Whaaaaaaatt???? What's happening in Canada??

[TrueNorth]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

The UPC of Canada is roughly the same size as the ACOP, perhaps a little bit smaller. We seem to function very well on a national level. I personally believe an independent Canadian organization would serve the best interest of future growth in the Canadian church.

I would be interested in specific commentary on the points I have made in the earlier post. Why would Canadians not want to be a national body like every other UPC cosnstituency? Have they become so dependent upon Hazelwood that they simply don't believe in their own potential?

I will try to respond to some of your points.
Whether in Canada or the US evangelism and planting churches is a district operation, not national. As you know Home Missionaries are approved by their districts before receiving funding. Having a national organization will not jump start the process.
In my opinion the UPCI has one of the better Missions programs in existence. Currently with the joint venture working as it is Canadian Missionaries receive tremendous benefit. Why change it now?
Canadians may want on one level to be a separate organization however on a practical level there are benefits to remaining as part of the UPCI. A separate organization creates another level of bureaucracy with all of it's attendant costs.
I don't know very many Canadian ministers or leaders who are dependent on Hazelwood for much of anything. I do think Canadians are realists - recognizing that the united thrusts of evangelism and missions that we share with our US brothers and sisters are more effective than what we can do on our own.
It might just be me, but I don't see the ACOP as being a shining example of a Canadian success story. It has neither a great organized missions program or coordinated Home Missions program and remains primarily a western organization with no clear definition of what it is.

[TrueNorth]

Originally Posted by TRIPLE E

I for one am for having our own national body in Canada.

2006 Canadian populatio-33,098,932
2006 UPC churches 223
1 church for every 148,426 of the population

2006 American population-295,934,134
UPC churches -4277
1 church for every 69,192 of the population

The production rate in Canada is 2.15 times slower than the US

And having our own national organization would solve this how? By moving the Bible Belt from the southern US into Canada?
Revival and harvest are local church grassroots responsibilities.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

This is purely an academic discussion for me, but one that interests me enough that I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of conversation.

The first point that should be clarified is that Canada is not a mission field to be nationalized, but a partner in the UPCI. The UPCI is not an American organization, but a joint Canadian/American organization.

It could as easily be argued that the American churches need to be nationalized as to argue for the nationalization of the Canadian churches. The UPCI is an international organization, not a national body.

IMO whether it's a partnership or a mission field is a mute point. The fact remains that apart from Atlantic Canada the rest of the nation remains a mission field for the UPC with very few churches west of Ontario.

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

Removing the Canadian component from the UPCI would limit opportunity for Canadian missionaries. There are 15+ Canadian missionaries in the UPCI, with an approximate total annual budget of 1.8+ million Canadian dollars. The total Missions giving for the Canadian churches, for the last year reported on UPCI.org was 1.2 million Canadian dollars. Canada does not produce enough missions revenue to fund Canadian missionaries.

An independent UPCC would be faced with the choice of reducing the number of missionaries, or slashing the budgets of the existing missionaries.

Thank you for the statistics. This info further reinforces my conviction that Canada can nationalize and still support its missionaries. When I was a UPC missionary it would be determined what your budget was to live on the field and then it was doubled and that is what you had to raise. Then of course you have the percent that supports Hazelwood. I am convinced that a Canadian organization would be much less costly to administrate. As well, I believe missionaries can live and work with less budgets than what the present UPC standard allows for.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

Canada is so large geographically and has such a low population density that a separate Canadian organization would be ineffective in providing fellowship.

The United Pentecostal church in Canada is an Eastern organization. A full 75% of its churches, and an even larger percentage of its constituents live east of the Manitoba/Ontario border. For most Canadian United Pentecostals, Hazelwood is closer than the ACOP headquarters in Calgary, Alberta, and, for those in New Brunswick, Hazelwood is more than 2000 KMs less driving than Calgary.

Why would becoming a national organization change the fellowship dynamic? Why wouldn't the same "partnership" exist? You would still be part of the UPCI. I think back to when the UPC of NB had withdrawn from an official affiliation with UPCI. My recollection is that UPC ministers were preaching in NB churches and at District functions, and ministers were attending UPCI events in the US. BTW, how many trips do UPC ministers make to Hazelwood each year anyway? Is it now mandatory to make annual treks to Mecca [Hazelwood]?

[H2H]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I'll tell you this, My wife is against the UPCI in Canada breaking away. I hear tell, that the main reason for the idea being proposed, was for tax purposes. Anyone know for sure?

Is she like a Canadian Bishop or something?

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by TrueNorth

I will try to respond to some of your points.
Whether in Canada or the US evangelism and planting churches is a district operation, not national. As you know Home Missionaries are approved by their districts before receiving funding. Having a national organization will not jump start the process.
In my opinion the UPCI has one of the better Missions programs in existence. Currently with the joint venture working as it is Canadian Missionaries receive tremendous benefit. Why change it now?
Canadians may want on one level to be a separate organization however on a practical level there are benefits to remaining as part of the UPCI. A separate organization creates another level of bureaucracy with all of it's attendant costs.
I don't know very many Canadian ministers or leaders who are dependent on Hazelwood for much of anything. I do think Canadians are realists - recognizing that the united thrusts of evangelism and missions that we share with our US brothers and sisters are more effective than what we can do on our own.
It might just be me, but I don't see the ACOP as being a shining example of a Canadian success story. It has neither a great organized missions program or coordinated Home Missions program and remains primarily a western organization with no clear definition of what it is.

I can see the present benefit of belonging to a larger organization. It's like Atlantic Canada being the "have not" provinces that they are relying on the rest of Canada to provide them with the benefits that Canadians in other provinces enjoy.

While I agree that the ACOP has an identity problem, I have to disagree with what seems to be a deficient knowledge of their missions program. I was quite impressed actually with what is a strong missions emphasis with very active involvement in missions on the local level. You can't judge their progam by what flows through Calgary. For example, our church sent perhaps $50,000 - $60,000 to Calgary last year, yet we gave around $100,000 to missions. I think you would be surprised at the depth of their missionary involvement.

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

IMO whether it's a partnership or a mission field is a mute point. The fact remains that apart from Atlantic Canada the rest of the nation remains a mission field for the UPC with very few churches west of Ontario.

In your initial post on this topic, you used the "mission field" example as a basis for the argument that the Canadian churches should be nationalized. In the context of that argument the difference between a controlled mission field and a full partnership is far from being a moot point.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Why would anyone feel that the Canadians becoming nationaized would be "breaking away" from the UPCI? It is supposed to be the goal of every missionary to bring the nation where they are serving to nationalization as soon as that country has enough ministers and churches, along with qualified leaders to direct the affairs of the national organization.

. . .

Does anyone know of any other country in the world that has as many churches and ministers as Canada that has not become nationalized? Canada has its own culture, is a bilingual nation, is already registered as a charitable organization, has an annual Canadian Conference, etc.

I believe the Canadian UPC would benefit from being nationalized. This is not the same as "breaking away". I would call it "growing up".

Canada is a full partner in the UPCI, and enjoys a disproportionate amount of control over the direction of the denomination. Canada has approximately 15% of the votes on the General Board, but only represents approximately 4% of the constituency of the UPCI. Canadian ministers, as full members of the UPCI, are eligible for the executive offices of the UPCI, including the office of General Superintendent, a privilege not extended to ministers on mission fields.

There was a moot point made, but It wasn't I who made it.

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

The UPC of Canada is roughly the same size as the ACOP, perhaps a little bit smaller. We seem to function very well on a national level. I personally believe an independent Canadian organization would serve the best interest of future growth in the Canadian church.

I would be interested in specific commentary on the points I have made in the earlier post. Why would Canadians not want to be a national body like every other UPC cosnstituency? Have they become so dependent upon Hazelwood that they simply don't believe in their own potential?

Is the ACOP a stand alone denomination because that is a better structure, or because its doctrinal distinctives bar it from participation in larger fellowships?

The ACOP is excluded from partnership with the UPCI because of its inclusion of trinitarianism and its promotion of Calvinism, and is refused partnership with the PAOC because of its official "Jesus Name" baptismal formula and its stand for the doctrine of unconditional eternal security.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by TrueNorth

Monkey
I was at the Canada Conference as well. This is not what happened. Canada has an executive presbyter (Granville MacKenzie) who was elected at the General Conference. A letter and poll were sent out by three men asking if ministers would be in favor of the executive presbyter becoming an assistant general superintendent or if ministers would be in favor of a separate organization. These three gentlemen, while fine elders, had no official standing to do so and in my opinion do not have much of a constituency to back them.

There is no significant movement (it would probably be safe to say "no movement") to create a "sister" organization that would break off from the UPCI. Canada already has the UPC of Canada which serves a role in complying with government of Canada regulations regarding the flow of money out of Canada. It has not and does not serve as a ministerial organization.

Canada has just over 200 UPCI churches, the majority of which are in two districts - Ontario and Atlantic. In patriotic terms a separate sister organization is appealing, in practical financial and operational terms it loses it's luster and becomes just another layer of bureaucracy.

Hope this helps. There is no story here.

Truenorth

This hits the nail on the head, and while appetite by and large for a seperate organization is not there right now (perhaps if we go big enough) the way that this is being handeled and put forth is making a lot of ministers upset.

There is always more to the story than put forth.

[Steve Epley]

Carry on Brethren this is interesting.