Talk:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Should the article be split?
This article is unique in the fact that it talks about a denomination (the DoC), that has history with several other "denominations," Church of Christ, Independent Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, and many others along the way. This section is misleading in that it says it's early history is shared with these other "denominations" yet it was not until the late 1960's early 1970's that the DoC was an official denomination in and of its self. The Restoration Movement has it's own article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement As does Churches of Christ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ I recommend that we divide the article into that of History and the present, recognising the fact that the Disciples of Christ was a name that applies to both the joint venture with the Independent Christian Church as well as a current denomination. If we leave the articles together, there should be more recognition of the shared history, instead of an expansive view over the early restoration movement (Founding through 1920's) and just one paragraph mentions the split of CC (DoC) and Independent Christian Churches/Church of Christ 75.109.203.138 (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * User:75.109.203.138, thanks for raising your concerns on the talk page. I am not sure that I fully understand your concern, however.  Can you help me understand?  This article is one of a family of articles on groups that are part of the Stone/ Campbell movement including Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), The Restoration Movement, and several others representing other groups, with some degree of relationship to the movement. Since all those articles already exist, do you think dividing this article again will help?  Please take a minute and scroll down to the Navigation box for the Restoration movement and take a look at the scope of articles already in progress.


 * The specific section you cite: Christian_Church_(Disciples_of_Christ) does not use the word "denomination" because of the history of the movement which specifically objected to the term. Of all the modern descendants, only the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is comfortable with the use of the word.  The very section you cite also links to the articles of the other groups.


 * At this very moment, there is an editor working to expand and improve the Restoration Movement Article. (See this conversation: Talk:Restoration_Movement) It is very likely that those revisions will lead to a simplification of the history section of the CC(DOC) article -- and address your concern for the common history.
 * How would you add that the broader recognition, which you are suggesting, into the section? John Park (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My previous post was written in some rush, I think a portal for the Restoration movement, following the Baptist model to an extent , could be helpful. As well expanding the "restructure" section, at the very least linking to the time line in the Independent Christian Church article. The expansion and improvement of the restoration movement article will allow for a better CC (DoC) article I agree

Prestonvickrey (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Prestonvickrey I have copied your last comments with Internal Wiki links rather than the reference tags so that it is readable and jumps properly. (It is generally not good etiquette to edit somebody else's posts on a talk page.) You wrote: "My previous post was written in some rush, I think a portal for the Restoration Movement, following the Baptist model to an extentPortal:Baptist, could be helpful. As well expanding the "restructure" section Christian_Church_(Disciples_of_Christ), at the very least linking to the time line in the Independent Christian Church article Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ. The expansion and improvement of the restoration movement article will allow for a better CC (DoC) article I agree."John Park (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Prestonvickrey, let me see if I understand your concerns accurately. First, are you concerned that the history within the article seems to suggest that the CC(DOC) would claim that early history as exclusively its own, without acknowledging that it is also the history of others in the Stone/ Campbell movement family?? Second, you note that the article as it stands needs more material covering the period after 1906 during which the "independent" and "co-operative" churches moved away from one another, yet lived uneasily together. Have I missed anything?
 * The CC(DOC) article is one of a family of articles on those groups that share the common heritage with Stone & the Campbells: 1.Christian_Church_(Disciples_of_Christ), 2. Churches of Christ, 3. Independent Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ, 4. Restoration Movement among others. With the editing going on, I believe it is premature to try to split any of the articles. As I look at the Independent Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ article, it is the one that has received the least attention, so far. John Park (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the 20th centry history through restructure is in need of fleshing out more. John Park (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I am concerned that the history presented within this article does not accurately display the shared history with the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the shared history is not discussed in many Disciples of Christ (DoC) churches and events possibly because of hurt feelings. I was not alive during the split, nor do I pretend to know exactly what happened at all the different levels of this split (national, regional, local,& even congregational). It is not my intent to open up healing wounds within the Body, nor to ruffle feathers, but to accurately discuss the shared history and the split between the DoC & the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.

I further more think that the first and perhaps most helpful manner of fixing this would be to create a portal for the Restoration Movement. Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Wikimate1123 (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Not Congrecationalist
According to this the church is not Congregationalistic. --Runoilija6543 (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "Congregational" both describes a polity and a historical denomination. Congregationalist polity is a type of church governance that is central to the Disciples as a denomination, and is made explicitly clear at a number of places in their governing document. The Congregational Church is a historic denomination that is now a part of the United Church of Christ. The ARDA uses the Congregationalist term to describe the group of denominations and groups that now are a part of the UCC. The infobox's use of Congregationalist is for the polity (which your link even indicates) Ha2772a (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyright violation suspected
According to the earwig report, the article is copied from the listed source. That combined with the fact that the URL is used as a source multiple times, I am 90% sure this is a copyright violation, hence I have added the template to the top of the article. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 03:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not copyright violation and the tag should be removed from the article. The bottom of the page says that Religion Resources Online uses Wikipedia to create its content. It was copied from an older version of this page. Ha2772a (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tag removed NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 19:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Were/are they really Mainline?
Don't get me wrong, they were legalistic, and smug just like Lutherans, just like Spaniard Catholics (and yes Spaniards are not Roman Catholic).

But I always associated them with the Bible Belt, albeit far more hateful and legalistic than Baptists, and so hateful they make the Westboro Baptist Church look like idiots on a Jerry Springer or Richard Bey episode. They were not born of civilization, but rather the Great Awakening, in which they claimed the mainline Protestant churches, such as Lutheranism, as well as the other non-Protestant majorities Spaniard Catholicism (although Spaniards en masse didn't start coming until later in the 19th century)and Judaism of being too worldly and entrenched in worldlines. Regardless of how they may feel about the Confederacy (which was hatred), I don't think they'd be fond of the worldview of New York or Illinois or Minnesota (regardless of whether they were liberal or conservative) RobertFL1991 (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)