From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Important notice: As with any religious topic, there are many differences of opinion between editors. However, this article is intended to describe Churches of Christ from a neutral point of view. In editing, please refrain from stating doctrinal positions (such as the conviction that the Church of Christ "format" is the original, pure form of Christianity) as fact. Additionally, it is considered unproductive to simply revert the article to a previous format, as the present format of the article (whatever it may be) better reflects the consensus of the editors. Instead, try to find ways that you can make the article clearer, easier to read, and easier to understand.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Churches of Christ article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Contents 1 concern regarding re-direct/disambiguation 2 importance of factual info 3 Congregational Leadership 4 New Testament worship references 5 The title 6 Request restoration of two sections 6.1 Requested Changes 6.2 end of section 7 CoC Doctrine/history 7.1 Why Semi-protection 7.2 CoC Origins 7.3 A Suggested Alternative text for the lead paragraphs. 7.4 Category:Restoration Movement 7.5 Historical Connection to Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ 7.5.1 The case for Non-Institutional inclusion 7.5.2 Toward clarifying the purpose of the section 7.6 Disambiguation paragraph concerns 7.6.1 Can we Identify the reasons for our differences, so we can actually seek common ground? 7.6.2 The fellowships 7.6.3 How do we build consensus? 7.7 3 Sections need updating 7.8 Mark0880 7.9 Is A Capella Singing NOT important to the Churches of Christ? 7.9.1 Let's talk about it 7.9.2 Perhaps a rewrite would cover the facts in a fashion such as: 7.10 MagnumStinger's edits 7.10.1 Regarding a Neutral Point of view 7.10.2 Historical Connection to Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ 7.10.2.1 Fourth Try

[edit] concern regarding re-direct/disambiguation

why was the re-direct removed for "Church of Christ" to make this name go directly to the disambiguation page? This should be changed back because most people looking for information about "Churches of Christ" will type in "Church of Christ." This change will only confuse people. Can we change this back to the way it was ("Church of Christ" redirects to "Churches of Christ" at which point anyone can hit "disambiguation" if they wish to look at other uses for "Church of Christ")? Again, most anyone who wants info about the religious body/tradition known as Church of Christ will type in "Church of Christ" rather than "Churches of Christ." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.10.107 (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The dab-hat on this page should at least give some idea about what this article is about - that is unclear enough even without removing the note! JPD (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Added back disambiguation paragraph. Added Church of Christ/Christian Church, and Church of Christ (non-institutional) to the disambiguation paragraph. jonathon (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While it's probably true that most people who are looking for info on churches of Christ will search under "Church of Christ," the reverse is not true: It's by no means clear that most people typing in "Church of Christ" are looking for this article. For example, the United Church of Christ, International Church of Christ, "independent Churches of Christ," and Latter-day Saints (as well as Latter Day Saints) all are commonly referred to as the "Church of Christ," in my experience, and that's just the word of one Texan; even that argument involves laying aside the fact that Wikipedia is intended for worldwide use, where there exist many more usages and much less awareness of the group discussed in the present article. While the discussion may have been archived or be way back toward the top of this Talk page, there was considerable previous deliberation before this article was moved to the heading "Churches of Christ," and I support the move in conjunction with the disambiguation page.

[edit] importance of factual info

Someone added the following to this entree, and others continue to keep placing this in the entree for some reason: "Churches of Christ represent themselves as autonomous Christian congregations linked historically in America to the American Restoration Movement and are associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. Historically, they came about as part of the early 19th Century Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) split from the Presbyterian Church.."

This is false information. It's just plain wrong. Please refrain from including opinionated and erroneous info such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.242.230 (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. The most reliable sources do not confirm your interpretation of the history of the Churches of Christ. Content at Wikipedia must be backed up by reliable sources. Before editing the article again please bring at least three reliable sources that are independent of the Churches of Christ to this talk page, to back up the information. --Ichabod (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reveal what "reliable resources" you refer to. Regardless though, any source that claims Churches of Christ came out of the Presbyterian Church is ignorant of the historical and biblical reality of Churches of Christ. Let me educate you some Ichabod, in reality, all history is somewhat opinionated because it is written by people. Usually, it is at least based on facts, but not necessarily all factual. The history you wish to use for Churches of Christ is blatantly based on opinions of unlearned people regarding this religious fellowship. Please take your anomosity towards the Church of Christ some place else so that Wikipedia can grow out of the ridiculous reputation it has in academia. 65.4.68.225 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since your recent changes did not include any references, I have reverted them. Please make sure that changes are referenced to reliable sources, preferably sources independent of the church itself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--I encourage FisherQueen to apply this same standard to the article on the Roman Catholic Church as that whole article is based on biased information that has been generated by the Roman Catholic denomination. From another perspective, sources from either within or without a religious group are not necessarily factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying about the change you want to make in this article, and the sources that support it. Right now, this is the article I'm helping out with, but if you want to work on Roman Catholic Church instead, I'm sure there are experienced editors there who will be glad to help you. If you're still interested in Churches of Christ, though, this is the part where you explain what the change you want to make is, and what the independent sources are that support it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

On my side, I offer a few sources verifying my understanding of the history: that the origins of the church are in the Restoration Movement, led by Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell, both Presbyterian ministers.

• Encyclopedia Brittanica- Alexander Campbell
• Encyclopedia Brittanica- Barton Stone
• excerpt from "Biographical Sketches of Gospel Preachers" book
• West Virginia Historical Society Quarterly
• a professor at Pepperdine University -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---Stone and Campbell had roots in the Presbyterian Church, yes. These are but two individuals who became part of the Church of Christ (which had been in existence for centuries). Many people during Stone's and Campbells time (the 1800's) also joined the Church of Christ - out of many denominations. Even if one credits Stone and Campbell with starting the Church of Christ (which would be erroneous to state), to say the Church of Christ came out of the Presbyterian Church, merely because these two men had former ties with the Presbyterian Church, would be erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Paraphrasing Price Roberts Studies for New Converts pages 87-92, we have:

• James O'Kelly, Methodist, 1793, Virginia;
• Dr Abner Jones, Baptist, 1800, Connecticut;
• Barton W Stone, Presbyterian, 1801, Kentucky;
• Thomas Campbell, Presbyterian, 1807, Virginia;
• Alexander Campbell, Presbyterian, 1809,
• John Wright, Free Baptist, 1810, Indiana;

• 1793: Baltimore Conference - Christians Simply.(ex-Methodists);
• 1801: The Springfield Presbytery;
• 1808: The Christian Association of Washington,PA; (This had been a Seeder Presbyterian congregation);
• 1810: Free Baptist Church;
• 1810: The Christian Association.(ex-Presbyterians.);
• 1811: Brush Run Church;
• 1813: Association of Free Baptists;
• 1813: Redstone Baptist Association;
• 1816: Mahoning Baptist Association;
• 1832: Christian Connection. (Unification of Stone and Campbell's congregations.);

Then consider that Campbell was mending fences between the Christian Churches,and the Presbyterians, when he was still in Scotland. It looks like had the Presbyterian churches not been so intent on excommunicating those individuals/congregations, the CoC would never have happened. (And don't forget who the state church of Scotland was at that point in time.) jonathon (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To contend that "the Church of Christ" is an offshoot of the Presbyterian church simply because some members left the Presbyterian church would be to maintain that Muslim converts to Catholicism "proves" that the Roman Catholic church is an offshoot of Islam! Since this is (1) highly disputed and (2) illogical, please remove this claim so that only clear and undisputed facts remain on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.37.1 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

a) Your analogy falls apart, because your ex-Muslims did not form a new congregation. Nor did they form a new denomination;

b) In Scotland, CoC and The Church of Scotland were "talking" with each other, in an effort to join forces. Whilst ultimately unsuccessful, it none the less supports the hypothesis that CoC is an offshoot of Presbyterianism. In the US, at least two of the early churches were congregations that had been Presbyterian. Furthermore, the most important leaders of the Restoration Movement had been Presbyterians;

c) The dispute is whether CoC is an offshoot of Presbyterians, Baptists, both, or neither. The history of the Restoration Movement supports all four positions;

d) In all instances, the critical issue is that citations be provided, that substantiate what is written in the article;jonathon (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Those in the church of Christ similarly do not believe that Stone or Campbell formed a new denomination - therefore, the analogy fits. The fact that some were wanting to join with another church doesn't speak of anything wider than those two churches.

To say, "The history of the Restoration Movement supports all four positions" is to give up this position, choosing "Presbyterianism" as the one-true-answer. To say that "Some claim that the church of Christ is an offshoot of Presbyterianism, some Baptists, some both, and some neither" would be an accurate statement, and would probably not be deleted repeatedly as the other quote is. As far as a citation goes, consider this: They brought together many from Baptist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches, and other Christians across a spectrum of Evangelical and also Unitarian Christianity, at first with astounding success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism#Restoration_Movement

Obviously, some are convinced that the church of Christ is not "an offshoot of the Presbyterian church." As there is dispute over this statement, it should not be part of this entry; let's stick to documented facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.37.1 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congregational Leadership

I added a couple of sentences about leadership in the appropriate section. While I myself am a member of the Chuch of Christ, I do see how this could confuse an outsider looking at a congregation without elders.Dorkycool06 (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally okay with what you did, although I removed the part about aspiring to elder leadership. That's not necessarily true (depending on what you mean by it) and even if it is it's nearly impossible to cite.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Testament worship references

"Basis of a Cappella worship practice There is no evidence that first-century churches used instruments in worship. Furthermore, all New Testament Scripture references to worshiping God in song never mention instruments. Only the voice, heart, and spirit are mentioned in commands to worship with singing." I feel like this statement is misleading and is not based on a neutral interpretation of scripture. Ephesians 5:19 says (KJV) "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." If you look up the word "psalms" in the Strong's concordance (#5568) it states a psalm is "a sacred ode accompanied with the voice,harp or other instrument". I feel the above statment that the NT never mentions instruments stands in clear opposition to the scripture in Ephesians. With this in mind these two statements should be eliminated or at least reworded to convey that this is how the COC interprets the NT references to worship. JCrowe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamroncrojr (talk • contribs) 13:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---actually, the "psalms" mentioned in the scripture refers to the words of praise in the Psalms, not that some Psalms in the OT were accompanied by instruments. Furthermore, the passage plainly states to speak the psalms and also that the melody being made is in the heart (instruments are not included in the text). Again, as with most modern Churches of Christ and the original churches of the first century (even up to the 6th century), the worship tradition was a cappella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The title

Would there be any support for moving this article to Churches of Christ (non-instrumental)? With all the different groups that use this name, it can be a little confusing... the distinction might be helpful, and the title Churches of Christ could be turned in to a redirect to the disambiguation page Church of Christ. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--no, the article is better and more accurate the way it is. The reality is that not all Churches of Christ are "non-instrumental." Also, a cappella Churches of Christ are basically the same body as those that use instruments. Further, Churches of Christ do not even refer to themselves as "non-instrumental." When the worship tradition is used to identify a particular congregation, it is improper to refer to the church as "non-instrumental." Rather, when this distinction is used, a Church of Christ should always be referred to as "a cappella". However, this article should not be changed to "Churches of Christ (non-instrumental) or even (a cappella) for that matter, any more than a Catholic Church article should be labeled as "Roman Catholic Church (paintings)" or a Greek Orthodox article should be changed to "Greek Orthodox (icons)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.184.19 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But the text of the article currently is only about the "non-instrumental" churches. Either this should change, or the title change is a good idea, simply to make it clear that the article is not discussing other C/churches of Christ. JPD (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is only about the non-instrumental churches, and there are other articles for the other branches. They're listed in my most recent version, although this most recent edit-war has included the deletion of the branch most closely related to this one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

actually, the text of this article indicates that the Churches of Christ that use instruments are connected to the a cappella congregations. This distinction in various congregations is a preference just like in various local congregations within various church traditions some only have classical (traditional) worship songs and others have contemporary or even rock type worship music. To change the title of this article to what has been suggested shows a misunderstanding of the autonomous nature of Churches of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The simplest way to understand the theology of the dozen major strains of this denomination, is to put the most significant theological difference in parenthesis after the name. In this specific instance, Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental) is a more suitable moniker. I am deliberately ignoring both the churches that don't use instruments during a service, that are affiliated with Church of Christ (Instrumental), and churches that use an instrument, that are affiliated with Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental). Such is the complexity of CoC theology, and how affiliations are made and broken. jonathon (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This specific article is about Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental). Church of Christ (Instrumental) has a different article. Church of Christ (Non-Institutional) has its own article. I thought I had seen a Church of Christ (One Cup) article as well,but it doesn't have any of the expected names.  :( jonathon (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an existing article about the nearest relation to these churches at Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. The link to it was deleted by the anon who is making changes to the article, and I'd very much like to see it restored, but... this article really is just about the a capella churches. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your own comments betray the pointlessness of such artificial divisions, since you admit there are both As and Bs in 'A who don't B', and Bs and As in 'B who don't A'. The difference between using or not using instruments, a capellas, or music is a minor subdivision of a smaller church. Instead, this article should focus on the theological distinctions which evolved to separate this group from the previous church it split from, explained in good RS-sourced fashion. Arguing that we need essentially FOUR articles for this group based on a single distinction is absurd. We'd need Church of Christ (Instrumental), Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental), Church of Christ (Non-instrumental associated with Instrumental movement), and Church of Christ (Instrumental associated with Non-Instrumental movement). At this point, we'd be at Blue eyes, Brown eyes, Blue eyes (wearing brown contacts), and Brown eyes(wearing blue contacts). If these distinctions are too numerous for THIS article, then all dozen should be in an article Divisions within the Churches of Christ. I haven't seen any particularly strong arguments for splitting as is being proposed. ThuranX (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Using your terms, the articles are more akin to Red Eye, Black Eye, and Pink Eye, than the wearing of different coloured contact lenses.jonathon (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing an article split. What is being proposed is a more accurate title for this article. This article is about Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental). The other groups ---- Church of Christ (Instrumental), Church of Christ (One Cup), Church of Christ (Mutual Edification), Church of Christ (Non-Institutional) --- currently have their own articles, that indicates how they differ theologically from this specific splintering of the CoC. Given the fist fights, lawsuits, and violence that congregations have hurled at those who differ, calling the differences minor, is a gross understatement. The evolution of the differences can be found in former versions of this article. That material was deleted by anonymous editors who didn't like the way their specific theological ax was treated. Which is why the other articles were created. jonathon (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congregation affiliation within CoC is hard to grok. Geography, history, and theology affect how any specific congregation works with any other specific congregation. This is the subject of PhD dissertations, not Wikipedia articles. jonathon (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] I think the point about Church of Christ (One Cup) and others is important, but cuts the opposite way as you're arguing, Pseudo Daoist. Those groups you mention are subdivisions, but all fall under a single umbrella recognized by the government, religious researchers, etc.--namely "Church of Christ." That's what this article is about--it talks about what mainline churches generally do and mentions variances that may or may not deserve their own articles. As to the other groups mentioned at the very top of the article (United Church of Christ, etc.): these are considered by nearly everyone to be separate denominations that are distinguished by their different names and historical lineages.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The differences between Church of Christ (One Cup) and Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental) are on a par with the differences between UMC and AMEC. I doubt anybody ever seriously suggested that those two organizations ought to be described in one article, that also covers the umpteen other offspring of the Wesley brothers. Yet that is exactly what you are proposing here.jonathon (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the degree of difference, and I think most religious studies researchers would agree with me. A more apt comparison to what you're talking about with methodists is the difference between the Churches of Christ, Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, and International Churches of Christ. Nearly every non-wikipedia source out there classifies one-cuppers, non-institutionalists, etc. as minor subgroups within the churches of christ. For example, I have a directory on my shelf of the Churches of Christ in the United States that lists congregations what identify with these subgroups alongside the mainstream churches (it merely notes in the margin that the church is a certain type of one-cup, no sunday school, non-institutional, etc.). Likewise, nearly every study into the religious habits of Americans that's been done in the past 80 years has classified the CofC, DOC, Christian Church, and ICOC as separate denominations but does not treat those other groups as a separate fellowship. What you are proposing here goes against what's been standard practice in every arena of religious studies. --Velvet elvis81 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request restoration of two sections

{{editprotected}} Given that 24 hours have passed without our anonymous editor offering any sources in support of her view of the history of the Churches of Christ, and given that I have offered several sources in support of the version of the history which was in place before the anon made his changes, do we support restoring the versions of the introduction and the 'doctrine' section that exist in my most recent reversion? Note that I do not want a full revert, as User:Peruvianllama has made some useful changes since then that should be kept, just the restoration of the introduction section and the 'doctrine' section. Yes, I have the power to just do it myself, but since I'm already involved, I don't want to use my admin powers in support of my position in an edit-war. If we are in consensus, though, we can agree to place {{editprotected}}here and a neutral admin will carry out our desired change. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support that change. jonathon (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To simplify, could you please reproduce the exact text that you would like to insert or replace? It's not quite clear to me. Sandstein (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The next subsection Request Changes is what is being requested. I've used "nowiki" tags to display the content more legibly. I didn't reproduce the data in the infobox, as that is not being discussed here.jonathon (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Changes

<!-- EDITING COMMENT This article is about the Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental). The disambiguation paragraph reflects that as the subject of this article. -->

''The Churches of Christ discussed in this article are not part of the [[Independent_Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ]]; [[The churches of Christ %28non-institutional%29]]; the [[United Church of Christ]]; the [[Disciples of Christ]]; the [[International Churches of Christ]]; the [[Church of Christ, Scientist]] (Christian Science); [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] or any other [[:Category:Latter Day Saint denominations|denomination]] within the [[Latter Day Saint movement]]; the [[Churches of Christ in Australia]]; the [[Fellowship of Churches of Christ]] in the United Kingdom; the [[Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand]]; or the [[Philippines]]-based [[Iglesia ni Cristo]].''

{{otheruses|Church of Christ}} {{Infobox Christian denomination}}

<!-- EDITING COMMENT PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ADDING SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO THE ARTICLE INTRODUCTION. THE CHURCH'S SUPPORT FOR DOCTRINAL POSITIONS SHOULD BE PART OF THE ARTICLE ITSELF, NOT THE INTRODUCTION. THIS IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE EDITORS ON THIS POINT. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ADDING SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO THE ARTICLE INTRODUCTION. THE CHURCH'S SUPPORT FOR DOCTRINAL POSITIONS SHOULD BE PART OF THE ARTICLE ITSELF, NOT THE INTRODUCTION. THIS IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE EDITORS ON THIS POINT. -->

'''Churches of Christ''' represent themselves as [[Autonomous entity|autonomous]] [[Christian]] [[congregations]] linked historically in the U.S to the [[Restoration Movement|American Restoration Movement]] and are associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. Historically, they came about as part of the early [[19th Century]] Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) split from the [[Presbyterian Church]], as a later part of the [[Great Awakening]] movement. During the [[1800s]], these were all the same group of Churches with no distinctions. Over time, differences evolved, which gave rise to periodic splits. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) formed over certain protests over the use of creeds required by the Presbyterian Church. The leaders of the Disciples of Christ founders argued that creeds are man-made, and have no place in determining church membership or identity. Rather a belief and acceptance of [[Jesus Christ]] as Lord should be the only requirement. A division between these churches occurred on the question of church support for institutions. A further split occurred between churches that practiced and required non-instrumental [[music]] (singing only) in their congregations, and those that did not.

== Doctrine ==

Modern Churches of Christ in America, and some elsewhere, are linked to the Restoration Movement, which was a converging of several Christians across denominational lines who sought a return to original, "pre-denominational" Christianity. Like many other individuals and Christian groups throughout the history of Christianity, the Restoration Movement was an attempt to seek doctrine and practice in the Bible only rather than recognizing the decisions of councils and denominational hierarchies that had evolved since the first century.

Churches of Christ generally have these distinctive traits:

* The refusal to hold to any formalized creeds or statements of faith, in preference for the Bible itself

* Autonomous, congregational church organization without denominational oversight

* Local governance by a plurality of male [[Elder (Christianity)|elder]]s

* Baptism by immersion only (in obedience to the New Testament command/example, i.e., ''baptizo'') performed on consenting individuals (i.e., not infants) in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins

* The weekly observance of [[Eucharist|Communion]], also referred to as the Lord's Supper

* The practice of ''[[a cappella]]'' singing in worship (although some related congregations use instruments in worship, usually known as Christian Churches)

In keeping with their history, Churches of Christ claim the New Testament as their sole rule of faith and practice in deciding matters of doctrine and ecclesiastical structure. Although they view the [[Old Testament]] as divinely [[inspiration|inspired]] and historically accurate, they do not see its laws as binding under the New Covenant in Christ (unless they are repeated in the New Testament). They believe that the New Testament demonstrates how a person may become a Christian, thus a part of the universal church of Christ, and how a church should be collectively organized and carry out its scriptural purposes.

[edit] end of section

If the requested changes aren't what I think they are, edit the sub-section Requested Changes to reflect what they should be, and provide an explanation here of why those changes are correct. jonathon (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Concur. Yep, that's the sections as those who chimed in agreed they ought to be. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following quote made by 65.4.68.225 from Requested Changes:

----info in this paragraph is factually incorrect. It's ridiculous and ignorant to make this part of the article in the manner it's written here (primarily - "Historically, they came about as part of the early 19th Century Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) split from the Presbyterian Church, as a later part of the Great Awakening movement." If this is included in the article, it WILL not survive long.

It reads like it was meant to be a comment about the text, not a replacement of the text. The talk page sub-section Importance of Factual Information lists several sources, and a synopsis of why that claim is accurate.jonathon (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Anon, you are still welcome to clearly explain what you think the history of this group of churches is, and the independent sources that verify that you are correct. I explained what I thought, and shared my sources, and you could, too. If none of the sources you can find verifies your idea, are you open to the possibility that you might simply have been mistaken? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The protection for this page is expired. You can edit the page without administrator help. Please take care to work together to avoid future need for protection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This page really needs to be on permanent semi-protection. These congregations are militantly autonomous, and their beliefs/practices reflect it. To quote Alan Canon: "Congregational autonomy means that multiple, independently evolving branches of the Churches of Christ might find a new thing to argue about, and then come to the same conclusion, in isolation, while still hating other branches of the movement who happen to agree with them on some particular meme, but who are nevertheless eternally bound to Hell because of some other, unrelated, point of doctrine." jonathon (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Permanent semi-protection is needed. The comments and edits of the anonymous users above speak for themselves. --Ichabod (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CoC Doctrine/history

The problem is that the history of the church as a doctine is in conflict with the history of the church as, well, history. Which sort of puzzles me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

--of course it puzzles you. From every comment and edit you have made, it is obviuos that you do not understand the nature of the Churches of Christ. That's why you have no business making the changes you continually make FisherQueen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.184.19 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FisherQueen's point is that CoC doctrine is discongruent with both the history of the specific movement, and that of Christianity as a whole. The earliest church that might be historically connected with the doctrine of the CoC dates to the tenth century --- and that is really stretching things, making a number of theological assumptions that probably are valid (For starters, the church architecture suggests that it utilized infant baptism. And yes, I know Campbell also practiced infant baptism, but that isn't a current doctrine of any of the CoC.) If you want to claim that Parthanian Christian doctrine was the same of that of the CoC, then you need to explain why the CoC rejects the doctrines defined in the Didache. (The evidence suggests that Parthanian Christianity not only knew of, but utilized the Didache.)jonathon (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Jonathan, if you look closely at your own comments, you will see that your idea of the Church of Christ is way off base also. Campbell practicing infant baptism is irrelevant because he had nothing to do with starting the Church of Christ (he came along about 1750 years later). "Parthanian" doctrine also came later. It matters not what is in the Didache, as that was merely the commentary of humans. If you want to see the doctrine and beginning of the Church of Christ, you need only read your New Testament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought up Campbell, specifically because his change on paedobaptism is an example of how CoC doctrine and practice change to more closely conform with NT teachings. The Didache was a tract given to converts, so that they would live their life according to the teachings of Christ. even if you don't want to give it canonical status, it does indicate what first century Christian practices and doctrines were. Since Parthanian Christianity can be documented to have existed as early as 40 CE, I guess it could be described as having come later. After all, that is thirty or so years before the Gospel of John was written. As far as "to know the doctrine ... you only need to read your New Testament" goes, the plain meaning of Matthew 16:18 is that Peter was the first Bishop, and all earthly authority is descended from him. The plain meaning of Mark 2:27 is a specific commandment to worship on the Sabbath, which is the seventh day. Neither of those teachings are part of CoC doctrine, yet those are the self-evident plain meanings of those verses, by the respective organizations.jonathon (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

wrong again Jonathan. You seem to have great Roman Catholic influence in your understanding of history and scripture. Keep in mind that Roman Catholicism has only been around since circa 5th century and that they re-wrote history to fit their cult beliefs about their religious organization. An objective reading of Matthew 16:18ff would show you that the "rock" does not refer to Peter but to the statement he made that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Peter (and the rest of the Apostles for that matter), who was married by the way (can't be pope, and he would have no idea what someone meant if one could go back in time and ask him if he was the pope) were only inspired to bind and loose as God moved them. Regarding Mark 2:27, surely you don't mean what you typed. A simple "rightly dividing of the word" (reading it in its proper context) should tell you that Jesus was speaking to Jews about the Jewish practice/understanding of the Sabbath during a time when the Old Covenant was still in effect (which ended with Christ's death & resurrection). When the Church of Christ came into full existence (Acts 2 - about seven weeks after Christ resurrected), the seventh day was no longer relevant in the same sense it had been. Of course, the first day (Acts 20:7) now had the special significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.188 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is far more documentation that the Roman Catholic church has been around since AD 100, than the Church of Christ has been around since then. I'd even argue that there is far more evidence that Christianity first reached Japan before 100 AD, than there is that any organization practiced anything that can be construed as similar to current CoC theology prior to the Tenth Century. jonathon (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was using Matthew 16:18 and Mark 2:27 as examples of how that which is considered to be the plain meaning, differ radically between Christian denominations. Both organizations which use those verses as one of their key texts demonstrate why their interpretation is the best "plain understanding" of what the New Testament means. Furthermore, those verses demonstrate why you can't rely on reading the NT, to know what CoC doctrine is. (I'll also point out that there is the not so small issue of which books comprise the New Testament. Different branches of Christiandom have had/do have different books in their version of the New Testament. EpLao, 3Cor, Didache,to name just some of the books that mainstream CoC hasn't studied in their quest to know what Jesus taught.) jonathon (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why Semi-protection

Since I've semiprotected the article, I'll clearly state the problem. Although some members of the Church of Christ believe as a matter of faith that their tradition comes to them in an unbroken line from the church of the first century, the best available reliable sources say that, historically, the church arose from the Presbyterian Church during the Second Great Awakening, about two hundred years ago. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for general use, and not a statement of faith by any particular church, the facts in the article will have to be those that are best verifiable in reliable sources. I, too, have deeply held religious beliefs which I have never attempted to add to Wikipedia, because I understand that there is a difference between the articles of my faith and verifiable facts, and I respect this difference. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is a way to say "This is what can be verified historically", and "This is what CoC Doctrine teaches" within the article whilst remaining NPOV.jonathon (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be open to that, though I'd really like to have at least one reliable source that this is what the Churches of Christ are teaching. Anecdotally, in thirty years as a member of the other fork, the independent CoC, I only heard this idea maybe five times, always from members who were on the very conservative edge even of CoC teaching. I only heard it once from a preacher, and I never heard it from the pulpit. Of course I have no experience in the noninstrumentalist fork, so it's possible that things are different there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say two things: (1) This isn't the type of thing to necessarily come up very frequently in church, so a lack of hearing it many times isn't necessarily indicative of anything. (2) That said, I think this belief is probably slightly more predominant in the more conservative (as compared to the ICOC) CofC but is probably slowly dying out. Regardless, what certain ideologues have been pushing on here isn't really even an accurate distillation of mainstream CofC belief. It's not that the CofC has been around forever. It's more that throughout history there have always been a few scattered groups that were not necessarily formally aligned with or even aware of each other that held to what might be termed restorationist theology. So it's not really an "unbroken line" to the first century, but more of a "connect the dots" path.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The "connect the dots" path might be viable, if reliable independent sources can be found.For CoC doctrine/theology, that is going to be extremely difficult. :( jonathon (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but that's a problem with CoC doctrine in general (which we've discussed on here before). When there's no official statement of faith, it's very hard to cite anything.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CoC Origins

Probably the biggest point of contention in this article is the history of the Church of Christ qua doctrine.

1. Hypothesis one: CoC was founded by Jesus in AD 33, and has had an unbroken history since then;
2. Hypothesis two: CoC was founded by Jesus in AD 33, but has had a broken history since then;
3. Hypothesis three: CoC developed in the tenth century, but there is no continuity from then to till the nineteenth century;
4. Hypothesis four: CoC was a nineteenth century split from the Presbyterian Church;
5. Hypothesis five: CoC is an ecumenical movement dating from the Second Great Awakening and encompassing Presbyterians, Baptists, and others;

I have not located any sources to support hypothesis one.

Hypothesis two has been alleged by anonymous editors of this article, but no sources have been cited by them. Arguably, it is implied in Robert Price's Studies for New Converts.

I've seen hypothesis three argued on various websites, but don't have the URLs.  :( http://members.aol.com/eusebos/zpayne3/watters.htm covers some 18th century antecedents. There is a website that covers fifteenth and sixteenth century churches, but I didn't bookmark it, and can't find it now.  :(

Hypothesis four is based on the theory that if Stone and both Alexander and Thomas Campbell had not be suspended/expelled from their their respective Presbyterian synods, they would not have formed a new church. This theory ignores both Jones and Wright. The case can be made that it was a break from Baptists, because of the disfellowship with Redstone Baptist Association.

---the problem with this "hypothesis" is that is presupposes that Stone and the Campbells started the Church of Christ, which is quite incorrect. Furthermore, these Christian men did not join (nor especially form) a new church after being suspended from the Presbyterian synods. Actually, they left their Presbyterian affiliations because they could no longer consciously stay after reading the Bible's actual teachings on salvation, the church, communion, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.188 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hypothesis five is supported by the chapter The Beginning of the Restoration Movement in Studies for New Converts Robert Price: Standard Publishing: 1934: ASIN: B000881H0G. http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/who.html also supports this hypothesis. http://members.aol.com/eusebos/zpayne3/watters.htm presents a slightly different version of this hypothesis.http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/canada/index.htmlis a Canadian history that reflects this hypothesis. jonathon (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article supports your hypothesis four, and I've been sort of focused on preventing the uncited hypothesis two from becoming the content of the history section. Is hypothesis five the better-sourced history? Should that, rather than four, be the history told by this article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a toss up between hypothesis four and hypothesis five. Whilst the history of the CoC in the United Kingdom, and Europe, implies that it would have eventually become a new organization, events in the US were a catalyst on both sides of the Atlantic. jonathon (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since "hypothesis one" is apparently a predominant belief by those who are members of these churches, it should be described in the article, in addition to reliable sources supporting other history hypotheses. It seems that a continuing factor in these varying perspectives is the concept of a spiritual/universal/perpetual church, including all individuals whom God adds as Christians (Acts 2:47). What's more commonly known as the "Church of Christ", which encompasses individual congregations sharing an acknowledged common heritage and/or set of beliefs, is typically considered the only subject of the article, though Church of Christ members see the universal church as transcending individual histories. (See The Nature of the Church and outline, The Name of the Church, Church of Christism, and "Why Don't You Leave the Church of Christ?"). —Adavidb 10:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent, insightful comment. I agree with Adavidb completely.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My major/only concern here, is that the list of hypotheses constitutes Original Research. I made up that list, as a summary of the various claims put forth in this talk page, and elsewhere, on the history of the CoC.jonathon (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Any proposed content for which there is no reliable source can be properly omitted. —Adavidb 12:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

all of you are totally ignorant on this subject and have ruined this entry. The sources you use are futile. This version will greatly be changed in the future and your ignorance will be expunged. FisherQueen especially has no business writing on this entry with her ignorance and arrogance. Keep playing your games for now but all of this will be changed and guess what- there's nothing any of you can do about it :o)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.188 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have done any writing on this entry, have I? Some weeding of obvious POV, but no adding of information. Your vandalism of my userpage and your consistent refusal to explain exactly what you think should be different about the article make you an obvious vandal, not a useful editor, but some day, someone who has knowledge and sources and is willing to clearly explain him or herself will come along to help make the article better. In the meantime, we'll have to do the best we can with the sources we do have. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For that anonymous editor: Instead of claiming that FisherQueen, me, and the rest of the non-anonymous IP editors that pay attention to this article, know nothing about the subject, provide reliable sources that support your claims. Between the death of Christ, and the fall of Parthanian Christianity, the only theological stream that might show any overlap with current CoC theology is that of Parthanian Christianity. However, that overlap is, at best, speculative, requiring interpretations designed to achieve a predetermined result. Between the fall of Parthanian Christianity and the tenth century, there is nothing that is even semi-congruent with current CoC theology. Between the tenth century and the eighteenth century, there are theological streams that suggest semi-congruence with current CoC theology. From the eighteenth century, we can trace a theology that is congruent with current CoC theology. jonathon (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Suggested Alternative text for the lead paragraphs.

• I have sought to follow that Wikipedia Editing Mantra "Be Bold," in posting a suggested different approach to the lead paragraphs, which seem to have been hung up on Presbyterianism. While there is no question that the Campbells and Stone had been Presbyterian prior to the beginnings of the so called "Restoration Movement," their movement was influenced by the freedom of the American Frontier and the enlightenment. It can be documented that their approach was a break from all the denominationalism of their time.

• The passion for celebrating the kinship with every congregation since the ressurection is a priceless gift which can be part of telling the story of the Churches of Christ, even in Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) environment, if we craft it together, carefully, with "brotherly (and sisterly?) affection."

• I can document every single sentence with citations from reliable sources, but I left my reference books at the office this afternoon. It is my prayer that this fresh start can allow all interested parties to make constructive edits that actually tell the important story of the Churches of Christ. Feel free to document the facts with source references of your own. I will post my sources when I get back to the office.

• I know that each editor will see things a bit differently. That is the strength of Wikipedia! Together we can make this a great article that tells the story that should be told. Feel free to "fix" my blunders. John Park (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

At first reading, your changes work pretty well for me. I'm sure those with more knowledge will be here to offer suggestions for tweaking... I was just trying to keep the link to the Independent Churches of Christ from getting deleted, personally. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that your concerns have been addressed. The old lead paragraph had horrendous POV problems and inaccuracies that offended all who have any knowledge of the Churches of Christ. Thanks for your attempts to moderate the conversation. I hope that my suggestion can be a starting place for moving this article forward. That is my intent. John Park (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FisherQueen, it is worthy of note that the edits by 74.249.3.236 minutes ago are word for word (almost) with the March 20 version of the article. I suspect that this section that is being replaced systematically is published and probably copyrighted. A google search found a number of Wikipedia mirror sites (and a google cash of March 23) that put me onto the loop. John Park (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Restoration Movement

Could you explain why Category:Restoration Movement was removed from the article? jonathon (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I confess. I did it! You see I discovered the new play toy called "Hotcat' or something like that. and there was this new button on my screen and I ....

Then, realizing what I had done, I replaced it and apologized. but that was hours ago. John Park (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the restoration of the category, when I asked the question.jonathon (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathon, I guess I could have labeled the restoration better as a revert. But, this way you and I get to chat. My kudos to you for watching what is going on so carefully! Thanks! John Park (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Connection to Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ

"In addition to the Churches of Christ, described in this article, two other groups emerged from the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement:

       * The independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, and
       * The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)"

1. This leaves out all of the other variants of the CoC. (Non-institutional, One Cup,No Sunday School, Foot Washing, etc);
2. It also ignores organizations which merged with branches of the CoC. (United Church of Christ);

I'm wondering if it would be better rephrased as: "two other major groups emerged from the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement". OTOH, that phrasing omits non-CoC groups.jonathon (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan, The heading is "Historical Connection to Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ." I think the intent in putting the section there is to acknowledge that the Campbell-Stone Movement has three families that claim it as their beginnings. Is there a better way to phrase that lead sentence of the section to clarify that the section is about the other two families and not about the other variants of the CoC?

• I realize that parts of each family claim to be the "real" inheritors of tradition of the Campbells and Stone. NPOV requires a statement that is acceptable for all three families without lifting that dispute.
• If the purpose of the section is, in fact, to note the separations of the two families of churches who use instrumental music, then the article must identfy them.
• The legacy of the early movement to use only Biblical names, and no other, still haunts us. Stone took a gleeful delight in forcing followers of Jesus in other denominations to protest, "We are also Christians." While the CoC uses the Church of Christ almost exclusively, the Disciples still have congregations that use the name. Most used the name prior to the 1832 merger. The almost all of the Disciples congregations call themselves <Hometown> Christian Church just as the independent Christian Churches do. Most Disciples congregations may append "(Disciples of Christ)" sometimes. So if you use the title "Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" to refer to the non-Disciples churches that use instumental music, it gets extremely confusing, even for those who are part of one of the three families.
• Would there be a better heading for the whole section? Is the section needed at all, since neither are affiliated with the CoC?

I am not for dropping the two official names, especially since they are what the rest of the section is about. John Park (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What about this as an alternative first paragraph in the section?"

"In 1906, the U.S. Religious Census for the first time made a distinction between the a cappella and instrumental churches. Over the next 62 years, division grew among the instrumental churches. Two distinct groups emerged:

• The independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, and
• The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)"

Jonathan, thanks. Thoughts anyone? John Park (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd rather have it as follows:

"In 1906, the U.S. Religious Census for the first time made a distinction between the a cappella and instrumental churches. Over the next seven decades, division grew among the instrumental churches. <By 1973, three major, distinct families of churches existed:> Three major, distinct groups emerged:

1. The independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ;
2. The Church<es> of Christ Non-Instrumental(Non Institutional);
3. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ);"

jonathon (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the split between Institutional and Non-Institutional started before the Civil war. However, it only became a distinct movement in the 1940's. jonathon (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

jonathon, your suggestion is a step in the right direction. It also illustrates the problems with names that we inherited in a dispute between Alexander Campbell on one side and Thomas Campbell, Walter Scott and B.W. Stone on the other, in 1832/1833. In 1906, when the US religious census listed Churches of Christ for the first time, there was still a lot of dissention among the "Christian Churches." The two groups within them grew apart until the "independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" were identified separately from the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)in 1973. In the mean time the Non-institutional (and non instrumental, as well) group parted ways with their Churches of Christ family. You will note that I made a couple of revisions in your proposed rewording above using stikethroughs and "< additions >". I would also suggest that the order be changed to put the Churches of Christ first in the list. It is their article. -- Other thoughts?? John Park (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"In 1906, the U.S. Religious Census for the first time made a distinction between the a Capella and instrumental churches. Over the next seven decades, division grew among the instrumental churches.

1. The Church<es> of Christ A Capella;
2. The independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ;
3. Church of Christ Non Institutional;
4. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ);"

Other splits can be dealt with elsewhere.jonathon (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) jonathon (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The case for Non-Institutional inclusion

What is your reasoning in wanting to include the Non-Institutional group in a section relating to the relationship between the CoC and the independent Christian churches and the Disciples? Frankly, I had never even heard of them until I read the Wikipedia Article the other day. I grew up in the Christian Churches. When I was a child & when I was in seminary, both independent & disciples came to the same meetings. But we never heard from the CoC and their various fellowships. They had separated from the Instrumental churches long before David Lipscomb and others got the US religious census listing in 1906. If this section is about the CoC /instrumental churches relationship, then it is not clear to me that the non-institutional group belongs here. Perhaps the section should be refocused. I would really like to hear from those who are part of the CoC. I really do not have any desire to interfere in their telling their story, as long as the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is treated with the respect called for by Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and as long as the story of our common roots in the Campbells & Stone are reported factually with a NPOV. John Park (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

a) I would rename the sub-section to Historical splits.

b) Whilst the seeds of the Institutional/Non-Institutional split can be found before the Civil War, the exodus of congregations occurred after WW2. Although the majority of congregations left the A Capella branch, it had a significant impact on the way both Instrumental and A Capella congregations did mission work outside of the US. There are a smattering of other side effects, most of which are not directly attributable to that split, that are nonetheless best explained by the theological changes it wrought.jonathon (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are really three sets of splits that are germane to what are today the Acappella Churches of Christ. First, the split between what became the Disciples of Christ and everyone else, then the split between the Acappella Churches and Independents, and then not until decades later the split between "mainstream" Acappella churches and the non-institutional churches. Trying to include these in one section is liable to confuse people and result in inaccuracies. All of these can be reliably sourced from published works that I own, but I'm not likely to get around to doing so anytime soon. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toward clarifying the purpose of the section

Jonathon, you and I see the purpose of the section from radically different POVs! What an opportunity for us to think outside the box (and, hopefully involve others in the discussion.)

• If the section is about the 1906 Separation of the Churches of Christ (non Instrumental) from the churches that used intrumental music, the the CoC (non-institutional) do not belong in the section. That was a later split within the Non-instrumental family. Doesn't that deserves a new section of its own?
• If OTOH the section is about the separations from the Non-instrumental CoC, then there are two separations from the CoC Non Instrumental familly, since the later (1926/1955/1968/1971) separation of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ and the "Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" took place within the family of instrumental churches, with which the non-instrumental CoC were no longer affiliated. The (1926/1955/1968/1971) separation deserves comment in this article because of the similarities in the persectives of both the Non-instrumental CoC and the instrumental "Christian Churches and Churches of Christ"
• My preference is for the former. I think using two sections will lead to clearer writing. If I understand you, your preference is for the latter approach. I can live with that provided the text recognizes that the separation in the instrumental churches did NOT involve the non-instrumental CoC.
• Obviously, we want to find a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Thoughts? John Park (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if there is one, two, or three sections covering the splits from/within CoC.

1. Pre-1906 splits: One Cup; Mutual Edification, etc:
2. A Capella / Disciples of Christ (1906);
3. Institutional/Non Institutional (WW2 and later);
4. Disciples of Christ/Instrumental (1960-1970);

Whilst the majority of Non-Institutional churches did split from A Capella, there were some from Disciples of Christ. I'm not convinced that the Disciples of Christ/Instrumental split needs much beyond a mention with appropriate wifiying in this article.jonathon (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation paragraph concerns

[edit] Can we Identify the reasons for our differences, so we can actually seek common ground?

Is anyone tired of all the revertings in the disambiguation paragraph? The controversy seems to center around whether two particular groups are considered part of the Churches of Christ (non-instrumental), or if those who come to this page when they are really looking for the two groups in question, should have the opportunity to go on to the appropriate, desired pages. The two groups are The churches of Christ (non-institutional) and Independent_Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ. I have carefully read the articles for both these groups. Neither would presently consider themselves part of the Churches of Christ (non-instrumental), though on a number of issues, both share similar beliefs with the Churches of Christ (non-instrumental). My Questions: --1. What is the objection to including links to their articles in the disambiguation paragraph? --2. Is part of the problem a subtle inference that there are not historical connections or similarities between the three groups in question? If so, how can it be rephrased to respect the POV of the two groups in question (and keep the links) without making that inference? --3. Surely, this is not about who will outlast one another in constantly reverting, is it? -- I really would like to know the concerns. John Park (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also confused by the frequent removal of these two churches from the opening paragraph. They are not part of the noninstrumental churches, though, like the Disciples of Christ, they share a common heritage. I do not understand what the objection is to linking to the articles for the benefit of users who might be mislaid; the only reason this article was on my watchlist in the first place is that I mistook it for an article about the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, back before the disambig paragraph was put in place. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am slightly confused by the continual removal of those organizations. If I correctly understand the explanations provided here, and elsewhere on the Internet, it is an instance of the two most bitter enemies will be those who agree on everything except one minor point that everybody else considers to be so utterly trivial, that it is not worth mentioning. As such, it will end with whoever outlasts the others.jonathon (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern has nothing to do with the motivations of various editors. All editors want to improve the article. We just see it differently. The fact that we see it differently can be our greatest strength, if we can talk about those differences. Otherwise, we . . . . John Park (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The fellowships

In looking at the churches of Christ (non-institutional) and Independent_Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ articles, I noticed that they don't address the various fellowships. I know that there was an article about one, if not more of those fellowships. I don't remember what it was called.  :(

Can somebody either provide the title of those articles, or say where the various fellowships should be discussed. My thinking is that it might reduce the amount of reverting of the disambig paragraph.jonathon (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and added A Capella & Instrumental to "distinct fellowship" in the Infobox. Hopefully it will point people in the right direction, if/when the disambig paragraph is changed.jonathon (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The churches of Christ in this article are ALL non-instrumental, as far as I know. Other congregations who also use the name Church of Christ may be instrumental, but they are not part of the group of this article. There are even Disciples congregations who have used the church of Christ name since before 1832. From the standpoint of clarity, a table in the Restoration Movement Article would make sense. The non institutional (and non-instumental) group emerged from the Churches of Christ, but presently claim no affiliation. Confused yet? We need the table. I do not have time for it right now. John Park (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Non-Instrumental.My untested theory is that the constant reverting is/was because one of the anon editors thinks this article should be about one of the other fellowships. That table would be a useful addition.jonathon (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the January 2007 archives of this article? It was too long, and it was not perfect, but it was much more NPOV than it is now. It told the story well. Wouldn't it be great if those who are watching and making edits now could collaborate to make it even better than it was then? That will require communicating to get all the concerns incorporated. It remains to be seen how soon that may be possible. John Park (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.

Between http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churches_of_Christ&oldid=97557833 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churches_of_Christ&oldid=104015261 there are roughly 100 edits. Do you have a specific dates/time stamp version in mind? jonathon (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathon, I was looking toward the end of the month such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churches_of_Christ&oldid=103905843 To be sure, it not perfect and there was plenty of bias then, but it was less biased in many places than it is now. Problems then: 1. too long. 2. Too much Theological detail. 3. no more consensus than now. John Park (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of consensus has been a perennial problem with this CoC article. Article length and theological detail might be cleared up by a new article just on differences between the various fellowships. jonathon (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do we build consensus?

When you review the edit history of the past 2.5 years there have been editors who have really put heart and soul into this article. Your suggestion might be a way toward consensus, if more editors would join in the conversation. We do have a length problem again. About 8KB too long. I wonder if we might create more dialog if we started a conversation about what should stay in this article and what might be better just dropped, and what sections might be nominated for a new article along the lines you have suggested. One possibility might be to move much of the History off to the Renewal Movement Article, with a "For move detail see" link. John Park (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Renewal Movement? That article is about a political party in El Salvador. OTOH, given the history, it is not that inappropriate. jonathon (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you meant Restoration Movement, dumping most, if not all of the history there, should make it more NPOV.jonathon (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathon, I just reread this entire section. Can you tell me more about the details of the fellowships? Is there any book that has that detail, so that we might cite sources? I know very little about the Churches of Christ after 1906. John Park (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find reliable sources about the various fellowships. I don't want to cite "Somewhere Christian Church", as a source about "Church of Christ (Foot Washing)". Restoration Quarterly has some pointers in that direction.Mission Messenger(?I may have the title wrong, I abbreviated it as "MM".) has a couple of articles on those differences. The other thing I ran into, is a church that experiments with something. EG: The COC congregation that used the Revised Common Lectionary. "Mission Messenger" is especially prone to publishing that type of experiment. jonathon (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Sections need updating

I have researched information on 3 sections; acapella worship, salvation, and other theological tendencies. I am using excellent citations. Please let me know what I can do to work this information into the page. Thank you!! Mark0880 (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NON-INSTRUMENTAL WORSHIP There is no Scriptural or historical evidence that first century churches used instruments in worship (compare all New Testament worship passages examples). In fact, neither did the observant Synagogues use instruments. Nowhere in the OT is it found that God authorized the mechanical instrument in worship. The first mention of a mechanical instrument is in I Chronicles 15, which is 450 years after the Law was given. David introduced the instrument, not God. The first Mechanical instrument of music is thought to have been introduced into the denominational world about 600-1000 AD within the Romish church (Catholicism). This was in the form of a Primitive Organ. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Published 1911, and Wooldridge, The Oxford History of Music, II (1905), and www.newadvent.org. Furthermore, all New Testament Scripture references to worshiping God in song never mention instruments. Only the voice, heart, and spirit are mentioned in commands to worship by singing (Colossians 3:16). Therefore, churches of Christ have historically continued the practice of a cappella music in worship from 33 AD to the present day (See first Christian sermon in Acts 2:38). See also: “In the Greek church the organ never came into use, but after the eighth century it became common in the Latin church, not however, with out opposition from the side of the Monks” The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol, II, page 1702. Or, “Pope Vitilian is related to have introduced organs into some to the churches Southern Europe first about A.D. 670 but the only trustworthy account is that of the one sent as a present by the Greek Emperor, Constantine Copronymus, to Pepin, king of the Franks in 775”. The American Encyclopedia: Vol. 12, page 688. Some try to justify the use of a mechanical instrument in worship by the faulty logic such as, “The Bible does not say not to use it”. A careful study of the Word finds that very early God commanded us, through the inspired penmen, that we must be content to direct our lives by the positive instructions of His Word. See Deuteronomy 4.2: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandment of the Lord you God which I command you.” This admonition is repeated continually throughout the entire Bible, stem to stern.

SALVATION Churches of Christ teach What Messiah taught, that humans (of accountable age) are lost in sin (but not born sinful cf Ez 18:4-22, Matthew 19:14)(Romans 3:23) and can be redeemed because Jesus Christ, the Son of God, offered Himself as the atoning sacrifice (Romans 6:23).

The main difference between churches of Christ and all other churches is what is taught concerning salvation. Churches of Christ hold to Messiah's teaching that salvation begins when one obeys God's commands. From the beginning, the Bible teaches that those who do what God commands will be saved from their sins. Here are the steps to salvation; paraphrased. Note that there are 8 examples of salvation in the book of Acts. Each example is exactly the same. These examples are excellent reference guides to how the first church operated in mode and method. The church of Christ teaches this same pattern is as valid today as it was in the first century. Here is the patteren:

1. One must be properly taught, and hear (Rm 10:17, Matt. 7:24),
2. One must believe-and build faith(Heb 11:16, Mk 16:15-16),
3. One must repent, which means turning from one's former life style and choosing God's ways (Acts 2:38, 17:30, Luke 13:3),
4. One must confess (Matthew 10:32-33, Acts 8:36-37),
5. One must be baptized (Acts 2:38, IPet 3:20-21, Romans 6:3-5) Also Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and Rev 22:14.
6. One must remain faithful unto death (Rev. 2:10)

This stands in stark contrast to the denominations, who place salvation at the moment of "acceptance of Christ," reciting a "sinner's prayer", or "asking Jesus into one's heart." Baptism is taught to be an outward sign of an inward change. Baptism in churches of Christ is performed only by bodily immersion because the New Testament Greek term baptizo always means "to immerse." Only those mentally capable of belief and repentance are baptized (i.e., infant baptism is not practiced because there is no example of such). See Ez 18:20.Due to their views on the relationship of baptism to salvation, the churches of Christ are sometimes regarded as holding to baptismal regeneration, which means that only Baptism saves the individual. This is a misconception. The church teaches that one must contact the Blood of Christ that washes away our sins. (See Rev. 1:5b KJV) The Gift of the Holy Spirit is given at Baptism (Acts 2:38), and does dwell bodily, in the saved individual. In Restoration theology, the agency of the Holy Spirit in salvation is viewed strictly in His inspiration of the Scriptures which teach men what God has done and what they must do in order for salvation to occur. If one is saved, and does not continue in study of the Scriptures, then the Holy Spirt's action on the individual cannot be fully effective. (See the examples of the early church in Acts) Therefore, baptism in the churches of Christ is taught as obedience towards God and absolutely necessary (preceded by hearing, believing, confessing and repenting) which results in forgiveness of sins past and future, and places the individual in a position to further obey God's commands, which if he faithfully performs till his death he will be granted entrance into heaven and thus saved.

Other Theological Tendencies The concepts of Original Sin, total depravity, predestination, etc. are rejected as doctrinal innovations that are not based on Scripture. Election and predestination are regarded as functions of the exercise of free will (i.e., God has chosen and wishes for all to be saved but only those who choose to believe and submit to Him will be). Those who choose God's way through Christ are elect and therefore saved while those who reject Christ are lost in sin. The doctrine of "once saved always saved" is also rejected. Generally understood in churches of Christ is that a Christian can consciously decide to cease following Christ and thus lose salvation, or "fall from grace" (2 Peter 2:20-22), as did Demas in the New Testament, for example. Regarding eschatology (a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind [Meriam Webster]), churches of Christ are generally amillennial. They teach that the book of Revelation was written for the seven churches mentioned, to warn them of persecution That would "shortly come to pass" (Rev 1:1, 22:10). The beast of Revelation is taught to be the Roman Emperor Domitian, circa AD 96, who reigned at the time the letter of "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" to John the Apostle was given to the existing churches. Domitian was the most deadly emperor to the early Christians; he carried out the most torturous persecution compared to the other emperors who persecuted the early church. Today's churches note that if a letter was given to the church in AD 96, but had no significance to the members of the congregations of the day, and had to "come to pass" hundreds or even thousands of years later, the letter would be useless to the early church who had read on the first page that this would "shortly come to pass." Another reason why the church teaches Amillennialism is because there is no mention of a 1000 year reign on earth in Revelations. This passage has a different meaning in its own context.

[edit] Mark0880

Mark, the pages you edit need to be neutral and unbiased; encyclopedia not argument. Ive edited many of the changes you made because of the biased content. Its not that you arent adding promising content, its just that you are adding it in such a way that clearly shows your bias. Here is more info on what to keep in mind when editing [1]. Epecho (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is A Capella Singing NOT important to the Churches of Christ?

[edit] Let's talk about it

ThuranX, can you explain to us how mentioning the A Cappella music of a movement that developed around the principle of not using Musical instruments does not belong in the lead section of the article? Do you really believe your note: "revert. That's a minor point , as per the talk page, and not the lead?" To me, it seems central to the identity of the movement, which is NOT a minor point. Did I miss some conversation on the talk page? John Park (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Along these lines, I'm not sure why an "Instrumental" fellowship was added in the Infobox, given that the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ linked to it have long been noted at the top of the article as not associated (despite some shared historical roots). The divide over the use of instruments in worship is significant, and not one across which there is any known documented "fellowship" among this article's Churches of Christ. If all the other (associated) fellowships are A Cappella, as I understand to be the case, perhaps it would be appropriate to label the majority fellowship as "Mainstream" rather than A Cappella. There are currently about 1400 search results for "mainstream Churches of Christ" via Google. —Adavidb 05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "mainline Churches of Christ" results in about 2000 search results, though some such usage delineates Churches of Christ from the similarly named though not associated churches. —Adavidb 05:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Adavidb, you might want to converse with .jonathon (talk)about those issues. jonathon has some trouble distinguishing (1)The Churches of Christ, (2) the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, and (3) The churches of Christ (non-institutional). The first two are not the same. I am not sure where the third fits in, though it seems to be a branch of the Non-instrumental group that have disassociated themselves. John Park (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The presence/absence of a musical instrument is extremely significant to the A Capella congregations. It is not nearly as significant for the Instrumental congregations. Take the instrument out of their theology, and you will mistake an A Capella congregation for an Instrumental one, and vice versa.jonathon

The Institutional/Non-Institutional split had far more theological ramifications. Furthermore, most of the other distinct fellowships are far closer theologically to the Non-Institutional congregations, than to the Institutional congregations.jonathon (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm dropping this article from my watchlist. The POV pushing on here's insanely high ,the entire article reads like crap, and I got tired of fighting it almost immediately after reading the AN/I threads about it. There are too many religious zealots on this page, all insistent that the religion's existed since jesus, and teh catholic church must've hid it in a root cellar for censutires, and so on. Dogma won over fact here long ago, and i'm done. ThuranX (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, ThuranX. I've lost track the number of times I've reverted POV edits in this article. Many editors have lost sight that we are trying to build an encyclopedic article...that is based on proven fact....and not a pamphlet used for converting readers to the movement. I'm glad someone is/was trying to keep this article in check from POV edits. Sorry to see you go.

While A Capella music may be an identifying factor to Churches of Christ, it shouldn't necessarily be the second thing mentioned in the introductory paragraph. The introductory section is already too long. Being A Capella is already mentioned later on in the article, so mentioning it initially is redundant. You don't hear members of Churches of Christ saying to potential members "Come visit us, we're A Capella." While it might have played a role in historic separations in the past, it shouldn't be a central theme in the movement. --Ichabod (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether the issue "should" or "shouldn't" be a central theme is not the question, The question is, "Is it?" I have cited two historical sources (below). Here is the link to Churches of Christ online that deals with it. (BTW their website is a promotional brochure, but is more NPOV than Wikipedia at this moment.) Where is your documentation that would suggest that A Capella singing should NOT be in the lead Section? I agree that it is too long and that there may be good reasons not to put music in the lead. Convince me! John Park (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at more than dozen A Capella CoC websites, I'd suggest that you do find them saying "Come worship with us. We are A Capella". Whilst it isn't plastered on their front page, it is found within their site. OTOH, most of the Non-Institutional Congregations also have statements to that effect in their website.jonathon (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps a rewrite would cover the facts in a fashion such as:

Historically, Churches of Christ in the United States had its roots in the Second Great Awakening under the leadership of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and Barton W. Stone. Those leaders had declared their independence from their Presbyterian roots, seeking a fresh start to restore the New Testament church, abandoning man made creeds and interpretations.^{[1] [2]}

When the Churches of Christ were first recognized by the U.S. Religious census of 1906 as a movement distinct from other churches of the Stone-Campbell movement, the two distinguishing issues were:

• rejection of instrumental music in worship and
• the rejection of missionary societies.^{[3] [4]}

John Park (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

==== notes ====

1. ^ The Last Will and Testament of The Springfield Presbytery
2. ^ Campbell, Thomas. (1809). The Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington
3. ^ Murch (1962) Page 218
4. ^ McAlister & Tucker (1975). Page 251

John Park (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

==== References ====

• McAlister, Lester G. and Tucker, William E. (1975), Journey in Faith: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) - St. Louis, Chalice Press, ISBN 9780827217034
• Murch, James DeForest (1962). Christians Only, A history of the Restoration Movement. Cincinatti: The Standard Publishing Company. 

John Park (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

=== end of suggestion === John Park (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MagnumStinger's edits

MagnumStinger made a whole ton of edits and they were reverted because it was too much all at once w/o talking about it first. However, I think we should give his changes some consideration--some of them were good and trimmed a lot of unnecessary fat from what's starting to become an overblown article again.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

====I'd like to encourage you to accept the changes I made. I think the way this article was written has a lot of unnecessary (and even inaccurate or opinionated) information. One noticeable problem is referring to this body as "non-instrumental." While "a cappella" music is obviously a distinctive in many (not all) of these churches, the proper way to identify this is with the term "a cappella" rather than "non-instrumental" as this highlights what the churches are rather than what they are not.

An encyclopedic article should mainly provide an interested party with information that explains what the entity (in this case church/religious body) does, believes, practices. History is also somewhat important and in the case of Churches of Christ, there is a history of faith dating back to Christ and the Apostles, as well as a more recent historical phenomenon (the Restoration Movement) which resulted in several Churches of Christ in America. Much of what is in the current version is a bit opinionated and in some other cases in the current article there is overkill that really goes beyond the scope of what an article like this should have (e.g., boxes with info about elders & deacons, all the detail about interpretive approaches to scripture). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnumStinger (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of the subject editing was helpful, though hold to the need for discussion here before making so many changes at once.

The term "non-instrumental" was probably used by an editor here since "non-institutional" refers to another distinct fellowship; I concur with using "a cappella" instead to define the type of worship. Regarding "not all", are there any citable cases of instrumental use in worship by Churches of Christ that are not part of the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, noted at the top of the article as being separate? This ties in with the not-quite-resolved issue above about using "mainstream" or "mainline" to refer to the majority fellowship.

MagnumStinger's second paragraph is mostly generic. If reliable sources are cited, as appropriate and in association with the "five pillars"; and other-than-minor updates are discussed here individually and approved here by a clear majority of multiple editors; then I'm all for such article improvements.—Adavidb 05:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also an over-statement to make a clear distinction between "a cappella" Churches of Christ and "instrumental" Churches of Christ/Christian Churches. Most in these churches see the two as basically the same and, while there should be an article about both, it's not necessary to claim that a Church of Christ need to use instruments to be aligned with instrumental Christian Churches. The reality is that most "a cappella" churches wish to be "a cappella" but view the churches with instruments as the same church movement. Also, there are churches that sing a cappella and also implement instruments in some worship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.81.37 (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is with good practice. There is a vast difference between "a cappella" and "instrumental", that difference being that one uses instruments and the other doesn't. I'd venture to say that that is a pretty big difference. Jlrich (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

But, the reality is that there are "a cappella" churches that have no issue with instruments, and some that actually use instruments at times. Plus, there are Christian Churches who, although have a stronger connection with the "instrumental" churches, do not even use instruments themselves. While the difference should be noted, it should definately be shown that these are basically the same church movement/fellowship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.81.37 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the churches who use the instrument at any time would be classed, by the mainline, as "instrumental." I agree with Jlrich that it is a big deal. -JodyB _talk 12:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, How many churches are there among the independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ who feel no connection with the Churches of Christ of this article? Doesn't a neutral point of view (NPOV) require respecting their perspective? Is there a published source that deals with these issues, or are we engaging in a conversation that will ultimately violate the Wikipedia standard of "no original research?" How do those sources, if they exist, handle the reconvergence of many congregations around the issues of Instrumental music? That reconvergence IS an important concept for this article. John Park (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1. This gets back to "What is this article about?" Is it about the Churches of Christ, and all of their different fellowships, splits, and the like, or is it only about the Non-Instrumental group? Thus far, the article has attempted to describe only the Non-Instrumental branch, with pointers to the other fellowships, etc;
2. If this article is about all of the various fellowships, etc. then what happens to the articles on the other fellowships? Non-Institutional, One-Cup, etc?jonathon (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Instrumental Congregations are a split from the Disciples of Christ, not the Non-Instrumental Congregations. That said, some congregations wandered from Non-Institutional to Disciples of Christ, to Instrumental, then back to the Non-Institutional camp. Theologically, they didn't change much during their century of wandering.jonathon (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that. In recent times (last 50 years) the instrumental congregations were part of the mainline COC and have often tried to rejoin DOC through various meetings and such. -JodyB _talk 11:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Disciples of Christ/Instrumental split occurred between the mid-sixties and mid-eighties. Some congregations rejected formal affiliation with DoC, but maintained an ecumenical relationship with DoC. I think some formally joined (?rejoined) DOC. jonathon (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jonathan, the separation of the CC(DOC) and the independent Christian Churches began prior to the 1849 National Convention in Cincinatti. At issue was whether it was Biblically acceptable to have Missionary Societies. Following the Civil War, the issue of the role of (and use of) the German Bible Study techniques of Textual and Historical analysis soon became an even more divisive issue. The division was still present within the instrumental Churches during and after the separation from the Non-instrumental was formalized in 1906. By the mid 1950's the independent Christian churches were publishing a directory of their own. Their formal withdrawal from the Yearbook and directory of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) became an issue with the adoption of the CC(DOC) Provisional Design in 1968. The "independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" were recognized in the national listings of religious movements in the US in 1973. There has been limited movement back and forth between the instrumental churches since that time. There are still congregations listed with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) who are actually independent Christian churches who have never requested removal from the Yearbook. This Article is NOT about these two groups, however. They have not been affiliated with the group that IS the subject of this article since 1906. (See the agreement among editors, below)John Park (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding a Neutral Point of view

MagnumStinger, You are right that there is a lot of opinionated stuff in the current version of the article. In my opinion(IMO), neither your edits nor the current version of the article accurately describe the movement in a neutral way that a reader of an encyclopedia really ought to expect. The only reason this article is only on my watch list is because I am concerned that information regarding the Stone-Campbell movemnt and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) be factually accurate and NPOV. The CC(DOC) has not been affiliated with the Churches of Christ for over a century. It has chosen a different path. What are you objections to the treatment of those two areas in the "History in America" section as they are now addressed in the article? IMO, there are a few factual errors in that section that need to be cleaned up. And the writing is very poor, but the current section seems much more NPOV than your proposal. I hesitate to waste my time attempting to improve it up as long as there are those who arbitrarily revert it to something else. So, what are your concerns and how do we fix them? John Park (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the info on the DOC is far too much information on that body since the article is about Churches of Christ. That section is only intended to state the historical reality of the DOC having a historical connection with Churches of Christ, as it is a denomination with roots in the Restoration Movement before its breakaway. To give that much info is overkill for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnumStinger (talk • contribs) 03:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur, DOC should really only be mentioned in passing from a historical perspective. -JodyB _talk 11:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I also concur. I will attempt to write a trial paragraph sentence later today. John Park (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Concurrence here too. —Adavidb 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

==== A Draft proposal for revising the Section -- What do you think of this rewrite? Do we need the heading "historical connection . . .?" Wouldn't it be just as well to let in sink into the rest of the section?

[edit] Historical Connection to Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ

In 1906, for the first time, the U.S. Religious Census reported two separate groups of churches of the Stone-Campbell movement: Churches of Christ a cappella and Disciples of Christ which used instrumental music in worship. The division had actually begun prior to the Civil War and grew deeper in the years that followed. ^[1] Among the instrumental churches there were still differences regarding missionary societies, conventions and methods of understanding the Bible. Those differences led to two groups of churches that used instrumental music: The independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, and The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

==== End of Proposal John Park (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

====I recommend the following for "Historical Connection..." (which is basically the same as what is currently in the article with a few subtractions"

In addition to the Churches of Christ, described in this article, two other groups emerged from the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement:

       * Christian Churches/Churches of Christ (instrumental), and
       * Disciples of Christ

Churches of Christ and Christian Churches are very similar (the primary difference being a cappella worship in Churches of Christ) and, depending on the ideals and personality of each local congregation, maintain communication and fellowship.

During the first hundred years of the Restoration Movement, all three of these titles were commonly used for congregations. As interpretations, convictions, and preferences regarding a cappella and instrumental music distinguished congregations, the a cappella churches typically used "Church of Christ" to identify themselves while instrumental churches used "Disciples of Christ" or "Christian Church" as designations. In 1906, the U.S. Census for the first time made a distinction of two groups between the a cappella and instrumental churches; this was also the result of other issues related to the Civil War.[6]

As the 20th century progressed, differences of ideology developed within the instrumental churches as part of that fellowship wished to hold to the ideals of the Restoration Movement, namely non-denominational and autonomous church government and conservative adherence to the Scriptures. Others moved in more of a liberal direction, taking on philosophies and ideals of Protestant theology. This resulted in the organized denomination now known as "Disciples of Christ." Thus, today there are basically three church traditions with roots in the Restoration Movement - Churches of Christ, Christian Churches (also known as "instrumental" Churches of Christ), and the Disciples of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.228 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My issue with both proposals is that the Non-Institutional congregations are ignored.jonathon (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, jonathon, I cannot help you with the Non-institutional group. I do not know anything about them. You might want to draft a paragraph yourself. Because they came from the A capella (non-instrumental) side of the 1906 separation, shouldn't their issues be treated in their own paragraph anyway? John Park (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous 74.249.12.228, thanks for your suggestion. My proposal seeks to simplify the section as agreed among several editors and minimize the coverage of the instrumental churches of the Campbell-Stone movement in this article. I have no doubt that my proposal may not be totally neutral in point of view. That is where collaboration comes in to clean it up. It is not clear what your objection is to that proposal. I would like to hear your concerns? John Park (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Try

Subheading is the renamed title:

~!~ Start of proposed text ~!~

Historical Connections

For more information see Restoration Movement.

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, Liberty.

With that rallying cry, congregations have affiliated and dis-affialiated with each other since 1849. The theological issue is what constitutes an "essential" belief, doctrine, or practice.

• The first major split was about whether any formal organization of congregations jeopardized the autonomy of the individual congregation. This split led to the first wave of The churches of Christ (non-institutional) congregations. This occurred between roughly 1849 and 1865.
• The second major split was about the legitimacy of using a musical instrument. In 1906, the U.S. Religious Census reported two separate groups of churches of the Stone-Campbell movement: Churches of Christ A Capella and Disciples of Christ which used instrumental music in worship.
• During, and after World War Two, the second wave of The churches of Christ (non-institutional) congregations appeared. The majority of these congregations split from the A Capella branch. The major dispute was whether or not parachurch organizations should be funded by individuals, or congregations.
• In 1973, the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ were recognized in the national listings of religious movements in the US. The majority of these congregations split from the Disciples of Christ. The major issue was the proposed Provisional Design of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

Due to congregational autonomy, an individual congregation can retain affiliation, despite disagreeing with one, or more tenants. More commonly, the congregation will disaffiliate itself, seeking similar minded congregations.

~!~ end of proposed text ~!~

jonathon (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

jonathan, what are the sources of your information? 1. I know of no reliable source that suggests any split while Alexander Campbell was alive. He died in 1866. 2. I personally do not know anything about The churches of Christ (non-institutional) other than their Wikipedia Article. 3. The phrase "split from" is too POV. Everyone thinks the others split from them. The reality is that we are divided. 4. The separation of the Independent Christian churches and CC(DOC) was NOT caused by the adoption of the provisional design. It began with the establishment of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849. It continued as the two groups began looking at the Bible through different lenses between 1866 and 1920. It grew deeper as the group that became the CC(DOC) moved into ecumenical activities. It had personality based rifts. (BTW, My Dad and Grandad were on opposite sides of the divide.) After the adoption of the provisional design, there was a clear method for the two groups to make formal the separation that had already been happening. It was the "line in the sand" but not the cause of the separation of the two groups. Again, this is NOT the subject of this article. The Churches of Christ (A Capella) is what the article is about. Do you have sources that I do not know about? John Park (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

a) I may have the date of that first wave wrong. That separation is described in an article I read on one of the Restoration Movement websites that has archived roughly 100 years of publications by individuals and organizations related to the Non-Institutional branch. It does need a complete citation to be put into the article --- and not only because it is a surprising claim, but runs counter to the history that the other groups know about.(One of the points that website made, was that the other groups know nothing of this history, because these congregations were far more autonomous than the run of the mill Restoration Movement church is/was);

b)"Split from" is a loaded phrase. I'm not sure a better phrase would be.:(

c) I realize that the Instrumental/Disciples of Christ split had its roots in events that started before The War of Northern Aggression. The provisional design was merely the means for the congregations that separated from the DoC between the sixties and eighties. I was condensing what you wrote in your paragraph, into two lines. Please rewrite it in two or three lines;

d) The Non-Institutional branch was a dividing of the A Capella branch;

e) I know this article is about the A Capella branch. The only part of the article that should mention DoC, Non-Institutional, and Instrumental branches is this one sub-section;

f) What I am trying to do, is provide bullet points listing who, when, and why the congregations separated from each other, with a link to the article about the other organization;jonathon (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying this out:

~!~ Start of proposed text ~!~

Historical Connections

For more information see Restoration Movement.

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, Liberty.

With that rallying cry, congregations have affiliated and dis-affialiated with each other since 1849. The theological issue is what constitutes an "essential" belief, doctrine, or practice.

• Beginning in 1849, the major issue was about whether any formal organization of congregations jeopardized the autonomy of the individual congregation. The congregations that separated out would later be considered to be within The churches of Christ (non-institutional)branch;
• In 1906, the U.S. Religious Census reported two separate groups of churches of the Stone-Campbell movement: Churches of Christ A Capella and Disciples of Christ which used instrumental music in worship;
• During, and after World War Two, the second wave of The churches of Christ (non-institutional) congregations appeared. The major issue was whether or not parachurch organizations should be funded by individuals, or congregations;
• In 1973, the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ were recognized in the national listings of religious movements in the US. These churches emphasized congregational autonomy, rather than Protestant Theology ecumenicalism;

Due to congregational autonomy, an individual congregation can retain affiliation, despite disagreeing with one, or more tenants. More commonly, the congregation will disaffiliate itself, seeking similar minded congregations.

~!~ end of proposed text ~!~

all of these proposals make this article much more complicated than need-be. Plus, they take the focus off of what the Churches of Christ are about. It is totally not necessary to go into the minute disagreements, decisions, and historical happenings that have occurred with this religious body in recent decades/centuries. It would actually be better to delete the section "Historical Connection to Christians Churches and Disciples of Christ" than to go into all of these opinionated matters of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnumStinger (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

MagnumStinger (talk), I totally agree! My 5 line condensation does not seem to have helped. Cleaning up POV issues in the longer suggestions wastes the time of all editors. I vote for dumping the whole section. I will be interested to see what others think. John Park (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean a line See Restoration Movement for the history? If so, that is the the easiest solution. jonathon (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too bold, but I deleted the /* Historical Connection to Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ */ section, leaving the note that refers to the discussion in the article on the Restoration Movement. jonathon (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)