Talk:Church of Christ/Archive Page 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Improvements to this article

I'd like to see some major improvements to this article's organization. I'd like to do (or encourage) a complete rewrite, incorporating the material that is there.

Some thoughts:

The article should begin with a brief intro to the restoration movement and the history of the church. The way the church sees itself should be explained, and then it should be explained that each church is autonomous and some are in greater stages of assimilation with the rest of Protestant Christianity than others. There should then be a section on the five/six points of salvation, explaining that this is how one becomes a member. Following should be a section describing worship, including the five acts and including a discussion of instrumental music. Following should be a section on official and unofficial church officers ranging from elders to secretaries. Then there should be a section talking about beliefs that are common in the rest of Christianity: for example, belief in verbal plenary inspiration. Then there should be a section talking about distinctive beliefs; these are the things that are not that common; however, it should be noted when these beliefs are shared by other faith traditions (for example, belief that baptism is immersion and belief that instrumental music is not acceptable are beliefs shared in common with Orthodox Christianity).

Also, believe it or not, the article can be enhanced with images. It's hard to think of what kind of pictures you could actually take for this, but I have some suggestions:

church buildings used by historic churches mentioned in the article
tracts, particularly with distinctive doctrines expressed in the title
charts someone might have illustrating distinctive doctrines, such as the plan of salvation
a congregation singing (a statement that in the past members of the churches of Christ were well known for their singing would be good, too)

Jdavidb (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection, but I wouldn't put restoration history first. I would think most people coming to the article would want to see who the church is today, not how it started. What do you think? Danlovejoy 20:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Restoration history already has its own article. It looks like it should probably be updated, though. Much like this one probably should to more accurately reflect divisions among churches. Jdb1972 13:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the idea of including images is a bad one. I agree that the restoration history could probably be a brief comment and link to the Restoration history page. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally came to this entry looking for its role in the restoration movement. I believe that since its beginning is there, it isn't inappropriate to include it first. MJC

Link policy

Should we establish a policy on links? Otherwise, we're going to have a million links here from each of the numerous camps and variants of churches of Christ; I notice someone just dumped a bunch of ecumenical church links here, for example. Of course, given the decentralized nature of most churches, if we shut out links to pages of individuals and churches, what would be left? A few directories?

Might also be a good idea to start breaking out each of the major subgroups as the non-institutional churches page was broken out, IMO. Given the division between ecumenical institutional and more conservative institutional branches, there's a high propensity for confusion.

Thoughts? Jdb1972 13:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Blogs of note? Am I alone in thinking that such a section is rarely appropriate for any encyclopedia article? Jdavidb (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we need a links policy with guidance from the rest of Wikipedia. The link-creep and link-spam problem is overwhelming on many articles. There are some articles where I think the addition of links is completely unworkable without a rule that they be discussed and agreed to on the talk page, first. I'm not sure if this is one of them (yet), but we should probably at least decide that the addition of any particular link or set of links is subject to review here.

Those blogs don't seem representative of a large cross section of the church to me. They all seem to be mentioning the same conferences and such. I'm also unclear on what criteria are used to establish which blog authors are "notable." Personally, I think my friend "DeputyHeadmistress" has a very notable blog, but I don't think it particularly belongs here. Yeah, Max Lucado is notable, whatever you think of him. But are these guys notable?

The biggest problem I see in splitting out different groups is what to call them. Names like "liberal" and "conservative" aren't well-defined or universally accepted. Lately I have been referring to some churches as "being in various stages of assimilation with other Christian traditions." I think that's accurate, but using my terms would, IMO, constitute original research, which is prohibited (WP:NOR). The term "progressive" is also used, but again I'm not sure it's a standard.

I liked the old approach of saying "here are some beliefs that churches of Christ have been noted for, but since each church is independent not every church currently holds to them," but I think it still left us needing more description of churches that do not see themselves as holding to that and unfortunately the concept seemed hard for new editors to get as people felt the need to add statements like "not all churches believe this" to every single item even though it was mentioned up front at the top of the list. (That is, when they didn't see the need to actually remove a line because they never heard of a church believing that or because they didn't think any churches should believe it.) Jdavidb (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Good thoughts. I know from my side of the fence, "liberal institutional," "conservative institutional," and "one cup/no Bible class" tend to be the most-used descriptions. Part of the problem, though, is that each group probably sees itself as the "adjectiveless" group. Jdb1972 21:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Links again

Should we clear out the links a bit for clarity and consistency? It seems to me the following seem to be out of place:

Heartlight.org - Nothing indicates association with churches of Christ (indeed, per the current poll, its readship is heavily premillenial)
You Church Can Grow - No association with churches of Christ, almost purely commercial
Bibleweb - Very content-light
Predicadores - Just a Yahoo! group and somewhat special interest
Church Fun - Nothing indicates association with churches of Christ
Possibly move most of the ICOC links to the ICOC page. The link to the paper may be useful, but possibly place it under a history category? And/or link to an opposing POV paper if there is one?

I'd still recommend a link policy. Based on prior practice, maybe something like:

Representative of and clearly proclaiming association with churches of Christ
No local congregations (prevent link flood) or individual blogs
Sites should be content-rich; content should not be largely pay-only
Sites should be as general interest and representative as possible
Sites should be well-known and influential within at least one branch (not using Wikipedia to build viewership, but listed in Wikipedia because of existing viewership)
If a page exists for a branch (ICOC or NI churches), refer most links specific to that branch to that page

* Web rings or other promotional traffic-building tools should not be linked. Danlovejoy 07:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts? Jdb1972 15:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, I agree with these suggestions. I have some suggestions for CoC site links to add as well:

12.217.48.171 15:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like us to distinguish between substantive criticism sites and attack sites -- although it is a tough distinction. Still, I think we can kill "Is the Church of Christ a Cult?" and find a handful of much more well-written critiques. -AvalonXQ

I agree with AvalonXQ. I think "Church of Christ Denomination" is basically a "poke them in the eye" site, whereas "Ex Church of Christ" is actually a support group and contains some substantive, if biting, criticism. But let's get more consensus. This isn't "our" article.

Furthermore, I like Jdb1972's suggestions for link policy and move that we adopt it with one addition. I think it's great to link to a comprehensive directory, but not to web rings or other traffic genrating tools that aren't comprehensive or vetted (I have added it inline above). Pursuant to that, anon (12.217.48.171) I don't think any of your links make the cut. (sorry :-( ) What does everyone else think? Danlovejoy 07:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No resentment from me, the poster, on that. The first one, Intro to CoC, is highly informative, if not universal, without commercialism that I am aware of though. 12.217.48.171 22:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks anon. I love you. ;-) Seriously, it's nice to talk to a NICE anonymous user every once in a while. Can everyone chime in with the link policy proposed above. Can we take a fresh look at the links on the page? Danlovejoy 20:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As the guy who suggested it, I'll agree that the policy is a wonderful thing. ;) Jdb1972 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the policy. It will avoid most abuses, or should anyway! (I actually have an account but I can't seem to stay logged in sometimes, regardless of cookie settings. When it doesn't work, I am 12.217.48.171 until my ISP randomly changes it again...) JSM2005 22:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree to this policy, although it doesn't quite cover sites designed to give a critical/opposing view to the Church. How about the following: content-rich, attacks are substantive rather than ad-hominem (on doctrine and/or common practice rather than anecdotal or horror stories), some of the same respectibility criteria as for allied links. -AvalonXQ

All right, I've gone through and cleaned up the links. One was to a site that doesn't appear to be working right now, so I cut it as well. If anyone feels I've erred in any of my choices, have at it and add back what you think works. Jdb1972 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy posted

I placed the policy on a page of its own and added a link from the main article. Dunno how much good it'll do, but it's there. I like the flow Jdb1972 20:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If you put it in comment brackets, , then potential editors will see it, but it won't be seen by regular readers. You would lose the link ability, but still a preferable approach in my opinion. JonHarder 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Observation: this needs to be moved from article space, probably to article talk space. In other words, rather than being Church of Christ/Link Policy, it should be Talk:Church of Christ/Link policy. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Gracecentered.com

Seems that Leesw has been adding and re-adding a link to Gracecenter.com. Based on Leesw's edits and choice of username, it is reasonable to assume that the user is Lee Wilson, employee of FamilyDynamics.net, a sponsor of Gracecentered.com. What's the consensus on this? It looks like self promotion in my book. --Ichabod 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Preacher's Files

I would like to know why you have excluded The Preacher's Files Web site as not worthy of a link? The site meets the standards which you have set in your policy to be included. The site already has a large subscriber base, was mentioned in the Christian Chronicle a few months ago, and has significant content that is representative of many churches of Christ. I don't believe that you ought to arbitrarily exclude it from inclusion in the links section.

We had discussed this site specifically here about six months ago. The consensus then was to remove it; however, if we need to reconsider either it or an alteration to the policy, let's do it. What sayeth the usual editors here? Personally, I've never heard of PF, but that's not exactly improbable, given it appears to be from a CI perspective. (Also, please sign your post with four tildes. Makes it easier to determine who's writing.) Jdb1972 13:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I frequent Preacher's Files, and it's a great site. Nevertheless, I see no motivation for adding it other than "promoting" the site. I have a similar forum which I personally do NOT add to the external links.

Anon, you should know that this article (and many others) are subject to "link spamming" and "link creep," where more and more links get added, usually by people who own or advocate said sites. The more we add, the harder it is to justify excluding the next link. We need to figure out where the line really is and draw it in bold. Many topics will have an abundance of acceptable and excellent links; they will never all be includable or we will just have a web directory.

Of course, there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia. We work by consensus. Consensus in the past was to exclude this site. If you can expand on your case, consensus may switch to favor including the site. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT! Anon, it was very inappropriate of you to do this. If you want to work with us in good faith to consider including Preacher's Files, that will be fine. But do not Wikipedia:Edit war as that is a breach of civility on Wikipedia. Be patient and make your case, and be willing to accept whatever consensus emerges.

Moreover, it is specifically a problem that you took out the site http://ex-churchofchrist.com/ . I don't agree with that site, either, but we can't remove it just because we don't like it or disagree with it. The article does have to reflect all positions that people actually hold, including positions we might find are wrong.

Please don't show up as a new person and attempt to force your way by going against Wikipedia's policies. Not only does it never work, it's not very Christian. You're new here. Take some time to learn the culture and the customs. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon, I'm looking at something. It's pretty clear you're probably somebody involved personally with preacher's files. Somebody determined before that the link was added by somebody in Berryville or Harrison, Arkansas. And you seem to be in the same location. I suspect you are the same person, trying to build viewership for Preacher's Files (which is certainly a worthy goal, but not the purpose of Wikipedia). The IP address before was 67.141.90.91 (talk · contribs). The IP addresses you are coming from recently have been 67.141.95.143 (talk · contribs) and 67.141.88.22 (talk · contribs). They're all from the same block of IP addresses. You're likely the same person.

Please take a look at the link policy that some of the editors agreed together on awhile back. Specifically excluded is "using Wikipedia to build viewership." Is this your motivation? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jdavidb, I am personally involved in Preachers Files. I don't see, however, how this necessarily excludes the site from having its own link. I looked at the discussion from which you determined a consensus to exclude the site and I didn't come away with either a positive or negative consensus from those comments. But let me make a further case. The Preacher's Files isn't merely a discussion forum site, though the forum is part of the site. The site contains blogs by members of the churches of Christ. The site also hosts hundreds of sermon outlines and bulletin articles that many people within the churches of Christ use. The site exceeds many of the other sites that are published in number of visits and pageviews. It also comes very close in number to many of the larger sites as well. In short, the site reflects the views and thinking of thousands of members of the churches of Christ and as such it ought to have a place in the external links section of this article.

I'll admit that initially my goal was to drive traffic to the site. However, that is no longer my goal. My goal now is to see that this web page on the churches of Christ has a link to a site that contains one of the largest cross section views of the churches of Christ on the Internet. Preachers Files isn't a site that reflects the thoughts of just one or two members of the church, but several hundred and that directly from their own "pens". I don't know of any other web site within the churches of Christ that offers what Preacher's Files offers. In that regard, the site is unique and ought to be included.

Regarding the "EX church of Christ" members site: I frankly don't see how that is even appropriate at all on a page that is about churches of Christ. Perhaps another page could be created for them in which those who are ex members of the church of Christ may develop their own content and they can be listed in the disambiguation area. --Kevin Cauley —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.40.171.213 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-03 19:13:57. The preceding comment regarding "unsigned comment" was made by someone other than the one who wrote this entry.

Kevin, addressing for the moment the issue of the Ex Church of Christ page, we can't remove it from a neutral encyclopedia article simply because it is antithetical to the church. Yes, I personally believe they are wrong, very wrong. But on Wikipedia the policy is WP:NPOV. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I honestly feel it's best for me to be considered "recused" from the question of whether PF should be linked or not. It's up to everyone else who edits this article to consider the case Kevin makes and decide if it belongs or not. I removed it previously in enforcing the previous decision (and also readding the removed negative site). I'll leave it up to other people to handle it in the future. Kevin, do be aware that the decision has to be made by the regulars here rather than just one person. That even means the larger (non-religious) Wikipedia community has the final authority to decide. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you remove it because it is antithetical to the churches of Christ. I'm suggesting that you remove it because it is content unrelated and that is a NPOV in my opinion.

I'll not trouble you guys any longer regarding Preachers Files. If you feel it should be there, fine. If not, that's fine. I've made my case and that's what I believe. If you don't want to add the link because of your concern about link spamming, then simply add a non-linked text equivalent. That's fine with me. --The Unsigned Kevin Cauley

I tend to think we should disallow posting of links by people associated with the link. jdavidb, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's a Wikipedia policy on, say, editting your own personal entry (I seem to recall the head grand poobah of Wikipedia got caught editting his own recently); it would strike me as not too different. I'm also not crazy about xcoc; it doesn't strike me as all that substantive. However, in both cases, I bow to the concensus. Jdb1972 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia policy that forbids editing of one's own article (if one exists), but it is considered to be highly discouraged. Jimbo himself edits his own article, and there was some flap somewhere about it, but I think most hardcore Wikipedians didn't much seem to care. By extension, most people in the linkspam-fighting front have opposed addition of links by people involved, while encouraging people to raise the inclusion of the link on the talk page. In most cases, people doing this are just out and out spammers with nothing to offer, and so the link doesn't get included. I don't think that's the case at all with Preacher's Files; it's a good site, and the folks here who edit this talk page and are regular Wikipedians should talk it over and decide if it should be included or not.

As for the "xcoc" site, it may not be heavily substantive, but it's not completely devoid of content either, and at this point it's our only "oppose" link. That's not really good -- wasn't this section bigger at one time? I'm concerned that a lot of fly-by-night editors who are Christians come by and remove links to such sites trying to prevent people from seeing what they have to say. That goal is incompatible with Wikipedia work ... people who believe God requires them to have that goal can't work on Wikipedia within the rules and guidelines given. We probably need to dig through the article history, see what links to "oppose" sites existed, and select the most substantive for inclusion. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the xcoc link should be added no more than you would have an ex-catholic or baptist link. or anti-something. PF needs to be added because its a great representations of coc doctrine.

I added the PF link back in since it seems there's no consensus for "self-promotion" being banned. Jdb1972 13:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the question is, "is a site less relevant because of who submitted it?" I would answer "no". Certainly a self-promotion submission should be even more carefully reviewed, but if it is worthy of inclusion on its own merits, who cares who submitted it? Just a thought. JSM2005 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes and recent discussion

Based on the recent discussion, I added a paragraph to try to explain the use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." I tried to accurately reflect usage, while still indicating that there are a lot of caveats with these terms. I consider this to be a patch offered to ragged garment that needs to be replaced, though; the article, I mean. I still think we need some kind of a rewrite as I described above. I'm not sure yet how I feel about splitting into separate articles; I think the clear path on what to do about this is going to appear murky to us but may be clearer by the time our children are editing Wikipedia.
I agree heartlight.org doesn't much belong any more. At one time it was a very popular site for members of the church, and every mailing list I was on (circa 1997) saw it mentioned often. Therefore I have previously left it alone. But I don't think it has ever said much about doctrine, so it's not really a helpful link for an encyclopedia article. I presume that its presence here probably represents someone's long ago attempt to drive attention to the site, i.e., link spam. And we all know how I feel about link spam. :) I've removed it. (Always open to discussion if someone wants to.)
I was one click away from removing the VBS paragraph. I've expressed a feeling that it doesn't belong, so has the recent anonymous commenter, and so has Dan. It really doesn't belong in a list of things that make the church of Christ "distinctive," i.e., different from other churches the average Wikipedia reader might encounter. VBS's are a dime a dozen (although nowadays I think they cost a lot more than a dime, especially at the non-Churches of Christ around). But they are a significant part of the "culture" or "tradition" or "heritage" of the church of Christ, and so I could not bring myself to remove the paragraph (yet) because, while I feel that it does not really belong in that section, I still feel that it might somehow belong in the article. I think it would certainly fit better in the rewrite I envision. Perhaps we need a new section in the present article for "church of Christ culture" or something like that (horrible title, but that general idea). Or maybe a section mentioning various significant efforts that have been made at outreach, such as VBS's and "joy busses." Always better to rework material than to remove.
I haven't made any real effort to respond to the recent comments by the anonymous commenter here, as I didn't feel like he really understood that our point here, as Wikipedians, is to produce a good encyclopedia article about the churches of Christ. In some ways he is just as wrong as some of the fly-by-night conservative editors who come by and remove sentences they don't like indicating that some churches have a more lax attitude toward divorce and remarriage, or whatever doctrine bothers them. (Did I mention I still get a kick and a grin out of the people who've removed the comments about conscientious objection? :) ) There may be some value in his comments for our purposes here, but he didn't seem to have the right focus and so I felt a lot of what he said tended to be extraneous or orthogonal. I got much more value out of Dan's responses to him, which distilled things back to the issue of writing an honest encyclopedia article to reflect reality rather than one side's idealistic view. Certainly more work needs to be done to accurately reflect the changing church. And certainly we want Wikipedia to be open for all contributions anyone wants to make. But I think in this case the best work is going to be done by regular, solid Wikipedia editors who understand what we want as an encyclopedia and have been around awhile participating in the community editing effort here. Our recent anon, like many of the conservative editors I've mentioned, has made a total of two edits.
Setting aside the issue of writing a good encyclopedia for a minute, let me just say that I'm impressed with Dan for his statements recognizing that reality doesn't always match up to the viewpoint of academia. :) There are a lot of people in the world on many issues, and certainly a lot of people in the church on these specific issues, who have trouble even recognizing that there are people who disagree with them.
I have seen some articles start a complete rewrite on a subpage, like Church of Christ/temp. We could start something like that, but I really, really want to be involved and I feel like I've got too many wiki-projects right now to contribute the way I want.

Feel free to jump into that list above and respond point by point if you need. :* Prefixed to your line will make an indented bullet. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope to respond more tomorrow with some of the responses to my objections to the article. I didn't mean to be anyomous in my last comment. I am Travis Stanley. I did my undergrad at Lipscomb University, have an MDIV from ACU and am currently working on an MA in History at Theology at ACU. I am new to Wikipedia, as you point out, but am not knew to Churches of Christ or to their history. I have had much experience in congregations across the spectrum, and am currently immersed in Stone-Campbell History. I hope my suggestions were not taken to suggest that the article create a bias in the "liberal" or "progressive" direction. I just want balance. We are a diverse tradition, as I said many times above, and this article currently does not reflect that diversity. It may be the opinion of some that only a few people hold to the things I mention, but I would beg to differ. I will talk more about this later. I have a dinner date to make. --Travs814 23:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A recent change to the page adds "A few church leaders believe in some version of annihilationism, which holds that the fires of hell consume sinners, who then cease to exist" to the Common Beliefs and Practices in the Specific Teachings and Prohibitions section. My issues with this are two-fold; first, "church leaders" should be removed as the ChoC does not have a clergy/laity system. Replace with "members" or simply remove church leaders altogether. Second, I'm unaware that this is even remotely a common belief among any segment of the ChoC, and therefore may well fall outside the scope and purpose of this article. -- JSM2005 23:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the line (**"obey the gospel" - be baptized) from the "Specific teachings and prohibitions" section. The phrase "obey the Gospel" carries with it more action than baptism. It is commonly used to refer to "being saved" (meeting the requirements for salvation). Use of the phrase to refer to baptism exclusively is appropriate in specific situations but not when discussing doctrine as a whole. -- [RVaughan] 03:56 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rebaptism

I noticed that at some point the Rebaptism section was changed to be factually inaccurate, probably by an overzealous, "ahistorical" conservative. For those who know or want to know: The history of the Churches of Christ and the Restoration Movement is very clear that the original position of our movement, including David Lipscomb, every one before him, and his Gospel Advocate, was that it was not necessary to rebaptize Baptists, and most anyone who had voluntary immersion to "obey the Gospel." Many statements can be read where preachers went to various cities and stated, "1500 joined us from the Baptists, and 750 by baptism." Some opponent of this older belief of our movement must have assumed that his opinion was in fact the original and changed the Wikipedia article. In fact, it was Austin McGary who was the original "digressive" (tongue in cheek irony) who created the contrary position through his Firm Foundation to oppose the original Church of Christ position of Lipscomb, Campbell, Stone, Scott, etc. (Yes, I know this is a sarcastic POV statement, but this will stick to the talk page.)

So I (or someone) will correct the Rebaptism section... however, I do not know if the Gospel Advocate has a current position, nor some of the 20th century history to know if it has changed its position. Foy Wallace was editor of both the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation at different times, so it is possible that GA could have changed positions multiple times. I do know that the Firm Foundation's position was the more common one in Texas in the 20th Century, and Lipscomb's remained more common in Tennessee, but I don't have a more general perception of the whole movement. Carltonh 00:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Douglas Foster has an interesting (and pertinent) article in Restoration Quarterly on rebaptism with many primary source quotes including Campbell and Lipscomb. --Pspadaro 21:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC) RestorationUnity.com

Do the opinions of Campbell, Lipscomb, Stone or other early thinkers automatically determine what a "biblical conservative" congregation thinks? In point of fact they do not, or at least, no neccessarily. But more importantly is the issue of "do so-called conservative congregations view rebaptism as necessary if the earlier baptism was not done with an understanding that it was for the remission of sins?" The ones I have had exposure to believe an understanding of why is required (including for the "remission of sins" and to "receive the gift of the holy spirit" and to obey what they perceive is god's command in the matter). I know this isn't a place for doctrinal debate, but for what constitutes the churches of christ today, and I believe it is more or less accurate as it stands, other than the mistake regarding GA's original viewpoint (which needs correction).JSM2005 23:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Is a complete rewrite really necessary, or is simply pointing out that some prominent figures including Campbell and Lipscomb held this position sufficient? Or even adding a bit of historical detail about the controversy itself? It's been my experience that there are some (many?) today who take the opposite extreme, that even baptism for the remission of sins isn't valid if they don't understand "the nondenominational nature of the New Testament church." Is the no-rebaptism view that prevelant in institutional churches today? Jdb1972 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard that one had to have understanding of the nondenominational nature of the NT church to have an effective baptism. I'm not necessarily surprised at that, but I think the mainstream opinion is that all that is required is an understanding of what the Bible says about baptism itself (to fulfill all righteousness, into Christ, for the remission of sins, and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit). The other matters such as the nature of His church are important but not intrinsic to baptism. I will agree though that the no-rebaptism view is the distinct minority view; the rest is just a matter of degrees. 12.217.48.171 20:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I see the rebaptism section was revised. The revision is fine, although I think it places too great an importance on what Lipscomb and other early thinkers concluded. It's using someone elses POV to support a position, or reads that way. It's valid to point out their beliefs, and that others disagreed, and that the matter is still debated. It's the tone of POV that troubles me slightly. To resolve this I would change "The Gospel Advocate publishing house out of Tennessee, as well as its founder David Lipscomb and all the Church of Christ and Restoration Movement leaders before him ..." to read "The Gospel Advocate publishing house out of Tennessee and its founder David Lipscomb, and Restoration Movement leaders before him..." This states the fact without the evident, though probably inadvertant, bias in tone, and without presuming it applied to "all" early churches and leaders. My apologies if this isn't presented very clearly here. JSM2005 19:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see how the phrase "all RM leaders before him" might sound POV. If you can show a single counterexample, I'll agree 100%. However, if it is not just a POV, but a historically accurate statement, then it is an extremely important one because it shows us when the belief first started. Find any evidence prior to 1880, and I'll agree that my statement was based on incomplete research, no matter how obscure the RM leader before McGary you find. Carltonh 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fairly easy: John Thomas, 1837. His influence is why we have Campbell's opinions on rebaptism in writing in the first place. I also clarified the "rebaptism" debate definition in the main article; from my readings, I don't see that it's over the "exact point of salvation" at all, but over the motive for why one does it: to be saved, or because he's already saved. One group maintains the motive irrelevant (within limits), the other finds it key. Jdb1972 20:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Soteriology

“Children below the age of accountability are considered in a "safe" position in the eyes of God, and would not be condemned to hell if they died before the age of accountability (a denial of the common doctrine of Original Sin).”

This section needs to be re-worded for NPOV. As it stands, the parenthetical comment seems to pass judgment on their position from the position of a group that accepts the doctrine of original sin, despite the fact that it is true that they do not accept this doctrine. Instead of framing their doctrine in the negative as a denial of a pre-existing doctrine, a name for this doctrine, if they have one (partial depravity?), should preferably be used. Perhaps it could read something more like, “adhering to X doctrine rather than the doctrine of Original Sin.” Maybe the lack of a name for this concept necessitates its definition in the negative.

It might be helpful to locate the aforementioned section after the following regarding their theology:

“The theology of Churches of Christ is basically Arminian, although probably not often referred to as such. Original Sin and the whole idea of Total Depravity from which it ensues are rejected,”

It seems like this is hinting at the first of the Articles of Remonstrance which speaks as to free will and partial depravity. They way I read this, they would not agree with Wesley’s assertion that humanity was “totally corrupted” by sin but brought back by prevenient grace. Is it their understanding that humanity remains in its original estate with something similar to prevenient grace allowing belief?

Shouldn’t these soteriological and doctrinal issues be at the beginning of this section? Surely the explanation of a “fall from grace” would help the reader better understand the other points that would follow in this section. An article on Arminian adherents hardly seems complete without some mention of their views on Holiness or Sanctification but this seems wholly absent except for the mention of random acts they deem sinful.

Also, where does one’s body and one’s soul reside and in what intermediate state while awaiting Judgment Day?

--71.16.238.125 20:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

the parenthetical comment seems to pass judgment on their position from the position of a group that accepts the doctrine of original sin

Doesn't seem that way to me, if I understand what you're saying correctly. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion that the alternative to original sin be named is difficult because members of the church of christ wouldn't use a term for that. It's seen within the community more as an unimportant aspect of catholicism than some huge point of contention. The alternative, in this case, is just the absence of that belief, not some other named belief system. - cohesion★talk 07:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's seen within the community more as an unimportant aspect of catholicism than some huge point of contention. Indeed the last time I discussed the Church of Christ online with Catholics, I was interrogated and demanded to respond as to whether or not our "soteriology" was "Calvinist" or "Arminian." I didn't know what any of that meant, except Calvinism. Had to come to Wikipedia to figure out what "soteriology" meant. I have never in my life heard a member of the church use that term. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Disfellowship

I did some editing on the disfellowship paragraph. It would be helpful if someone would add what this means in practical terms, i.e. is the person not allowed to hold church offices, barred from church property, tarred and feathered ... JonHarder 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC) [AvalonXQ] In my experience, the practical implications of disfellowship are 1) that you are no longer considered a member of the church however your church defines the privileges and responsibilities of membership, from the assignment of duties to the availability of any teaching or leadership position to an acknowledgement of any existing relationship, and 2) other members of the church are expected to disengage from you socially. This is what I've been taught and what churches have done in my experience. I'd like some verification on this before I add it to the article, though. [/AvalonXQ]

As I looked through the entry on the churches of Christ I was incredibly impressed. However, one suggestion I have is that the section on Disfellowship is incredibly incomplete and negative. I would love to see someone who is not such a noob on Wikipedia, like me, edit it to contain the purpose of disfellowship and add something to the effect of:

Disfellowship of a member, a form of church discipline which is similar to excommunication, and its basis are announced to the congregation by the elders. Disfellowship is rare because typically those at variance have been alienated from the congregation and remove themselves voluntarily or have submitted properly to the discipline and returned to faithfulness. --Kaderystalmane 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sect

I am removing the following paragraph as being entirely POV:

Although highly exclusive from the standpoint of rejecting other forms of spirituality and religion, the Church of Christ's decentralized structure means that, sociologically speaking, it may more properly be characterized as a sect than as either a denomination or a cult.

What concerns me most is the statement "it may more properly be characterized as [anything]." I don't think such statements ordinarily have a place on Wikipedia. Far better to explain the varying points of view. I don't think Wikipedia can ever take a position on whether a group is a cult or what.

So I'm removing this because it attempts to definitively state the religion is a sect, because it attempts to definitively state that it is not a denomination, and because it attempts to definitively state that it is not a cult. This is really somebody's original research. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Link review

Do we want these links?

What shall be our criteria for including schools of preaching? Why should we include, for example, Memphis School of Preaching but not Bear Valley School of Preaching, Brown Trail School of Preaching, or Sunset International Bible Institute? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I lean against their inclusion, there are a lot of schools and I don't really know what benefit it would add to the page. If there were an article on Church of Christ schools of preaching that talked about each school and how they were different etc that would be useful, but just a straight link log of them, to me, isn't. - cohesion★talk 19:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My preference would be for a separate article as well. But, of course, I'm too busy/lazy to actually do it... ;) Jdb1972 15:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hermeneutics

I'm a little new to Wikipedia and it appears I may have made a breach of etiquette by editing before discussing the changes. If this is the case, please feel free to revert as necessary. The specific alteration I made to the hermeneutics section was to try to explain that many congregations in the CoC no longer preach the silence of Scripture or the sinfulness of instrumental worship as a doctrine, which has been my experience in both the Dallas area and here in Abilene (I'm an ACU student). Any thoughts on this? Arramol

Do you have any references as to the percentage that feel this way? The first sentence ("and still is in many of the more conservative churches") makes it seem like people practicing this belief are now a minority which I don't think is true. If that's the case it would be better if we could cite some source for the information. - cohesion^t 09:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't. I'm not sure if there are any statistics or surveys on the matter. Still, I think we ought to find a way to acknowledge that many of the congregations still holding to the name of Churches of Christ no longer preach silence of Scripture. Maybe we could list it as a source of divison? Even as we're reconciling with some of the other groups we've split with in the past, the Churches of Christ appear to be facing another serious split, and this has been one of the major dividing issues I've seen. I think you're right though. Now that I look at it again, that does seem to put the view in the minority, and I can't vouch for that. Arramol

Yeah, I didn't mean to say I don't think it should be included, I think it should, and I didn't totally dislike your wording, it just seemed like the majority were now ok with instrumental music. If no one else that watches this page has any input I'm sure you could write something along those lines that would be fine. Just a few sentences in the same place would probably be ok, or whatever you want to do :D - cohesion^t 05:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article already indicates that there are differences of oppinion on this matter ("to varying degrees," the entire second sentence of the paragraph, etc.), so it may not be necissary to note anything here. However, if you feel that a little more should be said, I think adding a short sentence at the end will suffice. Something like, "Some more liberal churches have begun to abandon the principle of silence." I don't think anything about instrumental music needs to be mentioned in that area--it was only used as an example on the principle of silence, and the article already suggests that such a view may not be held by 100% of congregations. - Lannon 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think your idea sounds good. You're probably right about the instruments as well. Any objections? I'll be leaving for a mission trip tomorrow, so I won't be able to make the change for a little over a week, which I assume is plenty of time to let any objections be posted. Arramol

Since there were no further objections raised, I've implemented Lannon's suggestion verbatim. Hopefully this will prove satisfactory. Arramol 07:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the (non-)instrumental music should be mentioned in the "principle of silence" area since this issue is not even an instance of applying (or not applying) this principle, quite the contrary: noninstrumental music (singing) is a practice based on command (the Bible commands singing) and example (we see examples of christians singing and not using instruments). Additionaly we have example of history of almost all denominations not using instruments for many centuries + some mainstream major denominations not using them even today. I submit that the command of singing as worship excludes instruments in the same way as the command to eat bread and drink fruit of the vine as the lords supper excludes eating hamburgers and drinking coke as the lord's supper. It's not that hamburgers are not mentioned (argument from silence), it's that the bread is mentioned (command and example). Note that I don't want to presuade or push the view of noninstrumentalism here, I don't argue for (or against) the soundness of the argument for (or against) instruments, I just argue that the argument is from command and example, not from silence. charon 17:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

But couldn't a similar argument be used to say that the scripture therefore by command and example bans the use of harmony of the Stamps-Baxter variety (which I am pretty sure was not a staple of 1st century Galilean musical form) or the use of a printed hymnal? Citations are needed here to see where various writers from the Church of Christ have come down in print on the question (I suspect it's a range of views.) That would make the content here truly verifiable (which is WikiPedia policy anyway) and more objectively useful. Alan Canon 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the hamburger/coke argument before, and it doesn't work. I agree that you can't call a burger and soda "the Lord's Supper", but nobody is calling the use of instruments "singing". The command to sing no more excludes playing instruments while you do it than the command to pray excludes walking while you do it. --Spiffy sperry 20:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Strong" and "Weak" arguments

The following text:

A strong argument that claims that it is false doctrine prohibited by a principle or a law of silence, and a weak argument, similar to that originally held by Alexander Campbell, that such would be materialistic or inappropriate, but not necessarily false doctrine.

just had some POV-nuking applied. I don't think it was actually POV, I just think it was using more formal definitions of "strong" and "weak". However, these are still clumsy words to use for the idea the text is presenting.

I was wondering if we could come up with the right words. I thought of "active" and "passive" but these are equally clumsy. Anyone have any better ideas? SFT | Talk 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be me. I'm no expert on the topic, but reading that sentence does sound like an opinionated piece in favor of the "strong" argument.

Better phrasing would be to either a) rephrase "strong argument" and "weak argument" using a more neutral (to a untrained layman) voice, or b) place a mini-definition in parenthesis. For example,

A strong argument (that is, an argument which [...])

...or...

An argument which [...] (in other words, a "strong argument" as defined above)

...or perhaps, never use the wording "strong argument". DavidDouthitt (Talk) 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What about something like this?

No instrumental music in services (a cappella). There are two arguments usually raised against instrumental music. The "principle of silence" argument states that since singing alone is specified when the New Testament speaks of music in worship, instrumental music is thus unauthorized and excluded; passages such as Hebrews 7:14 (cf. 8:4) are cited to demonstrate the exclusive nature of such specificity. The other argument against instruments in worship is that such would be entertainment and thus worldly and inappropriate, but not necessarily false doctrine. While Churches of Christ have historically opposed instrumental music in worship as unauthorized and sinful, more liberal congregations today take the position that it is permitted, though they may not choose to engage in it themselves.

I think the use of "weak" and "strong" were speaking of the level of opposition to IM rather than the merits of the arguments. Jdb1972 21:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've editted the section per the revision above. Jdb1972 14:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've come back to this late. Actually I was the original one who entered the "strong" and "weak" elements of the statement. Yes, they were not referring to the merits of the arguments. I don't think the changes really improved the section, but they aren't really worse either. I did think it was important to note that originally the only Restoration Movement position on IM, including Campbell was that they were materialistic. I'm not sure who was the first to propose that they were unscriptural? Maybe Elder Ben Franklin? We sometimes correctly note that it was the liberals who first introduced IM into the Restoration Movement, but we also changed from the original argument against them... and I'm just stating this as agreed but often unnoticed history, not to try to debate who is right. Carltonh 19:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit explanation

This edit [1] was done to add back the sentence on history which was removed for some reason. Also to add "may" back. While most conservative churches do feel this way this is not the sole criterion for saying a church is conservative. - cohesion^t 19:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Early April Changes

Does anyone even understand some of the changes that were made by one user this past week. "Many of these related disputes were ramified across schism boundaries in polyphyletic fashion..." What? English, please.

The last four paragraphs of the "Post 1906 schisms" section in particular strike me as POV.

And that's just what I've been able to tell changed from a cursory look. Over 100 incremental changes over a three day period plays havoc with the comparison tool.

Thoughts? Jdb1972 17:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been observing Alan Canon's edits, one by one, from the beginning and throughout. I think that the vast majority of his edits have made incredible improvements to this article, and, if he's reading, I'd like to thank him very much for his generous amount of work.

However, Jdb1972, I think that you're right. There are sections in which the language is rather hard to understand and could use some clarification. More importantly, the last part of the "Post 1906 schisms" section does seem POV. It acts as though the truth of the matter is that the churches were founded during the restoration and that it is simply in-church folklore that it is the continuation of the first-century church. I have no problem with both views (that it was founded during the first century, or that it was founded during the restoration) being in the article, but I disapprove of one being held as truth and the other as fiction. I support a rewording of this section.

I'd also like to point out that I edited Alan's edits in the "Teachings regarding gender roles" section to be less POV, in case my edit was lost in the history of so many incremental changes. -- Lannon 03:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both Jdb1972 and Lannon, for your comments. NPOV is important to me too, and there are still POV issues with several parts of the article (with several PsOV represented.) I mostly wanted to provide some organization (difficult for an article describing a religious body that has no written creed) and context: the earlier versions of the article were a bit of a hodge-podge. Let's continue to work together to improve the article. One consequence of making more article sections (which is a big part of what I did) is that there's now many more "edit" links. I figured putting things into sections (which still need a little bit of tweaking, for example, a "Worship-related practice" sub-section under "Common beliefs practices, and prohibitions" to contain the appropriate paragraphs already there) would make it easier for everybody to make edits.

As far as "English, please," I've been getting that since I was six years old :) but wiki links (and alternative terms, such as Theory of Salvation versus Sotieriology, one clarification that was part of my edits) make it easy to see what a word means: part of the genius of WikiPedia. There are a lot of different points of view represented in the Churches of Christ. This article might be one of the few places on earth where these points of view could be synthesized into something cohesive and verifiably true. I apologize for the incremental nature of the edits: I was trying to do things in a careful way that wouldn't destroy the substance of anything that was already there (except for redundancy that emerges as things are sorted so that similar things are together.) Alan Canon 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Alan, the edits you did on the section in question to remove POV were excellent, and I think it now accurately reflects the attitudes of the churches of Christ. The organization that you've done has really cleaned the place up, and I think that it will help to further progress this article. And, although the incremental edits look terrible on the history page, I think that for such an overwhelming number of changes to be made over several days, there was no better way to go about it. It made my job of watching the edits must easier because I was able to consider one at a time instead of having to systematically compare two vastly different versions of the article. Again, thank you very much for all of your hard work, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to improve this article. -- Lannon 03:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment by anonymous editor

This comment was left in the article; I've moved it here. FreplySpang (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC) The Church of Christ did not find its existence with Barton Stone nor Alexander Campbell. You must remember that the United States only began to be a nation when 'settlers' found this country. When it did become a nation, there were not many religions here at all. I'm sure the first people to settle here were from some other country who happened upon it, such as the Mongoloids, or even the Portuguese...there are the American History books that can be more specific. But, those settlers brought with them their own kind of religion. Some worshipped the Sun, the Moon or the Stars, as did the Babylonians...in any case, the Church of Christ had its beginning in the year 33 AD when Christ died on the cross to save us from the sin of death. Christ said, 'I will build MY church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'. So, He built HIS church way back then. He died on the cross and was in the grave for 3 days and rose again, and went before the Apostles and many others who had witnessed his 1st coming. They were terrified at first. But, He stayed with them for forty days and gave instructions as to how He wanted His church established and when the people saw the miracles and wonders, thousands were baptized. THAT is when the Church of Christ got it's beginnings. Along the line and as years passed, the Christians were being persecuted and had to hide to worship as they knew to do. They hid from the Roman Soldiers who persecuted or killed them if they were caught worshipping God. That was the dark ages, when the Soldiers could no longer find them as they were hiding to worship God. The church didn't cease, but had to hide to do the will of Christ. It almost had to be kept a secret for them to worship in order to save their lives. But, there were still churches even then. Alexander Campbell was a non-Church of Christ fellow, who had a one time belonged to a denomination and became dissatisified with the teachings of his church. He began studying the Bible and so did Stone. They did work together to bring BACK the teachings of the early church and the church came out of hiding. They still did not preach the whole gospel of Christ, but were closer to it than any other denomination that they could find. People then began studying and realizing that what they taught was not even close to what they had learned from thier parents and ancestors...it did become a big riff, but the church won out and souls were being saved...with the HELP of Campbell and Stone. But,they themselves DID NOT establish the Church of Christ, Christ HIMSELF did.

Link Added

I added a link to a site that examines redemptively the Churches of Christ. The site contains 10 core essays, eight of which apply broadly to Churches of Christ generally, and two of which apply to the non-insitutional group. In addition to the core essays there are numerious other supporting essays available including written debates by advocates for both viewpoints. The site is supported by current and former members of Churches of Christ. Ahnog 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, great addition! Alan Canon 18:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Same question we had with regard to Preacher's Files. Do we allow self-promotion or not? Both links should be treated the same way, IMO. If we allow one, we need to allow the other. If we disallow one, we need to disallow the other. Jdb1972 13:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the link is added for self-promotion. The link is added to offer a dissenting viewpoint. Such viewpoints are a legitimate part of the discussion and thus the article. Yes, incidently the link will serve to "promote" the dissenting viewpoint, but that is not its primary reason for being placed here. It is part of the "record" so to speak and should be included. This is especially true in view of the fact that the site includes written debates offering both viewpoints. Ahnog 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Self promotion" = the site owner posting it here. We had previously discussed such where PF was concerned (you can see above and the archives for the discussion). I don't think we ever came to much of a consensus, and the PF poster wound up dropping it. I just think whatever we decide should apply evenly to everyone. Should I post an RfC to decide this once and for all, since it looks like it comes up every few months? Or does anyone really care since we have the link policy?

Looking at the policy, though, it might need some updating, since x-COC and NICOC in particular don't fit #1. Maybe should be revised to say "all non-critical sites"? Jdb1972 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jb I think you are still missing the main point. Would an article like this be complete unless it presents dissenting viewpoints? I simply don't think that would be case. Additionally, while you may not post links to some site every word you write here as a member of the Church of Christ could be viewed as self promotion, could it not? I think a fair evaluation of the two dissenting sites posted in the links reveals that they are balanced alternative views and they should be allowed. Ahnog 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dissent or not isn't the point. The link policy seems to need updating, since the consensus was to allow critical sites and the current wording seems to disallow that. Also, the discussion of whether to allow site owners to post their links needs to come to a consensus. We just let it slide after the PFs discussion ended. I suspect that decision will be in your (and PFs') favor, but can't speak for the whole group. My position remains the same as under the PFs discussion. Jdb1972 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I have not interest in dragging on and on with this so I will make one last point and let it lay. The site I've posted is not an individual's site but a group's site--Free To Love Ministries. Yes, I'm the founder and president of the group, but we are a group of current and former members of the Church of Christ and again, I feel our viewpoint needs to be heard because we are advocating change within these Churches. But, as I said, I will not go on and on. The link is on for the moment and I will sit back and listen to the others. If the policy changes I will disagree, but if that's the group's judgment then certainly will abide by it. God bless. Ahnog 17:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the link staying, as I think some negative points of view in external sites is ok. It's somewhat troubling that the link is being added by the site's founder, but I think we can still evaluate inclusion without taking that into account. I do think the links should be described better, a section called "Former Members" might not imply that these are negative views on the Church of Christ. Also, I think a more clear description of this link in particular is warranted. Regardless of what sort of terminology you might use internally "redemptively doctrinal" is not common parlance and is extremely ambiguous. For more info, I found these links helpful Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally - cohesion^t 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded it--Present and former members speak out in favor of reform in Churches of Christ. Is that any better? Ahnog 19:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Linked Articles that Don't Exist Yet

Last updated: May 13, 2006

Here is a list of all the links to articles that don't exist yet, which identify subjects that might be considered encyclopedic from a Wikipedia point of view, and which would, if created, likely enhance the Church of Christ article:

William Kay Moser
Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand
Fellowship of Churches of Christ

Alan Canon 18:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Alan Canon 19:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There are also several on the NI churches page that could use some help, as well. I keep promising myself to stub out the articles, and things keep coming up and getting in my way. Jdb1972 13:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point...please put down the PH.D. and pick up the Bible

Why is this "encyclopedia" entry so full of division? Has anyone considered championing UNITY...the things we have in common? If I were reading this explanation of this "restoration movement" church you describe I'd say - so what, they are just one more group with one more unusual idea coming out of the 1800s. Get with it brothers! Champion our similarities so that outsiders may see the Good News and be encouraged to look into the Lord's Church further! I'd just as soon join the tooth-pulling church as to join one as divided as the Lord's Church sounds here. I'm not saying to whitewash, I'm just saying that you are missing the most important point...mysterious general doctinual UNITY exists in the brotherood although we are AUTONOMOUS.

Furthermore, don't try to be "politically correct." Our Lord didn't worry about "political correctness." Be factually correct and tell people about the Lord's Church, the Bride of Christ, as the beautiful creation it is. I appreciate being a member of the Church and want the WORLD to know that we ARE different from the WORLD for the RIGHT reasons.(and no, I am not a new convert...I was baptized into Christ on November 9, 1983 at 9:30pm). Is a discussion of the Restoration Movement of any value to the non-Christian looking for an answer in Wikipedia to what the Church of Christ is all about? No. It is completely unnecessary, confusing and in my opinion a slap in the face to Christ who truly originated Church. I am certain that it will be unnecessary for my children to even know the name of Alexander Campbell or Barton Stone to get to heaven. I am certain, however that they must know that Christ is the Head of the Church and that HE originated it.These men were were JUST men with fallable ideas and I for one identify with the Bible, not Alexander Campbell or any other "founder".I know that most of you you do as well. Consider these ideas in your rewrites to show the true origins and beauty of the timeless Church.

(Note, the preceding comment was unsigned, but was made on 02:59, 18 April 2006 by anonymous user 24.99.30.199).

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is written by, and intended for, a global audience. Opinions on Wikipedia subjects should be documented as such in accordance with the Neutral Point of View policy. Please see especially the section in the article Wikipedia:Neutral point of view entitled Religion for a specific discussion of the neutral point of view as it relates to religion. Also, you are strongly encouraged (albeit not required) to create a sign-in account and use it when making changes, and to sign your comments with four tilde (~) characters in a row (~~~~) so that users can better identify and respond to your comments.

Violations of these policies do not speak well of the person committing the violation, or the perspective or belief systems which motivate such point-of-view edits. Additionally, such edits may be quickly reverted or re-edited by persons who may or may not share your personal viewpoint. Methods to help ensure that your contributions are not quickly reverted or re-edited is to qualify such statements as being statements of opinion or belief, to provide citations verifying that such points of view do exist among advocates of the opinion or belief, and to present countervailing opinions and beliefs (with similar citations.)

Members of the various branches of the Church of Christ account for less than 0.03% of the world's total population. As a result, assertions of matters of Church of Christ doctrine as being factually and verifiably true are necessarily POV. Please come up to speed on the nature and purpose of Wikipedia before making such sweeping exhortations. Alan Canon 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV edits?

Edits on 4-17-06 and 4-18-06 by User:Aidenj and User:24.99.30.199 make sweeping changes without prior discussion, which seem to me at least to be biased toward conservative views, removing previous well-balanced presentation of views of which all members of the Church of Christ may not completely agree. However, I don't want to get into an edit war today. I will add {{POV-check}} to the article. Anyone care to review this? (also see the unsigned comments just added to the top of the Talk: page by 24.99.30.199 while I was writing this) Charm ©† 08:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reformatted this for discussion purposes. IMO, most of the changed sections should be reverted. The leading comment shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia: to be an encyclopedia describing churches of Christ, not a platform for one's own teachings (AKA NPOV). Jdb1972 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I did a revert to the 24.99.30.199 stuff, but also hand-kept two subsequent edits (to the one I reverted) because they were improvements or not as egregious as the above (see my comment in the above section.) I was a little clumsy, perhaps, so someone might check me. I'll check the User:Aidenj stuff too. (Been away for a week seeing the Yaqui native americans do Easter in their special way in Tucson, a wonderful experience!) Alan Canon 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Editing Practices? (previously: My, aren't you pompous)

I don't know who you are, but you certainly aren't properly reflecting the Church of Christ in this entry. Perhaps you should stop reading "rules of Wikipedia: and start reading the Bible again.

pom·pous (pmps) adj. 1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious: pompous officials who enjoy giving orders. 2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.

Sounds like the NPOV is only a NPOV if it is YOUR POV.

You, an unnamed person hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet, who seemingly claim to be a Christian, are not reflecting a Christian attitude in your interactions with people. A Christian approaches people with love. A Christian is patient with others and talks about their differences. A Christian does not attack other people with name calling both because it is un-Christ-like and because it accomplishes nothing.

Likewise, a Christian would be respectful enough to learn and follow the rules of the places they frequent. What gives members of the churches of Christ the right to make Wikipedia pronounce the Church of Christ as the only true church? I may believe that it is, but so does a whole lot of Catholics or Protestants or Muslims or atheists who would like to disagree with you. Would you like them to come into this article and denounce God? No? Then you must be fair-minded. You must be respectful. Win souls with love, not with hate.

A Christian would also realize that there is more history to the churches of Christ than just what happened in the first century. There have been two thousand years of history since the Church was established. This must be reflected in this article.

Think on these things the next time you are tempted to act childish at any time. Think about how your actions are reflecting on Christians worldwide. -- Lannon 04:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have responded to rudeness with rudeness. As expected, you've totally missed the point again. I called you (or whomever) pompous to prove the point after your lofty comment. A different point of view just isn't tolerated here. I made some factual statements which aren't welcomed. Looks as though you have two or three people you think are "qualified" to make changes here without your constant editing. Looking down the tip of your nose at anything else by anyone else is offensive to everyone...most just won't say it. I am glad you have found a forum for your views. I hope the world will look outside of Wikipedia for their answers. And by the way, I didn't delete anything on purpose...I used edit instead of plus and tried to post at the top rather than the bottom...then realized I was deleting instead of adding...almost lost more than you did... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.30.199 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry you feel that people were being rude to you, I'm sure that wasn't anyone's intention. I would still suggest reading our neutrality policy however, as I think it is very central to many of the other policies you will run across editing on Wikipedia. Another very important policy is verifiability, which, briefly, means information needs to be not only factual, but published by reliable sources. I think it's a mischaracterization to say that the main editors on this article are expressing their own views, they are very likely not, but expressing neutral, verifiable information instead. If you have any questions please feel free to ask. Getting consensus on a talk page (like this one) is also usually a good idea, before making major edits, especially if they may be contentious. - cohesion 05:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A different point of view just isn't tolerated here? We have nothing but different points of view among regular editors here: progressive institutional, conservative institutional, non-institutional, former ICOC, people who've left churches of Christ, etc. That's why the article has as many caveats and notes that not all churches believe/practice the same thing. No one's perspective reigns supreme here. NPOV and consensus help prevent edit wars. Jdb1972 13:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

ICOC

Should the International Churches of Christ be present on this page when given explanation considering their practices are seperate from that of the Church of Christ? Doesn't the ICOC have its own page that can give explanation to its practices/title? I'm not trying to make a big fuss, I'm just curious. Jess 17:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason as to why no one has responded to this post? jlb2043 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess with multiple interested users, there would be multiple reasons! :) Seriously, I wouldn't take it personally....there's no "cabal" conspiring to not respond to any particular comment.

My own opinion only, but since the ICOC has its historical origins as an offshoot of the Churches of Christ, it seems worthwhile to at least mention the ICOC in this article, along with the various other subgroups of Churches of Christ (non-Institutional, bread-pinchers, no-divorce-exception, closed fellowship, premillenial, etc.) Detailed information on the ICOC should probably be placed in the ICOC article on Wikipedia, but a small amount of context here enhances the Church of Christ article (in my opinion.)

I would suggest that if any of us (you, me, anyone) feel there's too much information on the ICOC in this fairly long article, that before deleting the information, we first check to make sure that the information (if accurate) is represented in the ICOC article, and secondly that we make it obvious where the reader can go to find the deleted information (i.e., at the ICOC article.) To do otherwise would probably invite a quick revert on not-badly founded grounds of vandalism by blanking.

Perhaps the criteria for ICOC info on this article should be "what is it, and why is it important to an average readers' understanding of the history and development of the Churches of Christ." Other opinions? Alan Canon 16:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the main article, that is usually how this sort of thing is done, but to restate what Alan said, it's fine if you want to trim down the information in this article, but make sure it's in the ICOC article before you delete it :D - cohesion 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your wonderful and helpful responses. I had been waiting a while on this and was concerned that no one would get to me about it. If most/some COC's do not support division of the Church, then wouldn't it be fair to not compile something about ICOC on the COC page? This was really my only reason for seperating the two, because they respectibly should be recognized as two seperate practices or religions. Some might not agree with me, and I am going to have someone else take it upon themself (for the time being) to do any editing if they feel it is necessary. I am new to wikipedia and am not familiar/capable to make such a brisk edit. So, until I am capable, I guess it is all up in the air? Once again, thanks Alan Canon and Cohesion! jlb2043 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi jlb2043, I see your point. But whether some/most CoCs claim not to support division, the facts are that this group is quite prone to dividing into factions (or spawning spin-off groups.) Church writers' pleas for "unity" don't typically mean unity in diversity, but having other groups come around to their own particularly specialized point of view. That tendency is reflected in the ICOC as well. Coupled with the fact that the ICOC was certainly spawned as an offshoot of the "mainline" Churches of Christ makes the ICOC, in my opinion, certainly worth mentioning.

If you're new, and feeling timid about making edits, read the Be bold article. You certainly don't have to ask permission on this or any other Talk page in order to make an edit (although some discussion on this page might imply that, it's not policy.) Old versions of the article are saved, so if your edit winds up unpalatable to someone, normal wikipedia policies and procedures will help consensus emerge. Don't be afraid to make improvements! If someone gets nasty or personal with you in consequence, that's their problem, not yours. Cheers, Alan Canon 16:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I guess my comment above might be taken as implying that, what I mean is more like, before you go to evolution and start reworking the whole article you probably should discuss it on the talk page. Not that you have to, and it's certainly not policy, but just from a pragmatic stance, your results will probably be better. Everything usually works out though, and of course all the old versions are saved, so there's nothing to really worry about :D - cohesion 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I made some slight changes to the content there whic I hope is acceptable. I am neutral about whether or not its on the page but thought we shold make a bit clearer that it was "fringe" group that never enjoyed widespread support. Likewise on the meeting at Abilene I noted that the representatives there were self-appointed. Would seem obvious to most of us but maybe not to a casual reader. Hope I didn't overstep. JBEvans 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Using Template:bibleverse

I changed all the external scripture references to use Template:bibleverse. I preserved whatever version was referenced in the original article text, so you have NIV and KJV occurring just where they did before. The article looks exactly the same(or should): it just uses a more compact, easier to maintain, and sophisticated mechanism to reference the Bible. Alan Canon 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The form of use of the template is {{bibleverse|optional book number say 1 for thessalonians|book|chapter:verse-range|version}}, so to reference Acts 2:38 in the KJV you'd put {{bibleverse||Acts|2:38|KJV}}. For other versions/translations use other standard abbreviations such as NIV. Abbreviations work: so I was able to hold on to David Lipscomb's use of abbreviations (Gal. for Galations, for example) without a lot of typing special link titles or violating the original text.

Pretty cool template, and viewing the source of the article that defines the template shows you how you could make similar templates (this one rewrites the source as an external link to BibleGateway, filling in the search parameters from the "arguments" you've passed in using the template.) Saves a ton of typing.Alan Canon 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That is very cool! Great find, Alan! -- Lannon 15:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It was User:Allen3 who did the first couple...I just followed his example. Allen3 came back and redid the ones I did that were of the form 1 Peter, etc. (the "numbered" books). I edited my comment above to show how to do 1 Thessalonians, etc...there's an optional argument between the || that you use for such books. Alan Canon 16:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case...that is very cool! Great find, Allen! And thanks for spiffying up the whole article with it, both of you. -- Lannon 16:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Shrill POV?

Is it just me, or is User:Preacherman 1962 engaging in some shrill POV? After seeing a number of edits, and starting to moderate/revert them, I'm not sure I'd be the best one to go back over all of them. (A lot of them are a bit close to the bone for my own, contrasting POV.) Alan Canon 22:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is a lot of POV problems with most of his edits. If you're reading this, Preacherman 1962, you might want to check out the Wikipedia neutrality policy and the verifiability policy (this seems to be the mantra of this discussion page). I'll start reverting edits tonight.

Not all of the stuff he added is POV. What about things like the addition of Bible verse citations? Should I remove those as well? -- Lannon 02:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there was alot of POV. I noticed the edits as they were happening but didn't have time to go over them in detail. Now that I have, I agree with all of the reverts and 'keeps' (good job). While I'm not sure what to do with the Bible verse citations, I was a little annoyed that some of Preacherman's edits were just changing NIV to KJV. Preacherman also needs to learn when it's appropriate to mark edits as minor, as his most certainly weren't. --Spiffy sperry 03:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be of any help to what (I believe) has become somewhat of a "bash-party" for this gentleman--but how is one able to tell where he has made edits to the page? Being new to Wikipedia limits my familiarity. Thanks.jlb2043 15:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's how, and a little "big picture" because of the power of the Wiki software's history system.

At the top of each article there's a link that reads "History." You can compare two versions of the article by clicking the radio buttons and hitting "Compare selected versions." A hard "revert" involves clicking "edit this page" while you're looking at an older version, then saving. You will be warned that you are editing an older version, and there are policies documented elsewhere on when it's appropriate to do a revert (an example is when someone has simply "blanked" the page.) If what I think is a biased point of view is introduced, it's an a priori fact that this view exists. So even if I disagree with it, it's likely that a reference to the point of view belongs in the article as content somewhere. A huge fraction of the Church of Christ article deals with point of view issues, simply because of the internal fractious nature of the movement, proof of the existence which may be found in the Religion-Churches of Christ sectin in the Yellow Pages of my home town. That's not a problem, it's a challenge for all contributors to rise to.

So I try hard not to just eliminate text that I think is not neutral, but make sure that countervailing opinions are represented, and that the contrasting framework between the two maintains a neutral point of view. If you want to see the relevant policies in action big time, as well as an example of the end state of situtations where the disputes are so severe as to make it necessary to lock a page down against excessive editing by new users, see the article (for example) on Abortion.

Unless vandalism is the reason, I usually try to work with whatever someone has added to restate it from a neutral point of view, to salvage whatever encyclopedic value might remain from the user's contribution. I have my own point of view, and I have a personal responsibility and a community obligation to all other Wikipedia readers for making sure I do not make biased edits, to admit them and correct them when I make them. This talk page is for discussing contentious edits, of course. There's a safety rule built into the wiki software that prevents more than three reverts in a day (I think.)

It's also important not to take things personally. People are facing a computer screen, not you, when they read or edit Wikipedia. I have had edits reverted many times. In too many cases, I have to say mea culpa and admit that I was taking a biased point of view. It's my personal belief (hope, anyway) that I grow as a result of such experiences. Alan Canon 18:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to personally thank Alan for all the work you do on this article :D Also, just for more info, the three revert rule isn't actually coded in the software, but it is a policy, you can read more about it here if anyone is interested. This serves mainly as a check to stop never-ending revert wars :) - cohesion 07:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to add my thanks to Alan for his work on this page. I think the revert was the proper thing to do. Ahnog 13:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Aw, shucks! If you want to see what I've been doing in related articles see Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscomb, Austin McGary. (And feel free to help!) Alan Canon 17:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Self Appointed" Edit

I feel the "self appointed" edit made by Bryant should be removed and the original edit restored. Among Churches of Christ there is no other kind of representation thus making that point here is in actually representative of Bryant's view that what they did was wrong. My two cents. Ahnog 17:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree: good point. The fact that there can be no "official" representation is covered adequately elsewhere. Alan Canon 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. If I may expand upon my reasoning. There often have been and will continue to be, those who agree to meet and discuss the brotherhood. I'll not question their motives but we know that have no such authority. Maybe the term "self-appointed" rubs some the wrong way. I am fine with finding a different term, but I think to let stand a term that implies there is a representative of the church at large is incorrect. It may be that it is discussed in the article elsewhere but still ought to be clarified here in order to make the text more precise. Ahnog, my view is irrelevant as it should be. It just so happens that this involved ICOC. Other meetings, on both sides of the spectrum have occured and if included here ought be reported the same way. One could go in a slightly different direction and ask if that original statement should be there in the first place. My thoughts. JBEvans 22:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to side with saying something other than "representatives", self-appointed does sound negative, and I would like something else, but even though the fact that they must be self-appointed may be elsewhere in the article, the concept is odd enough that I think it could be confusing for people unfamiliar with how churches of christ operate. Maybe "members", they aren't actually representatives anyway in the normal sense since they would hold no actual position, and were not chosen by any corporate group. I'd be fine with almost any re-write actually, but I think calling them representatives will confuse people regardless of what is in other parts of the article. - cohesion 00:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in that spirit can we speak of "some members" who met with the ICOC. That removes any suggestion of a perjorative and removes any suggestion of an official delegation. Good thought Cohesion. JBEvans 01:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were reaching a consensus here. Alan's term "reconciliation-minded" is at least as bad as my edit, "self-appointed" which I agreed could be changed. The new term suggests others are not reconciliation minded. What was wrong with Cohesions' suggestion about using "members." That way we drop the adjectives and cease trying to color the discussion. I think the point here is to state facts without using a POV. We could avoid alot of work here if we both agree to be simple and very neutral. Thanks. JBEvans 02:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-write Alan. I think it sounds much more neutral and is certainly acceptable as far as I am concerned. JBEvans 11:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Gender Role Sermon

User 12.129.79.192 added a lot of changes, some of which I went through because it destroyed some good formatting, added repeated text or unneccisary verse citations, and had some POV problems. I was careful to go through and retain the good content that was added.

However, one part I thought we should discuss is the additions to the Teachings regarding gender roles. It is now a veritable sermon on why the mainline churches of Christ are wrong about gender roles. If there are no objections, I would like to revert this section or at least pare it down to a reasonable level (which, I think it was before). This article can contain short details of the reasons of contention amongst churches of Christ, but should not be a sounding board to enumerate details of the disagreements with some of their particular teachings. -- Lannon 02:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It is an area of stress within the church but ought not be sermonized. JBEvans 03:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a first pass at paring it down. The ease of linking in Wikipedia means we don't have to have all this info in one place: readers can go read about Miriam, Huldah, etc., in their respective articles. Could still use some attention. Alan Canon 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've got a question for those of you who are more familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I'm going to use [edit] by 12.129.79.192 as an example for my question. We already have a section on the gender roles topic. And the VAST majority of the churches of Christ believe that only men are allowed to have positions of authority over other men. So, because there is a minority out there that doesn't believe the way the mainstream churches do, is it appropriate to go through the entire article and edit each and every male-only reference and remark that there are people who differ on whether or not this is right? Or is it sufficient that there is a section explaining the difference? I don't want to be reverting edits that should stay, but I also don't want this article to become flooded with counter-arguments on every other line. Thanks! -- Lannon 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Lannon, that we shouldn't have to point out emerging gender justice at every point. The reason for me is that it lends clutter to an already burgeoning article. Since the section on gender equality stands (and appears to be in a state of active development) I wouldn't see a problem with paring down the references elsewhere, so long as we don't go the other way and "hide" the gender issue in a place where it's truly germaine to that part of the discussion, for example in the "shared traits" paragraph of the introduction. Mentioning the gender justice issue everywhere might incite a raft of edits from those who believe the gender justice persuasion to be heresy. For me the analogy is with the historic origin debate, where some contributors stress the church's 1st century origins. In that case, having a special section on self-identification lets us treat that important issue as it deserves to be, on its own terms. So similarly perhaps with the special section on gender justice. Alan Canon 16:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I took another stab at making the gender role section less preachy (more encyclopedic.) Among the edit comments was a comment from a user who was miffed that some of the user's gender role stuff had been reverted. I think the information the anonymous user has been adding is important: it seems more so since the user seems to have some background within that part of the movement (citations, please!) I think we can go slowly and let this new important section evolve a little. The stuff in it just needs organization and documentation. Alan Canon 01:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Feeling bold, I broke Gender Justice out into its own article, and left a one-sentence reference (in its own paragraph) in its place. It's just too much for this article, which (as already pointed out) needs pruning and spawning as it is.

In retrospect, perhaps it should've gone into "Gender roles in the Church of Christ" with a Main article: link here. Or maybe not. I'll try and clean up some of my mess tomorrow. SFT | Talk 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The current version seems ok to me, except "...is being reexamined in more and more Church of Christ congregations." might be better written as "...is being reexamined in a small but increasing minority of Church of Christ congregations." This properly conveys the scope of the change at this point in church history.

Additionally, the verse citation is limited and by its sole inclusion allows the reader to perhaps believe that this is the only thing preventing women from having positions of authority over men in public in the Churches of Christ. The result is that it is easily swept aside as a culture issue, which is not the case with the Churches of Christ. And finally, a couple additional ideas to include might be these: Additional factors in the Church's views on gender roles include the fact that the only Biblical example in the NT of women instructing grown men is Priscilla in Acts 18:26 (in private), as well as the nearly universally accepted qualifications of elders and deacons being male-specific, and the example of the early church itself to which the Churches of Christ pattern themselves.

It is then appropriate to enter the discussion of our view that this doesn't limit the value or importance of women (which the article does already).

JSM2005 08:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Purported epistle

I followed the link here but I am not sure we ought to use this term. Virtually every book in the New Testament has come under criticism and some of it much stronger than that suggested against 1 Timothy. If we are going to question Bible books here we may be opening a big can of worms. I would suggest dropping the "purported" part. JBEvans 03:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think that "purported" should be dropped from the article. -- Lannon 05:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also agree, see how you like it now. Alan Canon 14:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's better Alan. Ahnog 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. I still think it's an odd and out of place phrase but I can certainly be happy with it and call it consensus. JBEvans

How 'bout now? No trace of higher criticism! :) Alan Canon 22:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Wikilinks DON'T belong in the title of an article. There are more than enough other places to link to "Christ"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.254.108.24 (talk • contribs)

Joseph Smith and Restorationism

Errr.... who added the Mormons as a "Restoration Movement" group? That's an interesting... point of view... Jdb1972 20:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that at least one of Joseph Smith's witnesses came from the Restoration Movement. However, I don't think Mormonism is a product of the Restoration Movement and I think the reference here is way out of order. And I say that as someone most would consider an iconoclastic former member of Churches of Christ. Campbell spoke out against Mormonism and wrote a lengthy expose of it. I removed the argument from the article. Ahnog 21:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This section should be re-added! Mormons are clearly a Restorationism movement group. This is well-documented (for example: http://restorationism.biography.ms/ ) and the Mormon Church itself doesn't dely it. Mormons (like the Church of Christ) also claim to be a restoration of the early church as established by Christ. This doesn't discount our faith and there is no shame in this --just as the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church (Anglican Communion) both claim consecutive Apostolic Succession. Rather than ignoring our history, we Church of Christ Christians should embrace this and use these similarities to convert Mormons! If you've read any news recently, you can see that by 2080 the Mormon Church is expected the rival Roman Catholicism in size. We need all the help we can get. Cindy 10:56 8 May EST

They aren't a (Stone-Campbell) Restoration Movement group. As Ahnog pointed out, Smith drew a couple of his early followers from the RM (Rigdon, IIRC), but that's about the extent of any overlap. Jdb1972 17:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

They, like us, are both part of the Restorationism movement. Read the article (and no, I didn't write or contribute to it). Yes, it's true that our course of Restorationism took another path (in the Stone-Campbell movement), but we are both part of the Restorationism movement. To omit this is historical fact is a shame. Thanks Cindy 3:11 8 May EST

Cindy, both group sought Restoration, that is true, but they were not connected, and they sought it on different grounds. The Mormons sought restoration through the prophecies of Joseph Smith. The Restoration Movment that led to Churches of Christ sought it upon unity in Christ first, and then later upon hyper patternism. You are essentially arguing that because both were seeking Restorationism that they arose from the same grounds, or one came from the other, and that simply is not true. Ahnog 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ahnog. I think we have some "common ground" here. You recognize that "both groups sought Restoration, that is true..." I agree with you that they both approached it from different angles. What I'd like pointed out historically, is that we are in deed a part of "restorationism" in contrast to main-line protestantism, catholicism, etc. As restorationism movements, we share some similarities. Just as non-Restorationism groups (e.g. Presbyterians, Methodists) share similarities (e.g infant baptism, worship that includes the Nicene creed, etc., etc.). Our historical similarities with other "restorationism " movements can be used to our advantage, but beyond that, we are genuinely historically linked via the same "umbrella group" movement. In other words...we are categorized historically something like this: Jesus Christ>>Restorationism>>Stone-Campbell Movement>>churches of Christ. Each level below is historically linked to the one above. The Mormons would look something like this I think: Jesus Christ>>Restorationism>>Latter Day Saint movement>>Church of Christ>>Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I hope I'm explaining this well. Thanks Cindy 4:29 8 May EST

Cindy, you are right that Mormonism has a common root to the churches of Christ. But so does every single other religion that claims to be part of Christianity. This article is about the churches of Christ. It is not about Mormonism, and to use a large amount (or practically any amount) of space in this article to compare the two is to deter this article from its intended purpose, which is to put down the facts about the churches of Christ. If we were to compare and contrast the churches of Christ with every other Christian religion, this article would consume megabytes of space and take hundreds of pages to print. I concur with Ahnog that the section he removed should remain removed.

Since this seems to be the first discussion about your edits that you're paying attention to, I think this might be a good place to point out a few things. You seem to be pretty new to Wikipedia, and whether you are aware of it or not, you have been breaking a few of the guidlines of this place. The most important is the Wikipedia Neutrality Policy which states that all articles should have a neutral point of view. For example, this edit states It's important understand that these are the doctrines and policies of men and not God., which may be true, but is not a neutral point of view, and therefore does not belong in Wikipedia.

Also, the Wikipedia Consensus guideline shows that Wikipedia is a place where we are to discuss controversial topics and not just post our own thoughts on matters. For example, there were several reverts of your gender roles changes. These were not a one-man attack on you as you seemed to think in this edit, but had been discussed in this topic on this very page. It is good to see that you are discussing these most recent edits here.

You don't seem to want to be referred to by your IP address as you indicated in this edit of my post. As the Wikipedia Etiquette page indicates, you should probably register so that you can have your own name and editing history unless you have a very good reason not to. That will keep you from linking your name to a 1978 television movie. Also, the Wikipedia Talk Page Guildlines state that one should refrain from editing other people's comments as a rule.

It is very good to see a new person on here wanting to contribute to this article. You have added some very interesting information, and I hope you will continue to do so. Just be sure to learn how this community works, what its purpose is, and keep an eye out for discussions in this article, and you could be a great contributor here. -- Lannon 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Joseph Smith "witness" with Restorationist ties was one Sidney Rigdon, who later recanted his witness, and apparently upon his deathbed recanted his recantation. Interestingly, there were some who intially claimed that the Book of Mormon was a Restorationist forgery because the practices described therein were deemed to be almost identical to the worship of Restorationists of the time. Say, can we all agree that Restorationist and Restorationism are correct, and that Restoration Movement is correct, but that Restorationist Movement is probably incorrect? It's not at all the typical usage; you'll get many more "hits" on Restoration Movement than Restorationist Movement; the latter just "sounds wrong". Rlquall 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sidney Rigdon (had) close associations with Alexander Campbell and Walter Scott, founders of the Campbellite reform. Rigdon became a popular Campbellite preacher in Western Reserve area of Ohio and led congregations in Kirtland and Mentor. Many prominent early Mormon leaders, including Parley P. Pratt, Isaac Morley and Edward Partridge were members of Rigdon's congregations prior to their conversion to Mormonism." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Rigdon. It is important to note that this article on Ridgon makes several things clear: 1) he had "close associations" with Campbell. 2) he was a Church of Christ minister 3) he had many Church of Christ congregrations in Ohio 4) he converted "hundreds" of members of the Church of Christ to the new "Church of Christ" (later re-named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Cindy

Categories: Talk archives