Talk:Alexander Campbell (Restoration movement)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Is this correct? "He was also the compiler of a hymnal which consisted of lyrics without any musical notations, which he considered to be superfluous and hence sinful."

The word "sinful" there seems like a misrepresentation. Anyone able to back that up? Carltonh 15:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Only in that I've seen a copy of his hymnal (and, for that matter, his edition of the N.T.) and that the explanation, given by a man who remembered people who remembered him and hence admittedly third-handed, was that such was his belief (one largely shared by this man himself, who had always disapproved not only of instrumental music, but of parts and harmony). This would certainly be the best justification for the book's unusual format.

Rlquall 17:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you see his only written comments about instrumental music, his argument against it was that it was emotionalistic, and perhaps materialistic. He did not argue that it was Biblically sinful. See http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/ac1.html I think the same may at most have been his opinion on musical notations, so I think it should be changed. Carltonh 18:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many hymnals of the Restoration Movement during this period contained words only, and not notes. I don't know this to be any type of proof that Campbell felt musical notation was sinful, though. I've never heard that anywhere.

Hi dude

[edit] Campbellites - the name

The term Campbellites is one that was common among the instrumental churches from the Campbell/ Stone movement in its late 19th century expansion. Campbell himself did not like the term for the core of his leadership went to leading people to follow Jesus, not any other man. I do not believe the Nickname paragraph has any place here.

The recent edit that suggested "Campbell's beliefs were considered aborrent by "orthodox" Christians" has no basis. It is unsupported by any source material. It borders very closely on vandalism. At best it is NPOV.

I removed the paragraph so it can be discussed here, without detracting from the article.John Park (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)