Comparison 1925 - 1940
Statements of Faith.

In the last little while it has become clear that there is a difference in status between the original articles of faith and the articles of faith that were formulated in 1940. There are several curious issues surrounding the two sets of faith statements. 

a) The foundational article of 1925 were 20 and all members entering into a contract with the Church had to declare that they were in "essential agreement" with those articles.

b) The articles of faith formulated in 1940 were 12 in number. i.e. 8 articles of faith which required the prospective ordinands to be in "essential agreement" with, had disappeared, practically overnight. 

c) Although a United Church Committee had formulated the 1940 statement of faith on behalf of the Church, very few people were familiar with them and even fewer seemed to pay attention to them. aamof, new ordinands and commisionands are  still asked to declare to be in "essential agreement" with the 1925 articles. What value the 1940 articles?

With regards to the 1940 articles themselves, they have not only lost a number of articles, they have been thoroughly re-arranged and the concepts underlying them have also changed.

a) God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Trinity have been moved front and centre, while man has been moved to the #5 spot.

b) Of Jesus it is said that although:

We believe that He lived a perfect human life, wholly devoted to the will of God and the service of man.

there is not a word about his "virgin birth". That used to be something one had to be in "essential agreement" with. No longer?

c) When we turn to "Man and Sin", an equally large difference becomes visible. Whereas in 1925 the founding fathers spoke of their "first parents", the 1940 committee does not. Whereas the founding fathers spoke off "our first parents, being tempted, chose evil, and so fell away from God", the 1940 folks talked about: "We believe that man has used his freedom of choice for low and selfish ends.." Whereas in 1925 allusion was made to a onetime event, the 1940 crowd seems to indicate a process of wrong choices.

d) Which brings us to the manner of humanity's redemption. Whereas in 1925 it was said that "For our redemption, He fulfilled all righteousness, offered Himself a perfect sacrifice on the Cross, satisfied Divine justice and made propitiation for the sins of the whole world." i.e. he paid for our sins, in 1940 it was said that "We believe that Christ, by living our life without sin, by dying at the hands of sinful men with faith unshaken and unfaltering love, has done for man what man could not do for himself. On the Cross He bore the burden of sin, and He broke its power; and what He did there moves men to repentance, conveys forgiveness, undoes the estrangement, and binds them to Himself in a new loyalty." Although it is said that Jesus did what man (generic) could not do, it does not say what it was humanity couldn't do for itself. Or is it assumed that man (generic) could not pay the cost required of him?

e) The greatest difference however shows itself in the final scene as it plays itself out. In 1925 it was said that "We believe that here shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust, through the power of the Son of God, who shall come to judge the living and the dead; that the finally impenitent shall go away to eternal punishment and the righteous into life eternal." whereas in 1940 the statement reads: "We believe that, while salvation is offered to all, God does not take away or override the freedom with which He has endowed men. If they stubbornly refuse His mercy and prefer sinful ways they shut themselves out from the light and joy of salvation and fall under the righteous judgment of God.

We believe that those who accept the offer of salvation and persevere in the Christian way do after death enter into the joy of their Lord, a blessedness beyond our power to conceive. They see God face to face, and in the communion of saints are partakers with the Church on earth of its labours and prayers." 

It would take too long to unravel this properly. Even so, it needs to be done as the scenarios from 1925 and 1940 are rather different. Although the language has obviously been carefully chosen, too many metaphors are being mixed.

Which brings us to the admonition we find in both the 1925 and 1940 statements that 
"Christians of each new generation are called to state it afresh in terms of the thought of their own age and with the emphasis their age needs."

It is up to us to study the real and perceived differences between the 1925 articles of faith and the ones formulated in 1940. Have changes been made, and if so, in what direction do the changes point? Can we build on them? 

The least we can do is identify what is and what is not essential as far as our faith is concerned if for no other reason that to cut down on the confusion that surrounds the ordination of people entering into a contract with the United Church of Canada. 

Top of page.

back to Table of Contents