Honouring the Past, Embracing the Future

The United Church of Canada was founded in 1925 as a bold experiment in church union, uniting Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist traditions to establish a united national Protestant church. Over the past century, the United Church has played a pivotal role in shaping Canada's religious and social landscape and global ecumenism, advocating for progressive initiatives such as racial and gender justice, Indigenous reconciliation, 2SLGBTQIA+ rights, and interreligious dialogue. However, the church faces a paradox as it enters its second century. While many of its core values have become widely accepted in Canadian society, the institution itself is experiencing declining membership and questions about its enduring role in an increasingly secular society.

This article explores the evolution of the United Church, highlighting its defining moments, challenges, and unwavering commitments. It first examines the church's historical formation, tracing the ecumenical movement that led to its establishment and the theological and social motivations that shaped its early years. Next, it looks at how the church's vision – often balancing the dual callings of spiritual renewal and social transformation – has evolved over time, particularly in response to historical crises such as the Great Depression. It then traces the church's role during and after the Second World War, exploring the changing landscape as the Canadian government expanded its role in public services, which led to the church's diminishing influence.

This article will then analyze the major paradigm shifts in the United Church's mission approach during the latter half of the 20th century, particularly in light of the World Mission report (1966), which marked a radical departure from ecclesiastical colonialism. The report embraced missio Dei, viewing mission as God's work rather than merely church expansion. It emphasized partnership over hierarchy, affirmed religious pluralism, and prioritized social justice, redefining mission as a collaborative and egalitarian effort to address human concerns. The final sections reflect on the church's vision to become an intercultural church and the contemporary challenges it faces, including the rise of secularism and declining religious affiliation in Canada. This article examines the United Church's past, present, and future to provide insight into how religious institutions can navigate social change while remaining true to their founding vision.1

Uniting Church

Before European settlers arrived on Turtle Island, now known as North America, Indigenous peoples had lived on the land for thousands of years. In what later became Canada, many Indigenous communities welcomed those who brought the Christian gospel, viewing it as a way to strengthen their relationship with the Creator and promote kinship. The Wesleyan Methodist Board of Foreign Missions established churches among the Mohawk (Haudenosaunee) nations of Ontario and Mississauga in the early 19th century. By the late 1830s, both Ojibwe (Anishinaabe) and English Methodist clergy were ministering in northwest Ontario and the Prairie provinces. Methodist missions expanded to Vancouver Island in 1859, while Canadian Presbyterians began work in the Prince Albert region in 1866. In 1899, collaboration between Presbyterian and Methodist mission boards helped lay the groundwork for the eventual church union movement.2

The idea of church union in Canada had been a “long cherished hope.”3 The movement toward church union was not a sudden development but rather a gradual process driven by theological, missiological, practical, and social motivations for over 50 years before the formation of The United Church of Canada in 1925. As early as 1874, the Diocesan Synod of Québec of the Church of England initiated conversations about the possibility of uniting different Christian denominations. The Congregational Union of Ontario and Québec also expressed a desire to work toward union, recognizing it as a worthy aspiration to pursue whenever circumstances allowed. The first significant step toward union was taken in 1875, when various Presbyterian bodies merged to form The Presbyterian Church in Canada. However, many church leaders viewed this as merely an initial phase in a broader movement toward a more far-reaching union. A similar union process occurred among Methodists, culminating in the establishment of the Methodist Church of Canada in 1884, with the Congregationalists uniting two decades later. By the end of the 19th century, the notion of a more inclusive Protestant union had gained momentum, particularly among church leaders who recognized the practical and missiological benefits of such an endeavour.

The formal push for church union began earnestly in the early 20th century. In 1902, the Methodist General Conference expressed its desire to unite with the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches. This led to the establishment of a Joint Committee on Church Union in 1904, which brought together representatives from the three denominations to explore the feasibility of an organic union. Over the next four years, the committee tackled key issues concerning the main terms of the Basis of Union, the church's foundational document, and completed its drafting in 1908. The key question posed during discussions was “Do we share a common faith?”4 The theological foundation for the union was rooted in the principles of common convictions and deep spiritual affinities among the uniting churches. The theological preamble to the Basis of Union emphasized this unity, stating that the articles were “the substance of the Christian faith as commonly held among us.” The preamble also affirmed the evangelical doctrines shared by the uniting traditions and presented the statement as “a brief summary of our common faith.” Additionally, the unionists viewed their movement as aligning with the Reformation's emphasis on the authority of scripture and the importance of ancient creeds. They maintained their allegiance to the Reformation's evangelical doctrines and rejected the idea that denominational competition was better than establishing a national church – not state controlled but providing “friendly service to the whole nation.”5 Furthermore, the theological foundation was intertwined with a vision for nation-building.6 The United Church was viewed as a way to create and sustain a united Canada by fostering a spirit of union rooted in the prayer of Jesus, which serves as a scriptural foundation: “That all may be one” (John 17:21).

While the first draft of the Basis of Union was completed in 1908, local union churches emerged, inspired by its united vision. These churches were deliberately established as independent entities, maintaining connections to parent bodies while remaining distinct from existing denominations in preparation for the anticipated national union.7 They represented a grassroots movement, often in rural or frontier areas of western Canada, where communities sought union to avoid denominational competition and resource duplication.8 By 1912, local union churches formed the General Council of Local Union Churches and created presbyteries. In 1921, they were invited to join the Joint Committee on Church Union. By 1925, they numbered approximately 100 congregations across six presbyteries from Québec to British Columbia. Local union churches were entirely new, interdenominational communities that operated under the newly crafted Basis of Union, maintaining a unique identity distinct from Methodists, Presbyterians, or Congregationalists. They exemplified local enthusiasm for ecumenism, reflecting a desire for practical partnership in Canada's expanding western provinces. Their existence underscored the national union's goal to unite Protestantism beyond bureaucratic negotiations9 and blend grassroots initiatives with top-down structural reform. Their story enriches the narrative of Canadian religious history, illustrating how ordinary congregations shaped a national ecclesiastical vision.

One of the primary challenges of church union was determining the governance structure of the United Church. The three denominations had different administrative traditions – Presbyterians favoured a representative system, Methodists employed a conference-based structure, and Congregationalists emphasized local autonomy – so compromises needed to be made. The result was a unique blend of these traditions, ensuring that all voices would be heard in the new church. Additionally, the legal and financial aspects of the church union required careful planning. Issues such as property ownership, denominational assets, and church governance were among the contentious matters that needed resolution before the union could be formalized. In preparation for the merger, leaders worked to secure government approval and legal recognition. The United Church of Canada Act,10 passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1924, provided the legal framework for the creation of The United Church of Canada. It ensured that congregations could retain their properties and included provisions allowing non-concurring congregations – particularly from the Presbyterian Church – to remain outside the union and retain their own property. This legal foundation was critical in making the transition as smooth as possible and preventing prolonged litigation over church assets.

The movement was significantly influenced by the challenges posed by increasing immigration and social change.11 Church leaders feared that the influx of non-Protestant immigrants could disrupt Canada's moral and religious fabric.12 They regarded a united (Anglo-Saxon) Protestant church as an essential force in preserving the nation's Christian identity. A significant driving force behind the church union was the desire to overcome “sectarian” divisions within Canadian Protestantism.13 Many viewed denominational rivalry as a barrier to evangelism and a diversion from the church's core mission. The goal of forming a united national church, with a presence in nearly every Canadian community, was to strengthen the Protestant church's mission by fostering greater unity. Church union was seen as a means to eliminate redundant efforts and optimize resources, enabling more effective service to communities.

The United Church of Canada was officially established in Toronto on 10 June 1925, and it was the first of its kind in a Western country in the 20th century.14 A grand ceremony marked the historic inauguration service, bringing together representatives from the uniting denominations. The new church embraced the rich traditions of Methodism, Presbyterianism, and Congregationalism, along with the desires of the local union churches, hallowing the union for the new church.15 The formation of the United Church was a significant milestone in Canadian religious history (see Figure 1). Despite the challenges and opposition,16 the union reflected the aspirations of many Canadian Protestants who sought greater collaboration and efficiency in their mission. The church's focus on inclusivity, social justice, and national service positioned it as a leading force in Canadian religious and social life.

After the church union, the Executive Committee of the Joint Committee on Church Union stated, “The present Union, now consummated, is but another step toward the wider union of Evangelical Churches, not only in Canada but throughout the world.”17 There are now over 50 United and Uniting churches worldwide. While many of these churches continue to be members of the Christian World Communions to which their "parent" churches belonged, they have also developed their own identity and structure as a communion of “United and Uniting Churches” through a series of consultations facilitated by the World Council of Churches (WCC).18

In Canada, another significant step toward union was taken in 1968 after years of discussion: The Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) Church in Canada united with The United Church of Canada.19 The EUB had deep roots in the 18th-century evangelical movements established by German-speaking immigrants in North America and was firmly committed to stewardship. Despite some theological concerns, the majority of Canadian EUB members voted in favour of uniting with the United Church.20 This historic union broadened the United Church's presence, strengthening its mission of unity, collaboration, and faith-based service throughout Canada.

Double Vision

The Basis of Union served as a foundational statement outlining the theological and ecclesiastical principles of the church and the vision of creating a national church. However, it did not explicitly convey the church's vision. Amid diversity, three denominational traditions resided under one roof; the church coexisted during trying times. After nearly a decade of living together, it demonstrated resilience and achievement despite facing significant challenges. In 1934, during the economic turmoil of the Great Depression, Congregationalist Claris Edwin Silcox presented a compelling call to action for the church.21 He argued that the church needed to reimagine its role in a rapidly changing world; by revitalizing theology, grounding social engagement in realism, investing in education for both clergy and laity, and rethinking ministry, the United Church could navigate the crises of the 1930s – and beyond – with renewed purpose. His vision, blending progressive idealism with pragmatic realism, remains a poignant reminder that a church grounded in both faith and reason can illuminate the path to personal and societal transformation. In this, the United Church “should concern itself less with ecclesiastical machinery and more with the message and the discipline which constitute the Church of the Holy Quest and the Church of the Living God.”22

The evolving dynamics of the church's vision for worship can be observed in two later documents: “Christianizing the Social Order” (hereafter “Christianizing”) and “Evangelism,” both presented in 1934.25 These documents were shaped by the turmoil of the Great Depression (1929–39) and contamination by the “poisoned air.”26 The commissioned document “Christianizing” by the Board of Evangelism and Social Service aimed to explore the Christian standards that should govern social life, assess how contemporary economic and political structures aligned with these principles, and determine what actions the church should take to implement Christian ideals within society. The document “Evangelism” was presented by the same committee, providing a comprehensive statement on evangelism. It explores the concept of evangelism, differentiating it from “Christianization” and distancing it from the “territorial expansion of the church's mission” while emphasizing its focus on spiritual renewal.27

In the life of the church, “Evangelism” has been significantly overshadowed by the more well-known “Christianizing.” However, it complements “Christianizing” with a broader vision of renewed evangelism. Here, we observe two distinct but interconnected visions of the United Church. While both address the role of the Christian faith, they differ markedly in emphasis: one, “Christianizing,” prioritizes societal transformation through Christian principles (immanence), whereas the other, “Evangelism,” highlights the spiritual and eternal dimensions of faith (transcendence).28 These documents present two distinct visions for the church, yet they remain united in their pursuit of faithful witness.

“Christianizing” is rooted in an immanent theological perspective. It advocates for the transformation of societal structures based on Christian ethics. This document argues that faith should not be confined to personal spirituality but should actively influence social, economic, and political spheres.29 “Christianizing” portrays Christianity as a force for tangible change, urging believers to engage in social activism and create a just and moral society. Economic justice and structural transformation are central themes, reinforcing the belief that God's presence exists within the world and that Christian principles must shape social institutions.30 In contrast, “Evangelism” adopts a transcendent theological perspective, emphasizing personal salvation, spiritual renewal, and eternity. It addresses the spiritual needs of individuals and society. The document presents the Christian mission as primarily one of preaching the gospel, calling individuals to repentance, and fostering a personal relationship with Christ.

The comparative analysis of these two documents reveals a tension between immanence and transcendence in Christian thought. While both perspectives contribute to the Christian witness, they reflect differing theological emphases: one focusing on societal transformation and the other on spiritual renewal. Together, they illustrate the dual nature of Christian engagement, wherein faith must address both societal justice and spiritual renewal. This understanding is evident in Northrop Frye's posthumous book, The Double Vision.31 According to Frye, it addresses the integration of primary human concerns with spiritual aspirations. Double vision reconciles the material and the spiritual, advocating for a worldview where neither is diminished. The double vision illustrates a dynamic framework that denotes the ability to perceive simultaneously at two distinct levels of reality: the immanent and the transcendent. In other words, Christians envision the world we create within the world we live in. From this perspective, “Christianizing” and “Evangelism” shaped the vision of the young church for its ministry and witness in the years ahead.

Evolving Landscape

Since most members of the United Church had Anglo-Saxon roots, they believed Canada should defend Britain in the Second World War (1939–45), regardless of the sacrifices involved. Consequently, they sought support from their church during these challenging times. During the war, the church actively contributed to the war effort through its War Services Committee, which recruited and provided resources for over 120 military chaplains.32 The church mobilized congregations, particularly the Woman's Missionary Society, to help shape post-war Canadian communities and strengthen the role of women in church-led social service initiatives.33 It also urged members to purchase War Savings Certificates,34 although this financial involvement sparked debate over the church's stance on the war effort. The United Church played a vital role in wartime and post-war Canadian society through chaplaincy, aid programmes, and financial initiatives.

In post-war Canada, the United Church played a crucial role in evangelism and social services, responding to the nation's transition from wartime mobilization to reconstruction. Through its Forward Movement, the church aimed to rekindle faith, foster social responsibility, and strengthen community engagement.35 Recognizing the significant social, economic, and political changes ahead, it emphasized spreading the gospel and making disciples. While the heightened interest in Christian doctrine and evangelism experiments offered promise, challenges such as racial hostility and social tensions persisted. The church called for a renewed focus on repentance, social justice, and reconciliation, urging Christians to support one another and address moral and cultural crises. This initiative sought to create a dynamic, unified approach to evangelism, ensuring the church remained relevant and responsive in a rapidly changing society.

As in other Western nations, in Canada the years following the war were pivotal, marked by economic growth, suburban expansion, and increased immigration. Among the most significant developments was the rise of the welfare state, particularly in the 1960s, which redefined the role of government in society. As governments assumed greater responsibility for health care, education, and social welfare, the visible role of churches in public life diminished. Economic prosperity fuelled industrial expansion and consumerism, enabling many Canadians to relocate to suburban communities. Simultaneously, waves of post-war immigration – first from Europe and later from more diverse global regions – contributed to significant cultural and demographic shifts. These changes heightened the demand for public services, resulting in a larger government presence in the social welfare state.

Between 1945 and the 1970s, the federal government's workforce tripled, from 115,908 to 319,605, as it expanded services.36 Key developments included the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP, 1965), the Medical Care Act (universal healthcare, 1966), and enhanced public education. These programmes improved living standards and reinforced the expectation that the state, rather than religious institutions, would provide essential social services. Historically, churches played a crucial role in education, health care, and charity, but their influence declined as the government took over these responsibilities and service areas. State-funded schools and hospitals replaced church-run institutions, and trends of secularization further diminished religious participation in public affairs. The United Church once operated up to 32 hospitals and medical clinics nationwide.37 This occurred when public health care funding was limited or nonexistent, resulting in many rural and remote communities lacking adequate medical services. The Woman's Missionary Society and the Board of Home Missions initially financed and oversaw this work. However, after the government took control of health care, the number of hospitals and clinics significantly decreased to just ten by the late 1960s.

Paradigm Shifts

In 1962, the same year the Roman Catholic Church convened the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), the United Church approved the establishment of a Commission on World Mission. This commission was tasked with conducting “an independent and fundamental study of how the United Church of Canada can best share in the World Mission of the Church.”38 After two and a half years of study and consultation, it presented its findings in World Mission: Report of the Commission on World Mission to the 22nd General Council in 1966. Emerging during a profound denominational and global shifting landscape,39 the report marked a radical departure from traditional mission strategies rooted in colonial-era paternalism. The report's significance lies in its rejection of ecclesiastical colonialism, adoption of the missio Dei concept, emphasis on religious pluralism, and advocacy for a mission rooted in social justice and shared concerns. Just as the Second Vatican Council produced Nostra aetate for the Roman Catholic Church, World Mission serves as a defining document for the United Church.

One of the report's most ground-breaking contributions was its explicit rejection of “all forms of ecclesiastical colonialism.”40 Historically, missionary efforts by Western churches operated on a parent-child model, wherein Western missionaries dictated theological, administrative, and cultural norms to indigenous churches. However, as many nations gained independence from colonial rule, the United Church reaffirmed the need to move away from hierarchical relationships toward a partnership model.41 The report championed an egalitarian approach, emphasizing collaboration with indigenous churches as autonomous and self-sufficient entities rather than as subordinate extensions of Western Christianity. By prioritizing local leadership and shared decision-making, the report redefined mission as a mutual exchange rather than a one-directional effort.

The World Mission report was among the first church documents to formally embrace the theological concept of missio Dei – the idea that mission is not a project of the church but rather an ongoing activity of God in the world.42 Prior to this, Christian mission was often understood as the work of the church bringing salvation to non-Christian populations. The missio Dei framework, however, reorients the focus away from institutional expansion and toward participation in God's broader redemptive work, which encompasses social justice, reconciliation, and global partnership. This theological shift underscored the belief that the church exists not as the owner of mission but as a participant in God's mission that is already at work throughout the world.43

A particularly revolutionary aspect of the World Mission report was its recognition of religious pluralism as a reality that must shape mission practice.44 Rather than viewing non-Christian religions as obstacles to be overcome, the report acknowledged that “God is creatively and redemptively at work in the religious life of all mankind.”45 This statement represented a major departure from exclusive (replacement) and inclusive (fulfilment) theological perspectives on interreligious dialogue that regarded Christianity as the sole path to salvation. The document proposed that meaningful dialogue with other faith traditions was a necessary theological imperative, as it could lead to deeper mutual understanding and partnership.46 This approach aligned with the broader ecumenical movement of the 20th century and anticipated later interreligious engagement with people of all religious backgrounds.

Another key contribution of the World Mission report was its emphasis on mission as a response to shared concern for justice rather than a tool for religious conversion. The report introduced the concept of “shared concern,”47 which emphasized addressing common social struggles – such as poverty, inequality, and injustice – as a uniting basis for mission work. This approach recognized that Christians and non-Christians alike could work together in solidarity to confront global challenges. It reframed mission as a collective effort aimed at improving human dignity and social conditions rather than merely as a means of expanding church membership. By advocating for mission practices grounded in justice and community empowerment, the report reinforced the idea that the role of the church was to stand in solidarity with marginalized people rather than dominate them. The World Mission report remains a cornerstone of the United Church's missiology, influencing subsequent policies and ecumenical initiatives. Its emphasis on partnership, equity, and humanity continues to shape the United Church's missiology today.

An Intercultural and Anti-Racist Church

The desire to be a national church in Canada was deeply intertwined with the nation's identity, especially during the period of the church's formation. Protestant church leaders felt it was their duty to establish the moral and spiritual foundations of the nation and to ensure that Canada remained a Christian society. One major driving factor for church union was the challenge posed by immigration. Church leaders aimed to assimilate these newcomers into Anglo-Saxon Christian values through public education and religious instruction, reinforcing the belief that Canadianization and Christianization were inseparable.

Since the late 1980s, the United Church has acknowledged the need to confront racism both within the church and in society.68 In its report to the 36th General Council (1997), the church formally committed to ending racism, allocating resources to support this goal. This commitment shaped That All May Be One: Policy Statement on Anti-Racism, presented to the 37th General Council (2000).69 The statement of beliefs emphasized key principles: all people are equal before God, racism is deeply embedded in both society and the church, and addressing it requires continuous effort. The church acknowledged that its anti-racism policy was only a starting point intended to create a truly inclusive community where differences are embraced. It affirmed that change is possible and called on its members to work toward a society where the gospel's message of justice is fully realized.

The church's declaration that “racism is a sin” reinforced its commitment to dismantling racial injustice.70 It recognized that a community seeking to welcome cultural differences could not be built on the foundations of systemic racism. This prompted deeper reflection on how to engage meaningfully with racial justice beyond mere symbolic commitments. Between 2005 and 2006, the Ethnic Ministries Re-visioning Task Group (RTG) conducted a re-visioning process to strengthen the church's commitment to racial justice.71 The RTG emphasized that the church's ministry must be built on racial justice to fulfill the hopes of diverse communities. It stressed the need for more church members to actively engage in the transformational work of systemic change.

Notably, the RTG avoided using the term “multicultural church,” stating that while celebrating diversity is important, it is only the beginning. It described the term as problematic and instead promoted the idea of an intercultural church, one that fosters deeper engagement and mutual transformation rather than mere representation. The 39th General Council (2006) declared that the “church must be intercultural.”72 The Ethnic Ministries Unit of the General Council proposed a vision for the church “where there is mutually respectful diversity and full and equitable participation of all Aboriginal, Francophone, ethnic minority, and ethnic majority constituencies in the total life, mission, and practices of the whole church.”73 The church's vision at that time suggested that all people within the church, regardless of their racial and cultural backgrounds, be invited to participate equally in building mutual relations in its life and work. The church strives to create a welcoming and safe space for all, envisioning itself as an intercultural church that fosters a community rooted in equity, justice and love.74

Drawing the Circle Wide

Since its inception, the United Church has long been committed to fostering ecumenical relationships with global Christian communities. The 42nd General Council (2015) approved the endeavour “Mutual Agreement” and “Full Communion,” which outlines the church's efforts to establish mutual recognition of ministry with the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) and the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea (PROK), as well as a full communion agreement with the United Church of Christ (USA).75 These initiatives reflect the United Church's dedication to unity in Christ and to strengthening its mission in an increasingly interconnected world.

The background of these agreements highlights the historical and theological connections among these churches. The United Church has maintained a long-standing relationship with the UCCP and PROK, supporting their ministries and recognizing their unique challenges. The UCCP, for instance, emerged in 1948 from a merger of five denominations and has been navigating the complexities of national diversity and international partnerships ever since. Similarly, the PROK, formed in 1953, has maintained a close connection with the United Church, rooted in shared theological perspectives and a commitment to justice and peace.76

The full communion agreement with the United Church of Christ (USA) marks another milestone in the church's ecumenical efforts. This agreement not only facilitates ministerial exchanges but also commits both churches to joint theological study, social justice initiatives, and shared worship experiences. The full communion agreement is grounded in a shared history and a common vision of a united church that embraces diversity and inclusivity. It reflects a biblical and theological commitment to the unity of the body of Christ. These agreements represent a significant step toward realizing Jesus’ prayer, “that all may be one.” They embody the ecumenical spirit, emphasizing partnership over division and shared mission over isolated ministry. By fostering mutual recognition of ministry and establishing full communion, the United Church and its partner churches reaffirm their commitment to being a visible sign of unity within the global Christian community.

Closing Remarks

Liberal churches, including the United Church, have long been at the forefront of progressive social change, advocating for racial and gender justice, 2SLGBTQ+ rights, interreligious relations, and broader social inclusion. However, as these values have increasingly become prevalent in secular society,77 liberal churches now face a paradox: their cultural triumph has coincided with institutional decline.78 The principles championed by liberal Protestantism – inclusion, tolerance, pluralism, and critical inquiry – have become so ingrained in Western culture that the churches that once promoted them now struggle to justify their distinct existence.

This phenomenon, often referred to as “cultural victory and organizational defeat,”79 indicates that liberal churches have successfully reshaped social values but have done so at the expense of their institutional vitality. Many of the moral and ethical positions once linked to liberal Christian values are now widely adopted by secular institutions, making religious affiliation seem redundant for those who share these values. As a result, younger generations, particularly millennials, often find no compelling reason to engage with church communities, especially when they perceive spirituality as a personal rather than a communal pursuit.80 Furthermore, liberal churches often stress theological openness and doctrinal flexibility, which, while appealing in principle, can result in a lack of institutional cohesion and commitment.

In this sense, are liberal churches indeed victims of their success? Their advocacy for justice and inclusion has helped shape a more equitable society and spread Christian values. In doing so, they have contributed to a world where their institutional presence provides transformative influence. Moving forward, the challenge for liberal churches is to redefine their relevance – not only for advocates of progressive Christian values but also for communities that provide deep spiritual formation, meaningful rituals, and a sense of belonging that secular institutions cannot easily replicate. Recalling Frye's “double vision,” which encompasses the immanent and transcendent nature of God, we, The United Church of Canada, hold fast to the founding vision articulated in “Christianizing the Social Order” and “Evangelism.” We realize this vision through the church's new call and vision: “Deep Spirituality, Bold Discipleship, and Daring Justice.”81