Bibliographic record
Abstract
The best-known church union in Canadian history is without doubt that of United Church of Canada in 1925, when nation's Congregationalists, Methodists, and roughly two-thirds of its Presbyterians joined together. This moment was born out of a long series of studies and negotiations rooted in notion that a national or even quasi-established church could extend Christian influence much further in Canadian society than large denominations could, if their efforts remained separate. Leading up to formation of United Church of Canada were a series of mergers within Congregational, Methodist, and Presbyterian denominational families that advanced Old World notion that strong national churches would be in best position to make Canada [God's] Dominion. (1) Twenty years before actual formation of United Church of Canada, a lesser-known ecclesial union was achieved when three Maritime Baptist denominations came together in 1905 and 1906 to create United Baptist Convention of Maritime Provinces (UBCMP). The dynamics leading up to Baptist union were similar to those preceding formation of United Church but differed in some crucial ways. An examination of Maritime Baptist union in comparative perspective reveals extent to which competing visions of church union in late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Canada reflected commitments to regional, national, and international religious identities. In 1946, historian George Levy wrote The Baptists of Maritime Provinces, 1753-1946 to help his denomination celebrate its fortieth anniversary as a union of Arminian and Calvinistic Baptists. During period from 1905 to 1906 three denominations, Maritime Convention of Maritime Baptists, Free Baptists of New Brunswick, and Free Baptists of Nova Scotia, merged to create UBCMP. In chapter Consummation of Union, Levy cited often-repeated pragmatic causes for church unions in Canada, regardless of denomination, such as duplication of pastorates, shortages of ministers, and growing need for collective home and foreign mission efforts. One less tangible factor leading up to Maritime Baptist union was, according to Levy, the feeling that ... denominations ought to be one. (2) Although he attempted to suggest that Regular (Calvinist) and Free (Arminian) Baptists of region gradually became more like each other, he did not explore why. What happened in nineteenth century to soften denominational boundaries to point that these three groups were able to see themselves as possessing same identity? Although practical issues surrounding denomination-building are not in doubt, they do beg question of self-understanding. Why were Calvinistic and Arminian Baptists willing to create a new denomination and leave behind denominations they had worked so hard to build? This is question that concerns this study. It is argument of this essay that Maritime Baptist union was achieved in large measure because religious identity among these groups was forged in same nineteenth-century context. All three founding denominations had strong roots in late-eighteenth-century revivals of Maritime region and remained committed to new birth, (3) believer's baptism by immersion, and believer's church. In addition, they experienced a heightened sense of free moral agency that was spread by emergence of market capitalism and responsible government. This in turn led to modification and decline of Calvinism among Regular Baptists. Each of founding groups called upon authority of past to make case for union during a time when a particular interpretation of founders' wishes proved to be convincing. As all of these Baptists sought to increase their influence by moving toward Protestant mainstream of Maritime society, they rejected extreme expressions of their traditions and theological innovations, including Calvinistic and Arminian primitivism, belief in instantaneous sanctification, and biblical higher criticism. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".