Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 9

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)

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?"). &mdash;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. &mdash;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)

This is simply a test to see if I've got this Talk stuff figured out. It seems to me that the contention that churches of Christ are a daughter of Presbyterianism is both correct and yet somewhat too restrictive. The Campbells were Presbyterians, and they did leave that faith family prior to collecting a group of followers. However, to simply say that churches of Christ came from Presbyterianism is a little like saying that the LDS church came from churches of Christ because Sidney Rigdon hung around with the Campbellites prior to joining Joseph Smith. While the connection is true, the implication is over-stated. It would in fact be much more appropriate to assert that churches of Christ emerged from the Baptists since many more folk - including entire congregations apparently - moved from Baptist to Christian, and both Baptists and churches of Christ continue to be low church expressions of ecclesiology. To some degree, the issue is dependent upon one's point of departure. Since all Protestant denominations arise in some form from Roman Catholicism, we could pick any fork in that development from which to trace the development of churches of Christ. However, the simple statement that they arose from Presbyterianism seems a bit overstated.EddieR (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)EddieR


 * You successfully added your comment, if that was your question.


 * As for the rest, I tend to agree with you. Many of the prominent early leaders of the Restoration Movement came from a Presbyterian background.  But others came from other backgrounds, such as Baptist (as you point out).  My sense is that would be a bit more accurate to describe it as arising during the Second Great Awakening as people from a variety of different churches mixed on the American frontier and looked for a way to bridge their religions divisions - and then to go on and say that many of the early leaders were Presbyterians, others were Baptists, etc. It would be great if we could find sources that would give us a sense for the relative numbers involved, but that may be difficult.


 * I'm hoping to spend some time on the history section, but real life has been a challenge for the last few weeks - I haven't had much time to mess with it. With any luck I'll be able to get to it before too long.


 * John Park has been working on the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) article, and you might want to look at the history section there. It's a lot better sourced, and while it does highlight the Presbyterian roots, it's a more nuanced presentation.  I've borrowed some of his text for the Restoration Movement article.  I'm still not happy with it, though.  If you have some good sources to bring to the issue, we could use the help. EastTN (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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  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.  Three major, distinct groups emerged:
 * The independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ;
 * The Church of Christ Non-Instrumental( Non Institutional );
 * 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 " ". 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.
 * The Church of Christ A Capella;
 * The independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ;
 * Church of Christ Non Institutional;
 * 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)

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)


 * John, leave me a note on my page, if you'd still like a CoC member who isn't afraid to sign his (her) name to get involved with the editing. (The same goes for you, FisherQueen and jonathon; I only directed my comment to John Park because he had placed that in his talk.)  I just came to this discussion today, so I'm not about to jump in until I feel a bit more comfortable (there being a fine line between "being bold" and "shoving one's foot down one's gullet").  I am a CoC member and minister, with a Masters from Harding Grad School, and while that doesn't mean I know the final word on anything, I will be happy to discuss the various types of thought which currently exist within the group to the best of my knowledge.  StavinChain (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * Pre-1906 splits: One Cup; Mutual Edification, etc:
 * A Capella / Disciples of Christ (1906);
 * Institutional/Non Institutional (WW2 and later);
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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. Epecho (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)