Talk:Restorationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity Portal Restorationism is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	To-do list for Restorationism:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Grammar check NPOV compliance (streaks here and there) Formatting Proper wikification Fact checking and sourcing

Man this article is awful. Completely written from a prejudicial viewpoint, there is no NPOV here at all. The article makes even the term "restorationism" appear highly pejorative and even demeaning to any sect or denomination that is not decidedly mainstream Protestant or Roman Catholic. This article seems to have a lot of good information but it needs a complete NPOV rewrite. --Solascriptura 15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The re-written section on the LDS is not an improvement, in my opinion. I would like to have comments especially by the LDS wikipedians. Doesn't that paragraph express a rather biased, even proselytizing perspective? Whereas, the paragraph it replaces was, in my opinion, neither criticism nor adulation but simply a description appropriate for the article's context. Mkmcconn 19:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That replaced paragraph used to read:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sought, as the Campbellites did, to restore original Christianity: but they were much more pessimistic about the state of Christianity. The Great Apostasy was of such disastrous consequence, the Mormons believed, that a new Prophet and Apostle was required in order for God's Kingdom on earth to be re-established. They claimed that their founder, Joseph Smith, was just such a prophet.

Please compare and comment Mkmcconn 19:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an LDS member, but I see and agree with your point. I think the previous version was better.

TexasTwister 07:18, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted the paragraph. The deleted paragraph used to read:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded on the notion, pessimistic to some, that a complete restoration was necessary. Fundamental truths taught in the original Church, once partially or completely lost, could not be known again with certainty without access to the original source(s). Power to speak authoritatively and act in the name of Christ, apparently had been severed by the killing or banishment of the original Apostles. The Great Apostasy had apparently been of such disastrous consequence as to leave the earth bereft of essential truth and power. Man would remain in the dark, since independent resumption of authority was impossible. The only consistent remedy, according to precendents set in the Old Testament, was that God would reveal truth and grant power directly to a Prophet.

In 1820, a fourteen year old boy was perplexed by the choice between many religions of the day. Sensing he would never be able to resolve the issues of salvation by himself, he finally appealed to God by prayer. His humble inquiry was met by power. God the Father, and Jesus Christ himself directly answered that no church then on earth had sufficient truth or power to lead to salvation. The boy was Joseph Smith, Jr. He would be the Prophet of Restoration.

Mkmcconn 14:38, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] prejudicial

The following paragraph is lifted from the tail section. It was removed because it struck me as being prejudicial, and the evident perspective is not identified:

Attempts to restore primitive Christianity by some groups led to superficial, but strongly held beliefs, on how to conduct church. These included dropping all musical accompaniment, or meeting in a circle, and generally creating a sort of Christian minimism. Some elements of previous Christian ritual were felt to be magical and superstitious, and were stripped away. The result was that some church services came to resemble a classroom with singing before and after a lecture, considered by some to resemble little of what academic research suggests about the primitive church.

Mkmcconn — 18:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Campbellites"

I notice that the article on "Campbellites" has been changed into a redirect to Restoration Movement. That article states at its very beginning that some consider the term "Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement" to be deragatory. I would suggest that many more would object to the term "Campbellite" that would object to "Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement". The former "Campbellite" article said that most members of Restorationist churches found it to be a derisive epithet or words to that affect. I realize that the term has become somewhat uncommon but was not it worth mentioning that it was, back when it was frequently used, taken as a term of approbriation by many of those to whom it was applied? I don't see this explicity voiced in the article, but don't feel that it is my place to splice it in to the writing of others (at least, not in this instance!). 207.69.140.20 17:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you "feel that is (your) place"? It is as much your place as anyone else's to make any of these articles more accurate, and more informative. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My family has been a part of this movement for generations, and studied its history from its own historians in detail. Campbellite has never been used by any internal group, but from the 1830s the term was used to describe us by outsiders, intentionally or not, counter to our opposition to being named after any person other than Christ. The phrase Stone-Campbell Movement dates to the 1960s-1970s when some of this movement were willing to acknowledge that their were other attempted restoration movements besides ours. Internally, we still call our movement just "the Restoration Movement." There is some object to this for similar reasons like objection to the term Campbellite. There would be strong objection to calling any church a Stone-Campbell Church. The difference may be subtle, but represents opposing internal desires of attempting to be universal vs. attempting to disambiguate. To reiterate, Stone-Campbell Movement has some minor hostility from those unwilling to acknowledge sincere Restorationism outside this movement. The term Campbellite has universal hostility, and has always been so. I am quite certain that you cannot find a single famous "Campbellite" who was willing to use that term for himself approvingly. Carltonh 16:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"There would be strong objection to calling any church a Stone-Campbell Church."

DOC is a "Restoration Movement" church, and we have no problem with the Stone-Campbell lablel. -- Essjay · Talk 03:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Limited Scope

The problem with the article is that it is too limiting in that it sets narrow areas for discussion. In other words, where is the Church of God line, the Seventh-Day Adventist line, the Jehovah's Witness line, the Herbert W. Armstrong line, the Seventh-Day Baptist line, etc., etc. The article is too narrow in scope and yet its subject matter is not. MPLX/MH 04:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right. I am going to stub the more complete structure. Tom Haws 16:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Since the above comment by MPLX, the LDS content seems to have been removed entirely by an anon editor, apropos nothing so far as one can tell from this talk page. I've added it back on that basis (no endorsement of exact content express or implied). Alai 20:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, where are they? If nobody on wikipedia cares enough to put them in, then they probably will not be here.

[edit] Copyedit

This page needs to be copyedited. I will try to do what I can when I can. There are all sorts of errors, like passive voice and changing tenses that degrade the quality of this article. If any one can help me out please feel free to do so. MyNameIsNotBob 23:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of points

Since for all groups except The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Quakers, the Bible was regarded as the exclusive source of all answers

The only true commonality among these disparate groups is their belief that the true church died out and has been restored in recent times in themselves.

I'm inclined to dispute these two statements as they relate to the DOC. I am not a DOC historian, so I cannot speak to the historical accuracy of these statements, but as far as the contemporary Disciples church is concerned, neither is true.

For the first, Disciples do not believe the Bible is the exclusive source of all answers. In fact, the DOC's official site lists freedom of belif as a core tenet:

Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit, study, and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others.

While some of the other "restoration churches" subscribe to a belief that the Bible is the final word and/or infallible, DOC does not.

For the second, the modern DOC would vehemently reject the assertion that they are the restored Church. They are an attempt, which they will freely admit, but they do not believe they are the be all end all of the restored Church. "The Church is much bigger than any denomination" is a more authentic DOC perspective.

If the intent of either statement is to reflect a historical perspective, then a clarification that such is no longer the case should be included elsewhere; if the intent is to describe the current state of affairs, then they should be edited. Since I can't really determine one way or another, what do others think: are the statements modern or historical? -- Essjay · Talk 06:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I missed acting on your first comment, but focused on aligning several paragraphs to your second remark. I think that the scope of these movements is more fairly represented now. Some parenthetical mention might be made of the fact that some people in the "Restoration Movement" don't seem to particularly like that label any more than other labels. I'm not sure though what the intent is of the statements you're pointing out. As you say, a group like the United Church of Christ is part of the Restorationist movement at least as much as of the Reformed (to say the least, from my point of view), and they are at the opposite end of exclusivism (unless their mark of exclusivity is inclusivism)! Mkmcconn (Talk) 07:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps something should be added to the effect that the commonality between branches existed during the first years of restoration, because it IS historically accurate. In addition, I should add that the UCoC has no demonstrable historical ties whatsoever to the Restoration movement. 66.32.123.176 16:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Old Believers

Old_Believers Reading thru all this, I see a parallel with certain Russian Old Believer groups, mainly in the 'great apostasy' thesis. --FourthAve 08:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Any continuing church movement is going to have that element, justifying their separation. In fact, when it comes down to it, it begins to appear that just about every Christian group is restorationist, and if you aren't careful with the definition it begins then to seem (almost) as though no one is, because everyone is. Mkmcconn (Talk) 12:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between "reformists" and "restorationists". Reformists believe that there are minor to major things that need to be fixed, but they can be fixed (reformed). Restorationists believe that the church is so far from the truth (apostacy) that a restoration to the primitive (original) church is needed. Val42 16:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "primitive" Christianity?

I believe the correct terminology would be "a restoration of what they percieve as the original doctrines of the Christ's church" not "a restoration of primitive Christianity." Nobody's talking about living as if we are in the first century, merely preaching the original doctrines as taught in the first century. That's a rather important distinction.

I think primitive is an OK term, as it has been used historically to mean just what you describe: preaching the "primitive", i.e. original, unaltered or uncorrupted, doctrines. c.f. Primitive Baptist. Gwimpey 04:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the sixth Article of Faith:

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth[1].

It is correct and appropriate to use the word "primitive". If you want, you can include in parentheses what it means in this context. Val42 16:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration Branches

I'm working on starting this related article about a group of RLDS members that the Community of Christ describes as "members at large" ... I would appreciate some people reading this and checking it for any possible NPOV issues I may be overlooking as I work on it, because as I am part of this movement, therefore my impartiality on the issue is of course suspect. --Nerd42 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] citations needed

this needs a lot of references and citations... lots of places state 'facts' using weasel words suck as "some believe that..." and the like. This would be a lot better of an article if it was well referenced. Jabencarsey 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last 3 paragraphs

The way it stands now those last 3 paragraphs are horribly written, and definitely do not fall within the scope of an NPOV article.

I've removed the entire section, which was an essay on the failure of all forms restorationism to accomplish the goal. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with wholesale removal. Although they need work, the paragraphs talk about the varying perspectives on Restorationism by differing groups. I would recommend restoring and rewriting -- with perhaps a summary explanation. WBardwin 23:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There might be a way to restore the section; but it appears to me that it was the only section of this article that fit the complaint "This article does not cite its sources". Without that section, the article should have the complaint banners removed, in my opinion. The deleted material can be reinserted with more careful documentation of sources - as it represents an assessment that would be widely shared, not only by Catholics and Orthodox, but by any group arising directly from the Reformation. In the meantime, I'm not clear why the article continues carry all those banners. They should be removed, or made more specific. They overstate the problems that remain in the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labadists

Opinion on this relatively obscure pietist movement? From one source, it appears to have some striking similarities to restorationism. Does anyone have more information? WBardwin 22:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D vs. S

Changed See link from Supersessionism to Dispensationalism. The former is an antonym of Restorationism; the latter a near synonym. --AuntieMormom 02:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Time

This article is in serious need of cleanup! Here's what needs to be done:

• Grammar check
• NPOV compliance (streaks here and there)
• Formatting
• Proper wikification
• Fact checking and sourcing

Who will help with what? :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to begin... I'll add your suggestions to a todo list at the top. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IS there a colloboration project to which we can add this article? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

With the deletion of the critical assessment that appeared at the end of the article (which could be re-inserted with more careful support added), I don't think that this article suffers so badly from the difficulties described, as it did when the call for cleanup was posted. I'm not too wild about sweeping connection with Erasmus, however, which was recently added. If Restorationism is a continuation the Reformation at all (which many of them deny), it is certainly not of the right wing represented by Erasmus, but of the radicals (like the Anabaptists and the Socinians). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's on the AID list now. Some parts of the article are confusing to an outsider such as myself. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to see clarified? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erasmus

Some comments on the removed paragraph:

Restorationsim is largely a continuation of the humanistic work of Erasmus.^{[citation needed]}

Secular humanism does not describe Erasmus (the link is misleading), and the aim and style of Erasmus does not describe Restorationism.

Inspired by Erasmus, the Protestant reformers had aimed to remove those doctrines and practices that they felt were novelties; many of them also carried on correspondences Eastern Orthodoxy in order to establish through research into ancient Christian writings and records.

This makes the unsupportable assertion that the Reformation began, or was chiefly led by, Erasmus. It further asserts that Erasmus's notions were founded on, or profoundly influenced by, Eastern Orthodoxy. Eramus was a classicist, and his approach to theology was profoundly influenced by classical rhetoric, much more so than ancient traditions.

Restorationists on the other hand, felt that such documents were faulty and instead relied on their own critical powers of interpretation to restore how they believed the early Church would have been.

This re-inserts, but inadequately summarizes, the critical material that appeared at the end of the article before it was deleted. This kind of material should have a place in an article like this, but it does not belong in the lead where it pretends to be an uncontested assertion of fact.

In practice this meant removing any doctrines and practices with mystical overtones (such as consecrating the Eucharist)

Many of the sects that belong under the label "Restorationist" have numerous doctrines and practices that have "mystical overtones". While this sentence might well describe some, it is far off the mark for many of these groups.

and created services that were typically centered on a sermon or "message" given by a leader or "elder." Thus services were recreated from scratch, stripped of all things that restorationists felt were "superstitions."^{[citation needed]} These were replaced with a simplified service resembling a lecture with short prayers and perhaps some singing (often a capella).

Again, not true of all groups. In sum, the removed paragraph does not describe Restorationism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

Mark, thank you for removing these sections. I was not comfortable with them and felt they were stretching reality, but felt I needed to complete futher research before confidently removing them. Though some of it might possess potential for a return to the article, I hope it is done with strong supporting references. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also Tahrif

Add Tahrif to see also. This relates to the Muslim concept of "restoration," which is similar to Christian Restorationism: i.e., an alleged correction of apostasy. I considered adding a section in the body itself such as "Restoration Concept in Islam," but it's just not meaty enough. Maybe if we found the restoration concept in other religions, too, we could add a section on "Restoration Concept in Other Religions." Or is there already an article somewhere about small-r restorationism in religion (the general concept instead of the specific movement)? Jonathan Tweet 17:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I know this isn't top priority right now, but maybe this imagecould be useful(?)Squidnchips 10:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A simplified chart of historical developments of major groups within Christianity.

[edit] lead section

See WP:LEAD. The lead section of this article, like the lead sections of lots of article, is pretty bad. It should summarize the content. If I get up to it, I'll rewrite it. Jonathan Tweet 15:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)