Jump to content

Talk:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Dear Angel of Neutrality Unbelief

If you will note, the title of this article is "Disciples of Christ". It concerns those whose main principle of identity is their belief that Jesus is the Christ. They consequently consider themselves Christians. When you attempt to police the entire Wikipedia, to scour it clean of references to Jesus Christ, even where that title is the only one that makes sense in the context (as in a Christian article) you are pushing a point of view that distorts the articles you are editing. This is not neutrality, it is a form of argumentation; it is ordinary proselytism for your point of view. Please stop doing that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hummm...I think this is a bit strong (albiet, I don't know the full history here). The "Jesus Christ" entry was mine when I re-wrote the article, and is a direct quote from http://www.disciples.org/discover/beliefs.htm: "Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." As such, I believe the statement should remain intact, as a statement of a core Disciples belief from an official church publication. -- Essjay · Talk 06:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I opened my complaint against this wiki-wide campaign to remove every link to Jesus Christ from articles pertaining to Christian belief (on the grounds that it's "POV"), on a page that I knew you monitored. But on reflection, I know that you don't like controversy, Essjay. I'm sorry to have made you uncomfortable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's a systematic practice, then it sounds to me like it needs an RfC (like BC/AD and BCE/CE, although hopefully more successful). You're correct that as a general rule, I don't get involved in content disputes. With regard to this particular article, however, as I said above, "Jesus Christ" is a direct quote from the church's own website, and should remain intact. If quoting the one essential tenet of DOC faith is POV, then so is including the text of the Nicene Creed, the Eightfold Path, and the Five Pillars of Islam. No need to be worried about upsetting me, but I do believe that if there is a dispute about whether "Jesus Christ" should be used as a general rule, then RfC is the right place to go. No need to apologize to me. -- Essjay · Talk 12:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The rule of thumb that appears to guide the project, is that articles may contain the phrase (inconsistently followed - as individuals get their own ideas), but none may contain the link. If it's a link, it's a wiki-wide issue (making the phrase "POV"); but if it's an unlinked phrase, it can be isolated to its ghetto of peculiar Christian culture and belief. That's my perception of why they have felt justified in reverting links. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well I have no opinion with regard to whether it should be linked as the whole phrase Jesus Christ, or as Jesus Christ. However, the statement should remain one or the other, the "Christ" portion, whether linked or not, is part of the actual statement of belief and as such should remain. For all those involved, please feel free to make whatever arguments you wish with regard to whether Christ should be part of the link, but please do not remove it from the statement altogether; that is, argue over link and de-link if you like, but make sure the phrase remains the same. -- Essjay · Talk 00:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Updating

This article needed some work, in my opinion, so I did it. Sorry that I'm not being more specific, but I mostly added some information. If anything seems off, let me know.--Atterlep 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

Does anybody have a reference of statistics of this church? How many members were listed on the US census? Is there membership geographically isolated to the United States? Cuñado - Talk 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[1] and [2] (first two excel sheets). Both disciples.org and the second spreadsheet put the number around 800,000, so I used that in the article. disciples.org says that congregations are located in US and Canada. --MattWright (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim that non-Disciples churches with Restoration ties are "so strongly congregational as to make a reliable count of their overall memberships almost impossible" simply represents the decision not to do research on the matter. See the book, The Churches of Christ in the United States (2006 edition), published by 21st Century Christian publishers http://www.21stcc.com/cocus.cfm Josh a brewer 17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

CesarLeo, I don't understand why you delete informations about actual number of members and congregations. Oficcial site of DoC or PC(USA) reports are reliable sources, at least much more than website of single congregation. If you disagree, then confront your source with informations from U.S Census Bureau which MattWright inserted here earlier: [3]. Ammon86 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Who really designed the chalice Logo?

Does anyone have a written source for the attibution of the Chalice's creation? I have looked and not found it anywhere. I know from personal conversations with Disciples Leaders that Robert Friedly was part of the process. Is there any documentation of what role John Fulton played in the process? In a meeting I once attended, Disciples cartoonist, Bruce Tillsley, described his role in the process, as well. Knowing those who participated in the creation and their democratic style, I suspect that all would really prefer anonymity to attribution. Can we find an adequate verifyable written source? or, Shall we pull the names altogether? John Park (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mojohook Thank you for your edits this morning. They are are interesting. Do you have a written source that I have not found? May I suggest that we not attibute the chalice logo design to any individuals, for now. Then reserve such attribution until we have a good source. I personally know two of the people who were involved in its creation. -- The source you removed supports the 1969 date and most of the rest of the content of this section. John Park (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Division Section in the history portion

At this point the section titled Division is still missing citations and sources. Points for us to ponder:

  • Shouldn't the details about the beliefs and practices of the Churches of Christ be moved or otherwise incorporated in the article devoted to Churches of Christ? This material definitely needs source citation. Can someone provide them?
  • Should the Division section be named something else? There are two major divisions that have taken place (1906 - the Churches of Christ) and (1968+ -- the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ) The Division section primarily deals with the Non-Instrumental Churches of Christ. The other division was a long time coming, but formalized after the Adoption of the Provisional Design in 1968. It is covered later in the Restructure section of the article.
  • Please be sure to cite sources in any edits. I would gladly assist with the formatting if you leave me a message either here or on my talk page. John Park (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved the Churches of Christ segment titled "other branches" to the Restoration Movement Article since the Churches of Christ have not been affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) for more than a century (1906), they hardly qualify as another branch of the CC(DOC). They are indeed a branch of the Restoration movement.John Park (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a Disambiguation at the top

The disambiguation paragraph at the top was placed there because there has been a tendency for editors from the other two branches of the Campbell Stone Movement to add segments describing "other branches, where that material in POV and really extraneous to this article. I can see that the very top might not be the best place for it. The bottom is ridiculous. Is there a place it could be inserted to be effective, yet not at the top? Is it needed at all? John Park (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the article seems mostly to run chronologically, perhaps we could insert each link in the time period that each schism happened. —ScouterSig 17:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Churches of Christ (Aus)

The Australian arm of the 'Disciples of Christ' is the 'Churches of Christ (Australia)'.

"Australian Churches of Christ" are not an arm of the "Disciples of Christ", they are a seperate arm of the restoration movement that was initally heavily influenced by the "British Churches of Christ" and then after that by the US. That is why they used "Church(es) of Christ" and setup a conference structure from the 1860's. Disciples have pastors wearing robes and referred to as "reverend" both of which I have never heard of in Australia. The Australian Churches of Christ probably exist in a spectrum including people in line with the Independent Christian Church and Disciples (as their has never been a formal splitt in Australia.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.121.53 (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment re: the relationships. You are, of course, correct. There is much misinformation and many misunderstandings on talk pagees, aren't there? I looked in the article to see if there was still a reference to the Churches of Christ in Australia, and found none. John Park (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Subjective statement on baptism

"In their study of the Bible, both realized the practice of Baptism in the New Testament was a baptism for believers by immersion in water. They adopted the practice in their churches."

This is not an objective display of their beliefs. This is opinion, not objective scholarship. To say "both realized the practice in the New Testament was a baptism for believers by immersion in water' promotes believers baptism as if it is fact, rather than an interpretation of the text. There are other interpretations (paedobaptism) of the texts. Something along the lines of, "both groups followed the credobaptist tradition in regards to baptism," would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evaporateddwarf (talk • contribs) 05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Evaporateddwarf for your observation. Am I correct the your objection to the present wording comes across as presuming that Believer's baptism by immersion as the "only" way to interpret the baptism scriptures? That section is on my "to do list" to rewrite and cite sources, as time permits. Your suggestion, however, if implemented as it is would create tremendous POV issues for those whose roots are in the Stone-Campbell movement, on at least 3 levels that I see with a casual reading. Does the change of word choice that I have made in the article solve the problem in your opinion? Again thanks! I hope that I am not hostile to paedo-baptists. The ones I meet are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Though not one of them has ever introduced themselves as a paedo-baptist. John Park (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It does fix it. I didn't feel it was offensive or anything, I just didn't feel like it was very objective. I'd read through the article and be watchful for the fact that as a whole, it tends to sound more like a person describing their denomination, rather than an objective display of its beliefs. Even the intro line "The Disciples' congregationally-governed local churches invite people to practice a simple faith that proclaims Jesus Christ and celebrates the freedom as Jesus' disciples to explore God's call to his people to love and to serve." sounds very influenced by POV. This is just an example of the kind of tone that arises at times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.255.1 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Again thanks for the help and the perspective. I am hopeful that by reviewing word choice and tieing content more closely to third party source materials, most of those problems will go away. John Park (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple comments

I wanted to make a couple comments and suggestions about this article. My first concern is its sources. Besides the notes needing to be properly formatted, they are all primary sources. There are no secondary or tertiary sources to verify the content provided solely by the DoC writers (see WP:PSTS). My other concern is the tone of this article (see WP:TONE). Because all its sources are primary, it takes on the sound of these writers instead of a more encyclopedic tone. For example, "The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) are a people of the Lord's Table" sounds more like a cut-and-paste from a book than an encyclopedic sentence. I see this problem throughout the article. I would like to see things cleaned up a bit so that it sounds a bit more professional, with a few more secondary and tertiary sources to back things up. Finally, I think it might be suitable to mention Jim Jones, if only to say yes this was his roots even though he departed from them to start a cult. I'm not looking to bash the DoC, it just seems suitable because it is such a significant topic to include a sentence or two on it. Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting....

I wonder why the editors of this article chose to insert an explanation for Edgar Cayce's membership in the Christian Church, but left unexplained that of alleged genocidal killer Jim Jones. Is it really so much worse to be an occultist than an (alleged) murderer? -- SwissCelt 20:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You're an editor too. If you think that there should be an explaination for Jones, add it. If you think there shouldn't be one for Cayce, delete it. "Edit this page" works equally for everyone. -- Essjay · Talk 02:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the commentary on the conflict between Cayce's para-normal activities and the beliefs of the church. If Cayce beleieved that Jesus is the Christ and was baptized, he met the essentials for membership. His other beliefs and practices, while not appreciated by all, were his, not the church's. One of the core beliefs of the Disciples of Christ, which is not always appreciated, is summarized in a dlogan from the early days of the movement "In essentials, Unity; in non essentials, Liberty; and in all things, Ccharity." Members of the Christian Church are NOT required to conform to a "party line." Neither was Cayce. The comment also has some POV problems regarding the validity of Cayce's approach to life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnparkw (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC) John Park (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Woops! I added Jim Jones days ago and just checked in to make sure that the edit stood and was not wiped. Perhaps I should have "axed" somebody? Why try to explain any motivations when it comes to religion? Are you one to decide who meets the essentials of any religious organization, let alone the DOC? Also edited your "dlogan" for what I assume to be "slogan." " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.6.162 (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Classification is mainline protestant and no longer Restoration movement

User 12.65.138.6, please note that while the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is proud of its roots in the Campbell / Stone movement, it has long since moved away from Restoration of the New Testament church as an organizing goal. Instead it has focused upon the quest for Christian Unity that was a core value of the Campbell Stone Movement from its earliest days. In that quest for the unity of the church, the Disciples are clearly Mainline Protestant in spirit and orientation. John Park (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please also note the earlier discussion on this issue here. John Park (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jones, Disciples minister or not?

Was Jim Jones ever a Disciples minister? This article currently states that he wasn't, without ever saying why one might think that he had been. His bio article says that he was. Anyone have any good references on this? Gwimpey 06:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The book by Mary McCormick Maaga said that the People Temple Full Gospel Church was an affiliate of the Disciples of Christ (page 2). The DoC had records for the nr. of members (page 3). One prominent member (Carolyn Layton) described herself in 1976 as "Vice President of the Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ." 15:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


>>>Was Jim Jones ever a Disciples minister? <<<

Answer from religious tolerance website:

"Background of the People's Temple: This was a Christian destructive, doomsday cult founded and led by James Warren Jones (1931-1978). Jim Jones held degrees from Indiana University and Butler University. He was not a Fundamentalist pastor as many reports in the media and the anti-cult movement claim. He belonged to a mainline Christian denomination, having been ordained in the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ. (At the time of his ordination, the DoC allowed a local congregation to select and ordain a minister on their own. However, ordinations conducted without denominational endorsement were not considered valid within the rest of the church.) "

See for full article from which the quote was excerpted http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm


and:

"Jones was ordained as a minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in 1964." Taken from this source: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/jones.htm

(lisa pollison)

Jim Jones was not ordained as a pastor of the Disciples of Christ that this article is on. He was ordained prior to the split of the Christian Church (DoC) and the Independent Christian Church. :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Churches_and_Churches_of_Christ Prestonvickrey (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Prestonvickrey, at the time of his ordination, there would not have been the distinction you are trying to suggest. Jones was "Grandfathered" into the CC(DOC) because he was listed in the 1968 and subsequent directories of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). If he had been asked, Jones probably would have disavowed the affiliation, but that concept is moot, isn't it.John Park (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Added Jim Jones again to list of prominent members. Someone always comes along and removes him from the list, but this does not change the truth. So, which of you Disciples is engaged in a little cover-up? (JS - IL) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.6.162 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

JS - IL??, IP 131.230.6.162, Cover-up? This time your insert lasted more than 3 months, before a careful reader took issue with its POV phrasing. I know you acted in good faith in adding it. I suspect that the other editors are also acting in good faith. The Jim Jones Story is of interest to this article. I personally do not have a third party source which is also NPOV (Neutral in Point of View). I could write an original paragraph. Wikipedia Standards, however, would stand against such writing. Jones was ordained (1964?)in the Disciples prior to restructure in 1968. At Peoples Temple he went his own way and avoided accountability to the Disciples leadership. As a direct result of those non-accountability issues with Jones, the denomination became very serious about ministerial standing. At the time of his ordination, was he part of the "independent" Christian Churches or the "Cooperative" churches? It does not really matter, because the focus was far more on restructure than on screening ministerial candidates. Any minister in the movement prior to restructure would have been "Grandfathered" in until he or she opted out, or until the denomination was able to take appropriate action. Jones clearly did not represent the teachings and best practices of the Disciples. A series of articles in Disciples World (last year)recognized the recent anniversary of the murder suicides of Jonestown. That does to seem to me to be an effective way to cover up anything. Sometimes, however, it is difficult to know what to say. John Park (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

POV phrasing? Not sure how this is POV: "James Warren "Jim" Jones, founder of the Peoples Temple of Jonestown, Guyana, best known for the 1978 death of over 900 members in a ritualized mass suicide" Is it due to the usage of the phrase "best known"? I would argue that this is objective fact, correct? Or is this just poor word usage? Or was the POV terms "ritualized mass suicide"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.43.21 (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP 131.230.43.21, POV phrasing? Isn't it always in the eye of the beholder? When an editor comes along that doesn't like it, from that person's perspective IT IS not neutral. They are editors and they change it. Wikipedia's Challenge to "Assume good faith" from all editors, invites both you and me to respect all comers. Does it really make a difference whether the edit is made because the editor wants to hide an unpleasant reality, or because the editor knows there is no context in which to share enough information for it to truly be a Neutral Point of view. The fact is that much of the conversation about Jones and the Disciples is so out of context that there is more heat generated by it than light shed on the subject. When I find adequate, verifiable, third-party sources, I will personally add a paragraph about Jones in the history section. If I personally had a problem with the way the name appears in the Prominent members section, it would have been edited within a few hours of the time it was posted. Others seem to have a different point of view (POV), so they will make their edits.
Here are some facts for you:
  1. Jim Jones was ordained in a Christian Church apparently in 1964, which was before the 1968 restructure. Do you know if it was a "Co-operative" Christian church or an "Independent" Christian church?"
  2. Jim Jones was "grandfathered into" the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) with the adoption of the Provisional Design of 1968.
  3. Jones was NOT participating with the Disciples at the time of the Murders and mass suicides at Jonestown, even though he was still "listed in the yearbook."
  4. Though some in the denomination would have disavowed Jones completely, the leadership of the denomination did not do so. Rather, they took action to improve the helping of ministers with emotional problems get the help they need, before tragedy occurs.
  5. Jones actions in Jonestown came from Jones himself, not the principles of the Disciples as a denomination.
Anonymous IP 131.230.43.21, I agree with you that we should be looking for facts, not playing word games, or editing games of "delete and then replace." You do agree, don't you?John Park (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Source of the "In Essentials, Unity" Slogan

User:72.177.24.26, The earliest use of the slogan appears to come from Rupertus Meldenius. Many others have adopted it, especially in the 20th century. Its impact upon the Campbell/ Stone movement,in the 19th century, is well documented. How it arrived in the Campbell Stone tradition is not clear, but probably from enlightenment sources. Some have attibuted the quote to John Wesley, but it clearly predates him. John Park (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia Confession

There was an unlinked reference to the Philadelphia Confession. I created an article as a redirect to 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, which seems to be the origin of the American document. This is way out of my area though, so if somebody wants to correct me or start a new article, have at it. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems concerning non-references. Otr500 (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I came to this article to find information. I read a long article and had to go outside Wikipedia to find what I would consider "normal" information concerning a belief. What I read is an article with many tags that is written to be more concerned with differences and full of vagueness. This does not make any sense to me.

What led me to this article was the article on the Holy Spirit, reference to this article, some confusion, and following links which is the intent of Wikipedia. My particular interest was baptism. After reading the article with no new information I looked specifically at the links. There I found many references that listed what appears to be authors and page numbers. Maybe I am wrong but if I want to check a reference I will need to know more than this since I do not ascribe to the practice nor own a Cristal ball. References #2 through #42 read similar to "McAlister and Tucker (1975). Page 29", along with others. If this is just authors (and page numbers) with no reference to a particular book, then these are not reference. It is not the job of editors to "figure out" what is suppose to be apparent. I am requesting someone correct this to be actual links, remove approximately 46 non-references (out of 58), or risk deletion. This would leave a lot of non-sourced material presented as Original Research.
As a note; the information I was seeking was located at, [4] and was easily found, which I would think should be of interest to non-POV editors. 15:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The reference to a book; "The Churches of Christ in the United States (2006 edition)", published by 21st Century Christian publishers http://www.21stcc.com/cocus.cfm Josh a brewer 11:39 am, 23 February 2007, can be verified. I do believe it is suppose to have the words, "retrieved" or "accessed-" in place of a name but is an example listed right on this talk page. Otr500 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The complete reference listing is found in the section References. What you were doing was looking at content in teh section Notes. Two different sections with very different functions and purposes. The way they are listed here is one that follows standard academic form.jonathon (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Critical Error

The first sentence of this article is incorrect (as is this article's link being listed on the Mainline Protestant Page). The Disciples of Christ are a division of the Stone-Campbell movement, which is NOT a Protestant movement. It comes out of the Restoration Movement, which was designed to bring Christ's Church(believed by Restorationists to be all One church including all true Christians, no matter their sect) back to "primitive Christianity" (the Church as Christ intended it to be accourding to the Bible, specifically with emphasis from the four cannonical Gospels). This is a new movement independant of the Protestant Reformation. Stone actually, after many years of trying to keep unity, divided from the Protestant groups, beginnig the Restoration Movement later continued by the Campbells and many others.

The Protestant Reformation was a movement designed to reform the Catholic Church towards Biblical Theology and away from Traditionalism. The Restoration Movement started from square one, the Bible only, and left it at that. While they aimed at similar goals(being more as Christ commanded us to be), the source, people, ideas and goals, along with the fudamental beliefs about the unity of God's people (Catholicism and many Protestant denominations believe their sect to be the only way (only their baptism is correct, etc.)) the Restoration Movement was designed to see all groups of Christians as seperate parts of Chris't One Church, as described in the Bible.

And to dismiss the issue by stating that "Any group whose founders were at one time Protestant are all Protestant groups" is to say then that "all Christians are Catholics," for the same logic would have to be applied to the division of the Protestants from Catholicism. To generalize the issue to that point would be expressing the point of view that "all Christian's are the same," which no researched article on Christiantity would state. Such perspectives are narrow-minded and unreasearched and WikiPedia is no place for such shoddy research. They may have split from the Protestant churches, but they are not part of the Protestant Movement. Stone and the Campbells all decided to split, though each decided individually, because they all honestly knew that "reforming" the Church as it was in their time was not the answer; they needed to "restore" it to the way the Bible intended it, hence the name "Restoration Movement."

After all that, simply put: The Disciples of Christ are NOT a Protestant group and should not be listed as such. The significance of making this distinction is that the Restoration Movement was about bringing everyone together in spite of the divisions of disagreement; the cause for the Reformation split, and subsequent divisions, have been for the same reason as the Restoration Movement had to leave the Presbyterian Church: because many Protestant groups by tradition don't accept other groups as part of God's Church. The Restoration Movement was started over that very issue. To lump them together would be to forsake all the work that the Restoration Movement tries to achieve: unification of Christ's church as One complete body.

IanSvinth (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


IanSvinth, Your comments present an interesting perspective. I would be interested in reading more about it. Can you supply the name of a book or two? Thanks! OTOH, While the Disciples are proud of their Campbell-Stone heritage, their focus over the last 130 years has gradually moved toward the first proposition of Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address that "the church of Jesus Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one and includes all who accept Jesus as the Christ." By Campbell's statement, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Catholics, etc. are all part of the church of Jesus Christ on earth. As a result the CC(Doc) has moved away from "Restoring the Church" in favor of other methods.
IanSvinth, as you know there are many definitions of "Protestant." I will not attempt to play word games with you. I only note that many impartial obeservers place the CC(DOC) clearly within the Mainline Protestant camp. Most of the Disciples I know are quite comfortable with that. With the diversity that exists within the movement, I am sure there are some who are not comfortable with that. Personally, I'd like to hear what their reasons are.
I know it may be troubling that a group that is one of the inheritors the tradition of Campbell and Stonecould drop "Restoring the church" from its agenda. For Disciples, the goal of Stone and the Campbells was the unity of the church. Restoration was a "Method" by which they sought to show that unity. Did it work? Or did it create yet another bunch that "claims to be the only church?" John Park (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
While it may be true that the Stone Campbell movement today may or may not be considered protestant, it is my opinion that the Disciples of Christ are. With the great freedom offered within the denomination there are people who disagree, however the DoC is mainline protestant,[5]. If this question needs to be answered, it would be on the Restoration Movement talk page. Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuel Christian Seminary & Milligan College

The articles for Emmanuel Christian Seminary and Milligan College lists them both as partly DoC schools, but I don't see either listed among the DoC schools on this page. Are they still DoC-associated schools? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

American History X

In the film American History X, some of the neo-Nazis claim to be "Disciples of Christ" and get "D.O.C" tattoos. This seems to be an allusion to the Christian Identity movement. But I haven't found any reference, outside the film, to any racist group calling itself "Disciples of Christ".

So is this

  1. A reprehensible piece of carelessness on the part of the filmmakers, slandering (though probably without meaning to) the real Disciples,
  2. A reference to a true racist group that independently calls itself "Disciples of Christ", or
  3. Some breakaway congregation within the Disciples, taking advantage of the organizational freedom to go off the deep end, similar to the People's Temple? --Trovatore 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
While I would not totally discount #2. "A reference to a true racist group that independently calls itself 'Disciples of Christ'", I am sure that it is not a renegade congregation represented in the movie. It could simply be the fictional creation of the writers of the movie. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has lived since its earliest days using 2 very "Generic" names to identify itself 1. Christian (from Barton W. Stone) and 2 Disciples of Christ (from the Campbells). For the founders, the discomfort of leaders in other denominations, when those names were used, bore witness to the Unity of the church. A slogan, "We are not the only Christians, but Chistians only," captures their rather whimsical spirit. That a movie uses the "Disciples of Christ" phrase to depict a Nazi group, probably should be considered neither slanderous nor confusing. To illustrate: How many people do you know named "John" or "Jon?" If a Nazi group actually used the name, there might be someone who would find that of interest. But it is an entirely different issue. --John Park (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)John Park (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
"D.O.C" is an abbreviation for "Department of Correction". I believe that the usage in the film is a case of cultural appropriation by racist/neo-Nazis/white supremacists who are being/have been incarcerated in the U.S prison system. Many white supremacists believe that Christ was a white man, and that Christianity is a quintessential part/aspect of the so-called "white civilization". Leiwang7 (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

General Ministries

I believe that the mention of the "Week of Compassion" program should be removed from the article/page as it is not cited. In addition, the usage of the terms "highly popular and respected" comes as promotional/partisian in nature. Also, the paragraph dedicated to the 2020 vision also comes off as being too promotional as the 2020 vision seems to be an organizational initiative/effort. Statements of such nature are often seen as mission statements used by organizations for promotional reasons. I believe that it is not neutral, and does not belong on Wikipedia. Leiwang7 (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I added the more detailed general ministry section including descriptions of each ministry a few months ago. The week of compassion paragraph was from before those edits and is definitely a POV issue. If there needs to be more explanation of WOC, then it should be added to the mention in the GMP bullet on the general ministries list. This paragraph should be deleted.Ha2772a (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization

The word Communion should be capitalized as a proper noun when it is describing the Eucharist/Lord's Supper. Many Disciples use Communion to describe the sacrament, including the denominational bodies. This word is a proper noun and must be capitalized when referring to the Eucharist. Order of Ministry must also be capitalized since it is the official title of the Disciples' ordained ministers. I have made these changes in the article. This is in response to edits from Omnipaedista about unnecessary capitalization. Ha2772a (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_Church_(Disciples_of_Christ)/Archive_1&oldid=1225452141"