It is a great honour to be asked to deliver the Mark de Wolfe lecture, this year. I don't usually spend my time trying to meet academic standards so I have found it to be quite challenging. I wanted to find a way to really give you a feeling for who this man, known to everyone as Bill Irvine, really was. I wanted to honour all those who have preceded me in this lecture. I have appreciated the opportunity I have had to read their work and be enlightened and deepened by what they had to offer.

Bernie Keeler’s invitation to do this lecture posed a challenge for me. Mr. Howard Palmer had already presented a paper on Bill Irvine (as he liked to be called) and had done an excellent job of presenting his personal history and political accomplishments. I will just review it quickly for you and then move on to understanding Irvine’s religious and political thought, which will be the focus of this paper.

Early History
Irvine was born to a fishing family in the Shetland Islands off Scotland. The family was poor but he received an education due to the Scottish Education Act of 1872, which made education compulsory for every child. He emigrated to the United States to complete his high school in 1902 and then returned to the Shetlands where he followed his grandfather's footsteps and took a lay Methodist preaching position. In 1907 he was recruited by J.S. Woodsworth’s father to train for the Methodist ministry in Canada. Throughout this entire period he lived with the working folk and knew intimately the frugal, hardworking lifestyle of the Scottish countryside. He also picked up a passing ability to play the fiddle. His cousins, Frank and James Pottinger, were a significant influence on him in his political development and gave him a thorough exposure to the ideas of socialism—something everyone was talking about in the Shetland Islands at that time. (Madiros, Chapter One.)

In 1907 he enrolled in the Wesley and Manitoba Colleges in a combined Methodist and Presbyterian theological program. It took him 6 years to complete his studies because of the long breaks he needed to take to earn his way. Missionary-type circuit work in small communities often had to be supplemented with farm work to produce enough income to pay for school. He also encountered the rough logging communities of the North. In 1910, while at a logging camp near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Irvine met and married his partner for life, Adelia Maple Little. Over time they were to have four sons and a daughter. It is hard to imagine how ’Delia managed on the money he earned, but she did that and almost single-handedly raised their children—Irvine was so involved in church and community affairs.

Before I go on with the details of Irvine’s story, let’s take a step back for a minute and look at the larger context in which these events are occurring.

Key International Trends of the Period
1916 places Canada in the middle of World War I. It is a period of heavy nationalism and just precedes the time when the government chose to go for mandatory conscription of young men to supply the armed forces. Capitalism and Industrialism play strong roles in forming the economies of most of what we know as the western world. They are unchecked by any social policy framework. These forces have created a power imbalance. A few people hold most of the wealth and power. Many people are experiencing displacement from older types of economies with great unemployment, poverty and hardship resulting. The ideas of Marx and Engel are under wide discussion and during this period the Bolshevik revolution occurs in Russia. The women’s suffrage and temperance movements are in full force. Scientific knowledge and understanding of the universe continues to grow exponentially, and most educated people are thinking about the relationship between scientific thought and religious ideas. (Grun) Germany contains forces that contain both the most enlightened attitudes (Socialism) and the most barbaric (The precursors of Nazism). (Irvine)

In the 1920s, the League of Nations is formed. Adolph Hitler announces his 25-point program and begins his own political journey. Radio and modern communications is being born. The fields of Psychology and Psychiatry are under development with key writings from both Jung and Freud. Post-war Christianity is on the decline as a result of the depressing impact of modern warfare. Only the social gospel stream has life and power for people. (Hewett, p177) Labour parties form across Europe and major strikes occur. 1924 sees the first Labour government in Britain while Fascism and Mussolini take over in Italy. Women get the vote in Britain. A general state of economic depression leads to the 1929 crash on Wall Street, which is then followed by the 1930s’ deep depression. (Grun, by year)

The Canadian Scene
Canada is still a relatively young country at this time. Our constitution was held in Britain. Alberta and Saskatchewan had only been formed as provinces in 1905. In 1916, when Irvine went to Calgary, they were only 10 years old. This was a new country in formation. It was a real opportunity to influence how the country would work.

The Canadian political system, modelled after the British, was dominated almost totally by the Liberals. (Madiros, p61) Various groups and interests were attempting to form a cohesive opposition that might legitimately challenge the government. (Does that sound familiar?) Both the McKenzie King-Liberals and their most likely opposition, the Conservatives, were financed by big money interests. The farmers were more politically developed than the labour movement, but neither had much representation or voice in either provincial or federal legislatures.

In the 1920s, 60% of the prairie population was living either on the farm or in adjacent villages that existed to serve farms. “Canadian wheat sales constituted nearly half the world export market”. (Friesen, p301)

Listen to this description of Eastern-Western relations in The Life and Political Times of Tommy Douglas by Walter Stewart

The East with a capital E was generally for high tariffs, high freight rates, and low wheat prices, which meant adopting policies that made it expensive for westerners to buy machinery and left them at the mercy of the banks, which conveniently arranged crop loans so that they came due at harvest time, ensuring that the markets would be flooded with low-cost wheat every autumn. Western objections to this arrangement went unheeded. Cornelius Van Horne, the railroad mogul, told a delegation of Manitoba farmers demanding lower freight rates to ‘Raise less hell and more wheat,’ and eastern MPs all nodded their heads in unison.(Stewart pp58-59)

The cost of transportation on the CPR was very high and the railroad often failed to provide adequate and timely service. Both tariffs and freight rates pushed up the cost of farm equipment. Five grain companies controlled the prices at the Winnipeg Grain exchange. It was also impossible to get credit at the bank without paying exorbitant interest rates. The farmers across the prairies began setting up cooperatives to buy, market, and store grain and other farm products. (Madiros pp53-54)

Theological Context
The most important theological influence on this time was The Rev. Salem Bland, Professor of New Testament at Wesley and Manitoba Colleges (in a combined Methodist and Presbyterian theological program) in Winnipeg. He was a dynamic teacher and had a profound influence on many who attended there including Bill Irvine, J.S. Woodsworth, and William Ivens.

People of that time stared at the horrors of the First World War. They saw the terrible displacement of people because of the industrial revolution. They heard the economic arguments of Marx regarding the distribution of wealth and power. They saw a different world described by the ideas of science than the one found in Genesis. For some the Christianity of old did not seem relevant to all these changes. Salem Bland looked at Christianity through these lenses and began to develop a social theology of Jesus. He undertook an historical search for the roots of the social gospel. He showed that Protestantism and capitalism were intricately linked. He traced movements of brotherhood and democracy through Western Civilization.

Bland argued for the abolition of Capitalism in favour of public ownership. The Protestant emphasis on individual character VIRTUES, (industry, thrift, sobriety, honesty and self-control) and VICES (indolence, intemperance, licentiousness, and poverty) did not serve brotherhood. Society would be saved by just social structures more than by individual effort. And he did not let the churches off the hook. There was a false and true Christianity. The mainline churches, in defending moneyed interests, promoted false Christianity. True Christianity identified with the oppressed. It was Creedless. Its pulpit was open to all.

There was a possible world in which the world’s work would be done with a sense of brotherly communion; that the self-conscious worker would somehow be able to master the economic machine and direct it toward the filling of human need; that that act was an expression of the divinity immanent in man; that a great struggle lay between the present and that day; that such developments would have profound effects upon all forms of human society, not excepting religion; and that such an world would be a living embodiment of the ‘teachings and spirit of Jesus of Nazareth.’ (Allen, p174)

First Ministry
This is the context into which William Irvine came to the time of graduation and ordination. He had a problem. Irvine declared that he could not sign the Articles of Faith because he no longer believed in them. He could, however, preach the Social Gospel based on the social and humane ideas of Jesus. There was sufficient comfort with that position that he was ordained and assigned to a joint Presbyterian/Methodist church in Emo, Ontario. Listen to Irvine’s own description of his preaching in Emo:

I was preaching sheer humanism. The supernatural had vanished. There were no miracles, no virgin birth, no atonement and resurrection. Of course I did not put it to my congregation in that way. I used everything in the Bible which could in any way support the Social Gospel. I did not mention nor criticize church doctrine except by inference to those who could follow logic. It took nearly two years for it to dawn on the people of Emo that I was not preaching to get people into heaven but that I was much more interested in getting heaven into people.(Madiros p22)

Irvine saw no essential difference between the philosophy of socialism and the religion of Jesus. He taught that when churches became interested in the needs of their community and became places which worked for the welfare of the people then no-one would have to ask what churches were for. His socialism and his religion combined into the social gospel: “to apply the principles of Jesus Christ fearlessly to the economic and social conditions that we find in these days,” (Allen p29) to see what is wrong, and then to give your life energies to work for change.

After two years in this Presbyterian Church Irvine found himself facing a heresy trial in Emo. Unitarians took notice. This theology would work well in Unitarian circles. Charles Potter was preaching a humanist social gospel in Edmonton, as was Horace Westwood in Winnipeg. This led to Westwood's efforts to attract Irvine to Unitarianism. He arranged with the American Unitarian Association to admit Irvine into Fellowship, to invite him to Calgary and to pay most of his salary. It was 1916.

Call to Calgary
At the time Irvine arrived in Calgary, we might say that his theology was somewhat radical compared to mainstream society, but he was certainly not alone. Many were swept up by the new ideas. At the Methodist conference of 1918, the meeting “shifted theological foundation from metaphysics to ‘the spirit and ethics of Jesus. [They asked,] Shall we look for the Lord and angels in clouds, or assume responsibility—to will and to work his good pleasure?’” (Allen, p72)

The Calgary position was a particularly good one for Irvine. According to his biographer, Anthony Madiros,

The Reverend Charles Potter also spoke [at his installation] and said that the congregation must share its minister with the community. The Unitarian tradition was that one-tenth of the pastor's time was spent on the needs of his congregation, and nine-tenths upon work in the community at large. The minister should not be required to give more than one sermon a week, but he should maintain the Unitarian ideal of public service.(Madiros, p35)

This was perfect for Bill. He worked with an evangelical zeal to make his vision real in this new country. He zeroed right in on two groups that he wanted to reach—labour, and farmers. The wealthy elite in Canada had labour and farmers under their thumbs and intended to keep it that way. Irvine believed passionately that if the people would organize and speak with one voice they could improve their circumstances. He promoted the democratic process as the way to make change. He set out to organize farmers and labour to claim their power by electing representatives to government.

He began a “People’s Forum” and brought in speakers—on topics usually related to politics and socialism. He used contacts he developed in Calgary’s publishing industry to set up, edit and write for a newspaper called the Nutcracker (which later became the Alberta Non-Partisan and then the Western Independent.) Irvine had a mission to educate the public on the importance of socialism and of democracy and was willing to use any venue to get his message across. In four years he made significant inroads in the development of the Non-Partisan League (a movement to put representatives into the legislature who would represent farmers’ interests.) The wide readership of the Nutcracker was instrumental in raising the consciousness of labour and eventually in supporting the start-up of the Labour Representation League in Calgary. Using his speaking, writing, and networking skills he worked towards the development of a spirit of co-operation between farmers and labour and to convince them of the need to get involved directly in politics. This work culminated in his first book, The Farmer In Politics, published in 1920.

And what was his message? Irvine had a strong stand on many issues.

He challenged the banking system and recommended a modified version of social credit ideas where there would be a system for regulating the amount of cash in the economy so that it matched the amount of goods that were being produced. He was particularly opposed to the party system:

•	“The first enemy is partyism. The first step is to break up the combination of party politics.” (sermon notes p103)
•	“Party politics do not represent a healthy difference of opinion … [they are] corrupt … and maintain itself by fair or foul means. The ambition is to win ….This is the outcome of a patronage system.” (sermon notes p118)
•	“A people with a sacred ballot in their hands must be held responsible for corruption in public life, and social and economic injustice so long as they allow them to remain.” (sermon notes p100)

(It should be noted that later, he reversed this position as he became first a passionate supporter of the CCF and later the NDP.)

He proposed democratic principles of legislative accountability and recall. He supported feminism and women’s suffrage. He proposed social security, health, and pension legislation, and ensured that these issues were reflected in the platforms of organizations that he helped to organize including the CCF. “One of Irvine’s earliest moves after election to parliament was to introduce a private member’s bill calling for the abolition of capital punishment.” (Hewett, p368). He actively worked to develop co-operatives in Calgary, New Brunswick, and across Canada. He tried through practical community development to create the new forms of organization that would work to unite people and build a country based on fair distribution of wealth and support for people’s basic needs. (Madiros p184)

William Irvine had a huge vision of the opportunity to build the Kingdom of God here on earth.

•	“Sad to think that we have ignored for 2000 years the dearest wish of Jesus.” (sermon notes p35)
•	“A state of being which will afford to every one an opportunity to be his or her best.” (sermon notes p37)
•	“Every human life and mind is a social product. Individualism has permeated the national life. We have missed our true service by worshipping an unholy trinity of Individualism, Sacredness of property and profits.” (sermon notes p63)
•	“Kingdom of God historically means social righteousness. Social repentance. End of oppression. Strife. War. Reorganization of society on the ethics of Jesus. Is this impossible?” (sermon notes)

Stand Against Conscription
A key theme in both Irvine’s theology and his social vision was his stand on war. Irvine was outspoken at church, in the People’s forum and in the Nutcracker in his opposition, particularly to conscription of labour without conscription of wealth:

According to Phillip Hewett, Irvine and Westwood both took stands against conscription:

The issues raised by Irvine were no more radical than these, but they were raised more publicly, persistently, and provocatively. There was an inevitable reaction. The theatre in which his meetings were held cancelled the lease on grounds of patriotism. (Instead of singing ‘God Save the King,’ those attending had joined in singing ‘God Save the People’. But a more serious blow came from within the Unitarian movement itself.

Let’s remember that Irvine started in Calgary in 1916. In 1917, Canada moved to universal conscription for the armed forces. There was a strong mood of Nationalism in the Country and people were angry if someone wasn’t properly patriotic. In addition,

After the United States entered the war in April, 1917, the AUA had hastened to declare its wholehearted support of the Allied cause. No subsidy from the Association would be paid, it was announced, to any congregation for the support of a minister who did not loyally give such allegiance. [$125 of Irvine’s $150 a month salary was paid by the AUA, so he] was vulnerable.

In a personal letter, Irvine told the story this way:

Some local super-patriot ( we are now aware it was a member of the Edmonton Church) notified Boston that I was a pro-German and as such was a detriment and disgrace to the Unitarian Church ….I was opposing the war!

Irvine Continued….

Of course I did not oppose the war. I opposed the manner in which it was being fought. (Perhaps I should have opposed it, because it was fought on the basis of a lie: that it was to be a war to end all wars, when in fact, it turned out that peace had hardly been won when America and Britain began to re-arm Germany as the spearhead of a war against Russia). But of course, that action I, and most others, could not forsee; so when I fought the government in 1917 election what I did know was that one of my brothers had already been slain and that another brother was on his way overseas to join the Canadian army at the front and that, while our men were giving their lives, there were well authenticated stories that profiteers had supplied our armies with Ross rifles which were unfit to use—the bolt jamming after the first round or two had been fired, thus leaving our troops in the trenches without protection except artillery. We also had it on good authority that the boots served to the army had ‘paper’ soles which did not stay on the boots very long after being soaked in mud and water which was often to the knees of the men wearing them.

Well, I took the ground that if the war was being fought for freedom and democracy it should be fought as nearly as possible under conditions of equal sacrifice; that if our youth were called upon to give their lives, the least that should be demanded was that manufacturers and others should give of their wealth.

Conflict with the AUA
Samuel Eliot, the president of the American Unitarian Association, wrote to Irvine that because of his anti-war views the Unitarian Church would no longer financially subsidize his ministry. This decision came just a few weeks before the signing of the armistice that ended the war.

Eliot also explained that some of his parishioners had complained that “you are more of a politician and journalist than a minister.” Irvine wrote back protesting that he had been judged without being given an opportunity to speak in his own defense, but went on to inform Eliot that he had taken a job as a locomotive carpenter for the CPR and would continue to conduct Sunday services as long as his congregation wanted him to do so.

He continued in this role for about a year before he formally resigned, September 30, 1919. He gave his farewell address to the Calgary Unitarian Church on the issue of Free Speech. At the time of his resignation he wrote to Samuel Eliot, claiming a membership in the congregation of about 60 and an attendance of about 100. ( It is interesting to note that at that time, the Canadian Census told us there were almost 5000 self-declared Unitarians in Canada. (Hewett p 181))

The People’s Church
About 4 months later, Irvine started a People’s Church in Calgary. This church was part of the Labour church movement, which rose quickly and just as quickly declined between 1918 and 1924. The Labour church movement was a reflection of a very active period in labour history in Canada. According to The Social Passion, “Canadian society was in crisis in 1919 because it was unable to assimilate, provide work for, and rehabilitate its war veterans.” (Allen p80). The union movement was in turmoil as to how it should organize—whether as one big union or many smaller ones—whether as national unions within Canada or to reach for more powerful, international unions with less local input and control. June 1919 was the date of the Winnipeg general strike. What was at stake in these debates? What were they fighting for in the midst of all the chaos? Some wanted a clear right to strike. Some wanted revolution—for labour to take over control of industry and run it. William Irvine and Salem Bland argued for the more moderate position of an active role for government in the affairs of industry and voice for labour through the political, democratic' process.

The labour churches were an opportunity to gather labour together for reflection and to explain what was happening through an early Christian liberation theology. Both the Calgary Unitarian Church and the labour church folded when Irvine was elected to the House of Commons in 1921.

Interestingly, this period was also the period leading up to the Church Union movement that resulted in the joining of the Congregationalists, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians in 1925. Both Westwood and Irvine were aware of those discussions and there was a point where Westwood actively sought to persuade Unitarians to give up their unique identity and join in Church Union. (Bramadat p14) The Social Gospel transcended denominational boundaries. It wasn’t about church doctrine and dogma. For Irvine, the “Church” was the broad church. The church universal. And its message was for all humankind.

Group Organization, Cooperation, and Democracy
If you look at the principles Irvine often quoted at that time, originally written by James Freeman Clarke, “The Fatherhood of God, The Brotherhood of Man, Salvation By Character, The Leadership of Jesus, The Progress of Humanity”—you may notice that Democracy as a religious principle is not there. I would like to suggest to you that if William Irvine was not the first, he was an important initiator of the idea of democracy as a religious principle in our movement.

For Irvine, democracy was the vehicle for making socialism real. He actively criticized those in power for their lack of recognition of the needs of working people and their obvious corruption and self-interest. He exposed the self-interest of the Wealthy in legislation and government policy. He believed big business had to be balanced and regulated by a strong government that worked on behalf of the people. He read widely and expounded at length on new visions of government, banking, distribution of wealth, doing business, and caring for people. He supported a guild model of socialism, where each trade would organize and send representation to the government. Their individual interests would then be mediated in a cooperative environment through this overarching body.

He advocated many democratic reforms:

•	abolition of deposits for candidates running for electoral office,
•	universal suffrage for men and women,
•	proportional representation,
•	direct legislation,
•	and no changes in the Canadian Constitution except by reference to the people.

I believe that our new study group on democracy will be spending some time thinking about the challenges to real democracy posed by unequal wealth, spending limits for campaigns, and sources of electoral financing. They may also be studying different systems of proportional representation. These issues have apparently not gone away.

Irvine’s social program included calls for:

•	The eight-hour work day,
•	a declared minimum wage,
•	equal pensions for soldiers of all ranks,
•	and the abolition of child labour.

Irvine said:

We must be sure that what is presently to be built up is a new social order, based not on fighting but on fraternity; not on the competitive struggle for the means of bare life, but on a deliberately planned co-operation in production and distribution for the benefit of all who participate by hand or brain; not on the utmost possible inequality of riches, but on a systematic approach toward a healthy equality of material circumstances for every person born into the world; not on an enforced dominion over subject nations, subject races, subject colonies, subject classes, or a subject sex, but in industry as well as in government, on that equal freedom, that general consciousness of consent, and that widest possible participation in power both economic and political, which is characteristic of democracy. (Madiros p147)

Participation in the process was a key to what he meant by democracy. He said,

In my humble opinion the United Farmers Association was the greatest movement that has been known in the history of North America. It was a people's movement in the truest sense. It was ultra democratic. Its policies were studied in thousands of local organizations, then restudied in constituency conventions and finally settled in the annual convention of the movement. The most important principle at its base was that of co-operation…. The UFA was not only the expression of the revolt of the rural people against manifest injustice, it was a constructive movement which sought to establish co-operation among all classes of people within the nation for the maximum well-being of all; it visualized the extension of this philosophy beyond national boundaries to include the human race, in order that all prejudices might be banished and in their place might be established co-operation , through which might be destroyed forever such enemies of the people as hunger, ignorance, disease and war…. (Glenbow Archives, Interview with William Irvine by Una MacLean, p6)

Irvine’s last book, entitled Cooperative Government, was published in 1929.

Ottawa
All through this crisis period in Calgary, Irvine continued his writing and political work full steam ahead. He did a bit of organizing across the country and then returned to Calgary to run on behalf of labour in the 1921 election for the riding of Calgary East. He served one term until 1925, but lost the next election due to redistribution where his farm vote was drastically reduced. He then ran for the rural riding of Wetaskwin in 1926 and represented the United Farmers Association in the House of Commons until 1935. He also served the riding of Cariboo, B.C. from 1945-49.

When he got to Ottawa, Irvine found himself pulled towards an interesting group of people who had similar ideas and leanings to himself and which came to be known as the ‘Ginger Group’. The founding meeting of the CCF was held in Irvine’s office on parliament hill: Present were:

Agnes McPhail, the militant farm spokesperson from Grey southeast in Ontario; Ted Garland, one of the old Progressives; Humphrey Mitchell, a trade unionist; W.T. Spencer, a Conservative ‘Red Tory’; A.A. Heaps, who had gone to jail for his support of the unionists in the Winnipeg Strike, Angus MacInnis, then generally described as a Marxist Socialist; The linch-pin, was of course, J.S. Woodsworth, the charismatic figure who could persuade others to shelve, or split their differences. (Stewart p98)

In addition to all the excitement of being an MP on Parliament Hill, Irvine traveled all over the place educating people on economic, social and religious issues. He was a frequent speaker at the Ottawa Church and went occasionally to Montreal. A member of the Unitarian Congregation of Saskatoon, Frank Coburn, told me he was a frequent visitor to Toronto in Frank’s early University years.

When Frank was a very young man in the High Park area of Toronto he used to go to a forum at the Mavety Theatre on Sunday afternoons. It was a district of railway workers. They had no money to pay speakers so they would bring in MPs from Ottawa. The MPs could speak for free because they had free passes to ride anywhere on the Railway. Bill Irvine, and J.S. Woodsworth came frequently to inspire and encourage the workers.

Irvine would show up looking warm and friendly but kind of rumpled as if he had sat up all night instead of taking a sleeping berth. He spoke with such intelligence and yet in such a straightforward, human manner that everyone understood what he was talking about. He was great to listen to. Frank was inspired by Woodworth and Irvine to give his own life for the cause of social democracy.

Irvine was such a frequent public speaker in so many venues and his rhetorical style was so compelling, one might fall into the trap of thinking that he must have been an arrogant person but this is not what people tell me. In fact, he was a humble man. I like this famous quote about his role in the house of commons as part of the labour group: (“Mr. Woodsworth is the leader of our group,” Irvine explained, “and I am the group”) For Irvine it was all about ideas and about changing society. It was not about him personally. In a letter to Salem Bland, he described his election victory as follows:

My (victory ) simply indicates that the people are beginning to think and act for themselves. There was no personal triumph so far as I was concerned…. I honestly believe I was the weakest link in our chain out here, and for the following reason. I have been in the front line of the battle here for six years, during which time I had aroused a great deal of antagonism on the part of the plutocracy, party leaders, and the press, In addition to this I had said a great many things that were dug up and misrepresented in a damaging way. So it was a triumph for Democracy in Calgary East and a complete overthrow of the old system of things. We have actually had a revolution in thought.

The Ottawa Church Incident
While in Ottawa, Irvine spoke frequently at the Ottawa Unitarian Church. At one point, the Ottawa Church was thinking about calling him as their full-time minister. This resulted in an interesting exchange of letters between a Mr. C.E. Russell and Mr. Cornish in the AUA. Mr. Russell was asking for their support for an Irvine ministry in Ottawa. At first, the AUA was wary and uninclined to encourage the match. Mr. Russell and Rev. Irvine had fully discussed the Calgary situation and had come to an agreement that Irvine would stay out of politics and stick only to spiritual topics in the Ottawa Church. Over time, the AUA sent out a Mr. Kent to do a one-month evaluation of the situation and received reports from the Church about Irvine's positive impact on the church. He had won over almost every member and there were many visitors every week. Nevertheless, it took a long time for the AUA to come around and give their blessing.

Minister? Or Politician?
As I have followed the trail of Bill Irvine, I have often asked myself : was this man a minister or a politician? Was he really a Unitarian? After all, he was only formally called to a Unitarian pulpit for four years. The rest of his life was devoted to politics, to the CCF and the NDP, with visiting speaking engagements in a variety of pulpits including Unitarian. This question certainly came up—interestingly, for both the Unitarians and the NDP. When Eliot accused him of being more a politician than a Unitarian his response was as follows:

When I discovered Unitarianism, and found an opportunity to enter the fellowship of that body, I took up the work with my whole soul, and have not hesitated to spend myself to the last, believing that the fundamental principles underlying (its) faith were broad enough and deep enough to touch human life at every point. I have tried to interpret it to the best of my ability as the Gospel of humanity, and will challenge any committee, visitor, or press reporter to show me where I went outside of the cardinal principles: “The Fatherhood of God, The Brotherhood of Man, Salvation By Character, The Leadership of Jesus, The Progress of Humanity”.

Irvine pointed to the irony of the fact that “the strongest argument used against me in the political fight was that I was a Unitarian, and now the Unitarians are up in arms because I am a politician.” He continued with a defense of his social activism, “the fact of the matter is that our political and commercial system is rotten to the core: to utter abstract platitudes against this is utterly ineffective. I believe in positive action for social righteousness and have taken it at every opportunity.” (Letters between Irvine and Eliot, AUA archives.)

In his 1920 book, The Farmer in Politics, Irvine’s writing is infused with social gospel mission: “The new religious spirit which is the very soul of the world movement for justice,” he wrote, “cannot be kept out of politics. Being inseparable from life, it permeates its every department…. The line between the secular and the sacred is being rubbed out. This does not mean that everything is becoming secular; on the contrary, everything is becoming sacred.” (Irvine, Farmer p53)

This next quote shows his own frustration between religion and politics:

The church wants to make men moral. The trade unions and farmer organizations are in the front trenches. Social and moral reform leagues are an auxiliary of the Church. There is a lack of cohesion. Each faction is riding its hobby to death like a heap of sand. May someone come with a pot of glue! We have not enough cohesiveness to elect one member to legislature. (Sermon notes pp102-103)

But “After he left the House in 1935 his links with Unitarianism weakened; he retained his status as a minister in good standing with the AUA until 1937.” (Hewett, p343) His biographer, Tony Madiros felt that he had become disenchanted with the church as a vehicle for meaningful change. Madiros quotes Irvine in 1940 when he was in financial difficulties and seeking a loan from the CCF rather than take a call to the Ottawa Church:

As to the Unitarian proposal, you may be sure that I will stay in Alberta if that is possible, and what you are doing to help me will go far to make it possible. Once I have got a place to live in I can hold out a long time on very little. My heart is not in the church as you know, but in the CCF. To have to go to the church for a living would be unfair and most difficult for me. (Madiros, p213, 1940)

I had opportunity to speak to Irvine’s Daughter, Vera Stevens, and to the daughtor of his biographer, Betty Madiros, this summer. Both were very fond of listening to his political speeches, but neither could remember having heard him preach in church.

Yet Charles Eddis remembers him clearly during his ministry in Edmonton.

Yes, William Irvine who was a charter member of the Unitarian church of Edmonton in 1954 is the self-same man you have written about. I do not recall that he ever attended church services, though he might have and I have forgotten. We did meet, perhaps for lunch one day. I remember coming across him when I was in the CCF offices in Edmonton, where Nellie Peterson was the administrator. I think Bill was then the provincial organizer. Both were sympathetic to the church. Bill suggested to Nellie that many CCFers might be interested, and that I should have the CCF mailing list to circularize them. Floyd Johnson, the Edmonton President of the CCF, became a charter member, as did Bill Irvine and if I recall correctly Nellie Peterson. Almost every one in the congregation seemed sympathetic to the CCF. I sometimes suspected I was an unofficial chaplain to the CCF, though our antipathy to Social Credit stood out far more clearly. We did not promote the CCF in the church. Bill seemed to me a quiet, kindly, easy-going relaxed man. Perhaps the fires were banked when he was with me.

Irvine’s Legacy
So what was Irvine’s legacy to us today?

Obviously Irvine is a very bright man. He has a large economic and social analysis out of which he is operating. He sees the role of capital and labour. He looks at the economic roots of war. But he is also a very human character. He is a working-man himself, and he sees the plights and the challenges of working people. He sees soldiers standing in the mud with paper boots and rifles that jam. He sees workers trying to earn a living for their families. He sees the relationships between systemic power imbalances and what is happening to people. He understands that

We are first born to live. ‘I came that ye might have life.’ One thing that all the world wants, and has it not—Life—Abundant life. The means of life itself is Bread and Butter. ....[There is] Nothing to be gained by denying the physical basis of life....Food, clothing and shelter. The Holy Trinity that in Unity, make life possible.p203-204

His power and influence came from his ability to speak to everyday working people and to explain to them what was really going on.

In a time of change he was a systemic thinker. In a time of individualism and competition he saw the power of cooperation to bring all people abundant life. He also saw the potential of a few people amassing great wealth, leaving everyone else to eat dust.

We live in similar times today. We live in a world where the old world is in the midst of deconstruction and the new society is being constructed on a world scale. The same questions of whether some will have great wealth while the majority has nothing are in front of us. His bitterness at the lies of government—that the First World War would be the war to end all wars —is repeated today in the lies of world leaders about the necessity of war in Iraq.

If William Irvine were here today, what would he be preaching about? I would suggest to you that the prophets who have followed in his footsteps are David Suzuki and Maud Barlow, Stephen Lewis and Svend Robinson—talking about globalization; privatization (of medicare, of water, of the genes of life and of the human soul. Irvine would be asking us when we will achieve real equality for women and why we have failed to eradicate child poverty when we are so wealthy in Canada. He would be stumping the streets calling for adequate housing, elimination of food banks, and justice, worth and dignity for the poor in our society. He would be defending health care and education. His analysis of the political and economic causes of our current situation would demand solutions that result in a more balanced power dynamic between the industrial elite and the people of the world. He would talk about the globalization process and the relationship between the First and Third worlds. He would be calling for electoral reform including proportional representation.

When I look at his stands it suggests to me that the questions we are deeply studying today - questions about globalization, democracy, peace, social justice, ….all these questions can be informed by his thought. If we wish to ground our present work in our own history, his sermons are worth studying. If we want to know the source thinking for our fifth principle: to affirm and promote the right of conscience and the democratic process in our congregations and in society at large, it may be of interest to read his sermon on God of a Democrat or to read his book, Cooperative Government.

Personally, as a minister, I have to take note of the difficulty of taking strong political stands and lasting very long in your pulpit. Our contracts all say that the congregation accords its minister “Freedom of the Pulpit”—but what does that mean? I see the same right-left tensions in his congregations that exist in many of our own churches today. I see the same dynamic between those who want a contemplative, spiritual atmosphere in church and those who want to be called to social action and human responsibility for world concerns. These tensions run deep in our history. Would Irvine survive in a Unitarian pulpit today? Would Irvine shed any light on the tensions between unity and diversity, or individual conscience versus group cooperation in community? I wonder.

I’ll close with a short paraphrase of Irvine’s own sermon on the People’s Church:

This is what constitutes the real need of an All People’s Church
1) Let us take each other as we are, with no miraculous regeneration or predetermined election
2) We all want to develop our best selves. This will not interfere with our differences.
We don’t desire to make all people alike.
Let them be the best possible as they are.
For good lives they need the fellowship which an All People’s Church would provide.
THE BASIS OF OUR UNION is found in the universal quest for the truth about life.
A University needs no creed. The love of learning is sufficient bond. So it should be for us.
We do not want a union of people of the same opinion.
That is one reason why the churches are dead.
If I were making a creed, I believe we might agree on The Brotherhood of Man as a working principle.
It would lead us to the practical work of humanizing civilization,
From your neighbours in your immediate community to the nations that fight against us.
Let the church be an organization that will attack or advance a civic policy
because it is inhuman, unbrotherly
Can you imagine a church numerous enough to become a force to be reckoned with?
What a power an All People’s Church might become!
We are standing by a great river running its power to waste.
Look at Rev. W.A. Sunday. Hundreds of thousands flock to hear him preach Hell.
He takes in $60,000 in one collection for a message which seems error to us.
Have we got nothing worth endeavor and sacrifice?
Get away from Capitalistic domination.
I make an appeal to you now to hit the trail of freedom.