Talk:Church (congregation)

Article Creation

Nicely done, CTSWyneken. —Aiden 19:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Move

Moved article to Local church to conform with wiki guidelines and naming convention. Content and About Boiler at top clearly indicated the article was about local churches, not any Christian organization. Ad.minster (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

see also section

Hi, I have a question for the editors of this page: Do you think the see also section of this article should include, Local churches. There is almost the 'name similarity' and quite a bit of subject similarity (too) among these two articles. I included the Local churches but one of my friend removed it. Give your feedback. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Important info missing

There is no mention of the origin of "church" -- neither of the actual word nor of the concept. Only once is the word "Bible" mentioned, and that's as part of "Bible Studies". It should mention the Day of Pentecost (in the book of Acts) and the first time the word is found in the Bible, in Matthew 16:18. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that would be helpful. I also think a section under the heading titled "Universal vs. Local Church" or some other variant of that heading title would be warranted as these two aspects are sometimes brought up in the discussion of what a local church is. Not everyone agrees that there are these two aspects of the church but that could also be included in the discussion.--Theophilus144 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalists also use the term "local church"

Unitarian Universalists often refer to their local congregations as churches and use the term local church to describe them. This is not reflected in the artificial as it is correctly written. I edited this artificial to make mention of this but my edits where reverted by Theophilus144. Their rational was "Unrelated to article" to which I disagree with. I am not saying that this fact need to have a prominent mention, but I feel for accuracy it dose need at lest a little mention. How then best we include this fact, keeping in mined that this artificial probably ought to focus primarily on how this term is used by Christians and Christian groups.

Do you think it's possible to add another section at the end of the article describing other groups who may also make use of this term but that do not traditionally fall within the pale of Christian denominationalism or organizations. It just seemed a little out of place in the lead to single out one group. I'm guessing you don't want Unitarian Universalists to be identified with Christian organizations but I don't think this exception should be made in the lead of the article when the common understanding is that the term local church is usually used within the sphere of Christian denominationalism and circles. I'm not against mentioning Unitarian Universalists. I just think it should have its own section towards the end of the article, that is if you feel like Unitarian Universalists aren't being covered by this article.--Theophilus144 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel a section on UUs use of the term would give UU to much weight in the article. I would suggest instead we go with something slimier to what was the opening two sentence of the church (building) article back on 13:33, January 16, 2014, which was as follows "A church building, often simply called a church, is a building used for religious activities, particularly worship services. The term in its architectural sense is most often used by Christians to refer to their religious buildings but can be used by other religions." It then went on to simply focus on church buildings within Christianity. I think this kind of mention would suffice. --Devin Murphy (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Local church → Church (congregation) – see discussion on Talk:Church (building). This naming appears to obscure in both US and UK and not WP:COMMONNAME, the usual name for a "church" in the New Testament sense of a congregation is simply a "church", same today. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: To make it clear we're talking about the social group, I think congregation would be a better destination. The current name definitely needs to be changed though. -- Netoholic @ 11:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support congregation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Netoholic: yes maybe I do too, but congregation already exists and is a dab page. Plus the common New Testament English term is "church", don't think "Congregation in Ephesus" etc. is often used. Also not sure whether congregation can be used because the Israelite congregation in the Tanakh/Old Testament is apparently something distinct, plus other uses on dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I think then we have a problem of what the purpose of the article is. If its only about Christian social gatherings at a local level, then why is that important enough for an article topic? I'm not sure that we have a lot of articles devoted to the concept of local social groups (bridge club, AA meeting, PTA meeting, Cub Scout pack) . At least under congregation, we could describe the concept in a wider scope, including several religions and make it act more like a WP:CONCEPTDAB. -- Netoholic @ 22:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well as I understand it the purpose of the article is to describe an individual church, like the "church in Ephesus". In ictu oculi (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Turnin' those red eyes blue... Randy Kryn (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. A Church, meaning a churches' congregation, is a proper name as well as pointed out in the nom, and the solution 'Church (congregation)' works well. The present name is quite odd, like 'local library' for 'library'. Good find and nom {{u|In ictu oculi)). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. On the Congregation front, it's possible for one church to have multiple congregations (either meeting at different times or different places, but still belonging to a single church) so I support the move to Church (congregation) as opposed to just Congregation. WaggersTALK 15:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There may be several church services held at different times within a single church (building), but that's not the same meaning of "church" as discussed in this article. This article seems to fall somewhere between and outside those to existing articles and I'm having trouble locking down the concept being presented. This is why I feel a broader concept article using this one as a seed and moving it to congregation would be better. If you remove the church service and church (building), what is left is simply the broader concept of a congregation. -- Netoholic @ 01:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Congregation or any similar title is not acceptable, it's not at all a common name and it's not specifically Christian. Honestly, this has a solid claim to church, which literally means "assembly" (I know, I know, etymology is not destiny). I would support a move to church, and since that's not on the table in this move discussion, weakly oppose the move as proposed and strongly oppose any congregational move. "Local church" is a fairly common and natural way to refer to a group of people who regularly gather together to worship Jesus. Red Slash 14:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Not outside America, I don't think it is. Neither does church have anywhere near this primary meaning; again, maybe except in America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. In fact, I too would go so far as to suggest that this is the primary meaning of Congregation and would be best moved there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Move to congregation. This is far and away the primary meaning of the term. Well, disregarding the dictionary def anyway, which is the related contept of the people actually in the church during a particular service. But that concept isn't worth an article in its own right, so this is the one best understood by congretation. If there's really no consensus for this outcome, though, Church (congregation) might be a good compromise. Oppose move to "church", and oppose the current title, because "church" and "local church" refer primarily to a building.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• "Local church" is a theological term, contrasting with terms like universal church and national church. Compare also church invisible and church visible. I think a move is a good idea, but the term "local church" still needs to be explained somewhere. —Srnec (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Original research

I haven't seen an article in that kind of poor state in months. Most of the text has no verification at all and seems to be original research. The few sources in the article hardly seem to be reliable. :

• The Bruce R. Hopkins source is from a guide for managing nonprofit organizations. It is quoting decisions from some kind of tax court, without specifying the country or date of the decisions.
• The Joe T. Odle source is quoting another source from the 1920s, about how many times the word "church" is used in the New Testament. The correct answer is none. The texts were written in Koine Greek and the term used is Ecclesia, the Greek generic term for an "assembly" or "congregation". The article on the Christian Church already contains the etymology.
• The John Locke source is the philosopher's personal understanding of the term and dates to the 17th century. This is a primary text. Per Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. ... Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
• The Ben Lunis source is about the term "church" in the New Testament and has nothing to do with the John Locke quote.
• The 5th source is a welcome message from the "Congregational Church of North Barnstead". I have no idea where that is, but it is used to support statements about all congregational churches.
• The 6th and final source is the self-description on the website of the "Guilden Morden Congregational Church". Again used to support statements on all churches.

None of the sources seem to be reliable, and the Odle source seems to misunderstand the New Testament. Dimadick (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 22:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Church (congregation) → Church (term) – The lead phrase says "religious organization or congregation or community". I'm afraid "(congregation)" unncessarly narrows the scope. Not all entites that have pretentions of being a church necessarly deals with the term "congregation", something that by the way arguably more leads the thoughts to Congregational church or Congregationalist polity (congregationalism), topics which have their own articles. A disambiguation is probably necessary, but it isn't obvious that "congration" serves that need in the most WP:NPOV way. Just as we have Catholic (term) for dense words like this, wouldn't we best mirror such a detached disambiguation here as well? PPEMES (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Term" seems way too vague of a disambiguator. How about something like "Church (collective)" or just "Church (community)"? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Conversely, I'm afraid those offered alternatives precisely don't seem vague enough. PPEMES (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rreagan007. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why couldn't Church (building) just as easily be referred to as Church (term)? bd2412 T 12:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Because Church (building) is an architectoral topic. PPEMES (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

And? That doesn't make it any less of a term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Feel free to come up with a better natural disambigutators than "(term)". However, "(congregation)" is not a natural disambiguator here, nor accurate. Not all entities covered in this article are either attributed as or self-describe as congregation. It's misleading, and it does not satisfy WP:NPOV. PPEMES (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "Term" is too vague. Dimadick (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose impossible nomination - the building is also a term and a noun. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Much too vague. Any usage of the word could be termed a "term". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

This title is bad. It is not about Church but about congregaton. Kapeter77 (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It's about both. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Necrothesp But its misleading!!!!Kapeter77 (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hard to get a title that isn't. Hence the decision above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Christian Church (Protestant ecclesiology) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"Ecclesia (church)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ecclesia (church) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Ecclesia (church) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"His Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect His Church and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#His Church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"History of The Church of Jesus Christ" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect History of The Church of Jesus Christ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#History of The Church of Jesus Christ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Ecclesia (Church)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ecclesia (Church) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Ecclesia (Church) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Boaz Trust" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Boaz Trust and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Boaz Trust until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Domestic church" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Domestic church and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Domestic church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Local church" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Local church and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Local church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)