Talk:First Church in Boston
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
First Church in Boston, Congregational would be its full title, but as it is, it is correctly so called; the only contenders would be the Charlestown church, which is called First Church, Charlestown, Congregational, or the Salem Church, but both that and the Charlestown congregation technically re-gathered themselves after the greater part of the Endicott/Winthrop (i.e., Mass Bay) Company removed themselves, first to the Mishawam (Charlestown) area and then to the Trimontaine/Shawmut Penninsula area (Boston). So it's not presumptuous to call it First Church, if that's the basis of your question.
The issue with the Unitarian controversy, much later, might be confusing to those without a clearer understanding of the polities involved, and this was not one of the more acrimonious shifts to Unitarianism (i.e., like Dedham or Cambridge, which were essentially hostile internal takeovers legitimated by some dicey legalese) because the congregation and its minister (Chauncey) were in this case more or less in agreement about the congregation's shift away from Trinitarianism, so there is no need to bring that up in this context.
What does need a change, and I've added it, is better clarification of the relationship between the two churches. North (Second) church was not a breakaway church as the previous version stated. (the reference given is not as reliable as the actual Second Church records...) I suspect this is a confusion with Old South, which was a 1669 breakaway from First Church, over the Halfway Covenant. But First and Second churches were both amicable about the need for another congregation in the North End as it began to fill up.Dellaroux (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)