian
marriage, which had been subjected to reinterpretation in order
to make room for the homosexual
agenda. NACC was to affirm the "ideal of lifelong
fidelity in marriage and loving
chastity in singleness as set forth in the proceedings of the
19th General Council, 1960; [and]
while not blessing or giving sanction to [sexual relationships
outside of marriage], we
nevertheless include all people in our pastoral concern, and
commend all people and all
relationships to the mercy of Christ."178
Like all of the renewal groups, this one was also
misunderstood. Prieston explains
that "All too often we also [have] heard [the following
questions] 'The National Alliance - that is
the group that wants to lead people out of the United Church, [is
it not]?' or, 'The NACC is just
a group of narrow-minded fundamentalists who want everyone to
think like them.'"179 To this
Prieston replied,
"NO, we say, a thousand times NO! We are not trying to
lead people out of the
United Church, just the opposite! Nor do we want
everyone to think like us. We are an
association of United Church congregations that wish to support
one another in our traditional
beliefs. Our purpose is to encourage such congregations to stay
in the United Church of Canada
as participating members at all levels of the church's life. We
would also hope to gain some official
recognition that our traditional faith is still valid and
acceptable in a rapidly changing United Church
of Canada. Dialogue, witness, and faithful integrity are our
mission."180
Thus, the purposes of NACC are to "help a congregation make a
public statement of beliefs
affirmed by the majority of its members, and so hold its people
together within the
United Church, with integrity; and to gather like-minded
congregations into a fellowship that
sustains them in their respective ministries, and in their
involvement in the courts of the Church,
in hope that as numbers grow, their presence will have a positive
effect."181 Its membership has grown as more
congregations are
renewed through the hope and shelter it gives. "Since the autumn
of 1990, 112 congregations
with more than 22,000 members in 10 of 13 conferences, and 41 out
of 94 presbyteries or
districts, have adopted a covenanting statement so as to join the
NACC. The membership covers
Canada from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island."182
Lastly, the group is also active with the other
renewal groups and with renewal
executives outside of the denomination. "Through its
congregations, five regional associations
and the national officers, the Alliance, (NACC) works in harmony
with other
organizations that promote renewal within the United Church
and elsewhere. It seeks
dialogue, not confrontation, and its members are encouraged to
participate within the courts
of the Church. Its regional associations seek to build mutual
support and fellowship through
newsletters and periodic events of various kinds." Thus, this
group gives support within the
community. Yet, a community also includes individuals. Due to
the shrinking UCRF, a merger
was proposed, and the NACC has accepted the offer. Exciting
challenges are in store for NACC
as it integrates the UCRF vision within its own. Prayer is thus
essential for leaders like Verna
Blackburn, the final chair of the Renewal Fellowship, while the
legal formalities are in process,
and after they have been implemented.184
UCRF - the Future
Many people who left the Renewal Fellowship believed they
had failed. But did they?
Although the membership dwindled to a mere 350 by 1996, this
group has had a tremendous
history of touching the lives of United Church Christians, in
evangelism, prayer and discipleship.
Lloyd Cumming notes that the UCRF has not failed in its ministry
- there has been much fruit and
changed lives in the midst.185 1993 was a year
of re-evaluation concerning networking with the other reform
groups "to forward our common
desire for renewal within our denomination."186
Says Hiley,
"Over [that] year, we have included in the mailing of
Fellowship Magazine material from
the other groups, which have also helped in distributing
Fellowship to their memberships.
At the initiative of the UCRF Executive, representatives from
each group have come
together to form an Editorial Advisory Committee to select a
new editor and oversee the publication
of Fellowship Magazine. Together we have launched
a new image for our
publication. We are also working with the other groups on a
joint planning committee for Faithfulness
Today III, as we have for the past Faithfulness Today
conferences."187
The need for prayer, was emphasized as the UCRF was to consider
possibilities, and God's will
for the group."We are launching into our future with the same
foundation on which we started:
prayer.188
Says Hiley,
"we will continue to
encourage and direct people to pray. There is no person or
institution that can stand
against the concentrated prayer of God's faithful people. In the
struggle against forces of evil
that are destroying the faithfulness of Christian organizations,
we often focus on advocacy, on
change strategies and on organizational restructuring --- all of
which are necessary, but only
when grounded and surrounded by prayer. [Hiley also added the
Renewal Fellowship of
evangelism, and urged that new Christians in the United Church
would be essential to its
growth.189
Concerning the merger-in-process, McCaig is hopeful that it
is a new chapter in UCC
history. Says McCaig, "The decision [was] made [in the
fall of 1996] to merge the
membership and assets of the United Church Renewal Fellowship
with the National Alliance of
Covenanting Congregations (NACC) . . . A chapter in United
Church history has just ended.
A new chapter has begun."190
Current Controversy: Bill Phipps and
Responses
The liberalizing trend within the United Church still
continues, although never without the
remnant that speak for orthodoxy. The latest crisis that has
shaken the church happened
recently, even as I have gathered information on the earlier
struggles of the UCC renewal/reform
groups. This issue did not discover anything particularly new,
considering the liberal theological
education in many seminaries. What is new is the way it was
conducted, by a newly elected
moderator, to a secular newspaper on October 24, 1997, as if it
were one of the accepted
official views of the church. This section concerns the
issue of Moderator Bill Phipps and
the responses from clergy, laity and the UCC renewal groups.
Again, another exodus
wave has surged out of the church, as well as the equivalent of
up to 400 members a week.191 However, even "though
[many in] the United
Church have been troubled by declining numbers - some attribute
it to an emphasis of social
action over spiritual practice --- Phipps said people are
returning one by one." 192 He does not seem
troubled by this trend, as is
shown in the following quote. Stern reports that "Phipps sees a
bright side [?] to the church's
declining membership.
The United Church 's new position as a 'sideline church',
he says, affords other
opportunities. 'We can do a lot more. We can change society from
the margins. We can critique
a society that has lost its moral centre."193
At the beginning of this paper, the two main
doctrines that were under
attack were the authority of scripture, and a diminishing of
Jesus' divinity. This agenda and view
have not changed, and through it, an Arian type error has
resurfaced in the church yet again.
Phipps said the United Church has always been freethinking and
past moderators have said
much more outrageous things. 'What's new is that my views hit the
front page of a secular
newspaper.'194 Although
Phipps calls himself
no theologian,195 in
some sense, everyone is
a theologian and a philosopher,196 because as
spiritual and ontological beings, we want to make sense of our
lives and what is around us.197 We prescribe meaning
to things, but what we
impose is not necessarily the truth. Truth then is the core
question when it comes to Phipps.
Where is his centre? If Christians who are both liberal and
conservative on the lesser issues are
held together by the core doctrines of our faith, what is holding
him together? Is the
United Church really so inclusive that core doctrines such as
the resurrection, the incarnation,
the divinity of Jesus and authority of scripture are believed to
be mere theory? One of the writers
of the original Twenty Articles of Faith was Canadian Methodist
Nathanael Burwash. He was the
one who reconciled the doctrines of predestination with that of
Wesleyan Armininism in such a
way that there was a creative tension. He had believed that it
was theory that divided
the two groups in their theology.198 However,
those two doctrines are not absolutely essential for saving
faith. Even Burwash, who was a noted
reconciler of doctrines, upheld scriptural truth and the human
theories, (including ones of
human origin to be mere theory.) Said Burwash concerning the
difference of scripture and
'theory': "The Scriptural elements of faith we held to be
essential, the theories human and at best
imperfect, and changing with the progress of human science and
philosophy. We strove to
include all the prominent elements of religious faith, and to
eliminate all speculative theory,
especially where its harmony with Scripture might be
questioned."199
Oh how liberalism has increased its pace. It seems to be
clear that Phipps' creed is
social justice, of a sort; a selectivity that only focuses on the
prophetic justice acts of Micah,
Amos and in cases Jesus, but he does not see that there is more
to the story. Says Harvey in
the original article, "His lapel button, 'zero poverty', reflects
the views he developed in the mid-
1960's as a student observing riots and civil rights marches in
New York and Chicago. 'Biblically,
it's an abomination that there are any poor people in Canada at
all', he says.200 His views on poverty
are strong and definite.
'Your soul is lost unless you care about people starving in the
streets.' He says Canada's major
churches can no longer be called mainline churches because there
is relatively little influence."201 It is true that many
churches are indifferent to
the poor, and often do not know how to really help; but arousing
the Church to act does not
come from attacking her very centre. Says Graham Scott,
"Moderator Phipps' denials, unbelief
and agnosticism are not good news. They seem to me an invitation
to suicide. They do not even
inspire me to care for the poor. But Jesus Christ, who, though he
was rich yet for our sake
became poor, does inspire me to care for the poor, for all human
beings and for the world that
God loves so much (John 3:16, 2 Cor. 8:9).202
Thus there is nothing wrong with social justice, but by
itself, it does not fill one with
compassion for the lost, it is not Christocentric and
empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Phipps' creed is very much steeped in humanistic social
justice, thus he "believes that
it is Christ's humanity [alone] that brings people closer
to him."203 Then what would make Jesus
distinct? Where is his heart
and empowerment? If the resurrection is irrelevant as he
believes,204 then even the preaching of the apostle Paul was
in vain (1Cor 15:14). If
the resurrection is irrelevant, than by what power does he
minister if he accepts a form of
godliness, but denying its power? (2 Tim 3:5) When
Phipps was interviewed by
The Ottawa Citizen originally, he believed it would be
about his political views, but it was
not. Says Finch-Drichen, "The Ottawa Citizen meeting was called
partly in response to a barbed
August editorial lambasting the [UCC] of its choice of leader and
among other things, for being
too political too be relevant."205
Yet, there is some good news. Most of his own church do not
agree with him, including
the UCC renewal reform groups. John Trueman's response was one
of the strongest of all., and
was so prophetic in its pronouncement that it has been included
as Appendix J. Response to
his remarks have been varied, but include calling him a heretic,
an apostate,206 a false
teacher,207
an iconoclast of
ecumenical orthodox church
doctrine such as what is contained in Christmas and Easter, (and
including that of the World
Council of Churches),208 the Twenty Articles of
the Basis of Union,209
the United Church
manual,210
and even
the New Curriculum that
was so shocking in 1964-65.211 Consequently,
many pastors have distanced themselves from his statements, in
preaching about all that he
dismissed,212 and many
have been demanding
that he step down to show that he is at least responsible.213 He even publicly calls God 'she', which seems
dangerously close to the
Sophia doctrine that has invaded the church.214
"Ian Outerbridge, a Toronto lawyer and United Church elder, said
he believes there are good
legal grounds for laying a charge against Phipps within the
church's own courts. He said 'there
is a serious question as to whether or not he ought to even be a
member of the United Church
of Canada. Outerbridge [also] said Phipp's opinions are
heretical, and he could be
charged with spreading false teaching, and failing in his
duty as moderator to provide
spiritual leadership to the church."216 Mr.
Outerbridge is only one of many who think this may be possible.
Since this time, Phipps has given a form of a weak apology
for hurting the feelings of
church members;217 but
he refuses to step
down or to retract his statements, since they are personally held
beliefs.218 However, he seems to be confused
about how this is
affecting the church. According to Harvey, "Phipps said his worst
fear is that the controversy over
his views will divide the church, but his hope is that church
members will see it as an opportunity
to 'invite people to see the significance of Jesus in our
world."219
Conclusion
It is quite plain to see that the United Church of Canada
needs more intercessors from
other denominations as well as within her ranks. The renewal
groups within the UCC have fought
a valiant fight, and need the encouragement and prayers of
others. I was once asked by one of
my former pastors about my youthful heritage in the United
Church. He had asked me "Is God
still working in the United Church?"221 Had he
known about the existence of the grass roots movement and viewed
with his own eyes the faith
of some of its members, he would not have made that remark. Too
often the United Church has
become a word of derision, too often have I also been ashamed of
my heritage; but I am very
pleased to find out otherwise, and trust that God is still in
control.
1. The uniting church of Austalia and the United
Church of South India are
similar to the UCC, but I am implying this remark
within a Canadian
context.
Laurie-Ann Zachar. Nathanael Burwash: Canadian
Methodism's Struggles - Progressive
yet Experiential and Evangelical. Spirit of Methodism.
Dr. Victor Shepherd. Ontario
Theological Seminary, North York ON. November 13, 1997.
Appendix 1
13. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 25.
15. (Crysdale p 94)
17. Ed McCaig. "Merger Keeps Renewal Vision Alive." in
Fellowship Magazine. Barrie:
March 1997. Volume 15. Number 1. p. 18. (paraphrase)
22. Art Hiley. "The United Church Renewal
Fellowship: To win by Love" in
Fellowship Magazine. Barrie:
December/January 1994 p 26.
24. Cumming, Lloyd G. "Report from the Executive
Director." in The Small
Voice. Volume 4, 1985. Barrie:
UCRF,1985). p 39.
25. He was since censured by United Church
administration and put on the
discontinued service list unfairly.
26. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 28.
27. Rudy Plug. "What is the United Church
Renewal Fellowship?" in The
Small Voice. Volume 1. Barrie:UCRF, 1986.
p 13.
28. Cumming, Lloyd G. "Report from the Executive
Director." in The Small
Voice. Volume 4, 1985. Barrie:
UCRF,1985). p 39. (paraphrase)
29. Ibid. p 40.
30. Ibid. p 40.
31. Ibid. p 40.
32. Ibid. p 40.
33. Ed McCaig. "Merger Keeps Renewal Vision
Alive." in Fellowship
Magazine. Barrie: March 1997. Volume 15.
Number 1. p. 21.
34. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 31.
(paraphrase)
35. Ibid. p 32 (paraphrase)
36. Ibid. p 41 (paraphrase)
37. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 110
(paraphrase)
-I know it was thriving at this time, due to reports
throughout Small Voice about evangelism,
and through the testimony of my small group leader at
Woodbridge Presbyterian
Church.
38. Ibid. p 47.
39. Ibid. p 48. (paraphrase)
40. Ibid. p 48.
41. Ed McCaig. "Merger Keeps Renewal Vision
Alive." in Fellowship
Magazine. Barrie: March 1997. Volume 15.
Number 1. p. 19.
42. Lloyd G Cumming. "Report from the Executive
Director." in The Small
Voice. Volume 4, 1985. Barrie:
UCRF,1985). p 40.
43. Ibid. p 40 (paraphrase)
44. Ibid. p 40.
45. Ibid. p 40.
46. Ibid. p 41 (paraphrase)
47. Clark Pinnock. "The New Pentecostalism:
Reflections by a Well-Wisher." in
The Small Voice. (Barrie: UCRF:Autumn
1974). p 5.
(paraphrase)
48. Ibid. p 8.
49. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 55.
50. Many articles from The Small Voice -
issues: Spring 1 976, Winter
1977, Summer 1977, Volume 4, 1982. Volume 1
1983. Volumes 2, 3.
1986.
51. Ibid. p 41.
52. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 80.
(paraphrase)
53. Ibid. p 80.
54. Ibid. p 97.
55. Ibid. p 97.
56. Ibid. p 98.
57. Ian Rennie. "Canada's 'State Church' in
Transition. " A condensed article
originally in Faith Today. July/August
1987. Reprinted in
Renewal Fellowship Magazine. Volume
5. September/October 1987.
(Barrie: UCRF, 1987). p. 15.
58. Donald Lamont. "Dry Bones Can Live
Again" in The Small
Voice. Volume 2. 1982. (Barrie:UCRF, 1982
). p 13.
59. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 79.
(paraphrase).
60. Michael Riordan. The First Stone:
Homosexuality and the United
Church. (Toronto:McClelland and Stewart,
1990). p 33.
61. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 87.
62. United Church Renewal Fellowship. Our
Inheritance: On its 50th
Anniversary The United Church of Canada has
special opportunity to renew
its faith through a study of its official
doctrine. (Barrie: UCRF,
1975). p 93.
63. United Church Renewal Fellowship. We
have an Anchor: A Searching
Study of the Basis of Union of the United
Church of Canada. (Barrie:
UCRF, 1984). Table of contents (paraphrase)
64. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 33.
(paraphrase)
65. John Griffin. "Evangelism, not Confirmation
Classes." in The Small
Voice. Volume 1. 1971. (Barrie:UCRF,
1971). p 14.
66. Gordon Hunter. "Evangelism Must Come First".
in The Small
Voice. Volume 2. 1982. (Barrie:UCRF,
1982). p 24.
67. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 77.
(paraphrase)
68. Small Voice publication data -
unavailable [approx. late
1970's]
69. Ronald McCaw. "Pulpit Vacancies." Editorial
Page in The Small
Voice. Summer 1977. (Barrie:UCRF, 1977).
p 3 (paraphrase)
70. Lloyd G. Cumming. "Report from the Executive
Director." in The Small
Voice. Volume 1, 1985. Barrie:
UCRF,1985). p 39.
71. Lloyd G. Cumming. Report from the Field
Secretary." in The Small
Voice. Summer 1977. (Barrie:UCRF, 1977).
p 37. (paraphrase)
72. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 125.
73. Michael Riordan. The First Stone:
Homosexuality and the United
Church. (Toronto:McClelland and Stewart,
1990). p 90.
(paraphrase)
74. Ibid. p 35.
75. -I wonder what he means by this - is this
concerning the scribal errors and
additions that make up to about 10 per cent
of the Bible, but do not affect
any important doctrines?
76. Michael Riordan. The First Stone:
Homosexuality and the United
Church. (Toronto:McClelland and Stewart,
1990). p 35.
77. Graham Scott. "Of Scholarship and Sacraments"
in Fellowship
Magazine. September/October 1993. Volume
11. Number 4. p 23.
78. Ibid. p 23.
79. John Hoover. "Reformation, not Separation."
in Metropolitan
Newsletter. March 1989. p 11.
(paraphrase)
80. Graham Scott. "Of Scholarship and Sacraments"
in Fellowship
Magazine. September/October 1993. Volume
11. Number 4. p 23.
-date
81. Ibid. p 23.
82. Michael Riordan. The First Stone:
Homosexuality and the United
Church. (Toronto:McClelland and Stewart,
1990). p 35.
83. John Hoover. "Reformation, not Separation."
in Metropolitan
Newsletter. March 1989. p 11.
84. Ibid. p 11.
85. Graham Scott. "Of Scholarship and Sacraments"
in Fellowship
Magazine. September/October 1993. Volume
11. Number 4. p 23.
86. Ibid. p 11.
87. Michael Riordan. The First Stone:
Homosexuality and the United
Church. (Toronto:McClelland and Stewart,
1990). p 39.
88. Graham Scott. "Of Scholarship and Sacraments"
in Fellowship
Magazine. September/October 1993. Volume
11. Number 4. p 23.
89. John Hoover. "Reformation, not Separation."
in Metropolitan
Newsletter. March 1989. p 12.
90. Graham Scott. "Of Scholarship and Sacraments"
in Fellowship
Magazine. September/October 1993. Volume
11. Number 4. p 23.
(paraphrase)
91. Ibid p 24.
92. Ibid. p 24.
93. Ibid. p 23.
94. This is ad hoc throughout Fellowship
Magazines.
95. Graham Scott. "Of Scholarship and
Sacraments" in Fellowship
Magazine. September/October 1993.
Volume 11. Number 4. p
24.
96. Ibid. p 24.
97. Ibid. p 24.
98. Ibid. p 24. (paraphrase)
99. Ibid. p 24.
100. Ibid. p 24.
101. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew:
Committed to Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF,
1990). p 92.
(paraphrase)
102. Session of Scotland, ON. "Remit on Christian
Initiation: A Critique."
in The Small Voice. Volume 3. 1983.
(Barrie:UCRF, 1983).
p 7.
103. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew:
Committed to Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF,
1990). p 93.
(paraphrase)
104. Ibid. p 93.
105. Ibid. p 119-20.
106. -I am speaking specifically with the United
Churches that I have had
contact with, in particular, Humber Valley as
well as more evangelical
congregations.
107. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew:
Committed to Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF,
1990). p 121.
108. Victor Shepherd. The Spirit of
Methodism. Lecture Notes.
Laurie-Ann Zachar, notetaker. September -
December 1997.
Ontario Theological Seminary, North York ON.
A paraphrase of
comments , said in context when he got upset
about discussion of the
Sophia influence in some churches, including
the United Church.
December 3, 1997.
109. The Small Voice Volume 3. 1986 np
available.
110. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew:
Committed to Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF,
1990). p 110.
111. Ibid. p 110.
112. Ibid. p 125.
113. Michael Riordan. The First Stone:
Homosexuality and the
United Church. (Toronto:McClelland and
Stewart, 1990).
-this term is used throughout his book
114. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew:
Committed to Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF,
1990). p 90.
115. Ibid. p 90.
116. Ibid. p 102 (paraphrase)
117. Ibid. p 103.
118. Ibid. p 105 (paraphrase)
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Return To The Table Of
Contents
Return To The Table Of
Contents
endnotes
2. Nathanael Burwash began working on the
reconcilation of the different
doctrines in 1903.
3. Marguerite Van Die. An Evangelical Mind:
Nathanael Burwash and the
Methodist Tradition in Canada, 1839-1918.
(Kingston: McGill-Queen's
University Press, 1989). p 147. (paraphrase)
4. Shepherd, Victor. The Spirit of Methodism.
Lecture Notes. Laurie-
Ann Zachar, notetaker. September - December 1997.
Ontario Theological
Seminary, North York ON. A paraphrase of
comments made on the T.
Oden presentation. November 27, 1997.
5. This statement is on page 2 of every recent
Fellowship Magazine.
Barrie, 1993-1997.
6. Lloyd G. Cumming. The Uncomfortable
Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 24.
7. Lloyd G. Cumming. The Uncomfortable
Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 25.
8. (This is something that my mother, Carol Zachar
would often tell me about.
There were two things that really upset her in the
1960's concerning the
trend. The first was the 'God is Dead'
pronouncement; and the second was
the New Curriculum. She pulled me out of the
church for four or five years
because of this, and was not sure where to take me
for an alternative)
9. Art Hiley. "The United Church Renewal Fellowship:
To win by Love" in
Fellowship Magazine. Barrie:
December/January 1994 p 24.
(paraphrase)
10. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 25.
11. Ed McCaig. "Merger Keeps Renewal Vision
Alive." in Fellowship
Magazine. Barrie: March 1997. Volume 15.
Number 1. p. 18.
(paraphrase)
12. Ibid. p 18.
14. (Chambers p 13)
16. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 27.
18. Art Hiley. "The United Church Renewal
Fellowship: To win by Love" in
Fellowship Magazine. Barrie:
December/January 1994 p 25.
19. -And there still are in many of the churches,
as even I, who grew up in the
United Church, was so starved for the Word
and experience went searching
for God in all the wrong places, in
particular the occult. I was actually led
into fortune telling by a member of the choir
who attended my congregation
for a while.
20. Lloyd G. Cumming. The
Uncomfortable Pew: Committed to
Renewal. (Barrie: UCRF, 1990). p 29
(paraphrase)
21. Ibid. p 20.
23. Karen Toole-Mitchell. "Participating in
small groups helps us recover the
'baby' of faith from the 'bathwater' of
religion." in The United C hurch
Observer. June 1997 Vol 60 No 11.
Toronto:UCC, 1997. np.