Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Much that Needs to Be Changed

Travis hasn't returned in over a month. Any issues with archiving this? Or is there more that needs to be discussed? Jdb1972 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do archive it. I'm happy to see it go, being mostly opinion anyway. JSM2005 19:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As a student of Stone-Campbell history there is much that I see that needs to be changed in this entry. I am a member and minister in Churches of Christ, and I'm afraid that this article does not represent accurately the church tradition of which I am apart. While I realize we are a diverse tradition, and I might be considered on the "liberal" wing of Churches of Christ, this article does not represent accurately all sides of our movement.

I am going to go ahead and respond inline to your comments here. I agree - the article is not necessarily representative. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not mean for my suggestions below to be taken in a harsh spirit or as a final say on matters. I welcome futher discussion on each point I make below. But, in the spirit of Wikipedia, I must argue these points since this article is suppose to represent in some way the church I love and serve. Please take these suggestions in a kind way, knowing that my greatest desire is for this article to objectively express the diversity and beauty of Churches of Christ. Instead of just changing the article to fit my purposes, I have decided to include this long discussion of what is already in the article, and where I see room for improvements. I have also emailed several historians in our movement, asking them to stop by this page and offer their suggestions for this article. We'll see if any of them take me up on the offer.

Great! I think this is probably the best approach when you are talking about making major changes to an article that has a long history of discussion and compromise. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are several areas I see that need to be improved:

1) There is no mention of Barton W. Stone. Most restoration historians are in agreement that Barton W. Stone was the first to promote a "restoration" movement in the United States. Most historians would date the founding of our movement to 1802, when Stone and his fellow ministers signed the "Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery." Thomas and Alexander Campbell were around during this time, but it wasn't until later that they began to advocate what Stone was advocating, and eventually the two movements joined together.

Any scholarly introduction to the Churches of Christ must mention Barton W. Stone. For more on Stone's contribution, see Richard Hughes' Reviving the Ancient Faith.

Agreed. Be Bold. But keep in mind there is an article about the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement.Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If we mention Campbell, we should also mention Stone, even with the mentioned link 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

2) There needs to be a mention that many in the "Restoration Movement" prefer to call it the "Stone-Campbell Movement". While Restoration was apart of Stone and Campbell's ideals, it was not always the driving force. For instance, both men were very much interested in Christian unity. Some of the major historians in our tradition today choose to call our tradition the "Stone-Campbell Movement", and for objectivity's sake, this should be graciously acknowledged in the article.

I don't think it matters what others in the movement call it because this is an article about the Churches of Christ. I added the "Stone Campbell" to the "Restoration Movement" header because there are lots of other restoration movements, but why mention this here? Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it inaccurate to mention Stone-Campbell as well as Restoration Movement. But I do think the link to the Restoration history page is adequate. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

3) The following two paragraphs need to either be deleted or reworked:

No, I don't think we should be deleting paragraphs outright! Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"The Churches of Christ are distinct, in that they believe that they are not another denomination, but rather are striving to be the one, true Church. Many members today describe themselves as "Christians only" ("but not the only Christians" is often added).

This is a very, very important part of our heritage. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't help but agree with Danlovejoy. Our status as Christ's church rather than a denomination is very important. Changing that for this wikipedia entry because of his dissenting opinion isn't warranted, IMO. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Despite the Church of Christ's historical origin as part of a movement started by Baptist and Presbyterian preachers, it should be noted that some members, particularly older members, of this group are apt to object to being referred to as "Protestants", believing that Christ's church was not founded as a protest against anything, other than perhaps the domination of the present world by Satan. The Church of Christ has firm disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church and does not recognize the authority of the Holy See. Some, and probably most, members would also object to the categorization of their church as a "denomination", as one of the tenets of this movement is that they are not a denomination and that denominationalism is a sinful departure from the original plan laid down in the Bible for the church."

Here are my objections: There are many (and this is not just a small minority) who acknowledge that we are, indeed, a denomination, though we are not organized and structured like many other denominations. We are a people, denominated by a specific name. I would argue that the very fact that we have a Wikipedia article describing a particular Church tradition is proof that we are a denomination. Calling us a "denomination" is not a dirty thing. It acknowledges that we are a specific people, with a specific name, and a set of common beliefs and practices. Though all, I know, will not agree with this, again, for objectivity's sake, it needs to be graciously stated in an article trying to describe our diverse tradition.

Acknowledge we are indeed a denomination? Not in the congregations, lists or literature with which I am familiar - these sources are unified in stating that denominationalism is a departure from Christ's church. I am fine with removing the reference to "particularly older members"; I am not an older member and my peers and I would also take offense at being called Protestant. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph copied above should be deleted. First, it is rude to say "particularly older members" object to being called "Protestant." There are some, from all ages, who object to this, and it seems insignificant to an encyclopedia article to include this information. Secondly, there are many more people who think that being called a "Protestant" is a fine thing, yet there is no mention of them in the article. So, again, for objectivity's sake, let's just leave this paragraph out. It is one-sided, and really, pointless for this article.

I absolutely disagree. This paragraph can be improved by it is completely appropriate. You can't have an accurate article on the Churches of Christ without a discussion of anti-denominationalism. This viewpoint is still very much alive outside of the ivory towers and megachurches we inhabit. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-denominationalism is a foundational item of our faith, outside the megachurches, at least in my experience and according to the mainstream literature and lists coming out today. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

4) In the description of elders, deacons, and preacher/evangelists--these descriptions do not adequately, in my opinion, express the diversity in our congregations. They go into too much detail describing the roles that they narrow it down too much. While some of the things said are true for elders, deacons, and ministers in some congregations, it is not true in all congregations. Thus, for objectivity's sake, this part should be made as simple as possible, giving the necessary background for why, historically, Churches of Christ have chosen to be led by elders, deacons, and ministers, briefly describe their basic role, and leave it at that, with a possible caveat expressing that the actual functions of each group differ within local congregations.

What do you propose. I'm all for fewer words. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

5) Hermeneutics: this section is one of the most biased of all. In many of our churches, the "command, example, and necessary inference" is no longer used. This has been the way for decades. I have been a Bible student at both Lipscomb University and ACU, two large and well-respected schools in Churches of Christ, and neither Bible department taught the "Command, Example, Necessary Inference" hermeneutic or made the "argument from silence". Actually, I was taught that this hermeneutical method was deficient. That being said, I realize that there are still some in our congregations, and some Bible faculties in our colleges, who hold to this hermeneutic. For this reason, both sides should be expressed in this article, or the "Hermeneutics" section be completely left out altogether. I suggest that it be completely left out. I do not see how it, at least in it's current state, is relevant in objectively describing Churches of Christ. Michael Casey and Tom Olbricht have done significant study on the Hermeneutics in Churches of Christ. I have forwarded them links to this article and discussion, and hopefully they can offer some helpful suggestions.

Yet you and I have a very academic, megachurch bias. We need to remember there are lots and lots of churches, and lots of members that still cleave to this hermeneutic. Danlovejoy 03:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In the main this section remains accurate for the majority of the body of Christ. The section detailing differences of opinion, as it stands now, is wholly adequate. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

6) "The Church of Christ believes that the organization and structure of the church was laid down by Jesus Christ himself through his apostles in the form of the New Testament." This statement, I believe, is biased. Again, having gone through Lipscomb and ACU, I have been taught that the doctrine of "patternism" is deficient. I also realize that many hold to this teaching. To say, "The Church of Christ believes..." is to suggest that this is an excepted belief in our tradition. But, in the circles I have been in, it is not. Perhaps another article on "Patternism" could be written and linked to in this article as a doctrine that some hold, but it should not, for objectivity's sake, be purported as a common doctrine in our tradition.

Once again, same bias, writ large. Patternism is still very much being taught even in megachurches. Ask an average member at Highland, or Memorial Road, or another megaCOC and you'll be surprised at how much patternism you encounter. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I was unaware that any significant group calling itself the churches of Christ discounted patternism as the driving force behind our organization and structure. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

7) "The Bible was written by men who were inspired and guided by God the Father through the Holy Spirit." This sentence should be made gender-neutral. "The Bible was written by people", is more accurate. While the only writers of scripture that are named are men, there are many books that we have no idea who the author is and it could very well be a woman.

This seems like quite a stretch, considering the lack of female education and literacy at the time. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Conclusively prove that there are female authors and I will wholeheartedly agree with the first poster about changing this. Otherwise I think this is a bias speaking, not Scripture. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

8) This sentence is a value-judgment: "A strong argument that claims that it is false doctrine prohibited by a principle or a law of silence, and a weak argument, similar to that originally held by Alexander Campbell, that such would be materialistic or inappropriate, but not necessarily false doctrine." An article like this should not be making value judgments (strong argument v. weak argument), but should state the arguments and leave it at that.

Hmm. Is this meant as a value judgment? Or is it another definition of "strong" and "weak" argument? Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be changed to say the same thing without reflecting judgement. "The leading argument is..." and "Another, currently less common argument...". 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of beginning this section as "No Instruments in Services", perhaps it would be kinder to express this practice in the positive: "Worship acapella (without instrumental music)", or something like that.

For many in Churches of Christ, the acapella worship is preferred for taste and for tradition's sake, not because they believe it is prohibited in scripture. Many prefer it, believe it is a relevant practice and a part of our tradition that should be affirmed, but they would not judge others who use instrumental music as "sinful" or worshiping in an "unscriptural way." Again, there are many who do not hold to the belief that the New Testament sets out a pattern for New Testament worship. This diversity should be respected in this article.

But not many in the churches of Christ, outside the megachurches, that I am aware of. To the majority opinion with which I am aware, it is a fundamental belief that we are so patterned. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

9) I do not think this sentence has any place in this article: "Most social dance is condemned as lewd and lascivious behavior. Folk dancing is considered acceptable but not popular dancing, especially dancing with sexual overtones." Churches of Christ are not distinct because we prohibit "social dancing." Frankly, I haven't heard the prohibition of social dancing in the churches I've been apart of for over a decade. This topic is not as big in our churches as it used to be and should just be left out all together. I do not see the necessity of talking against all the things we are against. If we say we condemn social dancing, should we not also mention condemnations against drugs, alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and cheating on your income taxes? I'm sorry, but I cannot see the purpose of this statement.

Yeah, this is an anachronism. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a comment that we defer to Scripture on lascivious dance covers it. What constitus lewd is the question in most places, rather than anything intrinsic to the act of dancing itself. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

10) Perhaps this sentence should be reworded: "Children below the age of accountability are considered in a "safe" position in the eyes of God, and would not be condemned to hell if they died before the age of accountability (a denial of the common doctrine of Original Sin)." Here's my suggestion: "Churches of Christ do not typically hold to the doctrine of Original Sin. Instead, they practice adult baptism, believing that the accountable adult is able to make a confession of faith. Children are believed to be innocent of sin and are not baptized until they are able to genuinely make their own confession of faith." This keeps it simple and allows for the diversity in atonement theories in our churches. If we mention the "age of accountability", then we must also mention, for objectivity's sake, those who do not hold to this notion. Many in our churches believe that salvation is a process in which we are all engaged. It is not that children are innocent until suddenly one day they are accountable for their sins and in danger of going to hell. Instead, all our life is a process of becoming more and more like Christ, and baptism is an important, necessary step in that process. For more on this idea of atonement, which is a growing idea in our churches, see the ACU Press book Unveiling Glory by Fred Aquino and Jeff Childers.

Agreed. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree also. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

11) If we must include the "five steps of salvation", we need to include a caveat that says that many no longer hold to this method. Again, this harkens back to my last point. Many in Churches of Christ subscribe to a different idea of atonement. It is not about what steps do I need to go through to be saved, but all of live is a process of salvation. Besides, there are many Churches who no longer mention the "five steps of salvation" or offer an official invitation at the end of sermons. This should be respected in this article.

Once again, this is still pretty standard in almost all churches. There's not a whole lot of diversity out there on this. Danlovejoy 03:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that *any* who call themselves churches of Christ disagree with needing to hear, believe, confess, be baptised and live a Christian lifestyle, although I do know some are uncomfortable with calling it "steps", because we are not a works-salvation group. I'm not sure how to clarify this, or even that it needs clarifying. The Bible doesn't say "here's the Five Steps of Salvation"; it's just a commonly-understood term we use to convey the idea of it without a long, repetitious explanation every time it comes up in conversation or literature. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

12) Many of our churches celebrate religious holidays in their churches, while many do not. There is much diversity on this and this statement in the article does not objectively portray this.

How can we celebrate Christmas as the birth of Christ when we know it is not the right date? Or when we know the Bible doesn't command us to celebrate it as an item of faith? That's the mainstream opinion on the topic, and I don't think it needs changing unless we can show the command to do so Scripturally. I *am* however comfortable saying that where celebrated, it isn't as an item of faith but as a matter of tradition. I do not believe I am in the minority opinion in this interpretation, although I also don't believe it's really a divisive issue either. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you might actually be in the minority on this, or there is an interpretative problem here. I've been to several different CoC's in my life time even before I attended Lipscomb, and it has always been only a few people that speak up against the holidays of Christmas or Easter. I've never seen either of the holidays not celebrated at a church that I've attended. Granted, I haven't attended anywhere west of Columbus, MO. I think the reference to holidays should be removed. MJC 24.250.246.33 06:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

13) The statement about women's roles is very biased. It is obvious where the author of that statement comes down on the subject. For an article like this, such things should not be obvious. This point in the article simply states: this is the way it is in Churches of Christ, and says that those are "Liberal Churches" that "do not adhere" to the correct practice in 1 Tim. I am sure this is a belief some hold, but it is greatly inappropriate for this article. Frankly, I am offended by this statement, as a member of Churches of Christ who believe it is okay for women to be apart of the leadership of the church.

Perhaps this would be a better way to objectively express this: "In many Churches of Christ, women do not hold public positions of authority. For those hold to this belief, they do not believe that women are lesser humans, but that God has ordained the male as the authority figure in the church. 1 Timothy 2:12 is an often-cited scripture in support of this position. In other congregations, women are allowed various positions of authority. There are a handful of churches that allow women to be preachers or elders, but this is not the majority. Many, though, believe that women can teach adult men, lead in various aspects of communal worship, and serve in many ministerial roles (though the roles of "Elder" and "Preacher" are often reserved for men only). Galatians 3:28 is an often cited scripture in support of this position."

Agreed Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying liberal churches disagree? That's the case, is it not? I am of course fine with expanding an explanation that women are not viewed as lesser in any case. But again, show me where the dominant position is that women are permitted to be ministers and elders and I'll consider withdrawing my objection (for whatever it is worth). 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the statement about women's role is biased. The vast majority of our churches (at least 95%) do not have women in leadership roles, and feel that women in leadership roles is wrong. Just becuase a small handful (and I mean small) believe that this is okay does not make it normative. There are more churches that teach pre-millenialism than there are churches that allow women to have authority and leadership roles. ClarkePdx 17:00, 9 January 2006 (PST)

14) In line with my last point, this sentence needs to be changed: "Certain male members specialize in the field of teaching. These men are often called "Preachers," "Ministers," or "Evangelists.'" First off, there are many women who are called "ministers" in our church. These statements do not reflect this diversity. Secondly, I do not see the point of this statement. There were already a few paragraphs above that discussed the leadership of our congregations, and this statement is out of place.

Agreed Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Women aren't called ministers in mainstream churches. Lucado's church perhaps, but he's not church of Christ. Many churches may have this, but not many churches of Christ. However, considering that this topic was adequately covered under the discussion of leadership, I don't think it would hurt too much to just remove this section here. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

15) The discussion of divorce, abortion, and homosexuality should be omitted. There are many in our churches who would have objection to each of these points as mentioned in the article. They are all hot-button issues that are greatly contested from both sides. Furthermore, they are not distinguishing, unique qualities of our churches. Our church is diverse on these issues. We are a church made up of republicans, democrats, independents, pro-life and pro-choice. This diversity should be respected here and these topics should just be deleted.

I work at a university that is constantly being (unjustly) derided for being "liberal" and I find almost no evidence of this diversity. Mention of abortion and homosexuality should be included because they are "bright line" issues that almost all members agree upon. Small minorities notwithstanding, these are settled issues in Churches of Christ. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

16) On the topic of Satan, again, there is diversity here. And, again, the diversity needs to be respected. I, personally, do not believe Satan is a literal being and came to this understanding through my study with my professors. Perhaps this is another topic that is unnecessary for this article. If it must stay, the diversity on this view should be respected. While I realize that probably the majority in our churches believes in a literal Satan, because there are many who do not, it should not be simply stated "Satan is considered to be a literal being." Please, respect the diversity.

Once again, diversity is not mentioning the point of view of every individual and outlier. Satan IS considered to be a literal being by just about everybody, notwithstanding a few folks at XYZ University. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed again. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

17) On the topic of miracles, many in our tradition would contest this statement: "Miracles ceased when "that which is perfect" or the completed inspired teachings of the apostles were complete. (1 Corinthians 13:8-10]." Many of our Bible scholars believe that the "perfect" mentioned by Paul does not refer to the completed inspired teachings of the apostles, but to the eschaton-the end of time-when Christ will return and Christians will fully know Christ as he fully knows us (as is stated in 1 Cor 13). There are several churches in our fellowship who are considered "Charismatic" churches, and this diversity should be respected in this article.

Where are these churches? Are they in the movement? Please name them. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Belief in modern miracles is so far out of the movement I don't believe it needs space in this wikipedia entry. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Others may not be charismatic, like myself, but are not willing to say that miracles cease. For me, personally, such a statement arrogantly assumes I know how God chooses to work. If God wants to do a miracle today, who am I to say he can't or won't. This point needs to be reworked for objectivity's sake.

That's your opinion, and you are not in the mainstream. The "when perfection comes" argument against miracles today is really weak, but most still hold to it. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

18) In the point about "mid-week bible studies", this statement should be left out: "Even though it is not specifically commanded in the New Testament...” This statement harkens to a patternistic understanding, which as I have already said, is not held by many in our churches. The point would not be hurt at all if it was simply stated: "Many congregations in Churches of Christ choose to have a mid-week Bible study, normally on Wednesday nights."

Agreed. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

19) The VBS comment seems unnecessary. I don't think a discussion VBS is necessary for an article of this nature. If it must remain, the patternistic language and the mention that VBS is expedient should be removed, for the reasons stated in point 18 and above.

I don't think VBS language is necessary here at all. VBS isn't unique to our movement or controversial. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

While patternism remains a core belief for the majority, a discussion of VBS is a bit out of place here, I agree. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

20) This statement should be reworked to show the diversity in our churches: ""member of the church" - Many members of the Churches of Christ believe that only members of the Church of Christ are Christians." Perhaps this would be better: "Member of the Church"--this term is often used by those who believe that members of the Church of Christ are the only ones going to heaven. The statement is used to refer to those who they believe are true Christians, i.e. members of the “Church of Christ.” There are many, though, in Churches of Christ who deny that they are the only ones going to heaven.

Of course we aren't the only ones going to Heaven. But not many outside the Church even claim to adhere to God's word only. 12.217.48.171

21) The statement about “religious” seems unnecessary. I don’t think use of this term is significant enough in Churches of Christ to warrant discussion here. Frankly, I’ve never even heard of the distinctions mentioned in this article over the use of that term.

You haven't been exposed to nearly enough traditionalists. This term is still in common use in traditionalist circles. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't in use in the church body I worship with, but is still widely used. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

22) The discussion about the term "denomination" needs work. Perhaps this will be better: “Denomination”– Used by those who believe Churches of Christ are the only true Christians to refer to churches other than the Church of Christ, including the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.” Many, though, do not use the term in this way and choose to refer to those in other churches as also “Christians.”

The reason it is used to apply to all other churches is because they are in fact denominations, and the decisively majority opinion within Christ's church is that we are not a denomination. For a discussion of the Churches of Christ I find this an accurate enough statement to warrant continued inclusion. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

23) This statement closes this section: “Because of the autonomous nature of Churches of Christ, practices vary greatly within Churches of Christ. As a whole this list reflects practices considered to be standard, with a focus on those beliefs that distinguish the Churches of Christ from Protestant groups.” Over all, this statement is appropriate. But, I think that many of the variations in practices need to be mentioned above. I do not believe the “standard” practices mentioned are really that standard. There are some things that are standard and do make us distinctive from other Protestant Churches, but many of the things mentioned above are not apart of this list. Really, why should the goal of this list be to show how Churches of Christ are distinguished from other Protestant groups? Instead, could the list not just mention some basic beliefs and practices we share, mention some of the diversity in our practices, and be done with it?

We do vary in opinion. These are, outside a few megachurches and some unconventional groups, the predominant set of beliefs. It is appropriate to mention that in an article detailing the Church. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

24) I don’t think the few people having “emerging conversations” in Churches of Christ warrants discussion in this article. I don’t mean this to be a criticism of the “Emerging conversation” or of Bro. Peatross, but there are many similar things occurring in Churches of Christ, none of which warrant a mention in this article. If we include a specific mention of the “emerging conversation”, then why not include something about Churches of Christ who are becoming more liturgical, or racially diverse, or evangelical, or missional, or … There are so many different conversations going on in our churches, none of which are substantial enough to be included here.

I agree completely. It's not a major force within the CoC. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I know many will object to my objections. That is part of what Wikipedia is all about. But, when I read this article, I was very put off by what it portrayed. As an active participant in Churches of Christ, I felt this article did a great disservice to many of us. Wikipedia articles are supposed to present topics objectively and without a bias. It is my opinion that the “Church of Christ” article is very biased and must be reworked. My intention is not to rework it so that the bias is in the favor of the “liberal” or “progressive” churches. Instead, present both sides of our movement, giving both sides equal description and respect, so that readers will actually emerge from this article with a sense of the diversity of our movement, instead of emerging thinking we are all uniform in our practice.

Most of the changes you suggest would, in total, alter this article to the point where I would not recognize it as the church with which I am familiar. Noting differences is alright, as this article is supposed to reflect the churches of Christ as a whole, but "flavoring" the article to what is still a minority viewpoint is not appropriate. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I welcome your suggestions and critiques of what I have said.--Travs814 15:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Added after posted: Two more things (I know, haven't I said enough)-- I noticed there is no discussion of the African-American Churches of Christ. This should be added. Also, the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement is a great resources for this project. They have objectively desribed our movement and our diversity. There is probably an article in there that describes every point that's been made in this article. Perhaps a better article could be written if this source was consulted.--Travs814 15:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on AA churches. Danlovejoy 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How significant is the movement to change the name of Christ's church? My congregations have all had a mix of races reflecting the local demographic and would never consider a name that excluded any other race from attending. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In conclusion - One nitpick. I would prefer that you refrain from using the word "liberal" to describe progressive churches because it is a commonly misunderstood term. I know YOU know what "liberal" means and you're just trying to get your point across to readers who don't. But I personally prefer to keep the traditional theological meanings of "liberal" and "conservative." I certainly hope we all still believe in the literal resurrection.

Finally - I'd like to say - I think it's important to recognize commonality. I would estimate that more than 90% of all churches apparently hold to the doctrines enumerated in the article, even though members are questioning or hold to the practices out of tradition. Remember, for the most part, university bible departments are outliers, not bellweathers.

So, I would hate for the article to be filled up with caveats under every statement of practice or doctrine. We can cover exceptions in the intro and afterward, but let's not weigh down every paragraph with caveats. Danlovejoy 03:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with you on this. 12.217.48.171 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please use four tildes: ˜˜˜˜ to sign your entries. To return to a previous theme of mine, it's probably best to spin out a few separate articles discussing each of the various factions within these churches (as NI churches are now). The "progressives" have less in common every day with conservative institutionals, who have little association with non-institutionals, who likewise have almost nothing to do with one-cup/non-class churches, who have no fellowship in common with premillenial churches. There aren't simply "two sides," of course, but several. When each group has almost nothing to do (and often little in common) with the other, there's not much sense in pretending we're all part of the same group. Of course, someone has to have the time and inclination to do that first. Jdb1972 00:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a binary system. This is a very important point. However, I don't think we should split the article. Let's focus on commonalities and perhaps add a sub-section for each "movement" within the group. What do you think? Danlovejoy 03:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Truthfully, I personally don't see that all the groups have anything doctrinal in common any more, save perhaps a little history. And, ironically, the groups that are ideologically closest (CI, NI, and one-cup) are those that historically have had the least association. Jdb1972 03:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Issue with Intro Text

However, as is often the case in religious movements, a denominational identity is evolving, not only as the movement is perceived from the outside, but also in the minds of some on the inside. This evolution is resisted more or less successfully in some congregations, and embraced in others.

I have a number of quibbles with this text. Firstly, "as is often the case in religious movements" is opinion and unsubstantiated. It should be removed. Secondly, "a denominational identity is evolving" is far from all-encompassing. How about "some are embracing a denominational identity for the Churches of Christ"? Thirdly, how it is perceived from the outside has no real place here. We've always been viewed as "just another denomination" by the denominationalists anyway. Fourthly, "in the minds of some on the inside" is moot if we proceed with the above suggestions, and less opinion in tone. Fifth, "resisted more or less successfully... etc." could be more effectively phrased differently, but considering that I disagree there is an "evolution" (which implies it is occuring in the church as a whole) I think that, again, the above statement regarding "some are embracing..." would be adequate, precluding the need for this last sentence. Thoughts? JSM2005 01:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree it needs some serious NPOV work. Might be better to simply state it as a debate that's ongoing among some in the Church of Christ, like so:

"The Churches of Christ are autonomous Christian congregations. In the United States, for the most part the churches' roots can be traced back to the Restorationist movement championed by American Protestant preachers in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, most notably Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander. Individuals in these churches historically have aspired to be members of the one body of Christ described in the New Testament, without denominational affiliation. Traditionally, they have viewed congregational identity not as denominational identity, but rather as the same sort of thing one sees in the New Testament description of various churches, for example, the church in Corinth, the churches of Galatia, etc. However, there has been substantial debate over this topic in recent years, with some now embracing the view that the Church of Christ is a denomination."

Better? Worse? Jdb1972 13:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, much better, IMO. Thanks Jdb. Dan Lovejoy 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, much better, I agree JSM2005 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If there aren't any objections by the weekend, I'll go ahead and add it in, then. Jdb1972 02:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lazy guy finally got around to this a month late... Jdb1972 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)