Talk:Presbyterian Church (USA)

Inactive and Active Members

I think editors should be reminded that the PC(USA) has both active and inactive members. So, when the 2015 statistic finds 1.5 million active members, that means there are also inactive. In 2012, the PC(USA) reported 1.9 million active and a total of 2.8 million according to the Yearbook of Canadian and American Churches. In looking, 2012 is the most up to date I have found for total membership and 2012 is more than recent enough for statistical purposes. If anyone can help find a more recent, although that's fairly recent, finding on total members, both inactive and active, it would be very much appreciated! Also, here is a good explanation for what it means to be 'inactive' "Inactive roll: The inactive roll lists the names of members of the church, who, in the judgment of session, have willfully let their active membership in the church lapse. The person must have been inactive for at least one year and session must have diligently tried to discover the cause of the members' non-participation." SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Presbyterian Church USA Logo 1.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Presbyterian Church USA Logo 1.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 2 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal: The Service for the Lord's Day

The article, The Service for the Lord's Day is written almost like a how-to guide and details a narrow, very variable part of the topic of Presbyterian Church (USA). Its contents could easily be summarized in the #Worship section of this article. Intelligentsium 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, I would ask if "The Service for the Lord's Day" is similar in other Presbyterian Churches, and if it is, would it be appropriate to make the article more about Presbyterians in general? If not and then yes this should be merged with this article in my opinion. Ltwin (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The Service for the Lord's Day in BCW (1993) reflects the revision of the Directory for Worship, which gives the theological and structural mandates for PC(USA) congregations. If this article is to be helpful and add depth to the PC(U.S.A.) link/merger, then it needs to be less an outline and more an article on the Directory for Worship.--Cdboyd1 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion restored from Archive 2 -- Wbm1058 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Help for Bible work

We are University students and few teachers establishing new presbyterian church among muslim society. Please help us to cnstruct church. We belief that God do some thing on this empty land. Contact adress: kajeladiriba@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.72.14 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Split out history

If we're considering the PC(USA) to have been established in 1983, then the history section shouldn't be an overview of Presbyterianism in the US. I think there should be a Presbyterianism in the United States article, so I'd like to split out most of the history material from here and just overview the events leading up to the formation of the PC(USA) here. --JFH (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

While the PC(USA) by that name did not exist until 1983, it isn't quite right that its history starts there. It is the continuation of its parent denominations. It has continued in its enumeration of the General Assemblies, for example, and keeps reporting in the minutes each GA the list of former moderators including all from the parent denominations. Furthermore, it continues to struggle with some of the same issues it has since long before 1983. The history of the parent denominations is a big part of the history of the current denomination. That said, I would welcome a Presbyterianism in the United States article, and a reference to that article would justify shortening the section here. Sterrettc (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not simply provide an overview of the pre-merger history and simply link to all the predecessor churches (which all have articles by the way) that way if people want to delve further into, say, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, they can link to that article as well as the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America article. All of the pre-merger bodies have articles, and all of them could use some work and expansion. Also, I think the broader article would be great, but it shouldn't just be a detailed history of PC(USA) because that is not the only strand of Presbyterianism in the US. Ltwin (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

yes the point is that the subject here is a body formed in 1983, so we only need a brief overview section, otherwise it becomes a WP: CONTENTFORK --JFH (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable congregation list

I just removed some congregations (unfortunately, forgot to log in) from the list of notable congregations as they lacked any citation for notability. My personal feeling is that any redlinks should be removed from that section, as it seems the only reason they're included at all is because they're on the PCUSA-published list of 15 largest congregations. Congregation size does not necessarily establish notability, unless I'm gravely mistaken. Please let me know if you disagree. Velinath (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading Presentation of Presbyterian Lay Committee Links

Two links to layman.org (Presbyterian Lay Committee) are given inline in the Presbyterian_Church_(U.S.A.)#20th_century_to_the_present section, in sentences that present them as neutral sources of information: "These changes have led to several renewal movements and denominational splinters. Some conservative-minded groups in the PC(USA), such as the Confessing church movement and the Presbyterian Lay Commmittee (formed in the mid-1960s) have remained in the main body, rather than leaving to form new, break-away groups. See here for details.", where "here" links to the Presbyterian Lay Committe's own about us page. Including a link to that page may be useful, but linking to it with a mere "See here for details" does not seem like Wikipedia:NPOV. Similarly, in the Presbyterian_Church_(U.S.A.)#Breakaway_Presbyterian_denominations section, a chart from the Presbyterian Lay Committee is linked in the sentence "A chart comparing PC(USA), EPC, and ECO may be found here". The chart cites no sources and is presented with no context, but it appears to be advocacy material for ECO, not a neutral reference (example: The field addressing LGBTQ ordination is titled "Ordination only of those striving to live in obedience to Scripture and Confessional standards including: Fidelity in marriage between a man and a women or chastity in singleness". The field addressing women's ordination is titled "Ordination of women"). I'm not much of a Wikipedian or PC(USA) historian (I was reading this article to learn about PC(USA) history!), but I am hoping those of you who are more of either of those things can help resolve this. Thanks, Anonyaad (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

People are still trying to use links from the Layman.org blog as well. I think we should remind people that they are an anti-PC(USA) source and that only PC(USA) associated or neutral/objective sources should be used. SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel

I have added a short referenced section on the controversy generated by 'Zionism unsettled', including quotes by well known critics.Cpsoper (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) → Presbyterian Church (USA) – The official website does not spell it with periods. – Illegitimate Barrister 10:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC) – Illegitimate Barrister 10:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe we should keep the current title as is. The organization's name is stylized in different ways in different places on the website, for example. In addition, the official documents, such as the Book of Order, features the periods as part of the name. Ltwin (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think that a look at general Ngrams for usa,u.s.a. is generally supportive of the change. The U.S. is typically presented as "U.S." but the USA is typically presented as the "USA". GregKaye 22:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The common abbreviation for the country is without full stops. How it's stylised on their website is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The official website spells it with periods in the website front page title. However, the logo doesn't include any periods. The logo would seem to be a more hardened representation of what the organization intends. On the other hand, they use periods in official documents per Ltwin. I might bend toward Necrothesp's position, but only if we show an alternative like, "sometimes stylized as Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to. We don't usually add "also stylised as" every time we include an abbreviation without the full stops. Everyone knows they can be written either way. We do assume our readers have some common sense. It's like people only known by their initials. Our house style is to use full stops. Many people (including me) wouldn't naturally use full stops and many publications (like the BBC, for instance) don't use them in their house style. However, we don't write "John James Smith, usually known as J. J. Smith, sometimes stylised as J J Smith". It's obvious. It doesn't need saying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    • In this specific case, I disagree, because it's styled differently within the entity itself, and that is how the alternative should be framed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Stevietheman a search on site:www.pcusa.org "Presbyterian Church" demonstrates both usages. GregKaye 09:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per me (lol), Necrothesp and image search on Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) GregKaye 09:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, also if I may add, WP:NOTUSA states that periods should not be used in abbreviations of three letters or more. They should only be used for two-letter abbreviations. – Illegitimate Barrister, 03:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that the article indicates that the "U.S.A." presentation is oftentimes used by the organization. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support; also support Presbyterian Church (United States). "U.S.A." is not allowed per our Manual of Style. ONR (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's initially what I thought, until I realised the church uses "USA" in parentheses in its own name. Better to use natural disambiguation here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Presbyterian Church (USA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150810220116/http://www.pcusa.org/oga/publications/boo07-09.pdf to http://www.pcusa.org/oga/publications/boo07-09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)