Talk:Church of God (Anderson)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, your Wesleyan link goes to the Wesleyan Disambig page, so I piped it to "Methodism." Feel free to pipe it to something else if I mis-interpreted the usage.
--Asbestos 01:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The "church of 'GOD'", Anderson, Indiana is not protesant but a non-denominational Holiness believeing group or assembly of people. Church assemblies known as Anderson are affiliated with Anderson. Our headquarters is not in Anderson but in heaven. Also the, "church of 'GOD'", Anderson is a movement which had her beginnings in 1880 and not in 1881.
- Dear sir, you are certainly entitled to your beliefs and viewpoints, but I would like to address a few points. First, as to the "spelling", the Church of God does not use the small caps for church and ALL CAPS for God in their writings on their web site. As for beginnings being in 1880 instead of 1881, do you have any verification of this? The church's OWN official website gives 1881 here: History. On being Protestant, I understand your concern, and non-denominational seems to work fine in the article. But as far as a neutral point of view encyclopedic article is concerned, the church is categorized by the world at large as a Protestant denomination. I hold the same belief as you about this concerning my own church, but have tried to resist putting my own beliefs and point of view into encyclopedic articles. Such just results in people going back and forth changing the articles back and forth to fit their own points of view. I will be making a few changes that will hopefully be respectful of your point of view, while removing some things that are not good form for an encyclopedia (such as the all caps for emphasis, which has also destroyed some links to other articles). Thanks. Have a blessed day. - Rlvaughn 12:29, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I am wondering why the objection to "Protestant?" Theologically the church is very much in the Wesleyan/Holiness heritage, except for the difference on the practice of baptism, which is more aligned with the Baptist view. Either way, does this not make the church within "Protestant" Christianity? Pollinator 15:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-
- Pollinator, I cannot address the specifics of this person's objection to the term "Protestant", but can suggest some of the various objections: (1) some bodies object because they believe their faith historically predates the Protestant Reformation or flowed from a different stream [this type of objection might fit some Mennonites, Amish, Baptists, etc.]; (2) some bodies believe their group is a restitution or restoration of the church by God, and therefore the old historical connections are irrelevant [this objection might fit Church of God believers, and generally seems to be that of Church of Christ non-instrumental, et al.]; or (3) some bodies believe they are the "true church" and therefore have a direct historical connection to the apostles. These are just some possibilities. But by the generally adopted standards of classification of Christian bodies, most non-Catholics are "Protestants". You might remember that I advocated that the Anglican Church not be classified under the Protestant umbrella, but accepted the concensus of the majority (I'm not Anglican). - Rlvaughn 21:58, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- In this situation, I believe RL's 2nd suggestion is the case. The CoG (I am an attender of this "movement"/church/denomination) believes that all Christian believers are in one Church--God's church--hence "Church of God". Most in the CoG would therefore say that terms like "Protestant" and "Catholic" are divisive and ignore the unity of Christianity. Although I agree with that as a statement of faith, in an encyclopedia we need to communicate with a world that understands Christian belief in these terms, I think. I'm trying to formulate (and will add when I've done so) a sentence that basically notes that the CoG is an outgrowth from American Protestant denominations, but that one of the CoG's principles is a denial of the label "Protestant" as being divisive and detrimental--although I'm wondering if the article truly needs it? Perhaps it does. Hard to put it simply, but I'll see what I can think up. If someone can beat me to the punch, please do! Jwrosenzweig 22:26, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I think your idea to note "that the CoG is an outgrowth from American Protestant denominations, but that one of the CoG's principles is a denial of the label 'Protestant' as being divisive and detrimental" would be a good addition to the article, since that is a part of the movement's belief system. - Rlvaughn 01:31, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- In this situation, I believe RL's 2nd suggestion is the case. The CoG (I am an attender of this "movement"/church/denomination) believes that all Christian believers are in one Church--God's church--hence "Church of God". Most in the CoG would therefore say that terms like "Protestant" and "Catholic" are divisive and ignore the unity of Christianity. Although I agree with that as a statement of faith, in an encyclopedia we need to communicate with a world that understands Christian belief in these terms, I think. I'm trying to formulate (and will add when I've done so) a sentence that basically notes that the CoG is an outgrowth from American Protestant denominations, but that one of the CoG's principles is a denial of the label "Protestant" as being divisive and detrimental--although I'm wondering if the article truly needs it? Perhaps it does. Hard to put it simply, but I'll see what I can think up. If someone can beat me to the punch, please do! Jwrosenzweig 22:26, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Pollinator, I cannot address the specifics of this person's objection to the term "Protestant", but can suggest some of the various objections: (1) some bodies object because they believe their faith historically predates the Protestant Reformation or flowed from a different stream [this type of objection might fit some Mennonites, Amish, Baptists, etc.]; (2) some bodies believe their group is a restitution or restoration of the church by God, and therefore the old historical connections are irrelevant [this objection might fit Church of God believers, and generally seems to be that of Church of Christ non-instrumental, et al.]; or (3) some bodies believe they are the "true church" and therefore have a direct historical connection to the apostles. These are just some possibilities. But by the generally adopted standards of classification of Christian bodies, most non-Catholics are "Protestants". You might remember that I advocated that the Anglican Church not be classified under the Protestant umbrella, but accepted the concensus of the majority (I'm not Anglican). - Rlvaughn 21:58, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have made some of the corrections discussed. I changed headquarters to the perhaps more acceptable "central offices". I restored the second paragraph, because it was a quote from the church web site. Explanations and detail should be added after the quote, rather than inserted within it. I restored the date of origin to the web site data, for the time being; until further research into the matter, I think accepting the church's info on this is the best approach. I made a few other changes to keep the article more consistent and also to restore some links that were broken. I hope this will help the article as well as address some of your concerns. Please engage us in discussion of the matter. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 15:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[edit] some tweaking
I think the article is good overall, but there are a few things that needed to be tweaked. Despite a similar outlook in some matters, there is no verifible historical evidence to link the C of G (Anderson) movement to anabaptism. The only sort of link I can see is possibly the Byrum family, which "came out" of an anabaptist/pietist denomination that was an ancestor of the Evangelical United Brethren which itself merged with the Methodist Church to form the UMC. But, to be charitable, I put (arguably) in parentheses before the word "anabaptist".
Also, I was a bit surprised to see no reference to the Restorationist movement in the article, as it, in what I've studied, is as big an influence as the holiness stream. The polity of the churches, the anti-creedal emphasis, the very name "Church of God", are all Restorationist features. The Winbrenner group is a restorationist group and it was, after all, the movement Warner himself was a part of.
Also, I seem to recall Merle Strege once saying that an historian or pastor from the Cleveland TN group claimed that that group was somehow connected with Warner's movement early on. When one examines the article on the Clevelanders and sees what principles the early leaders of that group stood for, it seems very similar to those of the early Anderson group. So it is possible that there was an early connection; perhaps some of the early Clevelanders received the Gospel Trumpet or was in one of the services held by Warner's evangelistic company. But there is, to my knowledge, no hard evidence of this, so all I did was insert a "probably" in the mention of the Cleveland group in the article. -JLW
