Talk:Peace churches/Archive 1

Severe violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View
The section entitled "Biblical foundation for Christian pacifism" simply reeks of NPOV violations. It is filled with interpretations of the Bible that many do not agree with, even many Christian pacifists. Nowhere in this section are there references to other points of view about the indicated passages in the Bible, nor are there references to scholarly discussions of these issues. The Bible is referenced as though it were completely unambiguous on the subject of war, yet history is filled to overflowing with stories of nations that have used the Bible to justify every military act. As it stands, this section comprehensively violates the WP:NPOV guidelines. To quote from these guidelines: "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents."

To conform to Wikipedia style guidelines, this entire section will have to be rewritten so as to describe the controversies and alternative interpretations that surround these issues. I am neither a biblical scholar nor a historian of religion, and cannot do this myself. I wonder also, whether any of this material — even rewritten from a neutral point of view — really belongs to an article entitled "Peace Churches". As a Quaker pacifist myself, I tend to agree with the anonymous editor who wrote earlier that a discussion of the biblical foundation of Christian pacifism belongs to an article on Christian pacifism as a system of thought, rather than to an article on Christian churches of peace. — Aetheling 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Aetheling's statement in all aspects. I welcomed the new user and asked for sources for this particular interpretation. My suggestion is to see if any are forthcoming and if there are none, then the new material should be removed in a week or so. JonHarder talk 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of Aetheling's and JonHarder's points. I removed the material. The Biblical interpretations are my views, and are not based on academic sources. I recognize this material is controversial and did not address this adequately. I would appreciate if someone would help in the creation of Biblical sources for Christian nonviolence and/or point me to wikipedia pages that analyze Biblical interpretations on any given subject as a reference. I created a wikipedia page called "Christian nonviolence", especially in light of the discussion about the redirect from "Christian pacifism" to this "Peace churches" page. "Peace churches" ought to explain the traditions and historic roots of Christian pacifism, whereas a page about "Christian pacifism" or "Christian nonviolence" ought to explain the Biblical and theological theories. I included a "Biblical references about Christian nonviolence" section on the "Christian nonviolence" page which tries to catalog Biblical passages that may potentially support Christian nonviolence. I tried to limit the amount of Biblical interpretation. If I have violated NPOV guidelines again, please mark the article.--Mlomize 07:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-Defense?
Which church groups allow self-defense, but not participation in war? It might be a valuable addition to the article and would help clarify the opening section. 66.191.17.168 15:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Community of Christ (fka Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)
Should there really be a mention of the Community of Christ as they do not teach or advise against their members from military service? They peace activites are interesting, but I don't know that they can be classed as a peace church. 68.113.47.60 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Christadelphians
I believe the Christadelphians also are a peace church of sorts. 71.92.157.85 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic abbreviations
"the Community of Christ (fka RLDS)" Does "fka" stand for "formerly known as"? If so, it ought to be spelled out, explained, or linked to an explanation. As for "RLDS," I can't even venture a guess. What does it mean? Unfree (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First, fka is a common legal abbreviations meaning 'formerly known as.' It has been changed for clarity.  The RLDS stands for Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  The groups was know as that name from 1872 to 2001.  As the church fairly recently changed its name, the reference was added.71.92.157.186 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Church of Christ section re "conservative"
I modified this section to add the added identifier of "politically" to conservative members of Churches of Christ, as otherwise this statement that conservative members not being nonviolent is confusing. From a doctrinal standpoint, the Lipscomb nonviolent view would be the "conservative" (older) doctrine, though it's apparent that the author meant that people who would self-identify as "conservatives" (politically or culturally) would be in favor of a more innovative (as opposed to conservative), mid 20th century doctrinal outlook (eschewing nonviolence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.212.126 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea clarifying if the conservativism in question is theological or political. Either way, a reference would really add to the article.  71.92.157.186 (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect for "Christian pacifism"
That this page of "Christian pacifism" points to "Peace churches" seems to be inappropriate, if not inaccurately myopic. Christian pacifism is a mode of Christian ethics that has a far wider participation than just the Peace Churches. In fact, it seems that most of today's writers for Christian pacifism are not even categorically Anabaptist. Case in point is Stanley Hauerwas; though a student of John H. Yoder, is himself Methodist. Then we have other folks such as William Willimon, Rodney Clapp, Lee C. Camp, Phillip Kenesson, William Cavanaugh, Dan Bell,  and Michael Budde... who alone cover a wide range of Christian starting places. But over all, it is most disturbing that there is no mention at all of John H. Yoder! It really seems as though someone wrote the Peace Church's page and decided to create forward without diligently considering what they were doing.

Christian Pacifism should have its own, appropriate, page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismon (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 November 2006


 * Christian pacifism now has its own page. nirvana2013 (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove Tag
The article has been improved since the Refimprove tag was placed on in July 2007. Unless there are any objections, I think it should be removed. 68.116.112.230 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Non Christian pacifism
Could we have a link to Non Christian religions that encourage pacifism as I'm sure there are some. I'm not sure about the identities of all the pacifist religions. Could someone more familiar with those religions include this information. Tydoni (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pacifism is one such link. ✤ JonHarder talk 02:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Are Jehovah's Witnesses pacifists?
Your input would be appreciated here. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They are conscientious objectors, and refuse to take part in any war (human led anyway) that makes them worthy of mention here.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe this has been answered by another editor here. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Peace churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410082703/http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dlipscomb/civgov.html to http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dlipscomb/civgov.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Need for further precision on reference No. 1
Looks perfectly relevant. But which is the page number quoted in the first reference; the whole book ? (English is not my mother tongue, so I apologize for any mistake in that register) .Kraybill, Donald B.. Concise Encyclopedia of Amish, Brethren, Hutterites, and Mennonites. 2010? 328 pages? Thanks Andre, - Qc. AndWater (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Article title: suggest change to "CHRISTIAN Peace Churches IN NORTH AMERICA"?
Implicitly, this article is almost entirely about US, and (even more implicitly) Canadian, churches. There is half of one sentence about conscientious objection by Christadelphians under Naziism. Even though most of the peace churches discussed in this article have European roots, those European activities are not otherwise discussed. Do peace churches exist in Asia, Africa, Australasia, and/or Latin America? (I myself have no idea.) Also, I strongly suspect that non-Christian pacifist religious sects exist in various parts of the world. Acwilson9 (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you bring up a good and important point, but I'm not sure a move (retitle) is the best solution.
 * First, assuming the article does have a narrowed view of the subject, the better move would probably be to improve this article (or at the very least put Globalize on it in the mean time) to look at how the term is used outside the US/North America. It doesn't seem obvious to me that we should be splitting the term by geography, just that it has accidentally become the present state of affairs.
 * Second, it's important to note that the article is not intended to be about Christian pacifism generally (which has its own article with a more global perspective), but about the specific term "peace churches," which is a term that has a specific meaning in at least North America, and is wrapped up in the history of conscientious objector status in the US. Before moving the article (or even rewriting it), I'd want to know if the term itself (as distinct from Christian pacifism in general) is used outside North America - if it isn't, then there's no problem. (Being a North American myself, I have no firsthand experience to say either way what the practice elsewhere is.)
 * Third, you suggest moving the article to include the word "Christian" in the title, but the word "church" is already very strongly associated with Christianity in the first place. Other pacifistic religious traditions are treated in Pacifism and Religion and peacebuilding.
 * This is an important discussion to have, thanks for bringing it up! MarginalCost (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * is on the right track here on the issues at stake. I'm tempted to suggest that we split this between Conscientious objection in the United States and Christian pacifism. The term "peace churches" has ongoing usage, but I'm inclined to think it doesn't warrant a separate article from Christian pacifism. Might we also split into a new article List of Christian denominational positions on war and peace? I don't have experience with list articles. Daask (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * : Your comments make sense to me. I do not feel adequately competent in these topics to make any of these changes myself. Acwilson9 (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)