Talk:Churches of Christ/Archive 1

Misleading lead
I question this sentence, currently the second one in the article: "They seek to model their congregations as closely as possible to their understanding of how New Testament Churches operated." While this was certainly the case in the 19th century, and even for the majority of the 20th century, I do not believe it is the case any longer. I would cite Shelly and Harris' book The Second Incarnation, which instigated a shift in c of C theology in the 1990s. I think that few congregations now believe that their ecclesiological raison d'etre is to recreate, ahistorically, first-century churches, which were as riddled with problems as ours are in the present. The sentence above might work better if placed in the history section and put in the past tense. Josh a brewer (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your interepretation for most larger and urban/suburban churches, but there are plenty of CofCs who've never switched. I think what you propose may go too far, but some movement that direction may be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Shelly and Harris' thinking is an important development, and I'd like to see it covered. We need to be careful that we don't overstate it, though.  My sense is that where it's leading among most mainline churches of Christ is less a repudiation of the restoration concept, but more a matter of broadening it to restore the spirit and goals of the first century church, as well as the forms of worship and ecclesiastical organization.  (There's a recognition that many have been rightly criticized for focusing almost exclusively on just the forms, and giving relatively little emphasis to other, arguably even more important aspects of the gospel.)  I think there's also a movement to make the church a bit less ahistorical, in the sense of being more aware of the history of Christianity since the first century.


 * This could be viewed as a return to the 18th and early 19th century roots of the restoration movement. Stone, the Campbell's, and their contemporaries had a bit broader view than simply making sure congregations had the right structure for their elderships.  Would it be too flippant to describe this as a "reformation movement" within the "restoration movement?"


 * Perhaps more to the point, could I suggest as a stop-gap changing the sentence in question to say something like either:
 * a) "They have historically sought to model their congregations as closely . . . "; or
 * b) "They seek to base doctrine and practice on the Bible alone, and see themselves as recreating the New Testament church established by Christ . . ."
 * . . . and then figure out how to handle the discussion kicked off by Shelly in the body of the article. Of the two options, "a" has the advantage of being minimalist. I like "b" better because I think it still characterizes where most congregations are, but reduces the emphasis on how congregations "operate" and allows for a broader focus like Shelly and Harris'. EastTN (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "b" the most accurate and also think it is a stronger sentence rhetorically to be in the lead. The first option, "a" sounds a bit more passive to me. We need to remember that Shelly's thinking has had a dual effect. Some have moved with him while many have moved against his reasoning with vehemance. I'd be careful not to give undue weight to him or to his writings. JodyBtalk 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * O.k., I've dropped in option "b" for now. Looking back, I think we may have already started reflecting some of the impact that Shelly and others have had, in the section on hermeneutics, where we talk about a movement away from the strict command/example/inference model and a shift towards giving a greater emphasis on servanthood and discipleship and less emphasis to ecclesiology. EastTN (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoration Movement Navigation Template
I've made a first stab at mocking up a restoration movement navigation template, as discussed above in the section on "A cappella distinct fellowship?". It's at Template:Restoration Movement, and really is just a straw man at this point. Does something like this look like it might be useful? EastTN (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

First Stab at a Timeline
I've taken a first stab at a timeline. You can find it at Template:Restoration Movement Timeline graphical timeline. Please take a look and see what you think. My goal was to put together something general for the restoration movement as a whole. If it looks o.k., I'd like to suggest adding it to the Restoration Movement article as well.

I went with a horizontal timeline because it seemed a good way to show the lineage of the groups without taking up a lot of space. If we want something with lots of dates on it (e.g., births, deaths, meetings, etc.) a vertical layout may work better. I'm also wondering if, at some point, we may want a more detailed timeline for each subgroup. For instance, with the churches of Christ, we might want to show more detail on the development of the institutional/non-institutional discussion, and the origins of the ICoC.

In interests of full disclosure, I used 1968 as the date for the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) / Independent Christian - Church Churches of Christ split, and 1982 for the churches of Christ / International Churches of Christ split. Those seemed like reasonable first approximations, but I'm not wedded to them if someone has better information. EastTN (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Separation of the churches of Christ and the Christian Churches
User:EastTN, since the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) did not exist as an entity prior to 1968, with the adoption of "Restructure," it is hardly correct to use that title for the 1906 separation of the churches of Christ and the Christian Churches. Immediately after that separation, the Christian Churches would not have drawn the distinction between "independent" Christian Churches and "cooperative" Christian Churches. Those distinctions began to emerge gradually in the first half of the 20th century. The "co-operative" Churches would eventually become the "Disciples."

The challenge of NPOV on the separation issues, it seems to me, is to recognize the realities of the separations without getting into the who splintered off from whom. The role of David Lipscomb in the US Religious Census decision in 1906 to list the Churches of Christ separately is well documented. The History of the Christian Churches following the 1906 is also well documented. To say "(1906 split is generally considered to be with Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)," not the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ)," is a curious POV of recent years, which does not reflect the reality of 1906. That there are some grounds for affinity between the independent Christian Churches (instrumental) and the churches of Christ (non-instrumental) is a reality. In 1906, however, there were two groups recognized by the census, not three.

I really appreciate and respect your efforts with the Churches of Christ and the Restoration Movement articles. I wonder, however, how much of the post 1906 history of the Christian Churches (both Disciples and independent) is relevant to the Churches of Christ article. Of course the separation must be included. After that, the stories of the two groups diverge. John Park (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * John, what part of the article are you specifically referring to - the time line? Or that last edit I made?  The context of the edit was that we had existing text in the lead that said:


 * "Though officially recognized as distinct movements from 1906, the actual separation of the Churches of Christ from the Christian Churches had already been taking place gradually for decades."


 * The wikilink used redirected to Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, which seemed misleading to me for exactly the reason you identified. I changed it to:


 * "Though officially recognized as distinct movements from 1906, the actual separation of the Churches of Christ from the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) had already been taking place gradually for decades."


 * I'm sorry if my edit comment caused confusion - all I was trying to do is say that it makes more sense to link to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) article, instead of the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ article, because the second group didn't exist as a separate, identifiable fellowship at the time of the 1906 split.  Do you think that's the right link, or should we go back to the old one?


 * More generally, I agree that the history of the Disciples post 1906 isn't particularly relevant to this article. Having the broad restoration movement time line in the history section seemed reasonable to me, to provide some context for how the churches of Christ fit into the movement as a whole.  I don't see going into it any further than that, unless perhaps to talk briefly about the efforts that have been made to talk with other restoration movement groups.  Does that make sense?  There might also be some value in talking about the affinities between the churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Churches, but I'm not sure it that should go here, or in the restoration movement article. EastTN (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * EastTN the link is correct, IMO. The problem comes with the use if the Christian Church (DOC), which did not exist until the 1968 adoption of the provisional design. Almost all the churches moved to calling themselves Christian churches, after 1906, NOT Disciples. After the adoption of the design, The independent Christian Churches had a clear way of saying we do not want to be affiliated with the "Co-operative" churches that formed the CC(DOC). I am more comfortable with the use of Christian Churches in the last paragraph of the history in America than I am with Disciples, even if the Wikilink goes to the CC(DOC) Article. Suggestions? Naturally the time line has the same problem.John Park (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with changing the text to something like Christian Church if that makes more sense to you. I just felt that the link was pointing to the wrong article.  The best approach for the time line seems less obvious to me.  Post-1968 it would seem that Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is the right name.  "Christian Church" may have been the more common name for the period 1906-1968, but I don't think we want to structure the time line so that it looks like the Christian Church disappeared and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) suddenly appeared.  My understanding is that what happened in 1968 really was a restructuring, rather than the end of one denomination and the creation of a new one.  Would you be o.k. with making the change in the text, and leaving the time line alone to show the continuity?  The other approach might be to do something like this:


 * That seems to me, though, to suggest more of a break at 1968 than may be appropriate. What do you think? EastTN (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Without getting into a debate as to what specific year to use, it was a major break. Congregational autonomy is one aspect of it.  Centralization of some non-congregational institutional functions was another aspect. IOW, I think that the way the break is displayed in the template is appropriate. jonathon (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * John Park, do you agree with jonathon that the timeline should show a hard break between the Christian Church and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) at the time of the restructuring? If so, I'll defer to you guys, since you both seem to know a lot more about that group than I do.


 * Do either of you have a good source for the name "Christian Church" being used almost exclusively before the restructuring? I'm inclined to backtrack a bit on something I said earlier.  It's easy for people to get confused by the similar names for the different restoration movement groups.  I'd like to have the paragraph that talks about the split, then after it add a few sentences to clarify how today's groups relate to each other.  Not much - just a sentence to document the use of the name "Christian Church," then a couple of sentences to say that it restructured to become the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and some congregations split off to become the Independent Christian Church/churches of Christ.  I don't want to give a history of either group, here, but I do think there's some value in helping readers keep the various "Christian Churches" and "Churches of Christ" separate. Does that make sense? EastTN (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Several points:
 * 1) I changed the Christian Church to Christian Churches in the wikilinks in the article. -- not perfect, but as NPOV as we can make it for now.
 * 2) I do agree with Jonathon that the sharp break seems more appropriate, but EastTN, I share your concern about the discontinuity. From a NPOV, neither group would feel any real discontinuity from the pre-1968 past.
 * 3) In the timeline template, Instead of your current "Christian Church," (from 1906 to 1968) I would suggest "Christian Churches, both Independent and Co-operative." Both terms date back to the 1830's and 1840's, but those were the terms used in the 1950's to distinguish "us" and "them." It was the co-operative Churches and their leaders who eventually became the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
 * 4) As to a reference: The best discussion I've seen of the names ambiguities is found in Macalister and Tucker. I will try to get a page number.
 * 5) I agree that you may want to add a sentence such as: "After the separation between the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Independent Christian Churches it became clear that there were a number of similarities between the independent Christian Churches and the churches of Christ...."
 * 6) There is a POV issue if you say "a few congregations split from" the restuctured CC(DOC). Perhaps something like: "In 1968, the churches that favored cooperative mission work and other ministries restructured, becoming the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the independent churches went their own way, completing a separation that had begun decades before." John Park (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken a stab at adding the new text to the History in America section. I added the paragraph:


 * "In 1968, those Christian Churches that favored cooperative mission work and other ministries restructured, becoming the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and those that chose not to be associated with the denominational organization created during the restructuring went their own way as the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, completing a separation that had begun decades before. After the separation between the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Independent Christian Churches it became clear that there were a number of similarities between the independent Christian Churches and the churches of Christ discussed in this article.  Perhaps the most obvious difference is that the Independent Christian Churches use instrumental music in worship."


 * The history section could use some more work - and more references - but perhaps this at least puts the various groups into context with each other. EastTN (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Done. I think it is NPOV and articulates the relationships well! Keep up the good work.John Park (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I also raided a couple of other articles for text on genesis of the International Churches of Christ, and their split from the mainline churches of Christ. That part also needs good references (the parent articles did have them). EastTN (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * O.k., I changed the template to:


 * Does that look like what you had in mind? Working on it made me wonder if we really should have a separate article on the 1906-1968 Christian Churches.  For now, I have that section of the timeline linking to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) article, because that's where we have most of the information on the history for that period.  But if there really was that distinct a break at 1968, would it perhaps make sense to discuss the "Christian Churches, both Independent and Co-operative" in their own article?  Again, I'll defer to you guys on that.


 * If you can find the page number from MacAlister and Tucker, that would be great. I'll plan on trying to edit the text along the lines you suggest later today (right now, real life is rearing its ugly head). EastTN (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles
Maybe I'm misreading things, but it looks like the suggestion is for the following articles ( "Church" is capitalized, because it is an article title) (dates in parenthesis need not be a part of the article title.):
 * International Church of Christ [1980 - current];
 * Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ) [1968 - current];
 * Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ [1968 - current];
 * Christian Church: Independent and Co-operative [1906-1968];
 * Churches of Christ (A Capella) [1906 - current];
 * Church of Christ (Non-Institutional)[1938 (?) - current];
 * Church of Christ [1820 (?) - 1906];

For other splits, and potential articles, look at the previous section time line.jonathon (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would help to think about the articles we already have, and how they line up with what we might want:
 * International Church of Christ [1980 - current] - we have International Churches of Christ;
 * Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ [1968 - current] - we have Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ;
 * Churches of Christ (A Capella) [1906 - current] - we have Churches of Christ;
 * Church of Christ (Non-Institutional)[1938 (?) - current] - we have The churches of Christ (non-institutional);


 * Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) [1968 - current] - we have Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), but it's written as 1906 - current;
 * Christian Church: Independent and Co-operative [1906-1968] - covered in Christian Church (Disciples of Christ);
 * Church of Christ [1820 (?) - 1906] - covered in Restoration Movement, which seems fine for covering the period before the 1906 split;


 * In my mind, the real question is whether it makes sense to cover the "Christian Churches: Independent and Co-operative [1906-1968]" in the same article as the "Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) [1968 - current]" as we have it now, or if they should be split out into separate articles. The current structure of the article, which covers 1906 on through the restructuring and up to today, seems fine to me - but I hadn't understood the 1968 restructuring to be a major break with the past for the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).  I'll defer to people who know more about the group than I do, but I'd probably still be inclined to leave them in one article, because it doesn't sound like people in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) thought of the restructuring as a complete break with the past.  But I really don't have a dog in that fight. EastTN (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, Neither the CC(doc) nor the independent Christian Churches would see a radical break in 1968, though some in each movement would claim that the other broke with them. The separation was identically the same challenge as the 1906 separation.  Both groups coexist with growing tension until a way is found to formalize the separation. In 1906, the census Bureau responded to request from David Lipscomb and others. in 1968, the cooperative Christians, dba the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) adopted restructure. A separate article for the 1906 to 1968 era creates a POV regarding that era that would not be seen as NPOV by either the CC(DOC) or the Independent Christian churches.  The timeline has the problem of trying to set a date for the separation.  The cc(doc) would make a valid case for the original continuity in the timeline.  The independent Christians Churches could rightly make the same case. so....


 * Text does not have that kind of limitation. The CC(doc) article and the independent Christian Churches article may need to be reviewed in the light of the Controversy in the 1906 -1968 window. I would NOT favor trying to create a redundent article for the era.John Park (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me; my impression all along was that the CC(DoC) evolved pretty continuously from 1906 through the present day, and that the 1968 restructuring was just one step in that development. I also thought that the CC(DoC) and Independent Christian Churches gradually grew apart from, I don't know, the 1930's through the 1960's, and that the 1968 restructuring of the CC(DoC) just made that de facto separation completely impossible to ignore.  The need to show the restructuring as a discontinuity in the time line surprised me, and prompted me to question whether it should also affect the structure of the articles.  Frankly, I'm more comfortable if the answer is "no" - but was willing to defer to a "yes" if people more knowledgeable disagreed.  Adding a bit more nuance to the other articles does strike me as a better approach than creating a new one. EastTN (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A cappella distinct fellowship?
Within the Infobox, an "a capella" distinct fellowship is listed first. If the great majority of Churches of Christ include a cappella worship, which I understand to be the case, wouldn't it be congregations that do not practice a cappella worship that might be considered a distinct fellowship? The provided source citation covers all but the a cappella distinction; a source citation for this one would be helpful, or perhaps "a capella" should be removed here. &mdash;ADavidB 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If "distinct fellowship" is not intended to include the main body of a religious group, then you are correct--it should be removed. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It could include the main body, though if that is what is intended in this case, I suggest "a capella" is not the best identifier (as most if not all of the other listed fellowships include a cappella worship). How about "mainstream" or "mainline" to identify the main body? &mdash;ADavidB 22:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, heh, yeah, right. (blush) "Mainline" is a commonly used word, but means something specific and different in the case of protestantism as a whole. I'd think the least contentious option would be leaving it out entirely. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the "Leave it out" approach. How can the main body of the movement be a distint fellowship within the movement? Would a category wording different from "Distinct fellowships" communicate better? In some cases the groups themselves see themselves as the true believers within the greater fellowship and in other cases, outside the fellowship.John Park (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing the "A capella" item seems best. Division of fellowship is covered in the source reference; the "Distinct fellowships" collective category is defined in the Infobox template and isn't necessarily unique to this article. &mdash;ADavidB 15:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it would help to ask what the functional purpose is for including the "Distinct fellowships" section in the infobox? It strikes me that the primary purpose would be to help organize a series of articles on related subgroups.  There's only one other group here that has a link - The churches of Christ (non-institutional).  There's not enough text in the infobox to explain what the groups are, and without links, the reader can't get anything else without reading the article or going to the source.  Do we need this section in the infobox at all?  All of this is discussed in the body of the article, and we can beef that up if need be. (Just a question - I don't feel strongly about it either way.) EastTN (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to removal of the whole "Distinct fellowships" field content. It may have been added after prior editors expressed an interest in these groups of churches, though as you pointed out, only one of the listed groups has a separate article, and it's discussed in this article body. If deleted from the Infobox, might the source be reapplied elsewhere in this article? &mdash;ADavidB 23:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I blanked the field per this conensensus. Feel free to reapply the text anywhere else in the article if desired. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The A Capella, Non-institutional, and Instrumental articles had identical content in the "distinct fellowships" box.  Those three groups were linked and listed.  My intent was to also link to the other fellowship that has a Wikipedia page, when I relocated that article.jonathon (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Distinct Fellowships
Where/how "distinct fellowships" should be treated, depends upon whether one looks at when the splits occurred, or only at the theological differences. For example, mutual edification is a distinct fellowship within Non-Institutional, based on theology. Based on the timeline, it is a distinct fellowship within A Capella.jonathon (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The information about church of Christ (Mutual Edification), church of Christ  (One cup), church of Christ  (Wine), etc is most consistently found in the The churches of Christ (non-institutional) article, but has appeared, and disappeared from both the Instrumental and A Capella articles.jonathon (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We may need to figure out how many articles we actually have. For instance, I don't think the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ article belongs here.  They're a later offshoot of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (1950's versus 1906).  Those congregations from among the Churches of Christ (and there are some) that have begun using musical instruments in worship are a different group. EastTN (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd almost think it would be simpler to have much of the similar content--e.g., doctrinal importance of baptism, ecclesiology, etc.--covered in a centralized "restoration movement churches" article. Really--how much does the doctrine of baptism differ among all these groups? (Well, aside from the Disciples, but I think you know what I mean...) Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I don't know that there's an easy answer.  I'm going to oversimplify terribly here, but one way to look at it is that that the Restoration Movement gradually developed, over time, a liberal wing and a conservative wing (please bear with my using these as terms of convenience - I'm not trying to imply any judgments here).  Both were rooted in strands or themes that dated back to the beginning of the movement (though I don't buy the Stone=liberal, Campbell=conservative framework that some seem to suggest), and differences grew gradually through the mid-to-late 19th century.  A de facto division was recognized circa 1900, with the churches of Christ on the conservative side, and the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ on the less conservative side.  There are, by now, very real differences between these two groups in what they teach and how they teach it.
 * After that split, divisions developed within both wings. We've talked about the non-institutional churches of Christ, which represent a conservative subgroup within the churches of Christ, but most would not yet characterize it as having formally split off into an entirely separate fellowship.  A liberal/conservative divide also developed within the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).  The conservative side gradually split off into the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ - if I understand correctly, the de facto division was recognized circa 1970.  They now fall, on many issues, somewhere between the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) and the churches of Christ.
 * There are many similarities between these groups, coming from their common heritage. The greatest degree of difference is between the Christian Churches and the churches of Christ (and particularly the non-institutional churches of Christ).  The Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ and the churches of Christ are very, very similar in many respects.  Both groups understand themselves to be separate fellowships, however, and my sense is that their doctrinal emphases are somewhat different.
 * My suggestion would be to think about discussing the splits - and what prompted them - in the Restoration Movement article, and then include a section on common doctrinal approaches/themes/beliefs (or whatever other word seems most appropriate when we get into it). I don't think it hurts to have more detailed discussions in the articles on each group, because there will be subtle differences.  But, if we had something really solid in the main Restoration Movement article, it might allow us to simplify the discussion in the group specific articles.
 * Having said that, though, I must say that I'm a bit skeptical of our ability to reach agreement on a common description of doctrine in the Restoration Movement article. Prior debates on this article suggest that it can be very difficult to get people to agree on what a single wing of the Restoration Movement believes - much less on what the movement as a whole believes.
 * Along those lines, it might be really helpful if we had a family tree chart for the various wings of the Restoration Movement, and maybe a good Restoration Movement navbox. Is there any easy way to create line charts in wikipedia? EastTN (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any, but I see no reason one of us couldn't create it in Visio or something--I have access to a copy at work. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about something like these charts from the article Christian denomination: & .  If you could do something like that, I think it would be very helpful.  We could also try to put something together as a table.  What do you think - would it make sense to start by creating a table with the timelines and splits, try to get consensus on it, and then think about converting it to an image?
 * I don't want to ask you to do all the work. If you want to think about the graphic, I can try to work on mocking up a restoration movement navbox later on this week. EastTN (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Would a timeline of when a specific doctrine was first/last used/taught/practiced, be helpful here? I _might_ have one, constructed from reading back issues of various publications.(Probably qualifies as original research.jonathon (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It might very well. My sense is that a good time-line could help a lot in bringing clarity to the various restoration movement articles.  If you have a time line for doctrinal developments in your head, maybe we can chase down the sources we need to support the key dates.  We might also want to combine the doctrinal timeline with a timeline of the various splits in the movement, since the splits are so closely tied to doctrinal developments.  Would it make sense to just start listing key dates in the Restoration Movement churches, and see where it takes us?  Some of the early events like the Cane Ridge Revival, the Last Will and Testament, the Declaration and Address and the union of the Stone and Campbell groups would seem reasonable, as well as the dates associated with each of the later divisions.  All of that should already be here; it's just spread out across multiple articles.  If we could gather it in one place, and then if you could add dates for some of the key doctrinal developments, we might have a pretty good basic road-map for the movement.  What do you think? EastTN (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I found some templates we might be able to use: Template:Graphical timeline, Template:Horizontal timeline and Template:Include timeline. EastTN (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Once you strip doctrine inflicted by the Magisterium out of Catholic theology, you end up with something that is fairly close to "standard" CoC theology. jonathon (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
I'll add a timeline here, but without any sources, or other documentation. :( Locating sources etc will be time consuming. Anyway, it is a start.  jonathon (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First source I'm using is http://www.freedominchrist.net/Sermons/Lord%27s%20Supper/One%20cup_non-Sunday%20School%20Movement.htm. When I included citations below, they usually are from that page.


 * Sunday School : 1780 Robert Raikes : 1847 Alexander Campbell endorses them,with one caveat --- the potential for sectarian abuse is potentially too strong to resist;
 * No Sunday School : N L Clark 1918 --- cites historical practice;


 * Multiple cups : 1910 (?) Both C E Holt (Florence, AL) and G C Brewer (Chattanooga,TN) claim to be the first CoC minister to advocate,and use multiple cups. (? Ronny F. Wade, The Sun Will Shine Again Someday (Springfield, Missouri: Yesterday's Treasures, 1986) ?) http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6308859.html.  I guess the USPTO forgot that they issued a patent back in 1894 to J G Thomas for that invention.


 * Single cups:  http://www.freedominchrist.net/Sermons/Lord%27s%20Supper/One%20cup_non-Sunday%20School%20Movement.htm


 * Upper Room: ? - 1985 (Source:  http://www.freedominchrist.net/Sermons/Worship/Sermons--Worship--Oddities%20in%20Pattern%20Theology--Jan%204--2000.htm )


 * Flowing Water: (Source:   http://www.freedominchrist.net/Sermons/Worship/Sermons--Worship--Oddities%20in%20Pattern%20Theology--Jan%204--2000.htm )   The Didache states to be baptized in flowing water.


 * Baptistry: (Source:  http://www.freedominchrist.net/Sermons/Worship/Sermons--Worship--Oddities%20in%20Pattern%20Theology--Jan%204--2000.htm )


 * Pre-Millennial: 1920 (?)
 * A-Millennial: ?
 * Dispensation: Scofield's Reference Notes was published in 1909.Darby published his material much earlier, but it didn't gain popularity until Scoffield's Reference Notes was published.  I don't know when it first crept into, and then out of CoC congregations.

jonathon (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * jonathon, that's a great start! Where do you think this should be developed - here, in the CoC article, in the Restoration Movement article, or perhaps across a couple of articles? EastTN (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Before it gets incorporated into an article, everything needs to be fact checked,and sourced. I'd also like to include far more of the "differences in theological practice"  (I think I finally found an appropriate NPOV term.)  One source I came across suggested that there were at least twenty "separations" in the A Capella  branch, between 1906, and 1968, with at least that many differences, that did not result in "separations".  The Disciples of Christ branch didn't fare any better, during that time frame.  (Most of the "separations" within the DoC, ended up in mainstream Protestant Churches, such as United Church of Christ. (I _think_ that some of those congregations ended up under the jurisdiction of either or the Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa or the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East.)  Prior to 1906, there were at least 100 "differences in theological practice", ranging from paedobaptism to the translation of the Bible to use.  My guess is that since 1968, there have been at least 100 differences, across DoC, Instrumental, A Capella,and Non-Institutional. The majority of these differences are probably practiced by less than a dozen congregations. I'm hoping that by only listing the doctrine, where it was practiced, who practiced it, and when it was practiced, with complete citations,WP:NOR issues will be avoided. (I also expect it will face vandalism, by those who disagree with,or claim that such things were never part of CoC theology, doctrine, or practice.)jonathon (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd expect that too much coverage of such differences would go against the undue weight provisions of NPOV policy. &mdash;ADavidB 13:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One reason for developing the time line in a talk page, is so that WP:UNDUE can be ignored during data compilation. I'll grant that Paedobaptism, Women Preachers, and  Foot Washing are of unequal notability.   One of those is a distinct fellowship.  One has been argued about, if not actually practiced,for decades,without forming a distinct fellowship.  One has been consciously rejected, but congregations which split years ago, on other issues, have re-instituted the practice. Which practice should be mentioned, and where it should be mentioned, can be discussed after more data is available. jonathon (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find myself agreeing with all of the comments. What may help is when we can find sources that give some estimate of the number of congregations involved, and whether a practice or doctrine is still current.  We were able to get something out of the Encyclopedia of the Stone Campbell movement for the "variations" section of this article on what I think of as the four big ones.  They're the ones that are generally mentioned in secondary sources (non-institutional, no separate Bible class, one cup, and mutual edification).  I'd also really like to find a source for the approximate number of congregations that are using musical instruments (most of what we have says something along the lines of "a few").  But in any case, just knowing whether a group represents a couple of dozen congregations or a couple of thousand should make these judgments a lot easier.  I also wonder if looking at the history of some of the big doctrinal disputes may be as important - or even more important - than developing a family tree of all the little subgroups.  I'm thinking, for instance, over the discussions that have swirled around divorce and remarriage and the role of women in public worship.  Understanding how those are affecting the churches of Christ may be more significant than counting how many congregations practice foot washing on special occasions. EastTN (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting _reliable_ hard numbers for anything is going to be non-trivial. Likewise,getting firm starting/ending dates for specific doctrines is going to be non-trivial. Take,for example, paedobaptism. We have a date for when Alexander Campbell first preached against it. I haven't seen any data (real or alleged) on when the last congregation in the Restoration Movement performed their last act of paedobaptism. I'm using this as an example of what was a fairly common practice, and as such, should be easy to document. Nonetheless, the best one can do, is cite when the various leaders of the movement preached against it.   For something really contentious, such as women preachers, about the best that one can do,is say that the first article about this appeared circa #?#? .   It might be possible to find when, and where the first congregation that had a woman preach the Sunday Sermon,including serving the communion.   (Wondering if the _Directory of the Ministry_, would record the first congregation to have a woman preacher.) For most of the material, one is looking at journal articles, that may not have follow up articles that describe how other congregations looked at the theology/doctrine/practice/etc.  (For example, I haven't found any follow up articles to the exploration of using the Revised Common Lectionary, for the Sunday readings.   Does that absence mean only that one congregation experimented with it, or did others pick it up, but choose, for whatever reason, not to publicize  that fact?   In a similar vein, I didn't find any follow up articles to the one about using either the Anglican, or  Catholic Dueterocanonical books,as well as the Protocanonical books.jonathon (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Getting _reliable_ hard numbers for anything is going to be non-trivial." Amen to that!  Explicitly sourced squishy numbers may be the best we can hope for. Is there some way we could prioritize things?  Perhaps be focusing on the issues that lead to the biggest splits in the Restoration Movement first? Or does it make the most sense to look for sources, grab all the dates from each source we find, and then decide how (and if) to use each date? EastTN (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

B class
The uncited sections need reliable, inline citations. --Secisek (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Recreating" versus "continuing" in the lead section
We've had a couple of back and forth edits in the lead section, centered around whether the churches of Christ should be described as seeing themselves recreating/restoring the New Testament church, or continuing the New Testament church. This is a subtle issue, and I've been giving some thought to how best to approach it.

First, I completely understand the motivation behind the word "continuing." I don't think it's the best approach, though.

The sources I've seen are quite clear in describing the goal of Restoration Movement leaders as seeking Christian unity by stepping away from existing denominational structures and practices and recreating or restoring the teachings and practices of the New Testament church - hence the name Restoration Movement. That approach is not just of historical interest - in the mid-twentieth century, Batsell Barrett Baxter described the appeal of the churches of Christ this way (the italics are mine):


 * What is the distinctive plea of the church of Christ?


 * It is primarily a plea for religious unity based upon the Bible. In a divided religious world it is believed that the Bible is the only possible common denominator upon which most, if not all, of the God-fearing people of the land can unite. This is an appeal to go back to the Bible. It is a plea to speak where the Bible speak and to remain silent where the Bible is silent in all matters that pertain to religion. It further emphasizes that in everything religious there must be a "Thus saith the Lord" for all that is done. The objective is religious unity of all believers in Christ. The basis is the New Testament. The method is the restoration of New Testament Christianity. (Batsell Barrett Baxter, Who are the churches of Christ and what do they believe in?)

A similar statement is made by Baxter and Carroll Ellis in the tract "Neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jew": "We believe in the restoration of New Testament Christianity, speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent." (italics are mine again) Baxter and Ellis are not the only ones to continue this "restoration" view in modern times - others, such as Monroe Hawley in Redigging the Wells: Seeking Undenominational Christianity and Rubel Shelly in I Just Want to Be a Christian have taken the same approach. I would argue that a careful reading of Douglas Allen Foster and Anthony L. Dunnavant's Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement reinforces the view that the motivating purpose behind the development of churches of Christ (and much of their current doctrinal debates) is the desire to restore in modern times the New Testament church.

I believe we misrepresent the history and thinking of the group if we don't make that clear.

Now, having said all that, I do understand the motivation for using the word "continuing" or "perpetual." There are two ideas, both very common in the churches of Christ, that it attempts to capture. The first is the idea that God will not allow, at any time in history, His church to be completely overwhelmed. In any given century it may be difficult or impossible to find, but it never completely disappears - there will always be a faithful few maintaining a pure form of Christianity. This idea is based on certain verses from the New Testament (e.g., "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it") and an analogy to the Old Testament theme of the faithful "remnant." Looking back historically, various groups such as the Anabaptists are sometimes identified as examples of people maintaining a New Testament form of Christianity in earlier times. (This general belief is also common among certain Baptists.)

The second idea is that whenever a group of Christians follows the New Testament pattern for the church, they don't represent a "new" church, but exactly the same church as that described in the New Testament. Baseball (or a similar game) is sometimes used as an analogy. Imagine if, 500 years from now after the complete and utter collapse of our civilization, someone were to dig up an official rule book for baseball. Imagine if they carefully constructed bases, balls, bats, gloves, uniforms and all the other necessary equipment according to the official specifications they found. Then imagine they practices, and begin playing games using exactly the same rules we do, based on the same rule book we use now. Then, the argument goes, they would be playing the same game we do, and not a new game.

Both of these ideas may well merit discussion in the body of the article (we'll need to find good sources for them, but that should be doable). In particular, the idea that by following the New Testament pattern you can recreate or restore the same church might fit well in the Overview section, the History section or the Hermeneutics section. I don't think that they should go into the lead section, though, except perhaps as an expansion of what churches of Christ hope to accomplish by following New Testament patterns, and the theological heritage they understand themselves to be following. But most churches of Christ see the Restoration Movement as an important turning point where there was a turning away from denominationalism and a turning back to the New Testament, and understand restoration to be a defining theme in their heritage. I'm convinced that we provide a clearer picture if we lead with that, and then backfill as approapriate with these other themes. EastTN (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On the language in the lead section, I would like to suggest we say that they see themselves as "restoring" the New Testament church. The word "restore" has more of a sense of continuity than the word "recreate," but also carries the idea of going back to a prior model or purer form of Christianity. EastTN (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with restoring--Fact is, Stone, Campbells, et. al. set about to convert existing denominations (their own, for starters) back to New Testament Christianity as they saw it. Whether such a New Testament Church existed perpetually since the end of the apostolic era is a theological question best addressed elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Stone and both Campbells described the movement with the word "restore." They would NOT have thought of "recreating" the Christ's church. John Park (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * O.k., I'll flip it to "restoring" for now. We can tweak it from there as needed. EastTN (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:American clergy of the Churches of Christ
This category is inaccurately named. I can't remotely imagine Foy Wallace allowing anyone to call him Clergy, for example, and even some of the more "progressive" currently in the category (Lucado, Shelly) haven't particularly disagreed with the priesthood of all believers. Options include: Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Renaming it to American Ministers of the Churches of Christ.
 * Deleting it as redundant to the overlap betwern Category:American members of the Churches of Christ and Category:Ministers of the Churches of Christ.
 * 1) Given that the number of people will likely be small I would opt for deleting it as redundant to Minister of the churches of Christ. My 2 cents. JodyBtalk 19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - one characteristics of the churches of Christ is that they don't recognize a clergy/laity distinction. Who would we include in the category that would not also be included in Category:Ministers of the Churches of Christ? One could imagine a category for church of Christ authors or scholars who aren't active ministers, but they wouldn't think of themselves as clergy. I guess you could have a category for elders and deacons, but they wouldn't think of themselves as clergy either, and any that may be notable but are not also ministers can go in Category:American members of the Churches of Christ for now.  EastTN (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've emptied the category, verified in the process that all of the men who were included are listed at Category:Ministers of the Churches of Christ, and wrote a note on the category explaining why it should not be used and pointing folks to this discussion. If no one objects, I'll delete the category in 5 days as routine maintenance--I don't see any reason we need a CfD post for this, given the consensus here. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This redundant category should be deleted as per discussed. The term "clergy" is not used frequently if at all within the movement. --Ichabod (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone should also delete Category:Churches of Christ clergy for the same reasons stated above. This category is currently empty.  --Ichabod (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

GA
Shall we take a run at Good Article status? I've been through the process multiple times before. Jclemens (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How much effort do you think it would take? And what do you think needs the most work?  I've been thinking that improving the sourcing for the "History" section and strengthening the "Outside the United States" section might be the highest priorities.  I'll be glad to do some more work, but job demands may limit the time I have available for the next week or so. EastTN (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think you've done the vast majority of the heavy lifting already. This article is close enough to get a hearing, and often times an article will end up "on hold" with a specific set of actions.  Good news is that GA will likely take several weeks before anyone gets around to looking at it.  If you don't have time to help, you don't--no biggie; many things that "fail" GA the first time get approved the second time around. The process may seem intimidating, but it's really not that bad, having been through it six times successfully, and a few more unsuccessfully. Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll be glad to help with this, but it may be the end of the week before I can do much.  I'm coming to the end of a project at work that's been consuming most of my time.EastTN (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On-line Documentary
Our congregation received permission to publish the documentary, "Our Restoration Heritage with Dr. Bill Humble" online. You can view it by clicking below. http://www.cyrilchurch.com/cyril_church_of_christ_052.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherokeeok0817 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Grape Juice/Wine
If you can dredge up, and read some of the late C19/early C20 Non-Institutional magazines, you'll find some interesting material on whether grape juice, or wine should be used. I don't know if church of Christ (Wine) ever "formally" existed, but prior to Prohibition, there were some congregations that would have termed themselves as such, with the rest being church of Christ (Grape Juice). jonathon (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, a few do still use wine, but I've never personally encountered that. I've never read anything to suggest that they consider themselves to be a separate fellowship, though.  Do you get the sense that it's a significant issue? EastTN (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Grape Juice/Wine is a dead issue, killed off by Prohibition. I brought it up mainly as an example of how the splits occurred --- what is required to differentiate between a "distinct fellowship", and a congregation, or group of them, that departs from the rest in one specific thing.jonathon (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and it is a good example. I did find one source that suggests there are still a few out there, but it can't be very many (at least, in the U.S.).  Did they start throwing anathema's at each other, and refusing to recognize each other?  My sense is that those are the things that distinguish a separate fellowship; one side starts saying "you're not really one of us" rather than "our congregation looks at it (or does it) this way." EastTN (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The anathemas may only need to flow one way. Typically, (but not universally) more liberal/progressive congregtions will accept more conservative folks as valid, but not the other way around. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, too. My sense is that the side - whichever one it may be - that sees a particular issue as a moral one, or a matter of fidelity to the will of God, finds it difficult or impossible to accept something that they see as immoral or a refusal to accept God's will.
 * I'm beginning to think that jonathon's question about how we define a "distinct fellowship" is deeper than I'd originally realized. It's pretty clear that the Disciples/churches of Christ split was deep and fundamental - both sides would say "no, that's different group" about the other.  Not only are there differences in local congregational practices, but there's a completely different approach to church organization and, I think it's safe to say, some significant doctrinal differences as well.  The churches of Christ/International Church of Christ split seems to be equally significant, if of more recent vintage (though there are still some efforts to achieve some sort of restoration of unity).
 * I don't see the many communion cups vs. one communion cup difference among churches of Christ being of the same level. To me, that's a distinct or identifiable subgroup within the churches of Christ.  But people might still read some of the same brotherhood periodicals, there will still be some contact between ministers, and there might be some contact and mutual recognition between congregations - at least on an informal level.  If nothing else, at the member in the pew level, someone might say "yeah, my sister's family goes to a one-cup congregation" but I don't think they'd go so far as to say "she's not a member of the church."  I don't think the institutional/non-institutional split has gone quite that far either, though there has been some bad blood on both sides.
 * That distinction between a "split" and a "distinct" whatever it is (subgoup? fellowship?) still seems a bit fuzzy to me, though. Perhaps the test is whether one side or the other would say about a family member associated with the other side "he/she is a member of the church" or "he/she is not a member of the church."  Is it fair to say you have a split if either side would say "is not," and a distinct fellowship if both sides would say "is" (regardless of how many caveats or buts they added behind the "is a member of the church")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastTN (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the institutional/non-institutional split is at least as deep as the instrumental/non-instrumental split. Consider the usage of the term "antis" as a demonstration of that split.jonathon (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Historically, the first splits were congregations that would later be classified as "non-institutional. Had these congregations been less militantly autonomous, and had slightly greater numbers, they would have been listed as a separate congregation prior to 1900.jonathon (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Certainly the issue is a deep one - and the moniker "anti" is truly unfortunate.  I does seem to me that there may be some subtle differences between the institutional/non-institutional dispute and the instrumental/non-instrumental dispute.  While they both deal with questions of what the Bible permits (or, at the very least, what it is prudent and appropriate for the church to do given the teaching and example of the New Testament church), the institutional question deals with what a congregation can or should do with its funds, while the instrumental question deals with how worship is conducted.  As a practical matter, that means that whichever position I hold on contributing church money to an educational or other institution, I can comfortably worship with a congregation taking the other view when I'm traveling or visiting family (though it may affect how comfortable I am making a contribution to the congregation while I'm there).  In fact, unless I make a point of asking, I may not know which view the congregation holds unless I'm there for a while and get involved.  The same isn't true true for the instrumental/non-instrumental question - if I believe it's wrong to use instrumental music in worship, I won't feel comfortable worshiping in a congregation where instruments are used.  That seems to create a stronger barrier against fellowship between congregations. Differences over how congregations spend the money in their treasuries don't seem to hamper fellowship between congregations to quite the same extent.  EastTN (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is far more to the institutional/non-institutional split than finances. I will grant that the casual observer won't recognize those effects, as readily as they recognize the effects of the instrumental/A Capella split.jonathon (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is now, but the original dispute was over congregational support for such things as educational institutions and charitable organizations. Some of the older material I've read is from representatives of the non-institutional view who are almost pleading with supporters of these institutions, asking why congregational contributions are necessary in addition to support from individual Christians, and arguing that since the issue was driving a wedge between congregations, it would be better to just not do it (if nothing else, as a concession to avoid offending fellow Christians).  Since that time, the two groups have grown further apart, which is unfortunate.  But my sense is that even today none of the differences touch the issues of how one becomes a Christian or how Christians conduct their worship when they meet together. Those are the foundational requirements for casual fellowship between congregations.  Neither side has to feel like they are somehow sinning by participating in the worship when they visit a service at a congregation with the other view, or that they are somehow compromising the Bible when they recognize the members of that congregation as fellow Christians (even if they do think the other congregation is mistaken on these particular issues).  I think that's why all the reference materials I've seen treat the institutional/non-institutional groups as subsets within the churches of Christ, rather than as a separate fellowship (as they do the International Churches of Christ or the Disciples of Christ). EastTN (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There were two major waves that created what now constitute "non-institutional churches. The first one was before 1900, and picked up mutual edification, no Sunday school, and similar groups.   The second one was roughly between WW2 and 1960.   The first wave is where most of the distinct fellowships evolved.  This is where CoC theology is hard to grok.


 * But my sense is ... how Christians conduct their worship when they meet together. Not to the same extent as Instrumental/A Capella. (Those are more likely to be found in the other distinct fellowships.) The differences are found in how the congregation organizes itself.  The Soteriology is more or less the same--- no more different than any two randomly selected A Cappela congregations. jonathon (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm almost a year too late, but I'd note the above is incorrect. The one-cup group is as distinct from the NI group as the NI group is from institutional churches. The reason one-cup churches are effectively "non-institutional" is that institutionalism only came into existence (at least in any meaningful way) long after the one-cup churches divided themselves from the rest. Not sure of the origins of this urban legend (though I have some suspicions), but there's a treatment of it on the NI churches page. Jdb1972 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's right. The soteriology is very similar, as are the worship services.  I'd suggest that, for now, at least, we continue to treat them as an identifiable subset of the churches of Christ rather than as a completely separate deal.  It may not be perfect, but that's how it's treated by all the histories I've been able to find. EastTN (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The more I look at this, the more I think that a diagram might be useful here.  One axis is Mutual Edification/Disciples of Christ and the other axis is A Capella/Instrumental.  I know I can plot specific congregations along those dimensions.I'm not sure if I can do it for the groups as a whole.   I'll also point out that this plotting would constitute WP:OR.jonathon (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to confuse you, I have run into individual congregations that had no musical instrument, but were not affiliated with the A Capella branch. Reasons for this state of affairs varied, but generally boiled down to either a lack of funds, or lack of permanent space. (Natural disasters can have weird side effects.)jonathon (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ... And I know plenty of folks who have no doctrinal problem with instrumental music, but choose to worship in a cappella churches for various reasons. There will always be outliers in any etymology, especially of any group that holds that each individual should be able to study the scriptures and come to his or her own conclusion. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what happens when you take congregational autonomy seriously. And to follow up on your comment that some congregations that don't use instruments are "not affiliated with the A Capella branch" and throw some confusion back at you, real congregational autonomy makes it very hard to define what affiliated means.  There aren't any formal organizational ties, so you have to look to other things.  In practical terms, I think affiliation may be best defined based on two criteria:  1) operationally, measuring informal ties based on the extent to which congregations have contact with each other (e.g., their members move back and forth, they invite each others' ministers to preach, read the same periodicals, hire ministers from the same schools, go to each others' gospel meetings, link to each others' websites, etc.) and 2) categorically, measuring similarity based on the extent to which they teach the same things and have the same practices.


 * . . . and to trade back another anecdote, I know of one professing Catholic who attends an a capella church of Christ. She began attending with her husband, but when he gradually stopped attended church, she kept coming because she'd gotten involved in the life of the congregation (she handles all the church's insurance issues now, and helps manage the food pantry for the benevolent work) - but if you ask her what her religion is, she'll say "Catholic."  Go figure.


 * I do think you're correct in noting that there's more than one doctrinal axis involved. I would make one axis congregational autonomy and non-denominationalism versus organizational unity and ecumenism; another would be the relative importance placed on New Testament patterns; a third might be the degree of literalism with which the New Testament is interpreted.  My guess is that my grid might look very much like yours, but I'd try to over-complicate it.  It would be really nice if we could find a source for that sort of visual.  I haven't seen anything so far, though.  EastTN (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a largely based on the interpretation of those doctrines. From one point, a historical perspective states that wine was the only method to preserve grape juice at the time of Jesus.  There was no canning, bottling, or refrigeration. All of the key symbolisms that make up the wine structure around the juice aspect.  The fermentation into wine was just the common method to preserve juice for shipment.  Of course, then you do have traditionalism of trying to stay as close to possible to the original actions, as it is an act of rememberance.  Of course almost no congregations use common Jewish wine as would be used at the last supper.  Specifically, it would have been Passover wine, which I'm sure you can look up in the Jewish segment for Passover.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuediiX (talk • contribs) 04:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would seriously consider returning to the Churches of Christ if they'd bust out a bottle of Manischewitz every now and again in the fellowship hall . . . and sing the old songs . . . and not be so sexist and homophobic and monochromatic. Oh, well, never mind.  I'll stick with agnosticism.


 * Historically, the shift to grape juice (un-fermented wine) occurred during, and was associated with, the temperance movement in the U.S. This was a broad shift, cutting across denominational lines and affecting many other groups (such as the Baptists).  One concern that's often expressed is that the use of fermented wine would pose a challenge to those members of the congregation who may be recovering alcoholics.  It's my understanding, though, that there are a few congregations that do use kosher wine in communion.  EastTN (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Plan of Salvation and Role of Baptism
I've spent a good bit of time trying to flesh out the section on the doctrine of salvation, and particularly the role of baptism, because it's such a central teaching for the churches of Christ.

Do we have this covered reasonably well now? Is there anything obvious missing? The one thing that occurs to me might be a little more detailed discussion of the "five step plan of salvation" - it's something most people who've come in contact with the churches of Christ will have heard of, and it might be useful to describe how it originated as a mnemonic used by preachers in sermons and gospel meetings. That would add a paragraph or two, though, and might require breaking the section up into subsections. I'm not sure how to do that cleanly, though. Maybe by having a main section, then a subsection for the "five steps" and a subsection for the role of baptism is salvation?

Or would we be better off leaving it alone? I don't know how critical talking about the five steps really is. EastTN (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What you have is comprehensive, well sourced, and accurately represents my understanding of both the current thinking and historical conflcits over baptism. I do worry that the tone might be a bit too oriented towards Christian readers, and that it might be better to copyedit what you have, probably by generally expanding it, to make it more accessible to people without a background in American protestant Christianity. Does that make sense? Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that does make a lot of sense to me - I needed that "second set of eyes" insight! I'll probably let the section sit for a couple of days, and then come back to it with (I hope) a little fresher point of view. EastTN (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If we left out the "five steps", we take out the essence of main teaching mnemonic of the churches of Christ. I encourage everyone to leave it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark0880 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)  Oops forgot to sign: Mark0880. --Mark0880 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That section "Because of the belief that baptism is a necessary part of salvation, some Baptists hold that the Churches of Christ endorse the doctrine of baptismal regeneration...." seems incongruent in the section. The Baptist denomination has nothing to offer in the churches of Christ Baptism paragraph. What any denomination thinks or feels about this section is not germaine to the discussion AT ALL. - Mark0880 --Mark0880 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the sentence, "While Churches of Christ do not describe baptism as a "sacrament", their view of it can legitimately be described as "sacramental"" is not germaine to the discussion of the section. The word "sacrament" is not in the bible, and is not used in the churches of Christ. I suggest that this sentence be left out or put in some section like arguments against baptism, or something to that effect. It doesnt fit here. - Mark0880 --Mark0880 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Priority?
Why has this become "top" priority? I can see "high", but it's just a moderate sized, primarily American, protestant denomination. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know why it was prioritized that way. I wonder if it might be because the churches of Christ represent a theological view that's distinct from the Calvinist, Lutheran and Wesleyan traditions? EastTN (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I went back and looked at the list of "top" priority Christianity "good articles" and compared it to the list of "high" priority Christianity "good articles." In general, it does appear that the "top" priority articles are ones that should have a higher priority than the "high" priority articles - so the relative ranking seemed o.k. to me.  But, looking at them I do wonder if we're getting some "priority inflation" with the good articles.  Just for kicks, I looked at the Featured articles, and the "priority inflation" seems even stronger there.  Anne Hutchinson is a top-importance, featured article for Wikiproject Christianity, as is George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore.  Both of these people are undoubtedly important, but are they really at the top of the list of the most significant people in the development of Christianity?  Similarly, the Catholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments is a high-importance featured article.  Again, not an insignificant subject, but not one of the first things the average reader needs to know to understand Christianity.  Perhaps this is natural, though, and not all that bad.  Once an article has reached a certain level of quality, perhaps it makes sense to give it a bit more priority. Anyway, I agree with you - I personally would have ranked this one as "high" rather than "top" priority.  But ranking it as a "top" priority does not appear inconsistent with the rankings given other Wikiproject Chrisitianty Good Articles and Featured Articles. EastTN (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Redundant repetition
At the end of the intro this sentence includes both "the New Testament", and "scriptural". "They believe that the New Testament expresses how a person may become a Christian (and thus a part of the universal Church of Christ) and how a church should be collectively organized and carry out its scriptural purposes." The second reference to the scriptures should be deleted. Markewilliams (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The word "scriptural" is intended to define what kind of church "purposes" are under discussion. Church organizations have, in different times and places, taken on a variety of purposes (such as advancing particular political positions or parties) that are only tenuously related (at best) to scripture. EastTN (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

About the recent changes in the paragraph “Work of the Holy Spirit.”
Recently, some passages from the Scriptures have been added at the end of the paragraph “Work of the Holy Spirit.” Although the Holy Spirit is mentioned in those passages, how do they relate to the paragraph in particular? —The Sackinator (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I see it, they don't, and unless some sourced relationship is found and included, I propose they be removed from the paragraph. —ADavidB 07:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, unless there is a relationship, of course. As of now, though, I don't see one. —The Sackinator (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)