Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 6

Restored Link
Someone deleted the link to the Ex-Church of Christ website. There was a debate on this in the past and it was agreed that it should stay. I have restored the link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.26.194.15 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

The aforementioned agreement on the ex-cofc link must have been changed. I, as one raised in the anti/conservative branch, found the xcofc materials and discussions very helpful in trying to rethink the arguments about legalism and grace. The cofC is very much about a restoration to the original 1st century church. Instead of just asusming that the current cofC is and always will remain the pure expression of the original restoration, the ex-cofc site provides materials and discussion about how to keep the fight for restoration alive.--The lowman 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)the_lowman

Necessary inference section
I'm going to try to take a whack at this section in the next few days. It's muddled, to say the least. The difference over institutions wasn't one over inferences/impications, but on who was tasked to take care of orphans and widows. Mixing that into the discussion only confuses things.

Seems to me the buildings debate has little to do with a necessary inference, either (while a place may be necessary, a purchased one is not). I may separate out the "principle of silence" into its own subsection as well. Just thought I'd give a heads-up to see if anyone had any good comments to add. Jdb1972 20:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the current wording was to show the various hermaneutic principles in action, which is still a laudable concept. Agree that it's muddy as-is, but under which hermaneutic principle does the institutional issue fall? Command, example, necessary inference, principle of silence? If these principles are worth including at all (which I think they are), then the article would be better if we could see a discussion of the application of these principles woven into the rest of the discussion. Alan Canon 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (Signed after-the-fact, apologies.)


 * The institutional debate, IMO, didn't have much to do with a dispute over hermeneutic principle. NIs pointed out there was no S, C, E, or NI for institutionalism; institutionals generally pointed to James 1:27. When NIs replied by pointing out the context there is talking about individuals, not churches, the reponse was usually that there wasn't any difference (sans Scripture) followed by an emoptional condemnation. Which was usually answered by an equally caustic reply, and away they went. Power, politics, money, emotion, culture? All were factors. Hermeneutics? Didn't play much role.


 * I agree an example would be best, though. I personally tend to prefer the Acts 15 and Matthew 22, but pulling from the issues listed in the article would work as well. Jdb1972 22:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry it took me so long to see this informative comment.... Alan Canon 18:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ... and a few citations from the RM literature could really help nail this down: should be easy to find. Alan Canon 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to engage some discussion on the topic of neccessary inference. I doubt that many members of the churches of Christ could define or defend the concept. Specifically, which doctrines commonly held by members of the Church rely exclusively or largely on this principle of interpretation? I understand that it is taught in schools of preaching and has some history with prominent religous persons.  RFranklin 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 9:41 pm 13 Aug 2006


 * I have audio from several debates on this issue. One thing that was argued by those advocating institutions was that orphan and widows homes, James 1:27 aside, are necessary (in the sense of necessary inference) for the church to be able to properly provide for the needs of its own, especially widows as mentioned in 1 Timothy. --Carl (talk 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Imposing the NIV in this article
Just shown up in this article is the proposal to replace all the verse references with the NIV.  I oppose injecting NIV verse references into an article on the churches of Christ. The churches of Christ have no means to select for use as a body one translation over another, but there are some significant doctrinal issues with the NIV. Most notable are the doctrines of Calvinism which are presumed by the NIV. (see the section in the article on "Theology", churches of Christ are opposed to Calvinism. ) The References that are in the article now are to the very well respected and neutral BibleGateway. Whoever puts in the reference can pick a translation and once the translation verse text is selected, the reader can choose from nearly any available translation. The choice is with the reader - this is neutral. RFranklin 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with that. While a person can choose translations once they're there, the choice of initial translation can still fit POV because choosing one version suggests that this is the "main" version. Informally, I'd argue for the New King James Version to be the initial version. I worked in a bookstore that catered primarily to churches of Christ and their members. Until the publisher started phasing out the New King James, that was our most popular version. --Carl (talk 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Any noteworthy translation (as opposed to paraphrase like The Message) should be acceptable, so long as it is cited as such. NIV is by far the most popular version of the Bible in English, and most COC members don't have a problem with it. Charges of Calvinist bias may or may not be true, but it's mostly irrelevant to the scriptures that are in the article.--Velvet elvis81 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The NKJV has its problems as well. Maybe we should put links to the original Greek =)

I hope this does not appear that the line immediately above is mine. Is there any evidence that the Church of Christ is characterized by any one translation? There are at least some congregations that insist on KJV only. (so enter an article on KJV only and say that some subscribe to this veiw) There are some congregations that would permit using a paraphrase in public teaching. A lot of variation is tolerated in between. What is unique about the CoC is that its members recognize the Bible alone as their creed. This means that they don't form committees or councils to decide what they believe and then make that the norm for all the members. This conservative approach to doctrine makes them much more likely to rely on formal (literal, or word for word) translations. It also makes them more likely to go back to the original language when debating doctrine and to look at how several different translations rendered the text. It would be wrong to ignore this distinction. It would also be wrong to force any one translation on the article. RFranklin 03:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some weaselling, IMO
I'm not a big fan of the use of "progressive" to distinguish different elements of the churches of Christ. It suggests a negative connotation for the other elements. Also, as the goal of the churches of Christ is to get back to the New Testament, being "progressive" is in some ways an insult to the congregations to which it is applied, as it suggests a progression which, assuming that everyone was originally at the New Testament, can only be leading away from it. --Carl (talk 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Random statements
I was looking for some reference of what I had heard as a child--that that members of the Church of Christ believe that only they go to heaven--are saved. I wasn't dismayed by the length of the article--just that the author didn't address this problem. P.S. I don't really care if they sing acapello or with acompaniment. If they think that people are going to hell because they like music with accompaniment--I think they're jerks! Teresa Gibson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.107.230 (talk • contribs)


 * The more conservative churches, the non-institutional ones, would say that you're going to hell if you're not in the Church of Christ (some ultra conservatives would even say if you're using instruments).  The progressive Churches of Christ and Christian Churches are the only ones that accept more than just Church of Christers as being saved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.220.6 (talk • contribs)


 * Any reason why the above two random observations contributing nothing to the article shouldn't be deleted? Jdb1972 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting back top the original top statement as well as the second statement by unsigned person(s), I do not believe this. There maybe some members of the Church that do believe this however if they are they are judging and that goes against Matthew 7:1 and other scriptures saying one should not judge or you will be judged likewise. There is a difference between teaching that there is no scripture in the New Testament that authorizes musical instrument in the worship and saying you will go to damnation if you use musical instruments in worshiping God and His Son, Jesus Christ. The later is going over that line of judging someone and we must never judge because it put one in the balance spiritually. That is not our privy - it belongs to God. However I always go back to the Old Testament example of Nadab & Abihu, the sons of the High Priest Aaron and nephew of Moses, found in Leviticus 10:1-3, when I decide if something is not given in the New Testament is allowed.

As for the statement from db1972, go to the article on Random about certain parts of the article being moved or deleted, I don't believe so, maybe the statements in that might help. --AdmShiloh - Hawk 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NIV Controversy in translations section
I took out a lot of the discussion in the NIV section for two reasons: (1) It is a matter of significant debate whether the NIV is a "dynamic equivalence" translation at all. (2) Controversy over the NIV is certainly not limited to the churches of Christ. A quick mention is enough here. Elaboration and scriptural support/lack thereof is appropriate at New International Version or Bible translations, but not here.--Velvet elvis81 22:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Major Edits Needed
As mentioned on the page itself, this article is getting RIDICULOUSLY long and really needs to be pared down. There are a great number of things that are either extremely tangential or simply unsourced conjecture (and often both) that could initially be removed or drastically reduced to deal with the problem. Beyond that I'll have to take a closer look, but I imagine much of it is covered elsewhere (for example at the baptism page) or could be moved there a be in a more appropriate place. My initial suggestions for deletion/pruning are as follows: (1) The section on Bible translations is pretty tangential and I'm not sure it properly belongs here. And even if it does, hermeneutics is the incorrect location for it. Perhaps in common beliefs/practices? But more on that section later... (2) The section on racial integration should almost certainly be pruned immensely and moved to the history section. There is a lot of good info there that perhaps belongs in another article. Or--despite the fact that it's interesting stuff--just might not be encyclopedic. (3) The section on social dancing is probably not encyclopedic (how many people have come here looking for info on the CofC's position on dancing?) and is unsourced anyway. Also, it's a difficult one to handle anyway the anti-dancing position is probably in rapid decline. I vote for a delete. (4) The entire section on other Restoration Movement bodies could be eliminated and handled with a simple cite to the Restoration Movement article. Or, if you prefer, to the individual groups mentioned (though I would certainly disfavor that approach). Please comment.--Velvet elvis81 22:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that my suggestion has elicited exactly ZERO comments in the last 10 days. If I don't hear anything soon, I'm going to just start making these changes myself because it doesn't seem anyone objects or has additional input. Also, I think a HUGE portion of the "notable members" section needs to be excised because of (1) lack of citation and (2) lack of notability of the people on that list.--Velvet elvis81 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your last point on notable members; the "see also" link is sufficient for all but the historical CofC leaders. And don't have an objection to your other points.  --Spiffy sperry 20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start whittling this thing down. We'll see how it goes. --Velvet elvis81 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Velvet elvis81 with some of his comments above. I do believe we should wittle this article down or perhaps moving certain sections to seperate articles.--AdmShiloh - Hawk 04:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been slowly working on whittling it down over the past couple weeks.--Velvet elvis81 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what has been stated here about whittling the article down. It is quite long and at some times redundant. I have just accomplished some minor revisions myself, but these were mainly grammatical to achieve a better flow. I left the content alone. Thanks! --Jonburnett86 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been away for a while,or I certainly would have responded to your suggestion to 'whittle down' this article. I agree with you. I have watched in dismay as the original article was added to to point that it has become so long and so full of tangents and editorial comments that it does not address it's intended purpose. i.e. to tell what someone not familiar with the Church of Christ should expect to find if they went to see what they are all about. How are the like and how are they different from other Christian groups?  I would like to be part of the edit. 

The tangents don't have to all be deleted. They should however be branches that lead to whatever discussion someone who entered them is trying to get across.  There are a lot of editorial comments that need to come out. This is not a place to condemn people because you don't agree with what they believe. What would you think of cross-referencing this article to the subjects and including here which positions CoC members generally concur with, possilbly with any unique twist the CoC might have. e.g. there are several other groups that sing a capella. Wouldn't it be informative to have an article on a capella music and note in the CoC article that these folks really like to sing? the same could go for 'believers baptism'. I think it would be really informative to have this so one could see which groups shared common views. (to be honest, I would be most interested to see who claims what view.) RFranklin 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of adding to your already long article(!!) I have added references to the Australian, NZ and UK Churches of Christ in the "this article is not about" section. Also, I've added for those bamboozled by the many similarly named churches a reference to the use of "a Capella Churches of Christ" and "Non-instrumental Churches of Christ". Hope that's okay with you! (I'm from Churches of Christ in Australia and basically it took me a long good while to work out which churches this article was/wasn't about). Purplegraciegirl 16:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was raised in the CoC, but am no longer a member. I found the article to be lacking in a few things; namely, the differences between the CoC and other churches. Some of these differences are the most striking to outsiders, or people who are used to more mainstream Protestant churches. Most CoC's that I have visited are extremely plain in the interior and exterior, with no decorations, and certainly no religious icons; sometimes not even a cross. Also, CoC's do not celebrate Christmas and Easter as religious holidays. Individual members can (and do) celebrate Christmas and Easter as secular holidays, but as these holidays are not treated as religious holidays, in the Bible, the CoC does not treat them as such, either. The CoC states, quite plainly, that these celebrations are grafts from Catholicism and earlier pagan celebrations. I remember being ridiculed (or pitied), as a child, by other Christian kids for not celebrating these as religious holidays. Unlike other conservative Christian churches, and particularly Evangelicals, you won't find CoC members going on about "Putting 'Christ' back in Christmas," etc. If someone has the time to expand upon this, and get the needed citations, it might be quite useful in the article, to differentiate to non-members some of the fundamental differences between the CoC and other Christian churches. Thanks. 209.247.5.168 13:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Marriage
Can any adult man in the Church of Christ preside over a marriage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.95.164.241 (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Only by peragitives and laws of the states, providences or country that one lives in. In some states it is state law that only those who are employed by a congregation or is in a leadership role, such as an elder, can perform marraiges. --Hawk 21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)