Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Is A Capella Singing NOT important to the Churches of Christ?

Let's talk about it

ThuranX, can you explain to us how mentioning the A Cappella music of a movement that developed around the principle of not using Musical instruments does not belong in the lead section of the article? Do you really believe your note: "revert. That's a minor point , as per the talk page, and not the lead?" To me, it seems central to the identity of the movement, which is NOT a minor point. Did I miss some conversation on the talk page? John Park (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Along these lines, I'm not sure why an "Instrumental" fellowship was added in the Infobox, given that the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ linked to it have long been noted at the top of the article as not associated (despite some shared historical roots). The divide over the use of instruments in worship is significant, and not one across which there is any known documented "fellowship" among this article's Churches of Christ. If all the other (associated) fellowships are A Cappella, as I understand to be the case, perhaps it would be appropriate to label the majority fellowship as "Mainstream" rather than A Cappella. There are currently about 1400 search results for "mainstream Churches of Christ" via Google. —Adavidb 05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "mainline Churches of Christ" results in about 2000 search results, though some such usage delineates Churches of Christ from the similarly named though not associated churches. —Adavidb 05:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Adavidb, you might want to converse with .jonathon (talk)about those issues. jonathon has some trouble distinguishing (1)The Churches of Christ, (2) the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, and (3) The churches of Christ (non-institutional). The first two are not the same. I am not sure where the third fits in, though it seems to be a branch of the Non-instrumental group that have disassociated themselves. John Park (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The presence/absence of a musical instrument is extremely significant to the A Capella congregations. It is not nearly as significant for the Instrumental congregations. Take the instrument out of their theology, and you will mistake an A Capella congregation for an Instrumental one, and vice versa.jonathon

The Institutional/Non-Institutional split had far more theological ramifications. Furthermore, most of the other distinct fellowships are far closer theologically to the Non-Institutional congregations, than to the Institutional congregations.jonathon (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm dropping this article from my watchlist. The POV pushing on here's insanely high ,the entire article reads like crap, and I got tired of fighting it almost immediately after reading the AN/I threads about it. There are too many religious zealots on this page, all insistent that the religion's existed since jesus, and the catholic church must have hid it in a root cellar for censutires, and so on. Dogma won over fact here long ago, and i'm done. ThuranX (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, ThuranX. I've lost track the number of times I've reverted POV edits in this article. Many editors have lost sight that we are trying to build an encyclopedic article...that is based on proven fact....and not a pamphlet used for converting readers to the movement. I'm glad someone is/was trying to keep this article in check from POV edits. Sorry to see you go.

While A Capella music may be an identifying factor to Churches of Christ, it shouldn't necessarily be the second thing mentioned in the introductory paragraph. The introductory section is already too long. Being A Capella is already mentioned later on in the article, so mentioning it initially is redundant. You don't hear members of Churches of Christ saying to potential members "Come visit us, we're A Capella." While it might have played a role in historic separations in the past, it shouldn't be a central theme in the movement. --Ichabod (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether the issue "should" or "shouldn't" be a central theme is not the question, The question is, "Is it?" I have cited two historical sources (below). Here is the link to Churches of Christ online that deals with it. (BTW their website is a promotional brochure, but is more NPOV than Wikipedia at this moment.) Where is your documentation that would suggest that A Capella singing should NOT be in the lead Section? I agree that it is too long and that there may be good reasons not to put music in the lead. Convince me! John Park (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at more than dozen A Capella CoC websites, I'd suggest that you do find them saying "Come worship with us. We are A Capella". Whilst it isn't plastered on their front page, it is found within their site. OTOH, most of the Non-Institutional Congregations also have statements to that effect in their website.jonathon (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed that anyone would claim to be able to write a scholarly article on the churches of Christ and not realize the importance of A Capella worship with the congregations. Even the slightest research into the subject via available writings, a conversation with a member, or a visit to a congregation would quickly confirm the importance of A Capella worship (yes I realize the last two are original research). 71.61.185.203 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This area of discussion began when I added the a capella reference to the lead paragraph and it was reverted by ThuranX. Not all editors understand or even know the movement. John Park (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I think that the intro section is too long, it is clear that it needs to say that it is A Capella. I like the way the first paragraph in Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ delineates the differences.jonathon (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a rewrite would cover the facts in a fashion such as:

Historically, Churches of Christ in the United States had its roots in the Second Great Awakening under the leadership of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and Barton W. Stone. Those leaders had declared their independence from their Presbyterian roots, seeking a fresh start to restore the New Testament church, abandoning man made creeds and interpretations.

When the Churches of Christ were first recognized by the U.S. Religious census of 1906 as a movement distinct from other churches of the Stone-Campbell movement, the two distinguishing issues were:

• rejection of instrumental music in worship and
• the rejection of missionary societies.

John Park (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

==== notes ====

John Park (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

==== References ====

• McAlister, Lester G. and Tucker, William E. (1975), Journey in Faith: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) - St. Louis, Chalice Press, ISBN 9780827217034
• Murch, James DeForest (1962). Christians Only, A history of the Restoration Movement. Cincinatti: The Standard Publishing Company. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

John Park (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

=== end of suggestion === John Park (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

MagnumStinger's edits

MagnumStinger made a whole ton of edits and they were reverted because it was too much all at once w/o talking about it first. However, I think we should give his changes some consideration--some of them were good and trimmed a lot of unnecessary fat from what's starting to become an overblown article again.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

====I'd like to encourage you to accept the changes I made. I think the way this article was written has a lot of unnecessary (and even inaccurate or opinionated) information. One noticeable problem is referring to this body as "non-instrumental." While "a cappella" music is obviously a distinctive in many (not all) of these churches, the proper way to identify this is with the term "a cappella" rather than "non-instrumental" as this highlights what the churches are rather than what they are not.

An encyclopedic article should mainly provide an interested party with information that explains what the entity (in this case church/religious body) does, believes, practices. History is also somewhat important and in the case of Churches of Christ, there is a history of faith dating back to Christ and the Apostles, as well as a more recent historical phenomenon (the Restoration Movement) which resulted in several Churches of Christ in America. Much of what is in the current version is a bit opinionated and in some other cases in the current article there is overkill that really goes beyond the scope of what an article like this should have (e.g., boxes with info about elders & deacons, all the detail about interpretive approaches to scripture). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnumStinger (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of the subject editing was helpful, though hold to the need for discussion here before making so many changes at once.

The term "non-instrumental" was probably used by an editor here since "non-institutional" refers to another distinct fellowship; I concur with using "a cappella" instead to define the type of worship. Regarding "not all", are there any citable cases of instrumental use in worship by Churches of Christ that are not part of the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, noted at the top of the article as being separate? This ties in with the not-quite-resolved issue above about using "mainstream" or "mainline" to refer to the majority fellowship.

MagnumStinger's second paragraph is mostly generic. If reliable sources are cited, as appropriate and in association with the "five pillars"; and other-than-minor updates are discussed here individually and approved here by a clear majority of multiple editors; then I'm all for such article improvements.—Adavidb 05:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also an over-statement to make a clear distinction between "a cappella" Churches of Christ and "instrumental" Churches of Christ/Christian Churches. Most in these churches see the two as basically the same and, while there should be an article about both, it's not necessary to claim that a Church of Christ need to use instruments to be aligned with instrumental Christian Churches. The reality is that most "a cappella" churches wish to be "a cappella" but view the churches with instruments as the same church movement. Also, there are churches that sing a cappella and also implement instruments in some worship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.81.37 (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is with good practice. There is a vast difference between "a cappella" and "instrumental", that difference being that one uses instruments and the other doesn't. I'd venture to say that that is a pretty big difference. Jlrich (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

But, the reality is that there are "a cappella" churches that have no issue with instruments, and some that actually use instruments at times. Plus, there are Christian Churches who, although have a stronger connection with the "instrumental" churches, do not even use instruments themselves. While the difference should be noted, it should definately be shown that these are basically the same church movement/fellowship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.81.37 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the churches who use the instrument at any time would be classed, by the mainline, as "instrumental." I agree with Jlrich that it is a big deal. -JodyB _talk 12:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, How many churches are there among the independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ who feel no connection with the Churches of Christ of this article? Doesn't a neutral point of view (NPOV) require respecting their perspective? Is there a published source that deals with these issues, or are we engaging in a conversation that will ultimately violate the Wikipedia standard of "no original research?" How do those sources, if they exist, handle the reconvergence of many congregations around the issues of Instrumental music? That reconvergence IS an important concept for this article. John Park (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1. This gets back to "What is this article about?" Is it about the Churches of Christ, and all of their different fellowships, splits, and the like, or is it only about the Non-Instrumental group? Thus far, the article has attempted to describe only the Non-Instrumental branch, with pointers to the other fellowships, etc;
2. If this article is about all of the various fellowships, etc. then what happens to the articles on the other fellowships? Non-Institutional, One-Cup, etc?jonathon (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Instrumental Congregations are a split from the Disciples of Christ, not the Non-Instrumental Congregations. That said, some congregations wandered from Non-Institutional to Disciples of Christ, to Instrumental, then back to the Non-Institutional camp. Theologically, they didn't change much during their century of wandering.jonathon (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that. In recent times (last 50 years) the instrumental congregations were part of the mainline COC and have often tried to rejoin DOC through various meetings and such. -JodyB _talk 11:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Disciples of Christ/Instrumental split occurred between the mid-sixties and mid-eighties. Some congregations rejected formal affiliation with DoC, but maintained an ecumenical relationship with DoC. I think some formally joined (?rejoined) DOC. jonathon (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jonathan, the separation of the CC(DOC) and the independent Christian Churches began prior to the 1849 National Convention in Cincinatti. At issue was whether it was Biblically acceptable to have Missionary Societies. Following the Civil War, the issue of the role of (and use of) the German Bible Study techniques of Textual and Historical analysis soon became an even more divisive issue. The division was still present within the instrumental Churches during and after the separation from the Non-instrumental was formalized in 1906. By the mid 1950's the independent Christian churches were publishing a directory of their own. Their formal withdrawal from the Yearbook and directory of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) became an issue with the adoption of the CC(DOC) Provisional Design in 1968. The "independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" were recognized in the national listings of religious movements in the US in 1973. There has been limited movement back and forth between the instrumental churches since that time. There are still congregations listed with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) who are actually independent Christian churches who have never requested removal from the Yearbook. This Article is NOT about these two groups, however. They have not been affiliated with the group that IS the subject of this article since 1906. (See the agreement among editors, below)John Park (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a Neutral Point of view

MagnumStinger, You are right that there is a lot of opinionated stuff in the current version of the article. In my opinion(IMO), neither your edits nor the current version of the article accurately describe the movement in a neutral way that a reader of an encyclopedia really ought to expect. The only reason this article is only on my watch list is because I am concerned that information regarding the Stone-Campbell movemnt and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) be factually accurate and NPOV. The CC(DOC) has not been affiliated with the Churches of Christ for over a century. It has chosen a different path. What are you objections to the treatment of those two areas in the "History in America" section as they are now addressed in the article? IMO, there are a few factual errors in that section that need to be cleaned up. And the writing is very poor, but the current section seems much more NPOV than your proposal. I hesitate to waste my time attempting to improve it up as long as there are those who arbitrarily revert it to something else. So, what are your concerns and how do we fix them? John Park (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the info on the DOC is far too much information on that body since the article is about Churches of Christ. That section is only intended to state the historical reality of the DOC having a historical connection with Churches of Christ, as it is a denomination with roots in the Restoration Movement before its breakaway. To give that much info is overkill for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnumStinger (talk • contribs) 03:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur, DOC should really only be mentioned in passing from a historical perspective. -JodyB _talk 11:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I also concur. I will attempt to write a trial paragraph sentence later today. John Park (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Concurrence here too. —Adavidb 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

==== A Draft proposal for revising the Section -- What do you think of this rewrite? Do we need the heading "historical connection . . .?" Wouldn't it be just as well to let in sink into the rest of the section?

Historical Connection to Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ

In 1906, for the first time, the U.S. Religious Census reported two separate groups of churches of the Stone-Campbell movement: Churches of Christ a cappella and Disciples of Christ which used instrumental music in worship. The division had actually begun prior to the Civil War and grew deeper in the years that followed. Among the instrumental churches there were still differences regarding missionary societies, conventions and methods of understanding the Bible. Those differences led to two groups of churches that used instrumental music: The independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, and The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

==== End of Proposal John Park (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

====I recommend the following for "Historical Connection..." (which is basically the same as what is currently in the article with a few subtractions"

In addition to the Churches of Christ, described in this article, two other groups emerged from the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement:

       * Christian Churches/Churches of Christ (instrumental), and
       * Disciples of Christ

Churches of Christ and Christian Churches are very similar (the primary difference being a cappella worship in Churches of Christ) and, depending on the ideals and personality of each local congregation, maintain communication and fellowship.

During the first hundred years of the Restoration Movement, all three of these titles were commonly used for congregations. As interpretations, convictions, and preferences regarding a cappella and instrumental music distinguished congregations, the a cappella churches typically used "Church of Christ" to identify themselves while instrumental churches used "Disciples of Christ" or "Christian Church" as designations. In 1906, the U.S. Census for the first time made a distinction of two groups between the a cappella and instrumental churches; this was also the result of other issues related to the Civil War.[6]

As the 20th century progressed, differences of ideology developed within the instrumental churches as part of that fellowship wished to hold to the ideals of the Restoration Movement, namely non-denominational and autonomous church government and conservative adherence to the Scriptures. Others moved in more of a liberal direction, taking on philosophies and ideals of Protestant theology. This resulted in the organized denomination now known as "Disciples of Christ." Thus, today there are basically three church traditions with roots in the Restoration Movement - Churches of Christ, Christian Churches (also known as "instrumental" Churches of Christ), and the Disciples of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.228 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My issue with both proposals is that the Non-Institutional congregations are ignored.jonathon (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, jonathon, I cannot help you with the Non-institutional group. I do not know anything about them. You might want to draft a paragraph yourself. Because they came from the A capella (non-instrumental) side of the 1906 separation, shouldn't their issues be treated in their own paragraph anyway? John Park (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous 74.249.12.228, thanks for your suggestion. My proposal seeks to simplify the section as agreed among several editors and minimize the coverage of the instrumental churches of the Campbell-Stone movement in this article. I have no doubt that my proposal may not be totally neutral in point of view. That is where collaboration comes in to clean it up. It is not clear what your objection is to that proposal. I would like to hear your concerns? John Park (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Try

Subheading is the renamed title:

~!~ Start of proposed text ~!~

Historical Connections

For more information see Restoration Movement.

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, Liberty.

With that rallying cry, congregations have affiliated and dis-affialiated with each other since 1849. The theological issue is what constitutes an "essential" belief, doctrine, or practice.

• The first major split was about whether any formal organization of congregations jeopardized the autonomy of the individual congregation. This split led to the first wave of The churches of Christ (non-institutional) congregations. This occurred between roughly 1849 and 1865.
• The second major split was about the legitimacy of using a musical instrument. In 1906, the U.S. Religious Census reported two separate groups of churches of the Stone-Campbell movement: Churches of Christ A Capella and Disciples of Christ which used instrumental music in worship.
• During, and after World War Two, the second wave of The churches of Christ (non-institutional) congregations appeared. The majority of these congregations split from the A Capella branch. The major dispute was whether or not parachurch organizations should be funded by individuals, or congregations.
• In 1973, the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ were recognized in the national listings of religious movements in the US. The majority of these congregations split from the Disciples of Christ. The major issue was the proposed Provisional Design of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

Due to congregational autonomy, an individual congregation can retain affiliation, despite disagreeing with one, or more tenants. More commonly, the congregation will disaffiliate itself, seeking similar minded congregations.

~!~ end of proposed text ~!~

jonathon (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

jonathan, what are the sources of your information? 1. I know of no reliable source that suggests any split while Alexander Campbell was alive. He died in 1866. 2. I personally do not know anything about The churches of Christ (non-institutional) other than their Wikipedia Article. 3. The phrase "split from" is too POV. Everyone thinks the others split from them. The reality is that we are divided. 4. The separation of the Independent Christian churches and CC(DOC) was NOT caused by the adoption of the provisional design. It began with the establishment of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849. It continued as the two groups began looking at the Bible through different lenses between 1866 and 1920. It grew deeper as the group that became the CC(DOC) moved into ecumenical activities. It had personality based rifts. (BTW, My Dad and Grandad were on opposite sides of the divide.) After the adoption of the provisional design, there was a clear method for the two groups to make formal the separation that had already been happening. It was the "line in the sand" but not the cause of the separation of the two groups. Again, this is NOT the subject of this article. The Churches of Christ (A Capella) is what the article is about. Do you have sources that I do not know about? John Park (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

a) I may have the date of that first wave wrong. That separation is described in an article I read on one of the Restoration Movement websites that has archived roughly 100 years of publications by individuals and organizations related to the Non-Institutional branch. It does need a complete citation to be put into the article --- and not only because it is a surprising claim, but runs counter to the history that the other groups know about.(One of the points that website made, was that the other groups know nothing of this history, because these congregations were far more autonomous than the run of the mill Restoration Movement church is/was);

b)"Split from" is a loaded phrase. I'm not sure a better phrase would be.:(

c) I realize that the Instrumental/Disciples of Christ split had its roots in events that started before The War of Northern Aggression. The provisional design was merely the means for the congregations that separated from the DoC between the sixties and eighties. I was condensing what you wrote in your paragraph, into two lines. Please rewrite it in two or three lines;

d) The Non-Institutional branch was a dividing of the A Capella branch;

e) I know this article is about the A Capella branch. The only part of the article that should mention DoC, Non-Institutional, and Instrumental branches is this one sub-section;

f) What I am trying to do, is provide bullet points listing who, when, and why the congregations separated from each other, with a link to the article about the other organization;jonathon (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying this out:

~!~ Start of proposed text ~!~

Historical Connections

For more information see Restoration Movement.

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, Liberty.

With that rallying cry, congregations have affiliated and dis-affialiated with each other since 1849. The theological issue is what constitutes an "essential" belief, doctrine, or practice.

• Beginning in 1849, the major issue was about whether any formal organization of congregations jeopardized the autonomy of the individual congregation. The congregations that separated out would later be considered to be within The churches of Christ (non-institutional)branch;
• In 1906, the U.S. Religious Census reported two separate groups of churches of the Stone-Campbell movement: Churches of Christ A Capella and Disciples of Christ which used instrumental music in worship;
• During, and after World War Two, the second wave of The churches of Christ (non-institutional) congregations appeared. The major issue was whether or not parachurch organizations should be funded by individuals, or congregations;
• In 1973, the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ were recognized in the national listings of religious movements in the US. These churches emphasized congregational autonomy, rather than Protestant Theology ecumenicalism;

Due to congregational autonomy, an individual congregation can retain affiliation, despite disagreeing with one, or more tenants. More commonly, the congregation will disaffiliate itself, seeking similar minded congregations.

~!~ end of proposed text ~!~

all of these proposals make this article much more complicated than need-be. Plus, they take the focus off of what the Churches of Christ are about. It is totally not necessary to go into the minute disagreements, decisions, and historical happenings that have occurred with this religious body in recent decades/centuries. It would actually be better to delete the section "Historical Connection to Christians Churches and Disciples of Christ" than to go into all of these opinionated matters of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnumStinger (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

MagnumStinger (talk), I totally agree! My 5 line condensation does not seem to have helped. Cleaning up POV issues in the longer suggestions wastes the time of all editors. I vote for dumping the whole section. I will be interested to see what others think. John Park (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean a line See Restoration Movement for the history? If so, that is the the easiest solution. jonathon (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too bold, but I deleted the /* Historical Connection to Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ */ section, leaving the note that refers to the discussion in the article on the Restoration Movement. jonathon (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)