Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CofC/Christian Church/D.O.C.

I just wanted to throw in that this makes very blanket statements about the church of Christ. I'm a member of the church of Christ, and I disagree strongly with some of these "church of Christ core beliefs". The truth about the church of Christ is that we're so "autonomous" that our theology as a whole isn't even completely defined... Padawan3000 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The following text was in the article and I removed it: "Churches of Christ and Christian Churches are fundamentally identical, generally have the same doctrinal positions, the difference usually being only in the a cappella and instrumental worship practices. In contrast, the Disciples of Christ denomination has embraced much of the theologically liberal ideas that are found in many Protestant traditions." I can probably agree that in broadly general terms, CoC and Christian church are generally similar, but I think "fundamentally identical" is a little strong. So, two questions: (1) Is there something wrong with the language I removed? (I would say yes) (2) Is this info that should go in the article? (I think there some value to mentioning it, and the D.O.C. language is probably okay, but is the Christian Church comparison I have a problem with.)--Velvet elvis81 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BibleBombdotcom is shedding an extremely new light on an enormous Bible mistake that was made back in 1486 a.d. when Johann Pruss placed the - Tragic - Title Page in between the books of Malachi and Matthew. He had absolutely no authority to do so. Proverbs 30:6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.197.255 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the ex-Church of Christ links? I guess that really wasn't the best title as some of the links were for websites by members of COCs... Because of this COC's (former?) status with the FBI & BATF as a cult, I would think at least addressing this issue (maybe clearing some of it up?) would be key to any complete informative article on the church. However, this page is still an excellent resource of seemingly unbiased COC information. Even having a wiki entry for COC is a brave step forward. Most COCs teach there is no history (or at least anything post 1st century is not important) and there is only one doctrine, so by simply having this entry, that recognizes some opposing views, you are (hopefully) stimulating healthy discussion among those in COCs. Hat's off from a member Gal 4:16 Wyrmwood 05:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing this group with the International Churches of Christ. As far as I know, there have never been any credible cult accusations against the COC. I'm not sure about the FBI & BATF (do you have anything that could be cited to?), but such charges have been leveled against the ICOC.--Velvet elvis81 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I was raised in the church of Christ, and now as a confirmed Catholic, I can state that yes, Virginia, the church of Christ I knew could arguably be compared to a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.146.245 (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The "cult" status of the churhes of Christ is somewhat open to debate. "Kingdom of the Cults" (the definitive work on cults) has a good section explaining how a cult is defined and points out that, too often, we consider the term to apply to the Helter Skelter, mind-control, take-all-your-money type of organizations. Most simply, a cult is defined as "a group claiming to be Christian that falls outside of the mainstream of Christendom". Generally ideas like "exclusivity" and a strong devotion to held beliefs are associated with this (wikipedia has a good article on cults, also you can search google using keyterm "define: cult"). Considering these definitions I am in some ways proud to call of the cofC a cult in that we are not like other religious groups, we do have a strong devotion to the beliefs we hold and (like anyone claiming to know the truth) we are exclusive (i.e. we're not universalists). However, we are not included in "Kingdom of the Cults" (which deals with every major Christian Cult in the US, and some non-Christian) and I think any one of our core beliefs/interpretations in mainstream enough that we should not properly be considered a cult. For example, the belief that baptism saves is shared by the RC, Eastern-Orthodox, Lutherans etc. etc. (though of course we differ on the proper candidate and mode of baptism). I really get a kick out of a Roman Catholic calling the curches of Christ a cult, talk about authoritarianism, "Christ Vicar on Earth' ring any bells? <email: pugyking@hotmail.com> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.141.110 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

When the c of C refers to itself as non-denominational, is this a misnomer? Sure, they don't necessarily consider themselves Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Reformed. But I don't think that's the point. They do associate with other c of C membership, and generally consider each immersion baptism, bible-believing, acappella music worshiping congregation as a fellow church, if not formally affiliated in some sort of larger chartered or formally structured communion of congregations. I think the very fact that we're talking about a definable group of congregations with clear discernible doctrines (sola scriptura, et al) and intercommunion (as they do not rebaptize or convert members each time they visit or seek to attend another affiliated congregation) posits that this is in fact a denomination. To say so, does not somehow attack the credibility of their doctrine or assault their legitimacy in any way, but it does state the fact that this is a community of conservative evangelical belief that is discernible and separate and recognizable along with the range of mainstream denominations. Meurdrac (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The individual CoC congregations describe themselves as "non-denominational". Outside of the Protestant Bible, there is nothing that one can point to, and say with any degree of accuracy: "this reflects official church doctrine". (CoC churches that use the Anglican or Orthodox Bible are extremely few and far between --- but they are out there.) jonathon (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I made my above point clear enough. My point was that the association and free acceptance between (like) church of Christ congregations would seem to contradict the arguement that the church of Christ congregations are actually non-denominational. I would think there should be some sort of demonstrative evidence to the contrary if this is to be accepted as fact. I believe that if some clear criteria exists where it can be demonstrated that church of Christ Congregations actually accept and offer full communion and participation to Christians who come from other denominations or congregational backgrounds other than the churches of Christ without any acts of conversion or baptism, or that they require conversion in each and every case that a new member joins an individual congregation, even if they come from another (like) church of Christ congregation; either of these scenarios could serve as tangible proof behind the idea of non-denominationalism. I am quite open to seeing the evidence here, but what I know of a great many of these congregations would tend to support the idea of their behaving as an actual denomination. I have not personally heard of any church of Christ congregation accepting, for example, an infant baptized Christian into full participation in the congregational life and/or serving as a Minister, Deacon or Elder without requiring some form of conversion or baptism taking place. To the contrary, I do know there is widespread acceptance among various church of Christ congregations allowing members to move freely between (like) congregations, even eventually selecting them to serve as Deacons or Elders in those new congregations without a requirement of some act of conversion or baptism taking place. It seems to me that the main arguement for non-denominational status is only that these are independent congregations without any formal regional, national, or international body that exercises authority over the individual church of Christ congregations. I think some distinction should be laid out toward the premise of non-denominationalism, and a clear definition of what that means needs to be laid out. If the current state of being is determined, in fact, to be considered non-denominationalism, then I think ground might be laid to more fully explore what that means, and how this group merits that distinction. Concern for accuracy in this article would seem to merit that we reflect the state of how things are, rather than simply taking claims that any group might make as being beyond further qualification or explanation. Room should exist in this article to lay out the important distinctions to be understood by the reader in the church of Christ's use of this specific language. Meurdrac (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


It would be helpful to note that I have never personally witnessed or heard of congregations that insist on rebaptism or any other symbol of conversion for members coming from other full-immersion denominations (some Baptists and most independent Christian churches). Which does indicate that in some sense while their doctrines of full immersion being necessary for communion within the church they do apply those doctrines in a non-denominational fashion. Kablamo2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Whilst websites are not reliable sources, I've seen a couple that have claimed to have baptized those who were Baptists, but converted to "Christianity" qua CoC. My guess is that the CoC churches that also had Landmark Baptist roots, are the most likely to rebaptize. jonathon (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that the statement regarding the sole reliance on Holy Scripture doesn't account for acceptance of Trinitarian doctrine, which is fully consistent with the teachings in the Nicene-Constantinoplean creed. Trinitarian Christianity does not happen in a vacuum. For members to use and embrace the concepts contained in the extra-biblical term Trinity implies that they fully embrace the range of extra-biblical ideas which surround this concept. And the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential component in their reading of both Old and New Testament writings. It becomes their most significant paradigm under which a whole range of ideological understandings consistent with the patristic philosophical and theological foundations of the Cappadocian and Alexandrian Fathers are swallowed wholesale. To leave this critical formulation out of their definition of essential doctrine is a serious and glaring omission. It might lead some uninformed readers of the impression that the membership of this group are Unitarian or refuse to engage in theological speculation outright, and I think that could cause serious misunderstanding of this group. Meurdrac (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It would not be a gross misunderstanding to assume that the CoC refuses to engage in theological speculation. These churches not only do not accept the Nicene creed, but actively reject it. "Where the Bible Speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent", is about as close to a two line description of their theology as you will find. "Trinitarianism" is both speculative theology, and a description of something about which the Bible is silent. jonathon (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
As mere theological speculations these would constitute non-binding teachings, correct? I'd be very interested to see evidence that church of Christ members have denied the extra-Biblical teaching of the Trinity as an essential part of their faith and yet were still accepted as members or even allowed to function as Ministers, Deacons or Elders in a church of Christ congregation. If the supposition that "Where the Bible Speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent" is true, this should be the case. Without the existence of a scriptural reference to the word Trinity, and with no clear Biblical teaching on this mysterious and complex doctrine, then the absence of any overarching authority in the churches of Christ to require adherence to extra-Biblical Trinitarianism should make this doctrine completely optional and ensure that no binding authority over membership to teach and adhere to it is required. Again, I'm certainly open to review any writings by prominent church of Christ ministers, deacons or elders which would refute the position that this is a clear example where they use extra-Biblical teachings which are held to be an essential element of their faith. Without that actual evidence though, I fear that we're teetering on the edge of embracing sloganism. Meurdrac (talk)

Notable members section

All right, this section is rapidly becoming a maintenance nightmare. Can we ditch it, or at the very least require a citation for each person listed on it? Shouldn't there be a standard for who's notable as well? Jdb1972 19:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already a section devoted to this listing - List of famous people with ties in the Church of Christ. Even so, each and every listing needs a cite. So many of the more famous celebrities' ties are based on hearsay. I say merge with the other list on the Restoration movement list. --Ichabod 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I second that. As I told VelvetElvis above, "the 'see also' link is sufficient for all but the historical CofC leaders." --Spiffy sperry 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, then. Since there's no dissent, it's gone. Jdb1972 12:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It would seem the person(s) using IP addresses 129.252.106.105 and 70.144.12.195 now dissent, though I consider having the list elsewhere with a link to it is quite sufficient. --Adavidb 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If anyone dissents, they shoudl bother discussing it here, not jsut reverting. The list doesn't belong in an article like this, and if there is to be a link to the list, it shoudl be in the normal see also section, not in a section to itself. JPD (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that I'm doing this properly - it is my first time.) Regarding: List of famous people with Restoration Movement ties, Authors/Speakers, Max Lucado, national best-selling author.

I don't think that Max Lucado should be included as a person with ties to the Restoration Movement. Max Lucado was once associated with the Church of Christ. However, he later admittedly became a "Baptist" in thought and his teaching - that baptism is done because one is saved instead of that one is saved during baptism. Read his article on baptism linked to from http://www.oakhillschurchsa.org/ . He also had dropped "of Christ" from the Oak Hills church name. (He recently stepped down from his position of "senior pastor" there.) Leather13 06:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Leather, you did just fine. I agree with you although I think the issue is pretty well settled and the list won't be here anyway. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 01:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

What was the reason for adding this section? These don't appear to be directly associated with anything said in the article, and I think we all agree that we don't want every possible article about churches of Christ tossed in there. If anything ties directly into something said above, it should be added as a reference; if not, it should be removed. Jdb1972 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Okay! We have a new sectionstub about "The "race problem" in Churches of Christ" please help by expanding it. --TransylvanianKarl 14:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Who an why deleted the sectionstub of "The "race problem" in Churches of Christ"?

And why have to delete this bibliography?:

  • The role of social service in the life and growth of the Madison Church of Christ (Tennessee) by Mankin, Jimmie Moore, D.Min., Fuller Theological Seminary, Doctor of Ministry Program, 1987, 183 pages; AAT 8709312
  • "Like rats in a trap": Samuel Robert Cassius and the "race problem" in Churches of Christ by Robinson, Edward Jerome, Ph.D., Mississippi State University, 2003, 306 pages; AAT 3091855
  • A critique of the absolute-truth claim of Churches of Christ and its impotence to support God's reign by Hunter, Roderick D., D.Min., United Theological Seminary, 2005, 267 pages; AAT 3214857

--TransylvanianKarl 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Substub sections like that are arguably not so good an idea even when the topic clearly deserves a section. In this case, where there is nothing to suggest that the topic should be an important part of an article on this subject, rather than someone's PhD topic (PhDs are usually written on fairly obscure or at least very specific topics), it is not suprising that someone deleted it. As for the bibliography, as said above, there is really no reason to include those items unless they have been used as references for the text of the article. JPD (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Grayghost's issues with the article

Edited Paragraph on the ICOC

Raised in the mainline, and with my wife from the ICOC, we are extensively aware of the Crossroads Movement, in it's entirety through to Kip McKean's departure, etc.

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, must relate the historical facts. The article, as it was, severely underplayed the birth of the Crossroads movement from mainline, and the very very close ties between these two groups. Additionally, no explanation was given to the Restoration Forums being held at Abilene Christian University, and the dialogues.

Therfore, the material has been added, and a reference link for documentation and proof of this historical facts, and the general attempt to increase the "cooperation" of all four groups (Mainline, DOC, ICC, ICOC).

Please do not vandalize this section by removing the facts and data added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grayghost01 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

If you don't want your writings editted, you're at the wrong place. :) Most information on the Intl Churches rightly belongs on a page about them. I've corrected the section on "anti churches," since it's (1) an epithet and (2) inaccurate in this case, since it's not just NI churches that don't have any part in the RFs. Jdb1972 13:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Neutrality of this Article

This Grayghost dude simply does not get it. If you want to challenge the neutrality of something, go challenge the Roman Catholic Church article which is full of lies but does not allow anyone who isn't approved to edit it. Challenge the baptism article that is historically incorrect and erroneous but also doesn't allow edits. Leave the Church of Christ alone unless you have any quality edits. If you want to make the statements you attempt to make here, you best get the info from the official Church of Christ headquarters (which you won't find) rather than one university that is affliated with the Church of Christ (of which does not even currently promote the stuff you dig up from their past). Grayghost01 05:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Above is an example of the vandalism of my coments by the nameless IP User Special:Contributions/129.252.106.116 hacking this article Grayghost01 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Need for citation of sources

This article is rife with soap-box non-encylcopedia material. The purpose of wikipedia articles is to factually capture information about a topic.

Thus, I have added the ICOC, DOC, ICC, Mainline "Restoration Movement" forums and associated discussion, which is a factual account and record of Mainline activities of an important nature.

Additionally, I have included a brief bit of CENI in the hermeneutics section with appropriate references as an EXAMPLE of how more of the material in this article should be treated. Grayghost01 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

4.244.63.185 (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)DBusch-not-a-Wikian_ANON Most (Many?) of the unsourced statements on the main page can be found in a book: "History of the Church Through the Ages by Robert H. Brumback Copyright 1957". (?CofC Elder?) If I had the time, I would attribute much of the unsourced items.

Neutrality problem

99% of the material here is not documented and not sourced. As a subject matter expert on this topic, I can attest to the non-neutral deletions of cited and sourced materials, and facts concerning the Churches of Christ as a topic. Wikipedia is not a place for religious brochures, rather, a place for encyclopedia-like factual and historical coverage of a topic. Grayghost01

(Vandalism removed)

(Entries already identified as vandalism were removed from this part of the page on June 4, 2007 — this item is substituted as explanation because some comments below may have been referring to the vandalism that is now removed.) Lawikitejana 07:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A plan for this article

Is the plan for this article to be a Church of Christ blog? Or is it a place to document and cite an encyclopedia article on the group, based on historical facts, documented doctrinal stances, and real or current events?

I challenge those of you, like the anonymous IP-User from the University of South Carolina, to start a Blog site, and rail-away on your favorite doctrinal topic. Or have you no shame?

Meanwhile, please leave this site alone to the natural courses of good citizenry, or debate in this discussion column, like a man, with a UserID and explanation of yourself, and contribute in a positive and scholarly manner.

Therefore, I defend the hermeneutical approach the Churches of Christ take, as documented through Harding and others. I also defend the continued Restoration Forums and exchanges which are active and ongoing in larger churches of Christ, whom don't seek to split over every last hand-clapping or church-steeple and so on.

This make the case, by the way, on why a short section of a few sentences is deserving of a home in THIS article on the "Anti's", which is a continuous stream of church-ettes spun off the main "galactic" body of the mainline. The ICOC, the Anti's and the sub-set of "instrumentals" are all planetoids revolving around "mother" Mainline. Grayghost01 15:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

More Anonymous "Anti's" degrading the article

The reversion by nameless NPOV violating user Special:Contributions/74.249.12.243 is an example of how a named user made a good editing change, pulled out some unsourced and biased baloney ... which is then shredded by 74.249.12.243 who is a person using Bell South out of Atlanta.

For instance, as just one example, instead of the official source of the US Census data of 15,000 churchs and 1.5 million people ... Mr. Atlanta wants to revert to the unsourced "claim" of 13,000 churches and 1.3 million "ACAPELLA" churches alone.

This is an example of an "ANTI" and what they do. The 13,000 number is inclusive of the Anti's, who set their own esoteric and tighter definitions of "WHO IS" the "one true church".

Should we lower the number to elimiate the hand-clappers? Or should we also eliminate those who like Max Lucado? And on and on.

This Wiki article ... now that I think about it ... is a beautiful testimony to what the Churches of Christ are ... an eclectic group of argumentative people ... constantly shooting each other when not proclaiming the rest of Christianity as damned to hell. So, perhaps ironically the article shows in a beautiful dynamic way what it is trying to document. Grayghost01 03:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Antis." How quaint. I doubt you could even accurately define what an "anti" is or what they believe (no offense, but most of the so-called "mainstream" can't even come close, lumping one-cuppers, non-Bible classers, non-institutionals, and even conservative institutionals and premillenialists under that header). Jdb1972 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One could even argue that the mainline position is that of "anti scriptural authority" for practices people desire to perform with the blessings of others. Labels such as "anti" are counterproductive: in churches and in secular wikis.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.70.110 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Harding University

This article describes the congregational autonomy. Since there are no "formal headquarters, councils, or hierarchal church government" there can be no formal affiliation with the Church of Christ as a whole. Multiple congregations may affiliate with the university, though the university cannot truly affiliate with all churches of Christ. --Adavidb 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Adavidb's logic, then, it is impossible to have this encyclopedia article on a category or class of topic called the Churches of Christ. If there is no formality whatsoever, then this article exists in defiance of Wikipedia rules, as no secondary sources would document it's existence.
But yet there is this "thing" known as the Churches of Chirst, and secondary sources abound to document its existence and historical nature. It is a collective movement, with distinct notable events in time.
If we go with your logic, an aritcle should NOT exist at all. If we use my logic, the article is justified, and citations of secondary sources are required per Wikipedia rules. Harding claims it is affiliated with the Churches of Chirst ... and it is not that Churches of Christ affiliate with it. They explain so in their school history, in which the name of the school is credited to

"James A. Harding, co-founder and first preident of Nashville Bible School (now David Lipscomb University) in Nashville, Tenn. A preacher, teacher and Christian educator, James A. Harding inspired his co-workers and associates with an enthusiasm for Christian education that remains a significant tradition at Harding University."

Regardless of Harding, James A. Harding makes the quote on CENI, and it is a principle ... dare I say "creed" of the Churches of Christ? Yes, it is, and it is documented as such. Any Church of Christ which denies the principle behind this statement would not have a doctrine qualifying it to be loosely "associated" with what both society ... and people within the movement ... define collectively as this category of churches.
If that is NOT true, then there is no "group" which is definable in a collective sense known as the Churches of Christ, unified about a certain set of principles, and then you would be correct ... and then this article cannot be documented and should be deleted from this website. If the NATURE of the "Churches of Christ" cannot be DENOMINATED into a coherent citable article ... then it's time for deletion of this article, due to failure to meet the Wikipedia standards.
In other words, the mere existence of this article challenges the very nature of this group, and the negative responses (vandalisms) to the article is in-and-of itself PROOF of the groups existence, therebe justifying the article and JUSTIFYING citable sources, like James A. Harding.

Grayghost01 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'source' is the autonomy described in the same article -- and wikilinked in the previous section; I was not using private logic. Individual CoC congregations are governed locally and generally share the same practices. Collectively, all are referred to as "Churches of Christ". Because of their autonomy however, differences exist, which as noted does seem to present problems with article maintenance. With what common board of directors or other central CoC organization can universities and other groups officially affiliate?--Adavidb 02:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether the CofC have a synod. The question is what does Harding University affiliate itself with? The answer is the Churches of Christ ... as non-synodical as they may be. Of course the CofC has no central group, and so, of course Harding cannot associate with something not there. The fact remains ... Harding is associated with the Churches of Christ. It is illogical to say it is associated with "some". What is Harding going to do ... maintain a list for crying out loud? The POINT is that James Harding, a founder and leader of the movement ... is KNOWN for his contribution to the movement's hermeneutical methodology. In response, one person denied that Harding had ANYTHING to do with the Churches of Christ. I'm sorry ... but citation of documented sources over-rides ridiculous assertions like that. The main discussion here needs to be an ACADEMIC one of how to source and give credential to the written article ... NOT argue over never-ending circles of theological debate. That is what a blog or a bulletin board is for. Read the Wikipedia guidelines: You must source and site neutrally written factual summarization of topics through secondary sources. This article didn't even have one citation until I added the NOTES section. Grayghost01 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the "one person" to whom you referred has to do with my changing "the" to "some", and later removing "officially", the motivation behind my edits was/is misunderstood. Others would have to answer for their edits. I agree with the need for citations, particularly for content that remains in the article; one footnote, one inline reference, and two Biblical references (by my quick count) do not provide much verifiability. --Adavidb 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Adavidb you have it turned around. Consider that Harding cannot affiliate with any central church of Christ body because none exists. However, individual church of Christ congregations can support/cooperate/encourage Harding. As such, Harding can claim to be supported by churches of Christ. I hope I'm not missing your point. JBEvans 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The former text, from a March 25 revision, stated that Harding was "officially affiliated with the Churches of Christ" (current emphasis mine). It's only the "the", indicating all, with which I saw a problem. --Adavidb 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As being from the Church of Christ, there are some collages that we consider being related to the CofC. There is also talk about liberal collages that might "just not be part of the brotherhood anymore." The reason we don't relate to the "might not be part of the brotherhood anymore" is generally because of the chapel services. Being exposed to many because I grew up in Alabama, Harding, Lipscomb, Falkner, and Freed Hardamen (is that misspelled?) where all within six hours away. Growing up, I heard, don't go to Lipscomb, because they are liberal. They might not be part of the brotherhood anymore. Simply because of instruments in worship. Things like that, some that would seem as if you where sinning to participate in, that cause someone to say that they are realted to the CoC, but for CofChristers to disagree.

      • this is just in general... not applying directly to Harding, just because I don't have that much exposer to it*** Blondiegoode (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)blondiegoode

Lock? Anyone?

This POV editing without any discussion board consensus is getting ridiculous. Anyone know how to lock this page from editing by anonymous users?--Velvet elvis81 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection is not a valid way to deal with the anonymous edits that have been happening lately, as they are not vandalism. I can see the argument for keeping the International Churches of Christ content in a separate article. Its degree of significance to the main topic has not been clearly spelled out (does it deserve a whole paragraph in the Churches of Christ article, just a sentence, or a see also at the bottom?) and there are no sources besides the restorationmovement.org website, so strictly speaking, the onus is on those who want to keep it to provide some justification from reliable sources. It is also any editor's prerogative to edit as an IP rather than creating an account; if disruption becomes unreasonable, the IP can be blocked, but it seems like more of an editorial dispute. Some aspects of it (for example, the census count versus the unsourced "anti" numbers) are clearcut, but in general the problem points are in desperate need of secondary sources.--ragesoss 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I've been helping with this article for going on two years now, and I can't recall a substantial contribution by an anonymous user. OTOH, near-constant ignoring of consensus decisions discussed for weeks, link spam, POV editting, vandalism, and the like by anons has been the order of the day. Perhaps semi-protection would only stop half the drive by garbage that anons drop on here, and perhaps it would discourage that one meaningful contribution a year we might get from an anon, but it seems a small price to pay. Jdb1972 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

-on the other hand Jdb, having seen your edits over and over I have yet to see you do anything that gives any kind of educated perception about the Church of Christ. I see an agenda and a controlling person who needs to do some biblical and historical research (I'd advise using legitimate books rather than bogus websites) before continuing to make edits to an article that most people in the world will see first who search for the Church of Christ on the internet. In short, this isn't your article and you don't own the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.184.14 (talk • contribs)

Weird. I'll put my track record for building consensus against any anon's (particularly one who's raw enough to not know to use 4 tildes to sign his comments). Nor do I know what "obscure websites" you're talking about. Feel free to clarify if you're interested in actual discussion instead of personal attacks. Jdb1972 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

-the International Churches of Christ are historically and fundamentally an entirely separate religious body than the Church of Christ. To even mention the ICC in this article or to make a footnote about the ICC is pushing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.211 (talk • contribs)

A brief mention of the split is probably a good idea. An in-depth description of the ICOC and the history of the split is probably not and rightly belongs on the ICOC page. Jdb1972 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur. They did arise out of the church through the so-called "Crossroads Movement." However they were different at their peak and bore little resemblance to the church. A quick paragraph and a link to separate article seems most appropriate. JBEvans 02:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

-the latest count of Churches of Christ and members is actually a little less than 1.3 million/13,000 congregations, per "Churches of Christ in the United States 2006" and as reported in Christian Chronicle. Whoever keeps reporting the 1.5 million/15,000 in the U.S. has old figures and if that's the case the number of Churches of Christ in the entire world would have to be more than the 1.5 million mentioned at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.211 (talk • contribs)

I added the sentences to expand the ICOC paragraph. This article had a one-line paragraph on a major historical split in this church, between Mainine and Crossroads. It is the norm within mainline to deny or downplay the whole affair, and reminds me of how the Catholic church wanted to condemn Martin Luther to death, despite the fact that Luther was simply reforming the universal Church in his view. So ... this article has a paragraph header ... not just a side comment buried in a paragraph ... on ICOC. It said practially nothing other than ... oh by the way we had a schism, go see another page.
WHOA!!! this was and REMAINS a major issue in this church. So I added just a handful ... a handful ... of sentences, explained VERY succinctly the issue, and provide an insightful reference and website on the topic, which also PROVED that the Mainline and ICOC continue to engage in discussion through the Restoration Forums ... and not just with each other.
Then comes a floodgate of anonymous IP users, who wont discuss anything, not only deleting the material, but overpasting my discussion paragraphs with "Go Turtles!" and goofy baloney. Then ... supposedly more enlightened people think there's no vandalism.
So, so much for discussion, so much for wikipedia guidelines, so much for DOCUMENTING and CITING sources and materials to support the article.
I think this article is very poorly written, very poorly organized, fails to cover entire major points about the church, and doesn't cite its sources as REQUIRED by Wikipedia. Therefore this article MUST be improved.
So, if anyone disagrees with that, then make your point in this discussion, and describe how your point improves the article per the guidelines, as I am trying to do.

Grayghost01 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think protection is the way to go, as long as there is discussion here, rather than simple edit wars. I have several points to make without supporting one version or the other. Firstly, this is not the place for biblical research, or comments on whether certain terms are in the bible. This should be an article about the churches of Christ, not an article promoting of following their views. The article should describe and explain their distinctive characteristics in a neutral way that makes sense to readers who may or may not have anything to do with them. If a CoC teaching has been described in a certain way in sources, it may well be appropriate to describe it that way in the article, whether the description is in the bible or even used by anyone associated with a church of Christ.

Secondly, everything should come from reputable sources, and these sources should be mentioned in the article (as footnotes if nothign else). This helps explain any disagreements. If US census figures are old, then putting the date in makes it clear. If US census figures lump together different groups who don't have anythign to do with each other, then this should be explained, rather than simply replacing the figures with unsourced figures. In fact, even if different sources have different criteria, it may be worth including both figures, explaining the difference. JPD (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A major problem with this article is that most of its writing predates Wikipedia's more recent emphasis on sourcing. Indeed, the quote in question itself isn't even sourced. Seems like we always talk about more sourcing, but it never gets done. It's a huge task. Jdb1972 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, probably not semi-protection for this, if anon users are strictly vandalizing I think it's at a manageable rate, for the pov/unsourced edits, revert them if they are obvious. There is plenty of policy stating that we need sourcing. - cohesion 01:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am against locking the article, because that seems to defeat the whole point of a wiki. But the churches of Christ and the International Church of Christ are definately different groups, even if they have some simularities. Hjuibar 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What is this article about?

I find it fascinating that an encyclopedic article on the "churches of Christ" can reject direct quotes from James Harding. Would Lincoln's Gettysburg address need to be second-sourced? No. Within Wiki guidelines, some primary sourcing, when pertinent, is allowed.

And the primary hermeneutical methodology of the churches of Christ is also deleted ... nay ... not even mentioned.

And finally, of course, it is the mainline view that any sub-groups by virtue of splitting off, cease to exist.

Is there a Lord of the Anon-IP flies ... or just flies hovering about this article?

Why should one begin the labor-intensive task of second-sourcing an article if one of the most important quotes of one of the "founding fathers" is ripped away?

This article should be closed to Anon-IP intervention, and locked down to a set of contributors who can discuss and source their materials ... which is basically none of the contributors prior to my turning-on of the Referenced Notes section. Grayghost01 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the info was removed because it lacked a reference. Rather, the editor (anonymous as he/she may be) said it was overkill. I would agree. Some of the info that is in there is probably necessary--there should be a mention of hermeneutical methodology--but we don't need 40 or 50 lines of quotes from primary sources. Just a short explanation. The quoting from primary sources in this article tends to get out of hand quickly. The article had to be pruned considerably this past January mostly for this reason--belaboring of minutia and overkill on primary sources. --Velvet elvis81 00:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So I suppose the one-line quote of James Harding was overkill then? Bottom line: The Anonymous IP contributions to this article severely distort the truth and history of the churches of Christ, and the changes from those go unchecked.Grayghost01 00:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
James Harding is not a "founding father" of the Church of Christ. Jesus Christ is our only founder. The hermeneutical method you refer to is no official method as it is not found in scripture (other than the "command" teaching of Christ). The idea that some in Churches of Christ use "necessary inferences" (which really has no biblical basis and cannot be given a real definition) is mentioned in the article already and that concept is "lucky" to even get that much attention. It's time for anyone who holds to the man-made doctrines, such as "necessary inference" to move on from such and embrace the freedom in Christ that He has given us and to respect the actual teaching to obey His commandments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.249.12.80 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Regardless of your opinion, if there is a group distinctive enough to deserve an encyclopedia article ... then by the rules of wiki it must be a citable and sourcable thing or event. Otherwise, just list two points for the article: Jesus and the Bible, and the article is done, because according to you and people like you, there is practically so little distinction, since the churches of Christ are supposedly so in-tune to scripture, that all you can do is simply cite verses of the Bible and nothing else, in which case this article should be deleted, because the "church" of "Christ" is merely a phenomenon which should be a sub-paragraph of the Wiki article on either Christianity ... or the Bible, or perhaps Jesus Christ. The way I view it, however, there is a distinctive set of attributes to a group known as the "Churches of Christ" (big C or little c, take your pick). It has a set of initiators .... leaders ... trend-setters which set it on it's way. I but quoted one of those, and one line of those, and this type of encylopedic-like material and mere hint of a suggestion of citation, along with adding the proper NOTES section ... is blown away by whords if Anon-IP users. The group does ... regardless of your opinion, use a hermeneutic style, which is describable and also sourcable to the group initiators. Your point of view is interesting ... but void of logic, and if taken to it's logical conclusion argues what I have pointed out, which is that this group would only be a mere description of "the church" in the article on Christianity. In fact ... the article reads like a blog or bulletin board ... not an academic reference. It certainly reflects the poor authorship of its Anon-IP donors. And, perhaps ironically, it offers no redeeming value. This article should be deleted, and you all should put in a few sentences and verse-quotes in the "church of Christ" paragraph under Christianty. On the other hand, perhaps the group can be denominated to an extent that it does need an article (properly sourced). And if so, people like David Lipscomb, James Harding and so forth go, without question, as key figures in an historical and academic article.Grayghost01 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm missing something, but just because the church or Christ claims to restore that form of doctrine that existed under the apostles does not mean there is nothing else that can be said about it. I for one, have no problem with a quote from the ones you mentioned so long as the article reflects the fact that these were not men with authority over doctrine. That the church existed in the first century is clear. But would we suggest that early, secular writers could not write about the church apart from quoting scripture? The article belongs and so do the quotes as long as they are properly cited and presented in an accurate context. I think we can all agree to that. JBEvans 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That a Christian church existed in the first century is clear. That it existed in the form that the "Church of Christ" claims is not (as a particular example, assuming that 1st century services were uninstrumented because instruments were not explicitly identified in the Bible is a very weak assumption). Just because a particular group claims something does not mean that it is necessarily so; else the "True Catholic Church" would be correct in its undocumented claim that Pope John XXIII was a freemason and therefore ineligible to be Pope. Claims are easy; proof is hard. Iceberg3k 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Links Policy

Per the policy at Church of Christ/Link Policy, I reverted the added link of an individual congregation. JodyB 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the policy to Talk:Churches of Christ/Link Policy, as it really shouldn't be in the main namespace. JPD (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Church Population

Can the anonymous user who posted the information on non-US churches properly cite his/her sources? Or if anyone else can find the information mentioned, please do; Google turned up nothing for me. FYI, I'm probably going to revert future edits of this section that are unsourced or improperly sourced in such a way I can't find them; if two sources disagree on the size, we should probably direct it here for a consensus of which is the more reliable and/or recent, IMO, to prevent edit wars. Jdb1972 22:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if that user checks this page, we do not allow secret sources for things. - cohesion 23:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
To be more accurate, this article is not really allowing any sources at all, and fails to properly document the history of the group. Some anonymous IP users, who seem to reign supreme here, even disregard sources about Stone and Campbell themselves. Therefore, they should seek to contribute to the general article on "church" perhaps, vice this one.Grayghost01 05:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources have been provided if you follow the link: http://churchzip.com/otherdirectories.htm .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehwest (talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Then please attribute it properly. You also might want to use four tildes to sign your comments on this page. Thanks! Jdb1972 12:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use FACTS to describe churches of Christ.

I don't think it helps anyone to include incorrect information regarding churches of Christ in this article. There are so many statements here that may well be aspiriations, but they are not facts. In particular, I point to the Leadership section, where it says congregations are led by elders. This may be an aspiration of some churches, but it is not a fact. Based on the data available, it is known that approximately 70% of churches of Christ have no elders. Nearly 90% of churches under 100 members have no elders. This is perhaps the most glaring example of churches who preach one thing and practice another. These facts are borne out by specific congregational reports here: http://churchzip.com/statesummary/US (for US churches and here http://churchzip.com/statisticalsummary.htm for the rest of the world. A recent churchzip.com post-card survey of 1000 churches having membership in the range 100 - 125 confirms this.

I think it may be somewhat disingenuous to say that churches of Christ in the US are "...historically linked..." to the "Restoration" movement. Many churches of Christ have leaders who either know nothing of the Restoration Movement described and/or would indeed disavow any linkage to that movement. In fact many church plants make no appeal to that part of thier history whatsoever. That movement is certainly not a unifying force or even a distinguishing property of the current generation of churches of Christ. It may have historical significance for some churches, but certainly not all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehwest (talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think the bit on acapella music represents mainstream thinking on this issue among members of the churches of Christ. The FACT is that acapella music remains one of the most visible, distinguising practices of "churches of Christ" that sets them apart from 80% of "Christendom." Many church leaders find the use of instruments in worship services to be sinful and ALL of the evidence available does positively affirm the New Testament church used no instruments, a marked departure from prior Old Testament worship as described of David.

I do think much more critical thinking needs to go into "how would you know if this is a church of Christ, as described..." Would you include Mac Lynn's instrumental church? Richland Hills? Some churches not using the moniker "Church of Christ" aspire to the all of the practices you describe, including several (formerly Mennonite, Charity) churches in Pennsylvania. These churches in fact use "NO" name, vividly demonstrating their non-denominational ties....would you call them churches of Christ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehwest (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Attribution policy clearly identifies the need to use and cite reliable sources for article content, rather than individual belief or original research. If this policy was applied more consistently, many of the concerns you raise would resolve as a result. --Adavidb 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass Deletion of History section on 29 January 2007

I haven't worked on the article in quite some time, but just noticed the mass deletion of the historical sections which cropped up around this time: Version of January 28, 2007

I put in many, many hours of work on this text. I cited sources, and defended my editorial decisions carefully on the discussion pages, in order to try and reflect a consensus view of the real history of this movement, within the context of Restorationism in general, but specific to the Churches of Christ. I'm disappointed to see so much of the story of the Churches of Christ done away with. And I don't have the heart or the energy to put the content back again. I guess the "historylessness" folks won, sigh. Alan Canon 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a rejection of the history as much as poor priorities. The history and traditional beliefs (whatever some churches may practice today) should be the major contents of this article, but it's been editted into... well, basically drivel. Especially over the last 4-6 months. It's probably beyond salvaging at this point, IMO, and certainly as long as it's unprotected. You can only revert so often before you come to the conclusion it's a waste of time. Jdb1972 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I was involved with a lot of that deleting. It stemmed from the fact that, at the time the article was ridiculously long and kept getting longer so significant pruning was necessary. It was discussed on the talk page and agreed to. The general thrust of what was in before was left, but sentences and paragraphs were made less wordy and a lot of the extensive quotes from primary sources were removed. It's not that the information was bad, it was just excessive minutea when placed in a general article on this topic. You should feel free to start separate articles on the specific things you had in there before. --Velvet elvis81 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Perryschonfan account, perhaps someone's sockpuppet, made forty-three edits to this article on January 26 2007, including eight paragraph deletions. That account has made no other edits to any other articles.--Adavidb 11:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

In summary, 72.72.48.25 added an NPOV template popup box noting an (unspecified) dispute regarding this article's neutrality. The template's inclusion was removed soon thereafter by 74.249.12.204, again with no discussion. JPD restored the template within three hours, stating that it shouldn't be removed without discussion. There are some unanswered neutrality entries here by another editor from about a month ago, though there remains no new or recent related discussion, despite the template's Usage section stating that reasons should be explained here. I'll update the template to refer to this talk page section.--Adavidb 14:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On some level, the NPOV tag is reasonable until Grayghost's concerns above have been dealt with in some way and consensus here is that it is not needed any more. In putting the tag back, I was not supporting it's original inclusion without discussion, simply undoing what an edit that was obviously not constructive. As far as the article as a whole goes, I feel like protecting it just to force discussion rather than edit wars, but it is probably not at that stage yet. JPD (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really take the neutrality claims from a month or so ago seriously. Especially when his main beef was that some anon removed his edits and his conclusion was basically that the article should be locked so that only he could edit it.
In fact, one of the article's big flaws is that it takes too many pains to be neutral. How many times must we repeat the same qualifier ("This is the traditional belief, but it's not necessarily held by all of those churches)? As soon as something unqualified gets added, though, someone from some church that doesn't believe that takes offense, jumps in, and starts hacking away at it. Jdb1972 17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since an anonymous editor is determined to remove the neutrality dispute notice with no further discussion, and I've been the only one to put it back since, I'll leave any continuance of the dispute resolution to someone else (JPD?). --Adavidb 00:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the person removing the tag is not at all participating in discussion on this page or even in edit summaries means that they can't really be taken seriously. However, since noone is currently claiming there is a neutrality problem, it should probably be left off. It seems much more profitable to work on adding sources to this article, than discussing whether it is neutral. JPD (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Arminianism

The page states that "Some would label Churches of Christ as typically Arminian, although members do not usually embrace this term and often disagree with certain tenets." Can someone explain which tenets are disagreed with? Thanks, Jcembree 05:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted does need specification and attribution. Regarding your question, the first tenet/belief listed in the intro to Wikipedia's article on Arminianism and its Classical Arminianism section is total depravity, which has been rejected by members of the church of Christ. [1][2][3] --Adavidb 06:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Having grown up in the churches of Christ, the teaching I received was much closer to a "semipelagian" view. Total depravity was denied, so it was definitely not Arminian. I never heard any preacher say that the sacrificial death of Christ was not key to salvation, so coC wouldn't fall under strict Pelagianism, either. The parable of the prodigal son was often used in the congregations I attended, and that could be extrapolated into a semi-Pelagian doctrine. I note the article by Batsell Barrett Baxter "She Affirms Salvation by Faith But Not By Faith Only" [4] which highlights "faith unto action" or "obedient faith". I propose that the Arminian references be deleted and replaced with some text on semi-Pelagianism. Perew (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Clergy v Preacher

I was not the one who made the change from clergy to preacher but I certainly do agree with it and think it should be left as preacher/evangelist. The churches of Christ simply do not use the term and generally repudiate the use of it or any other term that suggests a specialized group allowed to do certain things. It seems to me that this is like demanding that we call the British head of state "President." At the very least I would like to see if we could get some consensus on changing the term to preacher or evangelist. JodyB talk 15:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JodyB. Given that one aspect of churches of Christ is the (at least official) rejection of clergy/laity distinction, calling preachers "clergy" is inaccurate. Not to mention that part of the definition of clergy includes a leadership role, which (again) is rejected by most churches of Christ. Jdb1972 18:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile to mention that some (many?) in the churches of christ reject the distinction, but I think that a CofC minister/preacher/whatever still easily fits in the common understanding of the word clergy and is treated identically to denominational clergy by the law (i.e., can perform weddings, certain tax breaks, etc.). Also, the trappings of clergy as commonly understood are all there: usually a full-time job, paid by the church, although there is not typically a congregational leadership role there is nearly always an appearance of leadership at least during worship services. --Velvet elvis81 20:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Velvet I think you miss my point. While it is true that preachers in the church of Christ are often called Pastor/Reverend/Clergy by the uninformed, it doesn't change the fact that such is an inaccurate statement. As I said before, you would not call President Bush a Prime Minister because he is not although many of the same appearances link to him. You would not write an article about Louisiana and speak of counties because in that state they are called a parish. When writing about any group or organization we should use their terminology. Now, if you wish to say that there are similarities between preachers and clergy that would be fine. But you cannot impose external names on an article about a group that specifically opposes it. Your suggestions about weddings is not always accurate. In my state there is no law requiring special qualifications to perform a wedding. As for tax breaks, if you read the law clergy is only one of the terms specified, right along with minister. Can you agree that we need to make the change back to preacher/minister/evangelist? JodyB talk 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Would something along the lines of, "Nevertheless, minsters (and to a lesser degree elders) tend to carry out many of the roles associated with clergy in other groups," be suitable?Klpstyles 13:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the intended point is more along the lines of "Congregations usually employ trained staff, etc."? JPD (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm good with those two ideas from Klpstyles and JPD. I think that makes the point without resorting to external terminology. JodyB talk 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I can agree to the two aforementioned changes.--Velvet elvis81 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent out) Ok, I have made the change which I think will satisfy the discussion here. Here is the diff [5] for your review. Let me say that I appreciate the discussion here and the desire to work things out. JodyB talk 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody put in a request for a cite there. I used Roberts (1979), but it doesn't address professional clergy. Citing Matthew 10:10 gets into interpretation, which isn't that useful here.  :(

I moved further discussion down to "Bishops and Pastors." Check there.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

coming from CofC, minister and minister only would be a good term. Bishops generally refers to Elders, because of the Translation of Titus (2 Thess.???)Blondiegoode (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)blondiegoode

Exclusivity and Critical Views

Should this article mention exclusivity/closed fellowship and critical views of the beliefs of churches of Christ?

(1) My personal experiences with the churches of Christ have generally been with more conservative "mainline"/"mainstream" congregations. I generally collect pamphlets and tracts from the congregations that I have attended, and many of these tracts imply that the one church established by Jesus is effectively synonymous with congregations using the designation "church of Christ" and practicing "a cappella" singing, even if the possibility of other members of the body of Christ outside this fellowship is conceded. (Examples and quotes can be given if requested but are presently omitted for brevity.) Since I am only one person I do not want to make edits to the article if my experiences are atypical. However, if my observations are consistent with the beliefs of a significant segment of congregations or membership (and I suspect that they are, given the definitions of "Christian" and "member of the church" in the deleted "terminology" section), it seems misleading to leave out this exclusivity.

(2) The present article speaks of variations between congregations and largely portrays variations as being seen as friendly matters of liberty ("Congregations and members are free to study the Scriptures and to the best of their abilities determine God's revealed will. This allows for liberty in the continual seeking of God's revealed will." And, "There is much variety that exists from congregation to congregation between these two ideologies [relating to biblical silence/exclusion]. This approach, which is related to the non-denominational/autonomous nature of the church, allows open interpretation for the uninhibited search and discovery of the original meanings of biblical texts."). However, as is demonstrated in the article about the non-institutional churches, many variations are the subject of very heated dispute and aren't merely seen as questions of liberty. The real-world treatment of individuals (e.g., Lucado) who break from the standard views (evidence of which can be found in some of the publications mentioned in the external links) is also proof. While previous revisions may have devoted too much space to splits and divisions, the current revision devotes too little. This perspective on such variations of opinion should be mentioned more explicitly here.

(3) The aforementioned exclusivity is one major source of criticism. As such, if it is widespread, at the least both the exclusivity and the criticism thereof should be mentioned.

(4) Some other major restorationist groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-Day Saints, Seventh-Day Adventists) have criticism/critical sections or pages. I see no reasons why the churches of Christ should be exempt. At present, the only clear mention of a critical view is the former members discussion link.

I ask for your thoughts because (1) though I'm a newbie, (2) despite this, I have watched the progress of the article for some time and understand the effort that went into the current version, (3) I do not want to create an "edit war," and (4) if it is agreed that changes are necessary, I would like feedback about how to incorporate such information into the article. Thanks.

Klpstyles 22:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pamphlets produced by churches of Christ could probably be used as references for exclusivity claims. It would be best if the article could give some idea of how typical these claims are, but that would need decent sources. It seems to me that when talking about variations between congregations, the article currently emphasises the fact that there is no hierarchical structure or authority bringing them together other than the Bible, only briefly even touching on how disagreements are dealt with ("depends on each member and local church"). This could be expanded with references to real-world events. Any group can have a criticism group. The difficulties in this case are that it is harder to criticise something that doesn't have a formal structure. It really should be made clear when criticism is of the "movement" as a whole, or of particular groups with particular practises, and so on. This ties in with problems discussed above about which churches this article is actually about. JPD (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Points taken.
(1) As far as the exclusivity claims, I think that it might be helpful to reincorporate some of the information on schisms found in the RM article back into this one. It could be noted (a) that in addition to congregations differing on silence, they also differ on how to interact with those who do not adhere to views like their own (this would allow for a differentiation of congregations' views on closed fellowship/exclusivity), and (b) that the more exclusive/closed view is correlated with tendencies to become more divided over issued such as those mentioned in the RM article's "schisms" section (the schisms could then be inserted).
(2) As far as criticism is concerned, my major point was that other major groups from the same period (if it be accepted that American churches of Christ have their origin largely in the Restoration Movement) that make similar claims about restoring Christianity have criticism sections, so I don't see why this article necessarily shouldn't. While all groups certainly could have criticism sections, and all people who claim to be Christians don't agree on every point, there are certainly some groups that are looked at as being more or less accepted as mainstream than others, and if the some of the responses to the Winkler shooting (for example, the Nancy Grace interview with a Baptist pastor) are any indication, the churches of Christ (whether fairly characterized or not) tend to fall closer to the "less" side.
If such a section were created, it should probably include (based on the critical literature that I have seen): (a) general doctrinal disagreements (baptism [the major criticism], a cappella singing [Psalm 150], exclusivity [probably the second major external criticism]), (b) hermeneutics (whether principles establishing "authority" are applied consistently), and (c) miscellaneous (the matter of whether the group is really a nondenominational/has no creed, the prevalence of major divisions despite the call for all to be "one"). Of course, some of these criticisms (especially in the general doctrine section) could have accompanying rebuttals. It would be noted that due to the diversity of views, not all criticisms would apply to all congregations and members.
(3) Though not mentioned in my original post, it would seem that the role that schools and magazines play within some branches should be mentioned within the body of the article, for much the same reason as the exclusivity issue (these tools have been used to teach since Alexander Campbell and are not a negligible source of uniformity) and because of the role that they have played in many of the divisions (whether as subject of these controversies or as the method of spreading beliefs on either side of the issues).
As you noted, the major difficulty is that with no recognized hierarchy, it would be difficult to write generally about the beliefs of congregations or members. Further, a lot of information was removed due to the article getting lengthy and cluttered, so figuring how to incorporate information without that problem returning is also a concern. Klpstyles 21:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger

No. This article and the ICOC should stand separatley and must not be confused. The differences between the two are extensive as are their recent histories. JodyB talk 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

Anonymous user(s) 65.188.13.214 and 74.249.12.54 undid, without explanation, some significant edits by me and others, including three source citations. Specific discussion about why this content is being removed/reverted would be helpful, especially given this article's lack of attribution. —Adavidb 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Another anonymous IP is getting in on the act- 129.252.106.177 Lurker 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Another one: 70.144.12.144 Lurker 17:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this while patrolling my watchlist. My guess is that all of these anon IP removals have been controlled by a single person; and since the restorals have been done by four logged-in users, consensus appears to be keep. I could join the "party" and restore the text again, but as a certain famous Dr. might say, "How's that working for you?". See the Recap I've put together, below.

So, what next? Adavidb has requested discussion on the article talk page (refer to the Recap below for citations), but none of the anon IPs have responded on the article talk page. Lurker and JetLover placed warnings on three of the anon IPs' talk pages, but none of the warnings linked here; two requested an explanation in the edit summary. One of the removals does include an edit summary, and one of the anon IPs commented on another's talk page, but not here. Maybe it would be helpful to place a request on each of the anon IPs' talk pages, specifically linking to this article talk page and requesting they come here before editing a Churches of Christ article again.

Of course, there is no guarantee that this person will be using any of those IPs the next time they connect, so they might not get the message before they remove the text again. Semi-protection might be useful; however, this suggestion has been rejected before for this page for similar reasons, and the policy specifically states "Semi-protection should not be used [in] a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users."

It's a bit unorthodox, but in the spirit of Ignore all rules (if there is a rule against this sort of thing, which I'm not sure there is), I wonder if we could restore the text, then surround it in the editing window with HTML comments, duplicated enough times that someone removing that text cannot avoid seeing them, asking that anyone removing it refer to the talk page first. Something like this:

<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT BELOW -->
<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT BELOW -->
<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT BELOW -->
restored text here
<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT ABOVE -->
<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT ABOVE -->
<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT ABOVE -->

Again, I realize this would be unorthodox, but it would have the benefit that the person(s) controlling the anon IPs would see this message regardless of which IP they are using.

Obviously the approach being used so far is not working well, so something needs to be done differently. What do others think about these ideas, and what else can we think of? Thanks for listening. Charm ©† 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion above has my approval. I expect however that the anonymous editor(s) know discussion is sought, and choose to apply their version without encouraging or accepting others' input first. Verifiable attribution supports edits; silent reversion is indicative of a page ownership situation. —Adavidb 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the suggested HTML comments around the restored text. —Adavidb 03:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As anticipated, the same editor reverted the content again, with no associated discussion here. Based on policy, this may need to be taken to dispute resolution. —Adavidb 06:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Expectations aside, 74.249.3.37's recent comment confirms without a doubt that they have read the recap below, so now we know that they are aware discussion is sought, and they know where to find the talk page. Next, the first step at dispute resolution is to discuss the issue. Since they have now edited from the same IP three days in a row, hopefully they will see and accept my invitation to discuss the issue here. If not, there will be no doubt that attempts were made to initiate dialog. Charm ©† 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, semi-protection is not inline with policy, but since users are still so blatantly reverting without discussion, I have protected the page. JPD (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I suggested this long ago. --Velvet elvis81 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Recap

The content about institutionalism, fundraising, and fellowship halls has been: (all times UTC)

Additional notes

Charm ©† 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recap. —Adavidb 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I think Charm's point in listing other edits was to compare or contrast 74.249.3.37's account usage with that of other anon IP accounts which are often used only for editing limited numbers of articles. —Adavidb 06:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting how much editing has slowed down since the lock was put on this? Proves the point that the vast majority of stuff stuck in here prior was just edit wars. --Velvet elvis81 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wars frequently result from a lack of communication. The point of the protection was to further encourage two-sided discussion here rather than quiet reversion by anonymous editors. —Adavidb 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Campbellite

I've noticed that prior to the current edit war, there was a mini edit war concerning whether we should mention that members of the CofC are sometimes called "Campbellites." The rationale given for removing it was that it's offensive and displays an ignorance of the restoration movement. That may be so, but that doesn't change the fact that some people have called the group by that name, which makes it relevant. Also, if you actually click on the link to Campbellite it mentions that some take offense to it, effectively neutralizing that issue in my mind. On the other hand, it may be more appropriate to have that word solely in the article on the Restoration Movement and not necessarily here because Campbellite refers to a broader group than just the CofC. Comments?--Velvet elvis81 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your second suggestion about mentioning it on the Restoration Movement page would probably be preferable, given that it is not a coC-specific term. Klpstyles 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased Content Unsuitable For Consumption!

This article is the first article I have read on Wikipedia that is obviously corrupted by promoters of a particular agenda. This is neither useful or becoming to the promoters of the Churches of Christ, to use what ought to be a unbiased, educational description of their nature,history, and belief system for propaganda purposes. As has been noted already, there are countless ways of spreading one's personal propaganda, and this is certainly not the forum.

The following quote is so full of biased propaganda that is certainly should be deleted in its entirety:

"The difference between Churches of Christ and most other evangelical churches is the teaching on how one receives this salvation. Churches of Christ adhere to the biblical teaching that salvation occurs when one obeys Christ in baptism. This is based on scriptures such as Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and I Peter 3:21. In contrast, most Protestant churches and evangelicals today teach that mental belief in Christ with no response, quoting a "sinner's prayer," or "asking Jesus into one's heart" will suffice. Churches of Christ almost unanimously reject these notions based on these doctrines not being found in Scripture and because of the New Testament scriptures regarding the purposes of baptism. Baptism is performed only by immersion (the New Testament Greek term baptizo always meant "to immerse") and only upon those capable of believing in Christ and repenting of sin (i.e., no infant baptism)."

To suggest that the Bible teaches that salvation occurs only when one "obeys Christ in baptism" is in direct contradiction to many New Testament texts, including KJV Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. The point is mute of course, and can be argued extensively, but the only unbiased way to state the belief of the Churches of Christ in regards to "salvation" or any other doctrine is to say "The Churches of Christ believe that salvation occurs when one obeys Christ in baptism, rather than suggesting they "adhere" to "the biblical teaching," which is totally biased, and based on their subjective hermeneutics.

I personally agree with you here, although I think a good middle ground would be "Churches of Christ believe the Bible says" rather than just "Churches of Christ believe" or "The Bible says" SFT | Talk 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "In contrast, most Protestant churches and evangelicals today teach that mental belief in Christ with no response, quoting a "sinner's prayer," or "asking Jesus into one's heart" will suffice." is so biased, and slanderous as to be unfit for publication anywhere. The contributor is simply making derisive claims that have no basis in fact, and certainly no objective source material to substantiate such claims. Having been involved in both denominational (Baptist and Assemblies of God) and non-denominational charismatic churches I have never encountered anyone who suggested a mental belief in Christ was sufficient for anything, rather the doctrine is called "justification by faith." Even this is irrellevant, as a contributor should not be permitted to make such a derogatory claim that other churches are teaching any doctrine at all without substantiating such a claim. Isn't this is to be a fact based unbiased exercise in knowledge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karkfump (talk • contribs) 05:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Having been a Baptist for most of my life, I strongly disagree with you here. Baptists can't go five minutes without saying "accept Jesus into your heart." You balk at the phrase "mental belief"; however, the "faith" that saves you is purely mental in the minds of most denominations. (They teach that the mental faith should produce righteous acts, but they strongly teach that these acts are not part of saving faith.) Baptists, at least, would not consider any of these remarks derogatory; they'd consider them true. I invite you to look at the hundreds of search results for "accept Jesus into your heart" or thousands of results for "sinners prayer" as proof. Feel free to cite whichever of them you choose. SFT | Talk 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
How one perceives this teaching of "accepting Jesus into one's heart," is not really the issue, since I am merely asking for factual statements from real sources. My personal experience being raised a in a Baptist congregation, and being the grandson of a Baptist pastor who served for more than 50 years in my locale, I have never heard anyone suggest that the mind and the heart are one and the same, or that "mental belief" was acceptable. You said "the "faith" that saves you is purely mental in the minds of most denominations." and while I may agree that this is may be the case in many congregations, if the original author in question, writing for the Churches of Christ wishes to make such a claim "most Protestant churches and evangelicals today teach that mental belief in Christ with no response", he should cite sources that are unbiased, whereas he cites no sources at all. When the author decided to contrast the Churches of Christ with other groups or denominations, he is under the obligation to compare factual stated beliefs from authoritative sources, not his own biased perceptions of these other groups. I know firsthand, by valid personal experience that the Churches of Christ in this area use the accapella method of singing in their litrugy, but if I don't have an authoritative Church of Christ document to quote to substantiate such a claim, I am not going to pass off my personal experience or interpretations as being suitable facts for an encyclopedia.Karkfump 20:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you as far as what should go in the article. I was responding to your "slanderous" and "derogatory" characterizations as such, rather than as anything having to do with Wikipedia. :P SFT | Talk 04:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The article should definitely make it clear(er) that any "biblical teaching" followed by Churches of Christ is what they believe the Bible teaches, so a change in wording would probably be helpful. As for the "mental belief", the sentence is clearly trying to address the question of whether baptism is necessary for salvation, not whether faith is simply mental. Perhaps it would be reworded to reflect that? Finally, Karkfump, while you are right to insist of citing sources, you are going a bit too far to insist on an "authoritative Church of Christ document", especially when such a thing is unlikely to exist. JPD (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can't people who are not members of any church of Christ, and who don't agree with the beliefs of people who are, simply let members express what they believe? You don't have to agree. It is just not right to re-write it to emphasize your dis-approval !
This is the heart of nearly all the disputes found in these pages.

Please respect the rights of others to believe what they believe.
RFranklin (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Protestant

This article seems to go to some length to avoid using the term "protestant" to refer to this group. I understand that the Churches of Christ themselves do not call themselves protestant. However, going by the generally understood meaning of "protestant," it seems hard to deny at least the protestant origins of the movement. The way a religious group chooses to describe itself is certainly important, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of how we describe them. The Churches of Christ clearly fit into a broad understanding of "Protestant" - it arose out of the traditions of the Reformation, and seems to accept pretty much all of the more basic points on which all "Protestant" groups disagree with Rome - rejection of transubstantiation, salvation by faith alone, scripture as the key to salvation, the priesthood of all believers. While we should of course discuss how the Churches of Christ generally don't call themselves protestants, we should also be fairly clear on the fact that, to any outsider, their beliefs are pretty clearly well within the protestant fold. john k 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no real problem with that provided you find a way to say it clearly in one or two sentences and so long as word is only used to address the very broad movement from whence the restoration began. As mentioned above in a discussion of clergy vs. preacher, we ought use the words of the church to describe the church. JodyB yak, yak, yak 17:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows a policy of Neutral Point of View. While the words of the church to describe itself are, of course, important, and need to be discussed in the article, they shouldn't be the be all and end all. In particular, what scholars of religion say on the subject should be important as well. I'm not sure how best to phrase it, though. john k 18:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with john k. "The Church of Christ came out of the American Restoration Movement, a protestant movement away from Presbyterianism made by Campbell and Stone . . . " OR "While maintaining fundamental protestant beliefs (rejection of transubstantiation, salvation by faith alone, scripture as the key to salvation, the priesthood of all believers), the American Restoration Movement differed significantly from the Reformation.
This is an encyclopedia. The words of the Church of Christ will not be used to describe it. Encyclopedic language should be used. The "churches" of Christ are protestant even to most of its own members. At least, I should say that they recognize it in a list of "Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim," etc. as "their" group, even if they don't use the word themselves. Josh a brewer 06:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Really Josh, I don't think the dogmatism is needed. We can write an article about the church, or any other subject for that matter, in a NPOV fashion and still make clear what the church thinks of itself. In fact we could state it as such. Something like the quote above, "The Church of Christ came out of the American Restoration Movement, a protestant movement away from Presbyterianism made by Campbell and Stone . . . " is fine. It states a fact without pressing the idea that the church is just another part of protestantism. If you want to have a scholar comment on it, then fine. I'm sure the church can provide a scholar to suggest a different view. In reality Josh, we always use the words of an organization or group to describe it while tempered by outside scholarship. As I have pointed out before, the U.S. has a President and the UK a Prime Minister. The Jewish faith has Rabbis and the Muslums have Imams while people of Christ-believing faiths have preachers, ministers, etc. Those are terms they use to describe themselves and we can and should respect that. We can, and must work these kinds of things out without such dogmatic statements don't you think? JodyB yak, yak, yak 14:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Jody, we seem to agree. You write that "we always use the words of an organization or group to describe it while tempered by outside scholarship." Of course, except for the word "always," you're right. Outside scholarship tends to be more objective about these things. The Church of Christ is one among many protestant churches, though it does not in all cases describe itself as such. Because all "outside scholarship" would refer to the CofC as protestant, this article probably should as well. Although it is clearly also important to note that some people in the Churches of Christ reject this apellation, some do not. There seems to be a growing consensus about this language or something close to it: "The Church of Christ grew out of the American Restoration Movement, a protestant movement away from Presbyterianism . . ." Josh a brewer 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to someone who can edit this page

The article states the following:

"Churches of Christ emphasize the use of the New Testament only to find doctrine, ecclesiastical structure, and moral beliefs, while maintaining that the Old Testament is also the inspired Word of God, is historically accurate, and that its principles remain true and beneficial (although its laws are not binding under the new covenant in Christ unless otherwise taught in the New Testament)."

Of course, they also believe that the New Testament is useful for learning about the life of Christ. Could this please be changed to read "Churches of Christ emphasize the use of only the New Testament..." Thanks! Nyttend 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for it? I doubt it because it's not accurate. I think the above comment (in your first paragraph) is accurate. JodyB yak, yak, yak 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Nyttend is saying that the beginning of the quote from the article could be read as saying "Churches of Christ say the New Testament is only used to find doctrine, ecclesiastical structure and moral beliefs, while maintaining...", rather than "Churches of Christ use only the New Testament to find doctrine, ecclesiastical structure and moral beliefs, while maintaining...". The second option is clearly what is intended by the statement in the article, so while a source would be good, I don't see any rason not to change the text to make it clearer. I don't understand the difference in accuracy that JodyB refers to.
This demonstrates that protection is not a wonderful solution to the problems with this article. While it has stopped the edit wars, it is disrupting the normal editing and improvement on the article. The problems will only be solved when all editors actually discuss, rather than edit war. JPD (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I can see that. I misunderstood. You mean that the presently existing quote limits the use of the NT itself while the suggested quote limits the doctrine to the NT. I can handle that. I'll watch here and if that's agreeable I will make the change.
Page protection is always frustrating but sometimes essential to keep our work from degenerating into absolute chaos. JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with and made the recommended change above. It now reads, "Churches of Christ emphasize the use of only the New Testament to find..."--Thelonghop 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Big C, little c, what begins with C?

That's from one of my son's Dr Suess books but it's an applicable question here. Because there seems to be no consensus in the article, I propose the following. When referring to the community of Saints, that is the entire family of Christians (including the historical Church- Church When referring to in an individual congregation- church(es) When referring to a specific title such as the 'Memorial Road Church of Christ'- Church

With these guidelines in mind, some changes should be made. In the first paragraph: "Churches of Christ generally emphasize their intent simply to be part of the church" this second 'church' should be 'Church'. In the fourth: "Also realized is that Christians can do this without any prior knowledge of other Churches of Christ" should be 'churches of Christ'.

These guidelines seek to place emphasis on the entire Church versus individual congregations. In my mind, it's either this or use one or the other in every case.

Also, there was an earlier soteriology section from Jan 28, 2007, that listed the commonly accept COC steps to salvation: Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess, be Baptized, and continued faithfulness. This is a basic tenet of the COC, and I feel this was superior to the current section. It is easily possible to list these beliefs of the churches of Christ without contrasting them with other denominations.

And when a scripture is referenced, it seems to be customary on other wikipages to have the quotation typed out after the reference. For example, Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Even if there is no standard practice in this regard, it looks better I think, and offers to readers a clearer understanding of churches of Christ. Thelonghop 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Two other things I forgot to add. How did the administrators for this page become one?

A reference to add: "Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ" by Leroy Brownlow, Brownlow Publishing Company, Inc, copyright 1945. This book, while of course not being any sort of authority offers concise arguments with scriptural basis on a number of topics discussed on this page and can be used as a reference to document commonly held beliefs among the churches of Christ. Thelonghop 03:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is normal on Wikipedia to capitalise terms such as "the church", referring to the community of saints. Capitalisation can be restricted to proper nouns, such as "Memorial Road Church of Christ", as you say.
As to including text from scripture, some people have raised issues about whether it is NPOV to choose a particular translation, although it one if predominantly used in the churches of Christ, that may be appropriate. I did see a page the other day which had links to a site which generated links to particular verses in many different languages and translations, but I don't remember the details.
There aren't any "administrators for this page", as such. The administrators who are able to edit the page are Wikipedia:Administrators for Wikipedia in general. Anyway, since it has been three weeks, and several people obviuosly wish to edit and improve the article, I am going to unprotect the article. As long as everyone remembers to discuss disputed changes rather than edit war, there should be no problem. A resumption of the edit war will lead to the reinstatement of page protection. JPD (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It may not be normal to Wikipedia, but I believe it is in fairly common usage. It is an abbreviated proper title in my view- "the Church of Christ", like the House of Representatives. It's a reference to an official body. It also makes it more clear what's being talked about. That's my two cents, I won't go changing it if everyone disagrees, but the lack of continuity in the current article is bothersome. edit- the most authoritative source available, Dictionary.com, agrees that when referring to the whole body of believers or the historical Church the capital C is acceptable. Ref below, I'll make this edit unless I hear serious objection. church.Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/church (accessed: July 25, 2007).
Regarding which translation to use. I don't believe it's a question of NPOV at all. No one translation has any greater authority than another. It's really just a simple editorial decision, not a doctrinal question. For my money, it's NASB for being considered the closest to a transliteration, or if not, the NIV for being the most widely used.--Thelonghop 17:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is one common usage. Your reference says "sometimes initial capital letter", implying that it is a question of style. I have the impression that WP has chosen not to adopt that style for this and similar words, but I could be wrong.
A transliteration wouldn't be much use! I think the point that people have made is that the editorial decision itself may not be NPOV, which is easily avoided by providing links to many translations. Maybe this is being overly careful, but that doesn't necessarily hurt. JPD (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Churches of Christ" is not a proper title and should not be capitalized. According to the Bible, there is only one "Church". It may be referred to as the "Church of Christ". This Church, encompasses the entire body of believers, and is a proper noun as it refers to a unique entity. The many churches, as in "churches of Christ" are common nouns`- the same as "cities of America". Any instance where "congregations" could be inserted, "churches of Christ" is the appropriate capitalization. When referring to an individual congregation, it's title, or name, would be a proper noun, hence Memorial Road Church of Christ, or Riverside Church of Christ. Another example: "There can be many gods, but there is only one God." link

Also, any instance of Bible or Biblical should be capitalized, as should Scripture, as it's a reference to the Bible which is a proper name.

I've also removed the statement that members of the Church of Christ claim the NT as their sole authority for "moral beliefs", and that they regard the OT as "historically accurate". These changes were suggested by me, reviewed with no dissent, and implemented by someone else. See discussion below If someone would like these statements reinstated, please provide a source. I'm sure that isn't possible though, because I don't believe they are factual statements. It would also be very strange to have absolutely no other source of moral beliefs- what of questions the Bible doesn't address? And while some may believe the OT is historically accurate, as someone with a history degree, I don't believe it is. More importantly, that belief is not a tenet of faith.

Finally, another change that someone keeps reverting in the Hermeneutics section is this, "Some believe God only binds people to the explicit commands of New Testament scripture,..." The intent of the sentence is to say that God requires people to do certain things, but not others. However, the placement of the word "only" in this sentence limits God. God doesn't only bind people. He does much more. The proper wording is "Some believe God binds people only to the explicit commands of New Testament scripture,..." This phrasing states that God binds people to the explicit commands of the NT, but that which isn't explicitly commanded is open to interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelonghop (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-identification

"They hold to the biblical and historical reality..." NPOV issue. I believe we need to change the word "reality" to "belief". "Reality" turns the paragraph into a statement of fact, rather that a factual discription of the churches of Christ beliefs. While myself and others may believe the paragraph to be fact, I recognize it as a religious question with which others may disagree.--Thelonghop 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How about, "They seek to hold to the..." or "members say they hold to..." I would prefer the former but certainly think the later is solid. JodyB yak, yak, yak 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether they hold to it or not, is not in question. Your changes don't address the issue that the paragraph states as fact that "its doctrines and practices were established long before these other traditions, movements, structures, councils, etc. The church therefore biblically, historically and spiritually transcends these other entities that developed later within Christendom." COC members believe all of the above, but others do not. The quoted statements are open to opinion, therefore calling the above "reality" does not follow NPOV.--Thelonghop 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that by adding what the members believe or say they try to do, as opposed to stating it as reality, avoids the POV question because you remove the statement from the realm of a factual statement and make it descriptive of their beliefs or understandings. While I also believe it to be fact I understand that this article is not the place to prove it. Our purpose here is to describe the Church of Christ. Isn't it important that we state, in a properly worded fashion, what the people who make up the church say they are trying to do? I am not saying my two suggestions are the only way to say it. I only offer those as two possibilities.
Looking at the article paragraph again however, I note that the sentence seems to be trying to describe the realities of the early church (not the present day church) which are not in question so far as I know. We could clean it up a bit and make it clear that the present day churches of Christ "believe they are following in the same paths..." or something like it. Truthfully, the entire 'graph needs a rewrite and good sourcing. JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that Christ established the church long before Catholicism, Orthodoxy (both of which developed no earlier than 300 years after the church was originally established) or Protestantism (which develoed some 1500 years later). This is not a statement biased in favor of Churches of Christ, it only states a historical fact/reality that Churches of Christ embrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.81.213 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is a different interpretation made by another point of view, Wikipedia should not put it that way. If you don't see that there is a different interpretation, you really don't understand, say, the Catholic belief about their own tradition. You don't need to agree with this belief in order to acknowledge that ignoring it is POV. JPD (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Discuss before changing

An editor at 65.4.81.213 unilaterally decided a long past version of this article satisfied WP:NPOV, claiming subsequent changes were arbitrary and made by those of insufficient education. Some such changes were discussed here, and the time for new discussion is before, not after, reverting to one editor's past favorite. —Adavidb 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet Adavidb you still insist on pushing your misunderstandings of history and reality into this entry. "Discussion" on this page does not change truth and reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.172 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion should not be about personal attacks, but instead include specific description of such 'historical realities' and verifiable references to support them, so a consensus can be reached. Please see Wikipedia guidelines regarding attribution. —Adavidb 05:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Article has irrelevant info and info repeated in other links (e.g., colleges affiliated with Churches of Christ). what point is there to putting that on the main page if it is already included in a link on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.172 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 July 2007

Reverting to a previous version after so many changes have been made is a bad idea, no matter how bad most of the changes were. At least put the effort into distinguishing between the clearly positive changes and the ones you disagree with. (See the discussion about the placement of "only" several sections before this, for example.) If you do undo some changes, at least keep the wikilinking. Most of all, discuss disagreements here. The biggest problem ith this article is that people keep changing things undoing changes without even bothering to understand or explain the point that is being made. Finally, Wikipedia does not do "truth and reality". Everything included must be verifiable. So focus on getting sources for the things you are saying, not just writing what you think is true. JPD (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

An undiscussed edit

In this edit, an editor made significant changes to this article which were not discussed in advance. In returning the article's introductory paragraphs to a past version, the editor seemingly used a copy/paste action from a former display format which resulted in:

  • A subsequent paragraph now includes "they use only the Bible as their official source of doctrine.[2]" with only the bracketed numeral 'two' instead of an actual link to a source. Please discuss a proposed restoration of this source citation.

An entire sourced "Beginnings" subsection was quietly removed from the History in America section of the article. Please discuss any reasons for not including this information, and a proposed restoration. The former content is in the left column in the above-linked "this edit" page.

Despite explicit comments (based on past "edit wars") requesting prior discussion before making changes to the Variations within section, two source citations regarding congregational variation were removed and replaced with a statement that dismisses them with a minority status. See the above "this edit" link for specifics, and please discuss a proposed restoration of the two source citations. —Adavidb 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pending actual discussion on whether or not this should be reverted to, I'm going to revert. If you feel there is consensus to have the old version, feel free to undo. i (said) (did) 16:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And someone undid it. Apparantly that is the version that is wanted. i (said) (did) 01:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I, or someone who is able. Can you please revert back to the version before all these changes made by 74.249.12.172? Can we block this guy from making changes? He seems to prefer a much older version of the page and makes drastic changes without discussion.--Thelonghop 07:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Soteriology

I feel the Soteriology section is greatly lacking. It doesn't really go into the church of Christ beliefs at all, other than talking about baptism. I propose the following change the expand upon this:

Churches of Christ profess the doctrine common to most Protestant evangelical groups—that humans (of accountable age) are lost in sin (Romans 3:23) but can be redeemed by Grace (Acts 15.11, Ephesians 2.5) because Jesus Christ, the Son of God, offered Himself as the atoning sacrifice (Romans 6:23.) In order to receive this Grace, churches of Christ teach that one must Hear the Gospel preached (Romans 10.13), Believe the Gospel (Acts 16.31, Romans 10.9), Repent their sins (Acts 2.38), Confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that He was raised from the dead (Romans 10.9-10), be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38, 1 Peter 3.21), and that continued Faith must be exercised through good works (Ephesians, 2.8, James 2.26).

Churches of Christ differ from evangelicals in placing the exact timing of this salvation at the moment one is baptized by bodily immersion. They cite various passages in support of this (Mark 16.16, John 3.3-5, Acts 2.38, Acts 22.16, I Peter 3.21). This stands in contrast to evangelicals who (citing John 3.16 and 1 Peter 3. 21) place salvation at the moment of "acceptance of Christ." Baptism in churches of Christ is performed only by bodily immersion. (The New Testament Greek term baptizo meant "to immerse"; churches of Christ take this to mean whole-body submersion in water). Only those capable of personally making the commitment are baptized; infant baptism is not practiced.--Thelonghop 19:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you to consider the statement "Churches of Christ profess the doctrine common to most Protestant evangelical groups—that humans (of accountable age)... Inasmuch as you mention infant baptism again in the last sentence, perhaps we should speak of doctrines common to many Protestant evangelical groups. It might also be more succinct to somehow say that salvation comes at the moment of obedience to all the Gospel commands. Not sure right now exactly how to word it though. But the idea of obedience seems to include all of the above. I do think the five steps and references should be included however. JodyB yak, yak, yak 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I see your point. Are you saying that 'most' Protestant churches practice infant baptism and therefore, the church of Christ doctrine is common to only 'many' Protestant churches? Regarding salvation at the moment of obedience...COCs view baptism as the last, culminating step of that obedience and the moment salvation is actually obtained, do they not? The five steps are a pretty integral part of COC doctrine, and if they can be explained more succinctly than I have, that's fine, but I think they should be listed. Adding something about obedience to scriptural commands might work, but I'm not sure how or where to add it.--Thelonghop 20:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the pedobaptists, its hard to know who or how many. I'm just saying some might be better or broader. In any case its not a big deal. You are correct about COC and salvation and the 5 steps are integral. Of course obedience is required at every step. Maybe on second thought there is not a tighter way to say it. I'll have to think about it. I would not object to you making the change as you have it. JodyB yak, yak, yak 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Are any of your guys throwing around all this rhetoric and pushing your edits even part of the Church of Christ? It seems that there is a lot of talk going on here that is very uninformed about this religious group and your points are not reflective of reality. The way you folks are trying to do this, it would be appropriate to have an entry on the planet earth and if a couple of people on the discussion page for "earth" decided that the entry should state that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, then the entry will state such. Facts and reality are thrown out because two or three people have a discussion in a bubble.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.13.214 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My answer to this would be- to provide the objective and neutral POV necessary for an encyclopedic entry, it is not necessary to be a member of the COC. Having said that, I at least am, and have been a member of congregations across the country from VA to OK to HI, both 'mainstream' and 'non-institutional', so yeah, I think I have a pretty good grasp of their doctrine. If there are any specific points of the article that you disagree with, feel free to raise them here, and I'm sure a consensus can be reached.--Thelonghop 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Several edits made on this entry in the last couple weeks have turned this entry into a chaotic mess. The particulars of Stone and Campbell's idiosyncracies and their positions on minor doctrine do not belong here but may be better suited for the Restoration Movement entry. The Church of Christ entry is not an entry suitable for various occurences in the history of the Restoration Movement. To note the historical relationship is fine but all these comments about Campbell, Stone, etc. and their different positions don't belong here. This article is merely to educate people who are interested in Churches of Christ as to the major tenets and ideals of the body, the distinctions with other Christian bodies, and the general history. Furthermore, it is unnecessary to list colleges in this article as there is a link at the bottom to that (a few months ago "famous people" was removed from the entry because I link is provided for that). Also, to put the info about non-institutionalism is irrelavent as this is covered in the Restoration Movement entry and that particular group is so small within the broader topic (which this entry is about) of Churches of Christ. "Non-Institutional Churches of Christ" should be a seperate entry with possibly a link from this entry, nothing more.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.172 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe these two anon paragraphs were by two separate authors, if not, please let me know. I can agree with much of what is said here. The entry does at times, seem to get off topic, and talk around the COC vs describing the COC itself. The history may be a bit wordy, and the colleges section probably isn't necessary. There is a separate non-institutional COC entry, but I don't see where it's covered in an overly broad, or unnecessary fashion in this entry. Having said all that, I encourage you to sign up for an account- it takes only a few minutes, and to discuss the specific changes you would like to make here, so there can be some editorial agreement.Thelonghop 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thelonghop - I appreciate the gesture (to put an end to the edit war, i have tried to merge the two versions. i don't believe they were actually all that different. i've tried to use npov, and retain parts that had been discussed). However, your fusion of the versions has resulted in some grammatical, syntax, etc. errors, including the repeating of the same sentence in some cases. I hope you don't mind me trying to clean that up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.172 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You've gone well beyond cleaning up any syntax errors, and have basically reinstated your biased version. A few things that are wrong with the version you keep pushing: 1. Big C little c- COC believes there is one true 'Church', and many congregations of Christians which form a 'church'. It seems you try to portray the exact opposite of this in the capitalization structure you use. 2. As has been discussed here 'use of the NT only to find doctrine...' this wording limits COC use of the NT to only those things listed, which isn't true. It can be used for spiritual edification, history of NT times, etc. 3. You remove links to related topics that people have spent time putting in 4. 'Futhermore, that God...' is not a grammatically correct sentence structure, yet you continue to put it in. There are many other instances of this. 5. 'Also, realized...' this sentence structure portrays the following as an undisputed fact, rather than the beliefs of the COC. 6. 'They hold the biblical and historical reality...' same as above, it is something that can and is disputed. 7. 'trained clergy' use of this term was discussed here and alternate wording decided upon. 8. 'adhere to the biblical teaching' this sentence states as fact that the bible teaches baptism for salvation. while i might personally agree, it is something that is open to interpretation. 9. 'mental belief with no response...' again this was discussed here. also, this is a COC entry, so it's not necessary to expound upon the teachings of other denominations. 10. from your comments it seems you feel that an older version that you were apparently highly involved in crafting can't be improved upon and shouldn't be changed. quoting you about the current version "It is full of pov's that give a false picture of the Church of Christ and besides that it is very sloppy. You guys give all this rhetoric about discussing, etc. but the version I keep reverting to is the version that was there before various people started arbitrarily changing it and giving all these false and irrelavent ideas about Churches of Christ." The entry should be built upon a consensus rather than dominated by one person who believes no one else knows the truth about the COC.
For these reasons, I'm rolling back your changes, and I recommend locking the entry to random IPs.--Thelonghop 06:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thelonghop - I'm sorry you feel this way, and even moreso that you are not open to learning some realities that you are missing. I understand where you are coming from on the big "C" little "c" thing, but it is flawed (I can sympathize because I used to feel that way myself and let go of that hangup as I became more educated on the Bible and applying it to reality). Your ideas here are very myopic, apparently based on the misguided and uneducated views of the "non-institutional" splinter from Churches of Christ. This version can sit here for a while but believe me it will be changed again. In the meantime, I suggest you do something that may seem bizarre to you - start an intensive individual study of the New Testament on your own. Don't ask your preacher or anyone else for their opinions on what the Bible teaches. Try to read it fresh as if you had never read any of it before and certainly don't read into it any or your previously believed interpretations/dogmas from your religious past. You will be amazed at what has been in there all along and what the Church of Christ really is and should be. Blessings in your search :o) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.172 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say I generally stand with Thelonghop on these edits. Your suggestion that you are willing to buck consensus to change the article is troubling. While TLH has a background in the non-institutional part of the church I do not. I am now and always have been in the mainstream group and reject the NI teachings. Having said that, your edits are improper. The clergy issue is an indicator that you either have not checked or you simply reject what has been said previously. I think what TLH is trying to say is that this article is for an encyclopedia and must be written by the standards of the encyclopedia. I may agree with many things you (and I do) but they simply cannot be stated in such a way. You should work with us to make this article accurate and informative.
Let me suggest the following: Bring your issues, one by one, to the discussion page. Place each in a separate section and we will happily discuss them. If we need a WP:3O we can get one. Your help is needed constructively. Also, please remember to sign your posts. JodyB yak, yak, yak 02:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JodyB but I have to state here that this version is far from being to the standards of an encyclopedia. It is now sloppy with chunks of disconnected sentences in it. TLH has merely taken things out and added his own biased interpretations without making changes that even connect his own views together. This article is now a mess and does not serve the purpose of educating the public on Churches of Christ. Furthermore, the way the article now appears is more appropriate for the non-institutional splinter group. The little "c" issue is something that the non-institutional splinter is hung up on. This idiosyncracy is rare in the Churches of Christ that this article is supposed to be about. Regarding your comments on "clergy," it's just plain foolish to not want that term in the article. While there may be a few people here and there that would oppose the use of search a term, the reality is that "clergy" merely means professionally trained ministers and the use of the word is helpful in educating the public. Those who oppose the use of a term like that simply are following some minority's tradition (similarly some don't care for the use of "eucharist" for communion when in fact "eucharist" is a biblical word). My experience has been that the rare cases when someone in a Church of Christ is hungup on using various terms, most people understand when they are simply taught as to what such terms mean. Of course, that requires such people to have an open mind. The reality is that this article was serving a good (and educated) purpose and now it's a disconnected pile of jibberish, based on the less than informed opinions of a couple (mainly one) opinions.

Just a couple obvious examples of this entry no longer being to "encyclopaedic" standard: - the first paragraph misspells "Churches." Immediately we see that this longhop guy has no business being allowed to take control of this entry and shouldn't even be writing on something that is supposed to have a hint of scholarship to it.

- this paragraph no longer makes sense for reasons I'll add afterwards - "Members consider themselves "Christians only". They hold to the biblical and historical belief that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ, and that its doctrines and practices were established long before these other traditions, movements, structures, councils, etc. They teach that the Church therefore biblically, historically and spiritually transcends these other entities that developed later within Christendom. Members also do not typically consider themselves to be members of a denomination, but prefer to simply be known as "Christians" (in contrast to, for example, a Catholic Christian, a Presbyterian Christian, a Baptist Christian, etc.), with no other religious title needed or preferred. Thus, a collective group of Christians is a church of Christ (e.g., Romans 16:16)."

Since Thelonghop arbitrarily removed the information about Churches of Christ not being Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, this paragraph makes no sense because it refers to things no longer mentioned (the traditions, movements, etc. that this paragraph refers to are not there - this would be confusing and ignorant to someone who reads this article). Besides that, it is extremely important that the information about Churches of Christ not being grouped with any of these religious traditions is part of the article because that is very much a part of our history and ideology. In short, this entry is now poor, uneducated, and misinformed as it has become based on non-institutional dogma and no longer reflects Churches of Christ.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.172 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree the article needs work. You know, as well as I do, that this is not about spelling errors. The disagreements are much deeper. My issue is largely about how you go about it. I still believe the way to deal with this is on the discussion page in parts, not as the whole. I disagree with your comments about clergy as I have never discussed its use to be common within the church. There are also theological reasons for my disagreement with you over this. The term professionally trained ministers is perfectly acceptable and accurate. This business about big C or little c is, frankly, a distraction so far as I am concerned. I know its a big deal to some and to others it is immaterial. I am pleased for this to be worked out on the discussion page w/o my assistance. Your comment about eucharist being a biblical term is technically correct. However it never stands in place of communion and simply a verb form meaning to give thanks. To equate this for communion is a critical mistake and factual error. Now, perhaps you think I am hung up on terms. I happily confess that I am. I choose to "call Bible things by Bible names..." May I again suggest you bring individual suggestions to the page and let's discuss them apart from hyperbole and comments which border on attacks. I really believe we can come to some agreements and make the appropriate changes. I, for one, want you to be involved as I wish for TLH to be involved. However we must work together or else the article will stay locked for a very long time. JodyB yak, yak, yak 03:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

JodyB - actually, "eucharist" directly refers to the Lord's Supper in the Bible, as the term refers to the bread and cup in giving thanks for the the grace of Christ in his body and blood. The term is in the Greek text. The problems with this article are in part about spelling errors, syntax, unprofessional writing, etc. as well as misguided dogmas of a person or two with opinions rooted in a splinter group from Churches of Christ. My concerns are both. In any event, the non-institutional information does not belong here and to give it the space and sources listed goes way beyond the scope of the body that this particular entry is about. The NI body has its own entry and that's where it needs to stay. It's sad that Churche of Christ are continually misrepresented on this "source" called Wikipedia as the non-institutional denomination, the International CC cult, etc. keep pushing their agendas. This entry can stay locked for a long time but it will be changed when it becomes unlocked and believe me I can keep this up until you others want to deal with reality and a legitimate and educated version of this entry stays put. Thanks for responding nonetheless.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.172 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Anon - No, "eucharist" no more "directly refers to the Lord's Supper in the Bible" than "kai" "directly refers to the Lord's Supper in the Bible." While the verb form is used in passages speaking of the Lord's Supper it is most often used in other contexts. It, and its cognates, simply mean the giving of the thanks. JodyB yak, yak, yak 12:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I'm quite flattered that you-anon think the entire entry in its current form is all my work. I readily admit that there are small errors and that some little things could be cleared up, but overall I think it's pretty good. The truth of course though, is that very little of it is of my own work. I've simply done what others have in insisting that everyone has a right to make their contribution to the entry, and not to allow one person to continually revert to a version from months ago that they prefer. Rather than trying to take control, I along with five or six others have rolled back the changes made by an anon who seems to regard himself as the sole authority on the COC. And far from taking things out and adding my own biased interpretations, the current version has a good amount of info added by you from when I tried to reach a middle ground by merging the two.
I strongly disagree that the entry now is more inline with the non-institutional group. They've had very little influence on me personally and I disagree with them where they disagree with the mainstream. Big C little c, is not a doctrinal issue, it is mainly stylistic, and I floated the change here before making it. I feel it does help to exemplify the COC belief in one Church though. Furthermore, there was a referenced quote addressing the fact that COCs preferred the little c, which was lost during one of your reverts.
Regarding the use of the term clergy, it is in the article, just not used exactly how you would like to. There is nothing in error about the currently used terms, and they are inline with those most used in the COC. Again, this was discussed here, not even by me, and a consensus was reached which you are arbitrarily trying to overturn.
Regarding the term 'eucharist' it is used in the current entry even though it is not a term commonly used in the COC.
You are right that in trying to correct your use of the word 'reality', and to incorporate aspects of your preferred version, that I mistakenly left out a portion of the Self-Identification section that should be added for clarification.
The fact is, the version preferred by you is unnecessarily centered on pointing out differences between COC and other Protestant denominations and wrongly expounds COC views as irrefutable fact. Many changes to your version were discussed here and agreed to be not in accordance with wiki policies, and that was before I began to take a part in this. I wholeheartedly agree with all that JodyB has said. If there are changes that you believe need to be made to the page, then bring them here for discussion.--Thelonghop 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thelonghop - right off the bat, your idea that only the Church of Christ is the one church is flawed. The true church is filled with people from various Christian traditions/denominations, etc. So, the "little c" thing is a long held, yet misguided, idiosyncracy of a small handful of people - mainly those from the NI splinter group. Regardless of your pulling out some article from a rogue Church of Christ preacher stating the "little c" oddity, this idea has no legitimacy and makes this article look ignorant (which it really is in some ways now that you and another arbitrary editor or two has hijacked the entry). Whether "eucharist" has been used in your NI and whatever other church background you have, this term is in the text of the Bible and therefore is automatic Church of Christ doctrine, whether you have discovered it yet or not (go back to my earlier thoughts suggesting that you do some independent Bible study and quit listening to certain preachers to tell you your beliefs). Regarding your suggestion about discussions, that's obviously moot because real discussion doesn't happen here because one or two of you feel that you own this entry, and we obviously can't have an educated discussion as you are stuck in your unfounded traditions rather than being open to learning. This is typical of the non-institutional denomination and is why they won't be in existence much longer (as they keep either dying or losing their youth who have learned to seperate their worldly lives from church on Sunday rather than truly grasping Christ, the tiny splinter group is incrementally disappearing. it won't be long).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.172 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 30 July 2007

You are so lost. Right off the bat, you show that you are trying to make the entry into a doctrinal argument rather than a description of COC beliefs. I did not say that only members of the COC make up the Church. In fact, I agree with you that there are true Christians outside of the COC. None of that changes the fact that COC believes there is only one true Church. Can you understand that? I refer you to 1 Cor 12 for passages on 'one body'. It is from this type of passage that COC rejects denominations on the basis that Christ only founded one Church. The little c reference (and it wasn't mine) was from a preacher at the beginning of the Restoration Movement. Eucharist is in the entry! It is obviously an acceptable, if not often used term. Why do continue to argue about it? And you really need to stop with the attempts at personal attacks. If you think that because I visited an NI church a few times that my 30 years of experience with mainstream churches is worthless, then you just don't have a clue. Your self-contradictions are astounding- apparently your idea of a discussion is you telling everyone else what the truth is. You would do well to go study the Bible yourself and learn something about humility.--Thelonghop 08:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for discussion

I know little about these churches - I have never even been to the US. However, I can tell that this discussion isn't helping to make the article any better. As Jody has suggested, it would be much better to discuss each disputed change separately. It would also be helpful if everyone stopped describing this as vandalism. It is a content dispute.

Anon, please do not make any general statements about where people are getting their ideas. Apart from the fact that you have just completely misunderstood Thelonghop and blamed him for several things that he had nothing to do with, it doesn't matter where his or anyone else's ideas come from - it only matters whether they are correct for inclusion in the article. The best way to tell us someone is wrong is by providing evidence for what you say is right, not by dismissing them as being from a splinter group.

It seems like one big problem with this article is to what extent different groups (e.g. the non-institutionalists) are covered in this article. I tend to think that many of the wars over this article have been caused by different ideas about who the article is about. One approach has been to say that the article includes all the non-denominational C/churches of Christ, and to describe the different views, not one or the other, where there are differences between congregations or larger groups, as well as possibly having other pages about specific subgroups. This is indeed how the article currently presents itself - it starts with simply "The churches of Christ are non-denominational, autonomous Christian congregations.", and the disambiguation page does not at all hint that the page is about only the largest group of these churches. There may be an argument for only briefly mentioning certain groups, leaving details to a separate article, but only if the group is an easily definable/identifiable, and the scope of the article is then clearly spelt out in the first sentence. This should be discussed in a section of its own.

Finally, while I do not wish to stop anyone encouraging others to study the Bible in order to investigate the truth about God - doing so is more important than writing this article - I must point out that studyign the Bible will not help anyone write this article. This article should describe the teachings of certain churches about the Bible and their practices, not simply what the Bible says. Bible references in the text may be helpful in order to understand the views being explained, but don't help make the article accurate. We require sources about what these churches teach, including how they interpret the Bible. For this article, it doesn't matter whether "eucharist" is a biblical term for communion. What matters is whether people in these churches consider it so, whether they use it and whether we have sources for this. To take another issue purely as an example, if women covering their heads in church were an issue worth discussing, it would not be appropriate to quote 1 Corinthians and say CoC teach women must have their heads covered because the Bible says so. Instead, the article should say that Person X/Group Y teaches that the passage means women do/don't need to cover their heads because of reason Z, with a reference for that fact. JPD (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as the only (to my knowledge) NI editor here, the vast majority of disputes seem to occur between institutionalists of varying stripes. NI churches are covered on their own page, which defers most of the discussion there.
Re: big C/little c - There was significant discussion of this some time back (check the archives), and the consensus was to use a big C. I believe there was an official RfC as well. Even though my personal view didn't win out, I don't see any need to re-open the discussion. The decision was made; let's leave it alone.
Also, I've advocated dividing this article into several pieces for several years, but I seem to be the only one that feels that way. The problem with an article about a bunch of autonomous churches is that what's true of one branch may not be true of all, which is where most of the edit warring occurs. Jdb1972 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Soteriology Section

I agree that this section seems to be lacking. Especialy in regards to neutrality.

Churches of Christ teach What Messiah taught

While, I being a Christian, believe Jesus is the Messiah, stating it as fact in an encyclopdia article does not seem correct. This section should be changed to something like;

Churches of Christ teach what the believe Jesus Christ taught

It should not mattter, while I am not a member of this church, my Mother is a lifelong member. My grandfather was also a deacon in an Church of Christ, no music church.

--Wer2chosen 21:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement regarding the neutrality issue and removed the out-of-place Messianic references. —Adavidb 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean? It's a very long run-on sentance whose meaning isn't clear. "In Restoration theology, the agency of the Holy Spirit in salvation is viewed strictly in His inspiration of the Scriptures which teach men what God has done and what they must do in order for salvation to occur."--76.92.22.36 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That sentence has been reverted in and out of the article and may not remain, but here's an (even longer) take on its meaning. According to beliefs generally held by people within the Restoration Movement, the part played by the Holy Spirit in one's salvation is/was only the original inspiration of Bible writers for the verses that teach about being saved. —Adavidb 10:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-identification

I propose the following change to the first sentence to correct an omission in this paragraph: Members consider themselves "Christians only", as they are neither Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor Protestant. --Thelonghop 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So the first paragraph would read: "The churches of Christ are non-denominational, autonomous Christian congregations. Members consider themselves "Christians only," and do not identify as Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. These churches comprise about 2,000,000 members in over 40,000 individual congregations worldwide."
I made a slight change in your wording to reflect the view of the members of themselves rather than stating it as a fact which might not hold up. JodyB yak, yak, yak 12:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Jody, I'm referring the the Self-identification section. The new paragraph would read "Members consider themselves "Christians only", as they are neither Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor Protestant. They hold to the biblical and historical belief that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ, and that its doctrines and practices were established long before these other traditions, movements, structures, councils, etc. They teach that the Church therefore biblically, historically and spiritually transcends these other entities that developed later within Christendom. Members also do not typically consider themselves to be members of a denomination, but prefer to simply be known as "Christians" (in contrast to, for example, a Catholic Christian, a Presbyterian Christian, a Baptist Christian, etc.), with no other religious title needed or preferred. Thus, a collective group of Christians is a church of Christ (e.g., Romans 16:16)."
Currently, without the reference to the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions in the first sentence, the later sentences referring to "these other traditions/entities..." does not make sense.--Thelonghop 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're saying. That's fine.
Let me ask about the second sentence. Would it be better to say "They believe that both Biblically and historically the Church was founded..."
The third sentence is a bit wordy to me. I would be concise and say "They teach that the Church transcends these other entities ..."
I like the remainder fine. JodyB yak, yak, yak 19:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think your changes are good. And you're right that any derivative of the word 'Bible' should be capitalized.--Thelonghop 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I finally made these changes that were discussed here to correct an earlier error of mine, and condensed it all a little bit.--Thelonghop 07:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

directory of churches

AllChurches.com should be added to the list of directory of churches as the largest online directory of churches in the US.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.119.215.193 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It doesn't belong here in my opinion. JodyB yak, yak, yak 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JodyB Blondiegoode (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)blondiegoode

Congratulations

....to this current group of editors (e.g., Thelonghop, JodyB, and JDB1972 [by the way is JodyB and JDB1972 the same person? Your names are quite similar]) who have hijacked this entry and made the Church of Christ look like a group of illiterate fundamentalists (i.e., this entry still has spelling errors, etc. and blanket statements such as "Examples of early Christian behavior recorded in the New Testament are regarded as directives, to be followed literally as mandatory practice today" is not even accurate). Would someone here who has a somewhat reasonable level of intelligent composition ability at least take a little initiative and make this entry presentable?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.49 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want the entry to be improved, you will have to continue the discussion above. It is that simple. Don't wait for protection to end and simply change everything back. By refusing to be constructive, anons like you have caused the article to be locked and stopped people correcting minor errors such as spelling. Anyway, you are still completely missing the point that bad spelling in the article doesn't make the CoC look like anything at all - this is an article by Wikipedia, not by the CoC. Bad spelling just makes Wikipedia look bad. Put simply: this article will improve when people like you stop dismissing edits by attacking the people who made them, and start focusing their comments on the content. JPD (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If you can't get along, move along. Kind of weird for an anon to be making wild accusations of sock puppetry, though. Jdb1972 01:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Examples of early Christian behavior recorded in the New Testament are regarded as directives, to be followed literally as mandatory practice today"- I don't like this sentence or think it is completely correct either. What resolution do you propose? Mr. Anon, we've actually agreed more than you give credit for. I think you can help to improve the article, I just object to your 'my way or the highway' mode of going about it.--Thelonghop 23:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How about, "Examples of approved Christian behavior, as recorded in the New Testament, are considered patterns to be followed in the church." JodyB yak, yak, yak 03:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure it goes that far. Perhaps "Examples of approved Christian behavior recorded in the New Testament are seen as guidance on how to worship today." I don't think anyone in the COC would disagree with that statement.--Thelonghop 22:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

well thanks Thelonghop but when I've tried to have a constructive dialogue my help was rejected and my edits were attacked. Mr. JPD - no, you miss the point. People searching the internet for information on the Church of Christ do see this entry as representative of the Church of Christ. Sadly, this entry now wouldn't pass a spelling and grammar test for a second grade class and because those of another religious body who use the term "church of Christ" (the non-institutional sect) this entry is no longer as representative of Churches of Christ as it should be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.132.112 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you're missing the point. Treating this article as representative of any body, rather than describing it, is a very bad thing, and the article should be written in a way that makes this clear. You need to stop focus on who you think is writing the article, and focus on the content. JPD (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's try it again. I did not really see any major differences between the version you kept pushing and the current one, mainly just wording/style differences and I know you were concerned with too much info provided in some areas. So my question is, what is doctrinally wrong with the current entry that is not representative of churches of Christ?--Thelonghop 22:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
To the anonymous user, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on personnal attacks. All of the editors of this article are trying to work together to create a neutral, factual article. Attacking their combined efforts is uncalled for. If you would like to contribute please do so in a more constructive fashion. - cohesion 00:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As to Thelonghop's suggestion: I think your suggested phrasing ("Examples of approved Christian behavior recorded in the New Testament are seen as guidance on how to worship today.") does little, if anything, to differentiate the CofC from innumberable protestant sects. And yet, in practice, I think it is clear that there is a difference along these lines--or, at least, a claimed difference. While actual practice might be more along the lines of what you've suggested, the very idea of a Restorastionist body requires something more like what JodyB suggested. We do, of course, run into the problem of attributing any specific doctrine at all to a group that has no written statement of faith (outside of the Bible), but that is the hazard of having a CofC article in the first place. May I suggest this: "Examples of approved Christian behavior, as recorded in the New Testament, generally are considered patterns to be followed in the church." Perhaps addingthe word "generally" begins to address what I think you're getting at?--Velvet elvis81 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would limit the phrase to the examples of worship practice because the COC clearly tries to imitate first century worship practices. There are other examples of first century Christian behavior that are not followed- greeting one another with a holy kiss, women not cutting their hair or wearing jewelry, living communally as some did. I think the other alternatives offered are overly broad.--Thelonghop 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Once upon a time Churches of Christ tried to imitate first-century worship practices, but since Randy Harris and Rubel Shelly started rejecting that old Restorationist plea over a decade ago, many urban and suburban churches have acknowledged that the idea was ahistorical at best and impossible in any case. However, I agree with you that the long-established claim that the CofC is "Reviving the Ancient Faith" should be clearly noted, perhaps with the reservation that this doctrine can primarily be found in rural and traditional Churches of Christ. Josh a brewer 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Church of Christ and Jewish relations

I am a college student and I am currently studying the relationship between Jews and Christians. One area we are instructed to look at is the specific stance our religion takes on Judaism. Since the Church of Christ does not really have a unifying website I am having trouble finding this information. Does anyone know the Church of Christ official stance of Judaism? Any thoughts or help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.187.218 (talk) 16:58, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The Churches of Christ do not have "official stances," though you might be able to find traditional Church of Christ statements in back issues of the Gospel Advocate, the closest thing the CofC has to orthodoxy. Josh a brewer 03:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The "official stance" would be the stance in the Bible. Judaism served a purpose until it brought Christ into the world, at which time the opportunity for all people to be in God's kingdom was offered. Judaism/Israel had then served its purpose and is no longer recognized by God as His nation. Christians are now spiritual Israel, the people of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.7.218 (talk) 06:37, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't sign on to the preceding statement as an indication of an "official" CofC stance, nor is it helpful to refer to "the stance in the Bible," as if there were only one. Josh a brewer 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree Josh A. Brewer. What the anonymous user posted IS the Biblical stance on this issue. If that were not the case, then what is the purpose of the New Testament??? Jlrich (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If there aren't half a dozen references in the New Testament to something, then "Church of Christ" and "official stance" are mutually exclusive terms.jonathon 18:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion, call and talk to the local minister of a congeration. they are always helpful! Blondiegoode (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)blondiegoode

Unprotecting page

At the request of 74.249.7.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I am unprotecting this page. Please discuss contentious edits on this Talk Page and seek to reach a consensus rather than edit warring.

--Richard 06:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Churches of Christ page unprotected?

The following message was left on my Talk Page. I have copied it here as I think it would be useful for all of us to discuss it. --Richard 06:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was this page unprotected at the request of an anoymous user who was the most significant reason it was locked in the first place? The anon in question (74.249.7.218, 74.249.12.243, 74.249.12.211, 74.249.12.80, 74.249.12.172, and possibly 129.252.184.14) has been the source of most disruption, personal attacks, and POV edits in past months. This page should not have been unprotected without reviewing the issues that caused the problems in the first place. That it was unprotected at the request of the trouble-maker responsible for it in the first place doesn't bode well. Jdb1972 15:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Because the page had been protected for a month which is more than long enough. Wikipedia's policy on page protection strongly disapproves of protecting pages for long periods of time. Blocking of editors who edit war is preferable to protecting a page. Protecting a page should be seen as an incentive to discuss and resolve issues prior to stronger measures such as blocking or banning. Long-term protection of a page discourages improvement of an article.
--Richard 06:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
All of this is very true, but there is something very disturbing about the fact that the user requesting the unprotection is the one on whom the incentive to discuss and resolve issues has had least effect. JPD (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If there has not been any discussion substantive progress in the last month to resolve the dispute then protection is not furthering the purpose of achieving consensus. Given the negative effects of discouraging other anon IPs from contributing, we should seek a different way of stopping edit warring. If that means blocking or banning contentious and uncooperative editors, then so be it. Long-term protection is a bad thing and should be avoided as much as possible.
--Richard 06:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that long term protection is unhelpful. I was trying to make it clear to the anon(s) that simply resuming the edit war, rather than productively discussing, will lead to stronger consequences than protection. I will also point out that protection was not discouraging other anon IPs from contributing - it stopped nearly everyone from contributing. Noone likes this - it's just a desparate measure to stop edit wars. JPD (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor made a bulk edit this afternoon with many of the same changes as occurred in the past. I'm undoing the edit since it was made without any discussion here. —Adavidb 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section of this article is relatively long at six paragraphs. Per the lead section style guideline, "it should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." Can we reach a consensus regarding such changes? —Adavidb 11:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a number of suggestions to offer. Not sure if this is the best way to do it. Add to the end of first sentence "and are historically linked to the Restoration Movement". Move the second sentence "These churches comprise..." to the Church Population in the U.S. area and change to "Church Population" and then break out the U.S. Delete sentence "Examples of early Christian..." in second para. Delete "and historically accurate" regarding the OT. Delete the third para. Delete "This also allows..." sentence in fourth para. Delete "Also taught is that.." sentence in next to last para. Combine what is left of para's 4 and 5. This will bring it down to three paras and an intro sentence.--Thelonghop 00:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions are acceptable to me, though I hope we get input from additional people, to allow a better consensus. —Adavidb 02:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Throw the clay already. Let's get the potter's wheel going here. Write it up in paragraph form, replace the lead as it stands now, and then we can quibble over the details if anything is debatable. Josh a brewer 05:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If not for the edit warring history of this article, I'd be quicker to agree. Rather than debate over details after changes, blanket reversion has been used by anonymous editors. —Adavidb 10:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. It looks like that's the consensus, and there's no reason this (or any other) article should be controlled by a lone anon who refuses to get along with anyone else. Jdb1972 12:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

With no contrary opinion expressed here in nearly two weeks, I applied the proposed changes to the lead section, dividing the last two paragraphs at the "Today, ..." sentence. —Adavidb 10:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Adavidb, thanks for making the changes, it looks pretty much exactly like I was thinking. I'd been busy with some other things (including a new baby girl) and hadn't been able to check back in here.--Thelonghop 06:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Link Section

The link section is become quite large and definitely needs pruning. Here are the websites which I feel don't need to be listed or are borderline.

I'd like to hear other users' opinions on the above websites. If no one objects, I'll prune the list. --Ichabod 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, seems like it's pruning time again, and those selections work for me. In fact, I think we might want to consider doing away with the link section altogether. That seems to be the trend in Wikipedia articles. Jdb1972 12:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm primarily in agreement with your removal suggestions. The only exception I found might be to replace the "Historical Texts" link with its "Who are the Churches of Christ?" sublink. —Adavidb 11:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Adavidb that this link [37] is worth keeping. It is written by a scholar and sticks to the facts and is chewy. I also find the Restoration page [38] objective and useful; general information there helps connect dots that are not connected in the current article, but I won't bend over backward to keep the link here. Otherwise, prune away. Josh a brewer 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Per the discussion I've taken down the links discussed except for the Restoration Movement links. Also I noticed Totally Acappella Radio was just a link to a Live365 site. I'll probably delete that one too if there is no dissension. --Ichabod 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the "NoMoreLinks" template to each of the links sections. Hopefully it will keep some from adding more links to the already overabundant link section.

Also Darrellwb keeps adding "The Gospel Journal" to the link section. It should be noted that the Gospel Journal isn't exactly content rich with only 7 pages within the website, and no online archive of the Gospel Journal. Therefore it doesn't fall within the Church of Christ Link Policy. Unless the Gospel Journal website changes dramatically, any links to it will be deleted as per the link policy. --Ichabod 01:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that New Wineskins [39] is offering all content free, ( [40] )would it be all right to add a link to it in this section? It might represent a broader range of belief than is currently apparent there. It's referenced on the Rubel Shelly page ( [41] ) already; I don't want to ask for overexposure, but his involvement with it anymore is pretty minimal. Thanks for considering it. Sorry if this isn't protocol; I'm not familiar with it! - Keith Brenton, WebServant, ZOE Group / New Wineskins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.49.208 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Separations field in the Infobox

The recently added Christian denomination Infobox has a field titled 'Separations', intended for "names of denominations that have split off from this denomination". 'Disciples of Christ' is listed here, along with 'The churches of Christ (non-institutional)'.

I understand that non-institutional churches of Christ are more commonly considered a 'distinct fellowship' within Churches of Christ, rather than a separate church, as documented on a web page for The Christian Chronicle.

As such, what are others' opinions of the 'Separations' field being reset to something like:

    Disciples of Christ

    Distinct fellowships: Non-institutional, Non-class, One-cup, Mutual Edification

The above-referenced "web page" article could be specified as a source citation for more information. —Adavidb 05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

With no response, I'll go ahead and make the proposed edit.... —Adavidb 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably edit the Christian denomination Infobox to have a separate option for distinct fellowships. --Ichabod 11:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I initiated discussion at that template's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adavidb (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The template has a new 'fellowships' field which I incorporated for this article. —Adavidb 05:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess

At least half of it is a pure polemic. An encyclopedia article isn't supposed to contain asides that amount to, "and this is WHY we're right and everybody else is wrong." The section on Soteriology is a joke. ("Note that there are 8 examples of salvation in the book of Acts. Each example is exactly the same. The churches of Christ teach this same pattern is as valid today as it was in the first century." That's supposed to belong in an encyclopedia? ) And it needs a LOT of sourcing. Carlo (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason there are not being good revisions to the article is it really needs to be thrown out, because it is so completely steeped in Church doctrine. The one thing most unique about Church of Christ doctrine is that revisionist history is a main point of that same doctrine. So objectivity is de facto impossible. This is a good article for a Church of Christ newcomers page or their main website, but it certainly is not an encyclopedia article. Objectivity is one of the most important criteria for an encyclopedia article. This should not be written by anyone currently in the Church of Christ, because as I said, part of their doctrine is to literally change history. This practice is apparent in several places throughout the article, so it really cannot be fixed. It needs to be moved to a place of its own, and someone write a real article. All the other Christian denominations I have been researching have excellent objective articles. Church of Christ deserves the same. They are a legitimate denomination. I grew up in the COC. Both my grandfathers were respected Church of Christ preachers. I am quite sure that the tradition of great scholars in that denomination do not preclude allowing a truly objective article to appear in Wikipedia. They really need to allow this to happen, and stop trying to present doctrine in disguise. Johnrlewisjr (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Johnrlewisjr, I agree the article needs to be modified and needs to be NPOV to meet Wikipedia standards. I disagree with you when you say "part of their doctrine is to literally change history." I also grew up in the Church of Christ. My late grandfather was an elder; my late father was an elder, and he was also a well-known minister, first in the Plains states and then in the South, for several decades. I strongly disagree with your statement. Also, you refer to the CofC as a denomination. The CofC considers itself to be nondenominational, which I'm sure you realize if your grandfathers were both CofC preachers.
At any rate, I do agree that Wikipedia mainspace articles are not the place for POV-pushing, and the article needs to be made more objective. With that much I do agree. Jonneroo (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my inconsiderate choice of words (changing history). I was mainly referring to the common modern practice of ignoring of historic facts, either to align the history with a dogma or because a previous belief is thought to be incorrect. Sorry I can't seem to find a way to say this properly, maybe someone can jump in here with the correct terms (postmodernist?). There was really a lot of that in the article. I know that Church of Christ authorities are totally sincere in the beliefs of its being the continuous New Testament church, but this idea doesn't line up with real history (it is fine to believe this subjectively, just not presented as fact in an encyclopedia article). I don't even want to argue this point, because I am not interested in changing anyone's mind about this, only trying to improve the objectivity of the article. So I am only bringing up the context of this as it relates to these two beliefs when presented as being representative of their core beliefs. The other one being the non-denominational aspect. Again, not disputing this at all as a core belief. But in the context of explaining the Church of Christ historically and accurately, it is necessary to speak in terms of denominations. If not, the only way left is to imply agreement with the idea that the Church of Christ (i.e. only those who meet at buildings with this sign out front) is the only true church, which would sure not be an appropriate inclusion for the article. This kind of thinking is exactly what I was talking about as not appropriate for an objective encyclopedia article. So I feel that a reference to denominations is quite necessary. Even my growing up in the CofC, this was presented as church doctrine, but nearly everyone in the church knew or felt that other Christians could also be genuine, and that there were actual denominational roots previously, even if they were not talked about. To ignore those roots or their context really is not objective. But I do appreciate your correcting me, and I do respect all the views you just mentioned. I did go too far, and was too simplistic in my statements. Last week I went ahead and made some of these corrections and rewrites, which were accepted into the article. So maybe the toning down of the dogma will continue as this article is further edited.Johnrlewisjr (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is in the middle of an ongoing edit war. Damage control is all that can be done, until the anonymous editors decide to either dialog, or go elsewhere. Then, maybe, the article can be edited/rewritten from an NPOV.jonathon (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Editorial battling has been calm for a while. Of course, major changes to the article have also been absent. Regardless of past disputes, discussion should still take place here before significant changes are made. —Adavidb 11:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Was the deletion of sources intentional, or unintentional? For members of the Church of Christ, it is a self-evident truth that Romans 16:16 means "a collective group of Christians is a church of Christ". Deleting that reference deletes the only source that members of that church consider to be authoritative. jonathon (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Some seem to oppose most use of scripture references as being too subject to interpretation and, as a result, not meeting the neutrality policy. I expect that if the beliefs are emphasized as belonging to church members, associated Biblical sources can be included. —Adavidb 11:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Proof-texting Scripture verses to back up doctrine is a form of arguing the correctness of the doctrine. And, of course, other churches that disagree cite their own Scripture verses. Like it or not, Scriptural citation is a form of argument. What the Church of Christ believes is NPOV. Their arguments as to WHY they believe what they do can't be. Carlo (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how one cites and the practice by most congregations of A Cappella worship singing (although several other related congregations use instruments while usually having these other traits, also known as Christian Churches). [citation needed] except to point out that there is a "Church of Christ (Instrumental)" and "Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental)" with the major (¿only?) theological difference between the two being the presence or absence of a musical instrument during a worship service. Don't confuse either of those groups with "Church of Christ (Foot Washing)", "Church of Christ (One Cup)", "Church of Christ (Non Institutional), "Church of Christ (No Sunday School)", etc. The term in parenthesis is not used by the group to which it applies. Its most common usage is by somebody trying to make sense of the different splits within the Restoration Movement, figuring out what the fist fights were about. Likewise, I'm not sure how one cites as congregations are not controlled by a denominational hierarchy. These churches are militant in their autonomy. Citing either Campbell or Stone is akin to citing Karl Marx as an advocate of Liberation Theology. jonathon (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
One of the major issues with trying to grok Church of Christ, is that the only source book is the Bible. If you can find half a dozen verses to support something, it probably will be consider scriptural, and practiced by the individual churches. If you can't find that many verses, then it will be a point of dispute within the different churches. (Ideally, you'll find a verse in each of the Torah, the Writings, the Prophets, the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Paulian Epistles, the Non-Pauline Epistles, and The Revelation of John.) There are no creeds. There are no statements of faith --- except for the Bible, in tota. jonathon (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Jonathon, it's all very well to say that the churches' only source book is the Bible, but it isn't at all a source for this Wikipedia article. That doesn't mean that they can't be included to explain/illustrate members' beliefs - Carlo is wrong to say that arguments cannot be discussed in a NPOV manner. However, the fact is that, for example, Romans 16:16, cannot possibly be understood as a source for the fact that "For members of the Church of Christ, it is a self-evident truth that Romans 16:16 means a collective group of Christians is a church of Christ". We don't want a "source that members of that church consider authoritative" about a matter of faith, we want a source for the fact that this is taught by that church. The Biblical reference simply gives a bit more insight into the teaching. Yes, it's a bit harder than usual to do this when there are no statements of faith, or anything like that, but it means we need to rely on other material written about the various Church of Christ groups. JPD (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully someone can answer this for me, because I don't know. The reference, Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ, contains the answers to most of these areas marked citation needed. Is a reference not enough or does it all really need to be cited? If necessary I could add that book as a note where it addresses the topic in question.--Thelonghop (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources isn't overly difficult and does help readers and editors with verification. When a cited source isn't on the web or otherwise readily available, such verification isn't as forthcoming, and some may want supportive quotations or additional info showing that it represents a common belief among church members. Anyway, if you have access to the publication, please do cite its pages or sections that satisfy the citation requests. —Adavidb 14:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info. I read the link Citing sources. From it, "Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements." I see Brownlow as a general reference which supports a substantial amount of information in the article. If I see something in the article that would contradict Brownlow, I would remove it. That style guide states that something 'challenged or likely to be challenged' needs an inline citation. So my question to Carlo is, are you challenging the veracity of those sections of the article? If so, I'd suggest you check the references, ie. Brownlow and see if it resolves your questions. I don't see how inline citations for the sake of inline citations are needed. --Thelonghop (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

People seem to be talking past each other just a little bit here. Let me see if I can clarify things. From the get-go, we can all agree that where things can be cited they should be. There is a problem, however, in that the Churches of Christ have no official catechism/statement of faith beyond the Bible. But, as has been pointed out above, merely citing Bible verses is a form of NPOV argument. Therefore, we're left with perhaps citing examples of Church of Christ-ians preaching/teaching a certain thing. But then we run into trouble with the autonomous nature of individual congregations and the various subsets of the fellowship. The best source would probably be some sort of printed encyclopedia of Christianity to which we could cite "C of C's believe X"-type statements. Absent that, though, we're in quite a pickle. Let me be clear that I think this argument is RELATIVELY accurate. Yes, there are some POV problems, some covert evangelizing, etc. But the facts that are presented about what the CofC believes are, from my experience, generally accurate. However, personal experience is no substitute for reliable sources and that's what we need to seek out.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

CARLO, re: 8 references of salvation in Acts. What exactly do you think is un-encyclopedic about this?? This is one of the core beliefs of the churches of Christ, and whether you think that is encyclopedic or not is irrelevant. This is something that is a belief of the churches of Christ, and you don't have any right to argue that 'it doesn't belong'. Jlrich (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm done

I've gotten tired of the perpetual tug-of-war over this article. Those of us who want the article to honestly reflect what churches of Christ have been and are today are outnumbered by people with ideological biases. It's gotten to the point where all I'm doing any more is reverting (usually anonymous) kooks and cranks with axes to grind.

Most of the editors who have been committed to improving the article appear to have already moved on. I'm thinking it's time for me to find more fulfilling ways to waste time than working on an article that appears beyond redemption short of a near-complete rewrite and lockdown. Best wishes to those honest editors who are left. Jdb1972 (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Origination

The idea is that the Lord's Church (church of Christ) was established before Catholicism and Protestantism. If the church in Rome (traditionally thought to be the first catholic church) was established between 300AD-606AD, then it is impossible to say that the churches (local sense) in the bible (writen between 45AD-150AD) are of the catholic faith. Thus, we would have to understand that there was a church before the catholic church. Matthew 16:18 tells us this. Christ BUILT His church. Anything after His church isn't part of the christian faith, because it isn't up to man to decide the message of Christ, it is simly up to Christ and it has already been SAID in the 1st century. Also, the Church of Christ is a description not a name. As there is no name for the Lord's church in the bible only 7+ descriptions. So if someone follows the book (the bible, which describes the orginal Christian doctrines preached be Christ) then how can one say it comes from either Catholic or Protestant traditions? Was Christ Catholic or Protestant? That's right, the Lord's church in the bible is not Catholic/Protestant, and of course Christ had to die Jewish in order to fullfil Old Testament scripture. And if the Church (Church of Christ) were protestant then it would be a reformed movement to the Catholic church, which again if it was established before the Catholic Church then the Catholic Church would be a reformed version of the Lord's Church. However, according to Proverbs 30:6, Revelations 22:19 anything after the church Christ established is meanless to God, unless it corresponds to the True teachings (Bible aka Scriptures) John 18:19, 2 Timothy 3:16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.132.234 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote all around what you want changed, and didn't specify. I expect you are referring to the Infobox's 'Branched from' field. It is understood that members of churches of Christ consider themselves members of the same church that Christ established. There is also history wherein churches of Christ dissociated from what had been the Disciples of Christ church, as described in this article's Historical Connection... section. Do you or others have comments regarding what specifically should change in this article and how to change it? Please keep in mind this medium's neutrality policy. —Adavidb 03:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The historical assertions contained above are a clear misstatement of fact. Catholicism, Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy each assert that their origin goes back to the 12 Apostles. At least consult the articles on each of these 3 historic Christian Churches, and you will see that each equally claim a direct lineage to the 12 Apostles. Furthermore, to reinforce their claims, they each have clear demonstrative lineage in succession of their episcopate leading directly back to the Apostles via Apostolic Succession. In a great many cases, each of these Churches also can demonstrate direct archeological evidence which predate 300 AD and further reinforce their claims. The very nature of Episcopal Apostolic succession effectively serves as documentary evidence to the contrary to the very brazen assertion, and demonstrates that the assertion is unsupported by any archeological or documentary evidence. Obviously, Wikipedia provides a wonderful opportunity for evidence to be brought forward to support this assertion. If you have such evidence to support such a huge assertion, it should be brought forward. But as far as I am aware, however, there exists no actual documentary or archeological evidence of a church of Christ congregation that existed in the time predating the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholic Churches. Given the purpose of this assertion appears to be to disparage and undermine the historical significance of these ancient branches of Christianity, I think that either supporting evidence needs to be provided, or this section needs to be withheld entirely. Journalistic and historical ethics would seem to necessitate this approach. Meurdrac (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The CoC version of history relates to the theology, not physical manifestation. jonathon (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishops and Pastors

I just noticed the phrase (also known as shepherds, pastors, overseers, or bishops) in the first paragraph of section 4.2. Is the term Bishop ever used by anybody in The Church of Christ to refer to a position/individual in the Church of Christ? jonathon 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is used from time to time but quite infrequently I think. While it is certainly Biblical, it carries a lot of denominational baggage so I think most avoid it. I have heard it used but I don't think I have ever seen it written on letterhead or a website or such. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted "Bishop". The only time I found it on CoC websites was in quotes from the Bible. The contemporary definition/usage of the word and how it appears to be applied by CoC are very different.jonathon 16:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I redeleted the term "Bishop". What the CoC understands by that term from Biblical study, and what the rest of the world understands by that term are radically different.(For starters, CoC does not have an episcopal form of church government.) jonathon 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I put "Bishop" back in. It doesn't and shouldn't matter what other people understand a bishop to be. It only matters that they are occasionally called that. That's the only thing the article says. By way of (admittedly ridiculous) example: Let's say you have a chair, but your family sometimes calls it a "cat." You could still say "sometimes called a cat" without the chair actually being what other people might think of as a cat. That's all that's going on here. This is different from the "clergy" discussion above because of that distinction.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The CoC does not use the term "Bishop", except when quoting the Bible.(Specifically, the following verses: Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:2,Titus 1:7, and 1 Peter 2:25.) To throw that term in, is to confuse readers. jonathon (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


(indent out) As JodyB mentioned above, both bishop and pastor are used infrequently in the CofC because of denominational baggage associated with the term, but both words are still used upon occasion. Because those titles are occasionally used, they should go in there. You can't delete info that's true just because you think some people might be confused. We just need to explain it better. I changed it to "(also known in some congregations as shepherds, overseers, pastors, or bishops)." Is that distinctive enough to indicate that there is some "special" CofC definition for bishop? You just keep deleting the word. That is insufficient. If you think it's confusing, you need to find some way to say they're sometimes called bishops and yet distinguish it from what other people think a "bishop" is. I personally don't think it's confusing. I think it's clear they don't have an episcopal form of gov't because it says they're governed by a "plurality" (i.e., more than one) of elders (aka, bishop, etc.). What's your suggestion on making this more clear?--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer eliminating the term altogether, but the current phrasing indicates that it is not common. (Though with the edits the anonymous IP address adds, that confusion may return.)jonathon (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

History

The history section begins with the phrase, 'While churches that have practiced this form of Christianity have existed in various places since the first century.' I'm not convinced that this is accurate; I know that some members of the Church of Christ hold it as a matter of doctrine, but the article is presenting it not as a matter of doctrine but as a matter of historical fact. Do any of the sources we are using, specifically, history sources that are independent of any Church of Christ publication, confirm that such churches have existed since the first century? If this cannot be sourced, then I suggest that it be removed, and that the sentence simply begin with the next clause, which relates to the Restoration Movement of the 19th century. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Separation from Disciples of Christ

This section is badly riddled with violations of NPOV, and again, it seems to be basing itself in the Church of Christ's beliefs about itself, not on verifiable historical fact. I'd like to completely rewrite this paragraph. In my opinion, this version of the page contains a more useful starting point, although I would remove the final two paragraphs, which also seem to be more about continuing an argument between the two groups than about presenting verifiable facts. Again, what are the best reliable sources of information about the split that we can cite? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Basis of a cappella worship practice

This section, in my opinion, should be entirely removed. It is sheer apologetics, and contains nothing cannot be said more usefully in other sections. The article should acknowledge the two branches, instrumental and noninstrumental, of this tradition, and do so in a way that is neutral and fully sourced, but the article should not take a side in the debate, since neutrality is required of all Wikipedia articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A Capella worship is the most distinctive aspect of the Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental), which is what this article is about. There is another article about Church of Christ (Instrumental). The most NPOV way to writing the sub-section, is as apologetics. It could be rewritten to incorporate both Sacred Tradition and Sola Scriptura as to why music is unacceptable during a worship service.jonathon (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
For the three millionth time, if this article is really intended to be about the non-instrumental churches, then could someone please rewrite the article, particularly the introduction, to say so? The article itself gives no indication of this, and the fact that a different article exists for the instrumental churches doesn't imply this. I don't have a strong opinion on whether this article should focus on one branch or should be a parent article, with both branches having separate, more specific articles, but I do think it should do what it says in the introduction.
Apart from that, nothing in this article should be written as apologetics. NPOV means writing about what people believe, explaining it, but not writing as though it is correct or incorrect. JPD (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There are at least ten articles that deal with the Church of Christ/Christian Church. (I'm deliberately ignoring Disciples of Christ. They don't count here, because they are recognizably distinct and different. If somebody wants to argue differently do so. However, I doubt anybody will confuse Disciples of Christ with say Church of Christ (foot washing), or any of the other myriad subgroups.) The article should either be more explicit that it is Church of Christ (non-instrumental) in the title, or rewritten to include all of the different sub-groups.jonathon (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Note that there is text before the introduction pointing out that the article is not about Mormons, ICOC, DoC, Australian CoC and so on. Especially given this, the article definitely at the moment gives the impression it does include quite a few sub-groups such as "instrumental", and yet it is being edited to exclude them. JPD (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing that can be considered an authoritative source for these churches, except the Bible. Both the Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura arguments are apologetics. Whilst one might be able to minimize the apologetics, it won't be totally eliminated. (I know that Prima Scriptura and CoC are mutually exclusive terms. However, that is the major reason why the apologetics can be "toned" down.) jonathon (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you and I mean different things by apologetics, but I really don't see your point here. We should not be giving an explanation for CoC doctrine that would be considered authoritative by members. We should be describing the beliefs, teaching and practices of the churches. This will include explanatory references to the sola scriptura principle and some revelant biblical texts, but should not be phrased as an argument, but rather a description of an argument. In this context, the Bible is not a source at all, and if the sources we can use can be at all considered authoritative, it is not in the sense you refer to. We are looking for reliable sources, not authoritative sources. JPD (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Made many changes - don't bite

Hey all - I went through and corrected a lot of CofC doctrines that had been stated as fact (by replacing them with the appropriate "They teach that ..."). I also removed some references to the CofC being "non-denominational" since the CofC definition of a "non-denominational" is basically a state of autonomy (as opposed to churches with an extra-congregational hierarchy). I didn't remove all of those, though. I also made some grammar and punctuation corrections. All of the edits were good-faith and I believe they are quite accurate (give or take a few inches). So please don't rv; if you have a problem with one of the edits then insert a compromise. Thanks! standonbibleTalk! 21:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I just took a quick peek at your edits, and I think most of them are fine and are made in good faith. So I hope others will do as you ask and come here to discuss anything they have a problem with. I made one small change--altering "prefer to" use the Bible as the only source of doctrine to "claim to." I think that's more in line with actual practice.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. It doesn't seem like there is much opposition (though this may change after the holiday) You're right; even though "claim" sounds a little bit accusatory, it still beats prefer. I'll probably come up with a sentence re-write eventually to take care of the syntax - the point is that CofC holds the NT as the reference for all doctrine(s) rather than referencing some creed. Of course creeds are usually derived from the Bible too, but that's another (irrelevant) issue entirely. This article is starting to shape up - maybe it won't need a full rewrite after all. standonbibleTalk! 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've got some other ideas for edits, but I don't want to implement them in the overall article until I have it a bit more firmed up. I created this subpage to write the edits on - it might take me a while to get the whole thing presentable but feel free to poke around and screw with it if you like (and add any customary "rewrite test page" templates). It would be quite impressive if we could get this article to FA status considering the edit wars that have previously gone on.
I'd like the rewritten article to describe the Churches of Christ as a movement within Christianity that has grown and morphed to take on a cohesive, predictable (almost pseudo-denominational in the same sense as autonomous Baptist congregations are still "denominational") structure. The CofC is a difficult beast to deal with because of the internal emphasis on autonomy and Restoration that conflicts with the external observations of common doctrine and practice. It would be great to get a really good introduction paragraph that paints Churches of Christ as a group of Christian congregations in adherence to a movement that yields similar practices and doctrines. In the interest of NPOV and common sense, we can't describe CofC based on its own doctrinal beliefs, but that's no reason to describe it negatively either. Another equally difficult thing is that citations will be difficult because the CofC has no central quotable authority (except for the Bible, which they often interpret differently from much of Christendom and can't be used as a citation for fear of apologetics).
By the way - I'm not a member of a self-described "CofC congregation" although I am a Christian (and hence a member of the "church of" God/Christ/Jesus/etc). I disagree with much CofC doctrine, but I understand the basis that the CofC has and I respect it. I think I can write with a good deal of objectivity on the subject. Happy editing! standonbibleTalk! 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit your rewrite page, yet. The last time I went hunting through wikipedia, there were ten or so pages that describes different groups that fall under the "Church of Christ" heading. In doing the rewrite, point to the pages of those other groups. The one thing I didnt' do, was make a list of all of those pages.  :( jonathon (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed "claim" to "aim", which removes the accusatory/POV connotation while retaining the apparent intent of prior wording. —Adavidb 12:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. The wording is still a little awkward, but that should suffice for now. I think that whole section has been rewritten (or will be) in the rewrite I'm doing. standonbibleTalk! 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Neither "claim" nor "aim" nor "prefer to" are really perfect, but "aim" might be the best of the three, so I have no problem with this.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This is what I've got on the rewrite page - how does it sound?
"Today, Churches of Christ purposefully avoid the interpretations of post-first century church fathers, ecclesiastical councils, or modern denominational synods or conventions in determining faith and doctrine. Instead, they follow the conviction that the church is a spiritual body of faith rather than a secular or political body, and derive their doctrinal beliefs by directly interpeting the Bible."
I think that will do the trick. Thoughts? Ideas? standonbibleTalk! 18:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The use of "avoid" seems too passive to me. Perhaps "shun" would better express the practice. —Adavidb 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that "shun" is too strong. Churches of Christ say that they do not consider the writings of church councils or synods in interpreting Scripture for themselves, but nonetheless the interpretations that they arrive at usually are very much in line with such writings. Even though Churches of Christ reject the Nicaean Creed as a creed, they still usually teach the same things that it teaches. "Shun" brings up too many images of fanatical excommunications and stuff like that. The Amish shun modern technology (or at least that is the usual assumption even though it isn't entirely true). Churches of Christ merely say that they refuse to give church writings any consideration. standonbibleTalk! 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I came up with what I think is a decent introduction. Try this on for size:

Churches of Christ are autonomous Christian congregations historically linked to the American Restoration Movement and associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. Individual congregations that label themselves a "Church of Christ" attempt to identify doctrinally, spiritually, and historically with the overall church of Christ that they believe has existed continually since its establishment by Jesus Christ in the first century C.E., rather than aligning themselves with a specific movement or denomination. They believe that certain church structures, doctrines, and hierarchies that have arisen since the first century are extra-biblical and stray from the proper format for a Christian congregation. Churches of Christ derive their doctrine and ecclesiastical structure by directly interpreting the New Testament, avoiding traditional practices or doctrines. Thus, they recognize only Jesus Christ as founder, and they trace their ecclesiastical and spiritual origins to the first Day of Pentecost after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension, which is when the Bible records the Holy Spirit being given to the early Christians.
The Restoration Movement from which the Churches of Christ were formed sought a return to what its proponents believed was the original, "pre-denominational" Christianity. It was held that throughout the history of Christianity, many movements had similarly rejected the decisions of councils and denominational hierarchies that had acculumated since the first century. Congregations that sprung up from this movement eventually developed into Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and the Disciples of Christ denomination.
These distinctive traits usually define today's Churches of Christ:
  • The refusal to hold to any formalized creeds in preference for the Bible itself, similar to but stricter than sola scriptura
  • Autonomous, congregational church organization without denominational oversight
  • Local governance by a plurality of male elders in cooperation with a preacher
  • The teaching that both repentance and believer's baptism (by immersion, in Christ's name alone) are necessary in order to receive forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit
  • The weekly observance of Communion, referred to as the Lord's Supper
  • The practice by of a cappella (non-instrumental) worship, usually as a matter of strict doctrine but sometimes as a simple matter of preference (similar congregations that allow the use of instruments are usually known as Christian Churches).
In keeping with their history, Churches of Christ claim the New Testament as their sole rule of faith and practice in deciding matters of doctrine and ecclesiastical structure. Although they view the Old Testament as divinely inspired and see its historical record as true and beneficial to Christians, they do not see its guidelines as relevant to the practices of the church (unless, of course, they are repeated in the New Testament). They believe that the new covenant in Christ spoken of in the New Testament makes the Old Testament inapplicable for the governance of the church.[1] They believe that the New Testament demonstrates how persons become part of the universal church of Christ, how a church should be collectively organized, and how a church must carry out its scriptural purposes.

Shall we replace it? standonbibleTalk! 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


I'd suggest a rephrasing "* The refusal to hold to any formalized creeds in preference for the Bible itself, similar to but stricter than sola scriptura" as "* The refusal to hold to any formalized creeds in preference for the Bible itself." The phrase "similar to but stricter than sola scriptura" implies Scriptura Solis Extremis, as described at http://www.tektonics.org/qt/solex.html, which I think is a misunderstanding of their approach to studying the Bible. jonathon (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Sola Scriptura has more to do with authority on Scriptural interpretation than it does with formalized creeds or statements of faith. I'm replacing the introduction now - more work will still be done to it but at least it will be out in front. standonbibleTalk! 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

More Biblical Support

Upon reading this article, I found it quite peculiar that on the entire Church of Christ page there were only 5 bible verses. I added one that seemed central to what the church stands for, but am I the only one who noticed the lack of quotations, especialy for a C.O.C page?

Jamie Rucker (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem being that this is not a C.O.C. page, but a Wikipedia page about the churches of Christ. There is nothing wrong with quoting the Bible to explain certain aspects of the churches and their beliefs, but I really don't see how your addition fits in to the article. Perhaps there would be a better place to put it? (Explanatory Bible references probably shouldn't be in the introduction for one thing, since it is meant to be a summary.) JPD (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
JPD is right, Jamie. The introduction should not have in-depth references for Church of Christ beliefs. Additionally, the article itself should not have arguments for Church of Christ teachings (apologetics) although it should reference the arguments that the Church of Christ uses. CofC has a somewhat unique way of determining doctrine, but this does not mean we should argue for CofC on the Wikipedia page. standonbibleTalk! 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving, and removing Church of Christ Emergent

First - is there any reason to have the "Church of Christ Emergent" section? It accomplishes nothing. Second - I'm not positively sure how to archive this discussion page, but it's getting awfully long. What's the customary cutoff for when a discussion is to be archived? standonbibleTalk! 09:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove CoC Emergent and copy the present article over to the rewrite page for further experimental work. A full-scale rearrangement would be nice - we'll need to make sure we preserve as many title headings as possible to avoid broken # links. standonbibleTalk! 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dating in article

Please, refrain from using "BCE" and "CE" as dating systems in this article. Those designations have been established by liberal minded "scholars" who wish to undermine the reality of Christ as the Son of God and should certainly not be used in an article about a religious body such as the Church of Christ, which is entirely based on Christ as the Son of God. In fact, it would behoove all true Christians, regardless of fellowship or denomination, to refuse ever using these designations in any and all circumstances. 65.188.15.99 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea to bring up, Anon, but please wait until after a consensus has been reached here before you make the changes. The Manual of Style states that both CE and AD systems are appropriate for Wikipedia, but that they should not be changed unless there is a good reason to. In this case the use of AD might serve as an endorsement of the Churches of Christ since it is synonymous with the idea of Jesus being "Our Lord". While I always use AD and BC in my own writing in respect for Christ, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a neutral point of view. This is up for discussion. standonbibleTalk! 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
To standonbible - that's also a good thought you have, but this should be directed at whomever arbitrarily changed the dates in this article to "BCE" and "CE" as "AD" and "BC" had been in the text for quite sometime until very recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.138.16 (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Well then, stick with consensus! "CE" originally stood for "Christian Era" and was (I think) originally coined by Christians who wanted to avoid the Roman Catholic connotations that the Latin had. It's not particularly offensive to me. We just ought to make sure that the article is consistent throughout. standonbibleTalk! 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Micah 5:2, which Christians in general revere as a prophecy of the incarnation of Christ, says that His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" (KJV). John 1:1 posits that "In the beginning was the Word" and goes on to explain, in terms apparently accepted by Christians, that the Word was made manifest in Christ. In John 8:8 Christ claims that "Before Abraham was, I am." The Christ of the canon is not characterized as having a beginning or an end but as being Alpha and Omega. He IS the beginning and the end (Rev. 1:8), all things having been made by him (John 1:3). But surely everyone, without violation of theological conscience, can agree that the "Christian Era" (or, if you prefer, "Common Era") did indeed have a beginning. Unless you believe that Christ is a created being, thus having a beginning so that something could possibly be "Before" Him, kindly consider shucking the concept Before Christ and its abbreviation BC, both of which are unscriptural. Hold fast to the wondrous doctrinal orthodoxy restored in BCE. Richard David Ramsey 02:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's notable that hardly anyone here has made an argument that's even valid as a Wikipedia consideration. It shouldn't matter what the bible says about it, whether it was devised by "liberal-minded 'scholars'" or any of that. The question should be (1) what is Wikipedia style and (2) if Wikipedia style goes either way (which it does), which is better for this article. I tend to think that AD and BC are better simply because they're more widely used. CE and BCE have a more academic connotation and are typically found in academic writing. Wikipedia is for the masses, so I think BC and AD are more appropriate. Anyone disagree?--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Velvet elvis81 in his comment shows the lack of understanding he/she has in so many other ridiculous edits he makes. This is where he is wrong. Sorry VE but "Wikipedia style" is not the primary consideration. Being factually correct, and in the case of this article demonstrating the reality of the article subject, is what matters. Otherwise, Wikipedia is a joke (comments like Velvet Elvis' are a prime example of why Wikipedia remains a joke and is not allowed as a reference in academic papers). In the case of the Church of Christ article, sorry sir/madam, but reality of the entity that the article attempts to represent is primary. Until folks like you understand that, Wiki is worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.15.99 (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, you understand the purpose neither of Wikipedia nor encyclopedias in general. I have no idea what you're even talking about as far as "reality of the entity that the article attempts to represent." Is there some official CofC doctrine on AD vs. CE that we're all unaware of? Furthermore, it is anonymous editors like you, not people like me, who make Wikipedia frequently unreliable. --Velvet elvis81 (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
V.E. et al., I normally wouldn't stoop to comment on the ANON's comment above, but his/her comments are so far off that s/he needs to be watched. Inflammatory diction ("ridiculous," "a joke," "worthless," etc.) and vague innuendo and syntax will remind seasoned users of vandals past. (I take the phrase "reality of the entity that the article attempts to represent" to mean that the article represents Christ, which it does NOT, of course.) This kind of vandalism remains far more insidious than the kind with four-letter words that bots can catch, because it represents original research or received opinion as established truth. Sometimes it even succeeds in passing as such. Josh a brewer (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Church of Christ

What are often refered to as 'churches of Christ' are more correctly congregations of Christian's...members of The church of Christ....that meet at some location.

Christ and his disciples began the one true church once Christ rose from the dead...it is the church of Christ...there are not churches of Christ...

Christ is the head and there is one body...

The Church of Christ is the total body of the saved Christians...not a building nor an individual group of members nor a congregation. It could just as easily and biblically correct to call this group the followers of Christ....Christians in other words. Christ said to follow him but he did not comment on the names we use in English...he wants us to follow him and be saved....we call ourselves these names.... —Preceding a Christian comment added by 68.53.196.115 (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What, if any, improvements to this article may be made based on the above? While other names are applicable, Paul referred to "churches of Christ" (Rom. 16:16). That name is used generally today to refer to these groups – to distinguish them from others. The Restoration Movement article includes some coverage of this naming history. —Adavidb 13:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Civil War reference

Studying the Wiki on C of C and reading other resources, I ran across a book that gives some detail to the issues surrounding the initial union, and the eventual division of the Church of Christ, the C of C (Disciples) and the UCC.

This is my first attempt at editing a Wiki, so your suggestions an help are appreciated.

The book is called: Decades of Destiny: A History of Churches of Christ from 1900-2000, edited by Lindy Adams and Scott LaMascus, pages 28-31.

This citation would refer to the third paragraph under the section titled "Historical Connection to Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobro (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference citation; I made only a very minor change (p. to pp.). —Adavidb 01:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Baxter, Batsell Barrett. "Who Are the Churches of Christ and What Do They Believe In?".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Church_of_Christ/Archive_7&oldid=416077725"