Talk:Confession of 1967

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Hi all! I will be working on this page as a part of the WikiProject United States Public Policy over the next two months. Your input is appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hec7 (talkcontribs) 14:26, September 30, 2010

A great informative article! You covered the topic extremely well, and addressed several aspects very comprehensively. I especially enjoyed the insight into the significance and impacts of the Confession, and I would love to see links to other related topics in the PC. Luckbethislady (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Impressive amount of work. Well-written and organized and with the complex theological issues clearly articulated. Great job! Radavis147 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)radavis147

While I am grateful for the effort put into this article and painfully aware that I don't spend a lot of time here, as an ordained officer of the PC(USA) currently teaching a class on the Book of Confessions, I am very concerned about several factual errors, several wp:NPOV problems, and a whole lot of wp:OR. Examples: C67 was not "the denomination's response to the alternative social movements of the 1960s". As noted in the article, work began in 1958, and that as a response to an overture to update the archaic language in the Westminster Larger Catechism. Dowey was an intelligent man, but he was not clairvoyant. "Liberal" is frequently used to describe the UPCUSA and/or its members who wrote and supported C67, but the whole point of neo-orthodoxy is that it is a rejection of liberal Christianity as well as fundamentalist Christianity. The whole Theological Implications section is IMO wp:OR as it speculates about the future and draws an inappropriate conclusion about the PCUS-PCA split. That had nothing to do with C67, which was a confession of the northern UPCUSA, and Westminster was still the sole confession in the southern PCUS when the PCA left. The only comparable situation might be the EPC's split from the northern church just before reunion, but that wasn't over C67. Frankly, The Gay Issue has been addressed ad nauseam elsewhere, and the focus on this article should be C67 itself. As I have time, I'll take a stab at this, with verifiable sources of course. But let's leave the left-right debates to our friends at Conservapedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flycandler (talkcontribs) 15:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Really feel free to address these issues. I tried to deal what I believe to be relevant topics but improvement is always welcome Hec7 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do believe it is important to discuss the controversies following the Confession and how different groups perceived the document's theology. Hec7 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is obsessed with the reaction of ONE particular group--"Conservatives" treated as the monolith it is not--and laying heavy emphasis on the opinions of Cornelius van Til, who was very outspokenly NOT a part of the denomination that drafted and adopted the confession. I don't remove all of van Til's thoughts, since a nod to the reaction of neo-Calvinists might be appropriate. However, giving whole paragraphs to a member of the OPC and an outspoken opponent of Karl Barth, while barely mentioning Barth himself, gets us well into WP:UNDUE territory. As strict adherents to Westminster, the OPC is opposed to ANY other confession being used by the church, not just C67. The mainline church leading up to the events in the article (Rogers 207) was divided into three groups: liberals, fundamentalists, and the largest (but least well-organized) group: the moderates. Neo-orthodoxy spoke to the moderates' balancing act between fidelity to Scripture and sense of mission in the world (Rogers 209). If anything, this article could give some voice to theogically liberal objections to C67, but it definitely must give more emphasis to the reaction of the moderate wing of the church WP:DUE. Before I added the PUBC's reaction, the article seemed to assert that all conservative reaction to C67 was neatly summarized by the Lay Committee and van Til. I also think that the anonymous contributions of now-blocked user 217.41.240.15 are totally WP:OR in expressing his/her opinion that the 90% approval vote was a mere reflection of the secular culture and marked the church's change from serving Christ to serving society (and this shown in the edit summary as "removing repetition"). I'm deleting the more egregious examples. Flycandler (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it, Hec, thanks!!! Flycandler (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of bias[edit]

"During the consideration of its adoption by the presbyteries, conservatives who desired the continuance of strict subscription to only Westminster and the Catechisms campaigned against its inclusion!"

Putting an exclamation point there makes that an editorial statement, not a statement of fact. The exclamation point says, in essence, "and can you imagine such a thing?". That's not reporting, that's editorializing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeZZ (talkcontribs) 18:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Confession of 1967. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confession of 1967. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)