Petition

Design stage Building stage

Petition to General Council

Pros and Cons.

Posted by Peter VanderKam on February 26, 2000 at 11:35:32:

WHEREAS the 20 Articles of Faith as found in the Basis of Union are an expression of the understanding of God and the Church of the union committee at the time of Union, and

WHEREAS the Articles were, with minor modifications from the Methodists and Congregationalists, based on a 1892 Presbyterian Church of America statement of faith, and

WHEREAS some United Church members are no longer sure about the meaning expressed in the 20 Articles of Faith, as they are no longer familiar with the language and idiom of that bygone era, and

WHEREAS many people may, therefore, find it difficult to subscribe to said articles, and

WHEREAS many entering the ministry of the United Church of Canada have professed not to be too clear on the meaning of the articles, and

WHEREAS we continue to ask ordinands, commissionands, and those entering Lay Pastoral Ministry, whether they are in "essential agreement" with the 20 Articles of Faith, and

WHEREAS this confusion is perceived to be detrimental to the integrity of Christianity in general and the United Church of Canada in particular,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT Cambrian Presbytery, through the conference of Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario, petition the 37th General Council to address the concepts behind the 20 Articles of Faith in the light of contemporary theology and language, and that this study be a focus for The United Church of Canada between the 37th and 38th General Councils, to be dedicated to the task of guiding the United Church members (lay and clergy) through this exercise for the purpose of helping them clarify their understanding of the 20 Articles of Faith and to assist the Church in framing a statement of faith that empowers each seeker to operate confidently at his/her own level.

Posted by John Shearman on February 27, 2000 at 06:31:39:

In Reply to: Petition to General Council! posted by Peter VanderKam

: WHEREAS the 20 Articles of Faith as found in the Basis of Union are an expression of the understanding of God and the Church of the union committee at the time of Union, and

: WHEREAS the Articles were, with minor modifications from the Methodists and Congregationalists, based on a 1892 Presbyterian Church of America statement of faith, and

Peter, there are some singular deficiencies in these two items of the preamble. The Joint Committee on Union adopted the Doctrine section of the Basis of Union as "the substance of the Christian faith, as commonly held among us." (Manual, The Basis of Union. 2.0). It would be better to quote that directly.

It is true that the main thrust of the Articles were based on two previous statements of faith by Presbyterian Churches in England and USA, but it would be more accurate to name those documents specifically: "The Articles of Faith of The Presbyterian Church of England, 1890"; and "A Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith, adopted by the General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1902." It is also simplistic to say that the contributions of the Methodists and Congregationalists were "minor modifications." They participated fully in the Sub-Committee on Doctrine which drafting the section on Doctrine and their supreme courts adopted the finished product as the work of the whole Joint Committee on Union, as did the Presbyterian General Assembly.

: WHEREAS many people may, therefore, find it difficult to subscribe to said articles, and

We do NOT "subscribe" to the DBU. We are "in essential agreement with" it.

While they may seem a little picky to some, I think these points are important. If the petition has already been adopted, then it probably could be revised at a future meeting of the Presbytery by following the Manual procedure on "Motions to Reconsider." (Appendix III.8)

I trust this will be helpful.

Hallelujah anyway! Grace and peace.
John.

Posted by Peter VanderKam on February 27, 19100 at 08:37:15:

In Reply to: Re: Petition to General Council! posted by John Shearman on February 27, 19100 at 06:31:39:

: : Petition to General Council

: : WHEREAS the 20 Articles of Faith as found in the Basis of Union are an expression of the understanding of God and the Church of the union committee at the time of Union, and

: : WHEREAS the Articles were, with minor modifications from the Methodists and Congregationalists, based on a 1892 Presbyterian Church of America statement of faith, and

: Peter, there are some singular deficiencies in these two items of the preamble. The Joint Committee on Union adopted the Doctrine section of the Basis of Union as "the substance of the Christian faith, as commonly held among us." (Manual, The Basis of Union. 2.0). It would be better to quote that directly.

: It is true that the main thrust of the Articles were based on two previous statements of faith by Presbyterian Churches in England and USA, but it would be more accurate to name those documents specifically: "The Articles of Faith of The Presbyterian Church of England, 1890"; and "A Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith, adopted by the General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1902." It is also simplistic to say that the contributions of the Methodists and Congregationalists were "minor modifications." They participated fully in the Sub-Committee on Doctrine which drafting the section on Doctrine and their supreme courts adopted the finished product as the work of the whole Joint Committee on Union, as did the Presbyterian General Assembly.

: : WHEREAS many people may, therefore, find it difficult to subscribe to said articles, and

: We do NOT "subscribe" to the DBU. We are "in essential agreement with" it.

: While they may seem a little picky to some, I think these points are important. If the petition has already been adopted, then it probably could be revised at a future meeting of the Presbytery by following the Manual procedure on "Motions to Reconsider." (Appendix III.8)

John, thank you for this. Picky? Not at all. The intent of this exercise is partially to acquaint this generation with our history. The other one is to acquaint this generation with the theology behind the articles. The more people get involved and contribute knowledge and wisdom, the better it is for this generation.
For your information, apart from the fact that the wording as you see it was arrived at by summarizing the comments of other participants here, among those who participated in the scrutiny of this petition were several ministers. In the evening, when the petition was brought to the floor, the whole of Presbytery was there, including all the minister, the chair of the Petitions/resolution committee of Presbytery AND conference as well as a rep of Conference. As a matter of fact, it was he who had a great deal to do with the final wording. So, although I am interested in what you said, I am not sure what to do with it. As you said, Presbytery has come and is gone, ..... till the fall.

A question: although your wording might be the better (more accurate) one, will that in any way stop this effort in its tracks?

What *will* I do? Bring this message of yours to the attention of the relevant people. They can then decide.

: I trust this will be helpful.

In a sense it is very helpful as it sheds additional light on our history. OTOH, should those who voted overwhelmingly (a handful of "no's" in the whole Presbytery) for this petition begin to worry? Hope not!

Shalom, Peter

Posted by John Shearman on February 28, 19100 at 06:27:35:

In Reply to: Re: Petition to General Council! - reconsider!? posted by Peter VanderKam on February 27, 19100 at 08:37:15:

: John, thank you for this. Picky? Not at all. The intent of this exercise is partially to acquaint this generation with our history. The other one is to acquaint this generation with the theology behind the articles. The more people get involved and contribute knowledge and wisdom, the better it is for this generation.
: For your information, apart from the fact that the wording as you see it was arrived at by summarizing the comments of other participants here, among those who participated in the scrutiny of this petition were several ministers. In the evening, when the petition was brought to the floor, the whole of Presbytery was there, including all the minister, the chair of the Petitions/resolution committee of Presbytery AND conference as well as a rep of Conference. As a matter of fact, it was he who had a great deal to do with the final wording. So, although I am interested in what you said, I am not sure what to do with it. As you said, Presbytery has come and is gone, ..... till the fall.

: A question: although your wording might be the better (more accurate) one, will that in any way stop this effort
in its tracks?

: What *will* I do? Bring this message of yours to the attention of the relevant people. They can then decide.

If there is to be no further meetings of your Presbytery until fall - after the GC in August - I suggest that you bring it to the attention of the Conference Petitions Committee which will have to review and propose all petitions to the Conference annual meeting. It can be corrected there.

: : I trust this will be helpful.

: In a sense it is very helpful as it sheds additional light on our history. OTOH, should those who voted overwhelmingly (a handful of "no's" in the whole Presbytery) for this petition begin to worry? Hope not!

No, I think not. All the petitions coming to Conference will have a much wider audience than in your own Presbytery. It is always a risk as to whether or not any particular petition makes it through Conference to General Council. You might help your cause by drawiing attention of other Presbyteries in your Conference to your petition; but that may be done if all petitions are sent to Conference delegates before the annual meeting as is usually done in HamConf.

Best wishes for success.

Hallelujah anyway!
John Shearman.

Like a bridge over troubled water, I will lay me down.
Simon & Garfunkel

Posted by Steven Davis on February 28, 19100 at 08:01:08:

In Reply to: Petition to General Council! posted by Peter VanderKam on February 26, 19100 at 11:35:32:

Peter, a few thoughts on this issue:

: WHEREAS some United Church members are no longer sure about the meaning expressed in the 20 Articles of Faith, as they are no longer familiar with the language and idiom of that bygone era, and Regardless of how "contemporary" one makes the Articles of Faith, there will always be "some" who do not fully understand them. At what point, then, do we stop making changes??

: WHEREAS many people may, therefore, find it difficult to subscribe to said articles, and Members of the United Church do not have to "subscribe" to the Articles of Faith. They must give them "studious attention" - or words to that effect. Do not have a Manual in front of me. Perhaps if one has difficulty understanding them, one might be MORE inclined to study them?? Just a thought!

: WHEREAS many entering the ministry of the United Church of Canada have professed not to be too clear on the meaning of the articles, and I suspect they're clear about them by the time they enter the ministry - probably just don't agree! That's a very different issue!

: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT Cambrian Presbytery, through the conference of Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario, petition the 37th General Council to address the concepts behind the 20 Articles of Faith in the light of contemporary theology and language, and that this study be a focus for The United Church of Canada between the 37th and 38th General Councils, to be dedicated to the task of guiding the United Church members (lay and clergy) through this exercise for the purpose of helping them clarify their understanding of the 20 Articles of Faith and to assist the Church in framing a statement of faith that empowers each seeker to operate confidently at his/her own level.

With the greatest respect, having read the OSIEM document and been appalled by it, I suspect the goal of the petition is not to put the Articles of Faith into expressions of contemporary theology and language; it is rather to reject "orthodoxy" - and the 20 Articles are a very "orthodox" statement of Christian faith!

In any event, again with respect, I pray your petition doesn't get very far!!!

Regards, Steven

Posted by Peter VanderKam on February 28, 2000:

In Reply to: Re: Petition to General Council! posted by Steven Davis

: Peter, a few thoughts on this issue:

: : WHEREAS some United Church members are no longer sure about the meaning expressed in the 20 Articles
of Faith, as they are no longer familiar with the language and idiom of that bygone era, and
: Regardless of how "contemporary" one makes the Articles of Faith, there will always be "some" who do not
fully understand them. At what point, then, do we stop making changes??

When do we stop? I hope never. It has been said over and over again, that each generation has to go through
this exercise for the purpose of verbalizing their way of understanding. Only when that is done can one speak of
a living faith.

: : WHEREAS many people may, therefore, find it difficult to subscribe to said articles, and
: Members of the United Church do not have to "subscribe" to the Articles of Faith. They must give them
"studious attention" - or words to that effect.

Correct on both counts!

: Perhaps if one has difficulty understanding them, one might be MORE inclined to study them?? Just a thought!

Steven, that is exactly the goal behind this effort. You see, if my information is correct, this sort of thing has not
been done on a nationwide basis since the forties. So yes, I agree. We depend on the leaders at the top
however to provide us with the material to study.

: : WHEREAS many entering the ministry of the United Church of Canada have professed not to be too clear on
the meaning of the articles, and
: I suspect they're clear about them by the time they enter the ministry - probably just don't agree! That's a very
different issue!

Well, having made my pitch to adopt this petition to the Christian Development committee of Cambrian
Presbytery, I sat back and listened to them debate the relative merits of this proposal. The overall impression I
came away with is that it is the ordinands, the commissionands and the folks that enter some type of clergy role that are confronted with the 20 Articles of Faith. From those comments I took it that a discussion of the 20
Articles of Faith is seldom engaged in. Two additional things.
a) Read the research material on my website and pay attention to the number of participating clergy who admit
to having difficulties with the Articles of Faith.
b) Speaking for myself, I have close to 20 years experience with the different courts of the United Church of
Canada. I can tell you that a theological debate of the articles is not at the top of agenda.

: : THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT Cambrian Presbytery, through the conference of Manitoba and
Northwestern Ontario, petition the 37th General Council to address the concepts behind the 20 Articles of Faith
in the light of contemporary theology and language, and that this study be a focus for The United Church of
Canada between the 37th and 38th General Councils, to be dedicated to the task of guiding the United Church
members (lay and clergy) through this exercise for the purpose of helping them clarify their understanding of the
20 Articles of Faith and to assist the Church in framing a statement of faith that empowers each seeker to
operate confidently at hi/her own level.

: With the greatest respect, having read the OSIEM document and been appalled by it, I suspect the goal of the petition is not to put the Articles of Faith into expressions of contemporary theology and language; it is rather to reject "orthodoxy" - and the 20 Articles are a very "orthodox" statement of Christian faith!

You want my fervent wish? I hope first of all that this petition makes it all the way to General Council and that
they treat it with the gravity it deserves. Second, I hope that every congregation (does that depend on the clergy person?) takes a year or longer to go over the language and concepts with a fine-tooth comb, if for no other reason than to become familiar with their own foundational documents. And third, I expect that the result of that effort would be that the majority of the United Church members would vote to declare the 20 Articles of Faith "Historical Documents". Having done that, I would hope that they would then proceed formulating their own Articles of Faith in their own language and idiom. My next fervent wish would be that, having done that, the
participants would include a stipulation that the exercise start all over again not later than 20 years after the final t's have been crossed and the last i's have been dotted. i.e. They should make sure that they make clear that their product is Not carved in stone.

: In any event, again with respect, I pray your petition doesn't get very far!!!

Hope my answers will go some way to convince you to change your mind if for no other reason than that you
are a reasonable person.
Before I sign off, a question. Supposing I was one of your parishioners, would you tell me to go take a hike, or
would you invite me to sit down for the purpose of ascertaining what it is I am all about?
Question #2, what is the size of your Bible class, and when was the last time you have taken your congregation
through this exercise?

Shalom, Peter.

Posted by Mike Jones on February 28, 2000
In Reply to: Re: Petition to General Council! posted by Steven Davis

: In any event, again with respect, I pray your petition doesn't get very far!!!

I think we all have our thoughts and hopes as to where this should go. I hope it goes all the way and that we can build something meaningful out of it.

Mike

Keep your eye on the finish line We've made it to the mountain top