Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Church of Christ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Link Removed

I removed the following link. *Christ Justified - Portal for churches of Christ, articles, links

It is a POV site and not representative in my judgment. Comments? Ahnog 13:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy and is intended for informative, rather than didactic or proselyting purposes. As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I'm not always sure exactly where the line of demarcation is, but I would imagine that Ahnog believed your site was a) intended to promote a specific view of churches of Christ and b) not terribly informative about what the church of Christ is. Please don't take this harshly--I (and he, for all I know) may very well agree with every word on your site, but truth!=our opinions, right? Mabus101 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not self promotion. If your website is significant enough, then a third party should add the link, instead of you, the creator of the site. I'm sure many of our regular editors to this article (myself included) haven't heard of your site, therefore it really isn't significant. -Ichabod 13:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Groups and Factions

Briefly discussed in "Links", above, but not directly germane to that subject:

It's been a few years, but I encountered a number of books in the Harding U bookstore that attempted to map out different clusters of perspectives among the different congregations. Unfortunately, at this point I don't remember any titles, but someone who does could link to Amazon listings of those books, or perhaps even include a summary of the classifications (depending on whether that would violate copyright and on whether there is any consistency between them). Mabus101 17:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the deal was that there weren't to be any links to specific congregational web pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.254.108.24 (talk • contribs)

The flip side of it is the references. A lot of original source material is located on web pages maintained by members of the Churches of Christ, naturally. An article on a contentious subject, as this one is, must be well-referenced and liberal in the use of citations. If I find evidence on the web to support an assertion I make in an edit, I am being irresponsible to the principle of verifiability if I do not indicate from where I draw my material. By the way, you're encouraged to sign your comments with four tilde characters in a row like this: ~~~~ which will automatically sign your comment. Alan Canon 02:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Racial Integration error?

A relatively recent edit added:

Segregationist tendencies still linger in the Church of Christ: one can usually tell a "black" from a "white" Church of Christ as soon as one walks through the door.

This is raw opinion ("as soon as one walks through the door..." and "segregationist tendencies still linger...". A significant majority of Churches of Christ are not segragationist, by which I mean they are integrated. Such equality is a point of pride for a large number of congregations. Also, the only racial designation I am aware of (though I know little about it) are those that choose to call themselves "Black Churches of Christ". It seems that if the only congregations highlighting race are Black, there is no real segregationist tendency in the context presented in the article. JSM2005 07:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I clarified and NPOVed the paragraph in question. Jdb1972 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally agreed. There is a difference between congregational membership continuing to reflect historical divisions and separate traditions, and an active maintenance of "separatist tendencies." The historically "Black" congregations do have a different history in terms of which preachers were prominent, what attitudes or doctrines were emphasized, what musical elements were usually present (within the shared a cappella tradition), etc. This doesn't mean either group is actively (or passively!) excluding the other in contemporary times, even though some of the differences may have started during the segregationist era.Lawikitejana 01:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctrine of Creation

I have a problem with the following section that was recently added:

Most members of the Church of Christ believe in Young Earth creationism, and that the earth was created with the appearance of age. Apologists such as John N. Clayton advance the theory of intelligent design.

First, I'm not sure there's a way to deduce what "most members" believe on this subject, other than simply deferring to the Bible instead of the assumptions used to justify a young Earth. And second, Clayton's views are not exactly what most would think of as Intelligent design. I would call his views a combination of ID for basic groups (kinds) and microevolution for changes within those groups[1] [2]. And third, although the paragraph above doesn't imply it, I need to point out that Clayton certainly doesn't believe in a young Earth [3]. --Spiffy sperry 04:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Clayton's views on things, but as far as indicating that most members of the church believe in young earth creationism, I think it's a safe thing to say. One of the basic beliefs of the churches of Christ is a literal understanding of most of the Bible, including Genesis, which lends itself to young earth creationism. Likewise, it has been the only doctrine that I've ever experienced being preached in the congregations. I can't cite a source, but I would like to point out that much of this article is based on widely known facts and not citations. I think that the above statement is a widely known fact. Take that for what it's worth. -- Lannon 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In answer to all of the above: well, edit away then! I mainly wanted just to begin the section on creation, it seemed an omission. Sorry what I wrote was so lame, I'm sure it can be improved. Alan Canon 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Marshall Keeble

I just created the article on Marshall Keeble. Y'all come and help! Alan Canon 07:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable Members

A user just edited in a section on notable members of the churches of Christ. Although I think this was for the best intentions upon the user's part, I'm not sure that it should be included. Citing particular ministers may appear to indicate that these people are leaders in the church in a way that the church of Christ does not advocate. Also, because of the different divisions in the churches of Christ, some people listed may not be considered to be faithful by all members and would rather that those people's names not be included. Unless there are objections, I'd like to remove the section. - Lannon 15:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It seems (to me) like a "Hey, look, we're relevant! There are people you know in here!" effort. Not to mention that it's missing a lot of people. I would note there is a list of RM group figures already on Wikipedia, though.

Was anyone else shocked that Meatloaf was "raised in the church"? ;) Jdb1972 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not completely....he did spend a semester or two at Lubbock Christian University (they published his yearbook photo in the alumni magazine).

Perseverance of the saints

The text I changed formerly read:

Continued faithfulness is enjoined because the Church of Christ denies the doctrine of perseverance of the saints.

I changed the link to eternal security (which currently redirects to the same article) because of the distinction made in that article between two views -- one that requires faithfulness as a sign of salvation and one that does not. The former is there called the "traditional Calvinist doctrine" while the latter is called the "non-traditional Calvinist doctrine" (more commonly, "eternal security" or "once saved, always saved") and although the CoC denies both versions, the latter is clearly in mind in the sentence above. --Flex 22:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to change this to "... advocates the doctrine of Lordship salvation and denies the doctrine of eternal security in either of its forms."? --Flex 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Members of the Church of Christ believe that living faithfully as a child of God is neccessary because that is what the Bible teaches and not because they fail to believe in something else.

I propose to revise this sentence to remove the reference to John Calvin's teaching and redirect to the Jesus' and the apostle's teaching; Matt 10:22, 24:13, Mk 13:13, Lk 16:21 ff Rev 2:7, 10,17, 26, 3:21 James 1:12 really sums it up, there is such a thing as pererverance of the saints, It just doesn't mean "once saved always saved" as Calvin taught. RFranklin 10:01 pm 13 Aug 2006

Good suggestion, RFranklin, but it doesn't need to be an either/or thing. How about something like:

Continued faithfulness (cf. Matt 10:22, James 1:12, etc. - the Churches of Christ deny the doctrine of eternal security).

This would make it fit the structure of the other elements in the list (none of which are sentences) a little better. Better still would be to add a few scripture references to each of the elements in the list. --Danny Reese 03:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why lend any credence to what is not believed by mentioning it? Calvin's concept of "perseverance the saints" is what others believe. The article should say what is commonly believed by members of the Church of Christ and and why they believe so. RFranklin 03:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 14 August 2006

Several thoughts:

We're not trying to "lend credence" to any position. We're trying to maintain a neutral point of view.
Yes, in general I think you are right. The article needs to state what is believed and why. But it is also useful to compare and contrast the beliefs and practices of the Churches of Christ with those of other religious traditions. It helps the reader who is unfamiliar with the Churches of Christ understand more about it.
The question is larger than just this one issue. This article is full of statements like "the Churches of Christ do not believe..." I think this should be reduced throughout the article, but not eliminated entirely. It is a helpful tool for explanation that shouldn't run the show.
Take a look at some other Wikipedia articles. The article on Baptists, for example, spend the majority of its time discussing what Baptists believe and practice, etc., but also includes statements such as:
- "Many Baptists are neither literalist nor fundamentalist, although most believe in biblical authority."
- "Through Anabaptist influence, Baptists reject the practice of pedobaptism or infant baptism because they believe parents cannot make a decision of salvation for an infant."
- "Baptists emphasize that the remembrance is symbolic of Christ's body and reject literal views of communion such as transubstantiation and consubstantiation held by other Christian groups based on their interpretation of John 6."

--Danny Reese 21:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very pleased as a member of the Church of Christ to find this article. I think it is amazingly accurate in most of it's content.

The distinctive thing about the Churches of Christ is discussed in the opening of the article. i.e. a complete reliance on the Bible and rejection of man-made religious doctrine. CoC members and congregations believe what they believe because they only accept doctrine that can be supported by Bible Scripture. They don't believe what they believe because they follow one person or a different person. The criteria is "what does the Scripture say?" This principle is so typical and defining that I think it is right way to present CoC doctrinal beliefs.

I don't know if it reflects an apolgetic style of writting or if some sections were written by someone who disagrees with the beliefs of the CoC. There are several non-neutral phrases within the article. I would very much like to rephrase them. I don't want to offend the original writer, particularly because I see so much accuracy in the content.

Phrases with negative conotations like "Members also object to" and "deny the doctrine of" should be edited to be more positive.

There is nothing wrong with saying that the CoC rejects the 5 "TULIP" Pilars of Calvinism. There is a good start on this in the section titled "Theology"
Why not put it there and acknowledge the rejection of Calvinism? The article is correct to say in "Theolgy" that the CoC is basically Arminian, although it should probably mention that the CoC does not accept the "faith alone" doctrine of Arminius.

The link that leads there to Arminianism is very informative. That article lists this belief typical of Arminianism:
"Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith" following the conditional upon continued faith link really does a good job of explaining the doctrine, but misses the CoC criteria of referencing scripture as the basis of belief.

RFranklin 03:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I think we're on the same page now. I guess I just didn't want you to overreact. Let's take out the reference to eternal security and perhaps provide Scripture refences to each item in the soteriology list, but make sure that the rejection of the doctrine of eternal security is included somewhere it belongs, along with the rest of the rejections of Calvinism. I think that's what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong), and I think I agree. I'll let you or someone else make the changes. --Danny Reese 04:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes , I'll give it a try. (but probably not today) Let me know if I what I do gets the job done.

RFranklin 22:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Schools of Preaching

Does anyone think something should be included about the various schools of preaching? I know Spring Bible Institute, East Tennessee School of Preaching, Memphis School of Preaching and one in Middle Tenn graduate a lot of influental speakers.CJC47 03:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I do. I think that Nashville School at Crieve Hall, Bear Valley in Colorado, Karns in Knoxville, Sunset in Lubbock, and Memphis at a minimum are deserving of mention; certainly there are many others. The problem, I would say, is that they are hard to categorize, as they aren't really full-fledged accredited institutions of higher learning, aren't seminaries, and aren't secondary schools. They're probably most similar to vocational schools for the vocation of preaching, but that's not exactly accurate either. They are not readily explicable to a primarily "outside" audience. Rlquall 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ten dollar words"

I've always heard that we should never use ten dollar words when twenty-five cent ones will do nicely. The sentence, "Many of those related disputes were ramified across schism boundries in polyphylictic fashion," is about as good of an example of "obfuscation by erudition" as I can cite. I realize that this is about creating a reference work and that it shouldn't be written on a first grade-, or even a fifth grade-level, but this is too much IMO. Can't we put this in a way that the more-or-less average Wikipedia reader can relate to and understand? Rlquall 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Rlquall, I agree with you, but try as I might I can't eliminate the central point: that because of congregational autonomy, we're barking up the wrong tree if we try to trace the history of schisms in a straight Darwinian "directed graph." Congregational autonomy means that multiple, independently evolving branches of the Churches of Christ might find a new thing to argue about, and then come to the same conclusion, in isolation, while still hating other branches of the movement who happen to agree with them on some particular meme, but who are nevertheless eternally bound to Hell because of some other, unrelated, point of doctrine. Polyphylesis is just the thing, because this term recognises a shortcoming in Darwinian evolution, for example, the eye of the giant squid versus our eye: obviously convergent evolution, but with variations that conclusively prove there was no common ancestor, yet a set of forces which yielded similar solutions in similar situation. Also, being able to wikify a "ten dollar word" lets people link to the complicated concept if they choose. So I want to find a different wording, but I don't want to throw away the concept, because I think it's objectively descriptive..... Alan Canon 09:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Of the Church"

4.88.73.184 changed "of other Christian denominations" to "of other denominations of the Church." This is a POV issue. From the traditional Church of Christ POV, "the Church" means the Church of Christ (see the Specialized Vocabulary section). "Other Christian denominations" is clear to everyone (even if Church of Christers don't like the word "other" in this context), and is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's usage. So I changed that phrase back. --Danny Reese 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, someone who won't log in has changed the wording to "of other denominations of the church," which still isn't a neutral point of view. In addition, the rest of the article has used "the church" to refer to the Church of Christ; in this context, "denominations of the church" doesn't make any sense. I'm well aware also of the CoC POV that it is not a denomination, therefore one should not use the term "other denominations." So we're trying something different. The phrase "various Christian denominations" doesn't imply that the CoC is a "denomination," nor that it is the whole "church." --Danny Reese 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Confused

---As a person who grew up in the Methodist Church and who recently married a "member" of the Church of Christ I was hoping to find a more basic understanding of the differences between my denominational background and the Church of Christ. After reading/trying to interpret some of the discussion on this topic I see why denominations have doctrine. It seems that the argument over "The One Truth" might go on forever. I assumed it would be much simpler to determine what was right or wrong excluding human interpretation and taking directives straight from the Bible itself. I believe I might need to start with a different resource; one that perhaps is written on fifth grade level. Dzgb78 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)=dzgb78

Should this page move?

The disambiguation section is already pretty lengthy. "Church of Christ", like "Catholic Church", is a designation that many, perhaps most Christian denominations will claim for themselves, some admitting the possibility that the church of Christ may inhere in others as well, others denying this. I'd propose to move the page about this particular religious movement to Church of Christ (Campbellite) or something similar. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be ironic since many (though not all) members of this religious movement would strenuously object to being called Cambellites. Perhaps Churches of Christ would work better (this is also the designation given in Mead's "Handbook of Denominations in the United States"). I do think that The Church of Christ should redirect to Church of Christ (disambiguation), not to Church of Christ. --Raogden 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That would work, and if "Campbellite" is objectionable, would perhaps be better; "churches," since these churches have a congregational polity and little intra-church hierarchical structure. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree "Churches of Christ." "Campbellite" doesn't bother my personal POV at all: I think it's descriptive. But it's got too much baggage as a label hurtfully applied (or at least hurtfully rejected), and the article reflects that. Can of worms, if you ask me, and moving the article will go 90% smoother if that is not used. (Helpful REDIRECTs on titles containing Campbellite could be used, also.)

I would throw in the added possibility: "Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement)" That is also descriptive, and further more, "restoration" should have a positive connotation for even conservatives within the movement: certainly they still adamantly claim to have restored the church of the first century, and this can be claimed though many also reject the notion that Campbell or any other R.M. figures were necessary precursors to the church they have today. Alan Canon 17:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding the "restoration movement" tag would be received relatively well, but I wonder if it is necessary. I know there are churches of Christ that are in different branches of the restoration movement, but I'm not aware of any groups that call themselves this outside of the Restoration movement (aside from the obvious mormons). Anyway, as a conservative member of the church of Christ, I can tell you that (Restoration Movement) wouldn't give most people a problem whereas (Cambellite) definately would (especially among "non-institutional" folks like myself). *Shrug* I'm with whatever you guys want really...I mean its only a website and all ;) --R.A. Ogden 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggested Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement) mainly because "Churches of Christ" is not much of a semantic change from "Church of Christ," from the perspective of someone who's not familiar with the subject matter: it's just a pluralization from a naive perspective. Worse, could even be taken as a disambiguation page for the various not-directly-related bodies that have claimed the name. So I was figuring that as long as we're going to move it, move it to a decidedly less ambiguous/more descriptive name. You could then make "Churches of Christ" either a REDIRECT, or a disambiguation page, which would let us scrub the ever-expanding boilerplate off the very top of our article, to be replaced with a reference to the disambiguation page. Alan Canon 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point. I guess I'm just biased against really long article names. :) --R.A. Ogden 22:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If we change the name (move the article) I'd like to know when it happens so I can perhaps help with what should be a pretty extensive disambiguation link repair project: choosing "what links here" from the old article name, and going out to those articles to make them point to the right place. It would be easy to divide this work up: "you fix the Mormon ones, I'll fix the post-1906 Disciples ones," etc.

Should we schedule a vote to give people time to weigh in, and then schedule a move date? There's probably useful policy out there to read. Alan Canon 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

More power to ya buddy! I'm relatively new around here (ok, I admit...I'm a complete wikinoob), so I don't know the first thing about moving an article or fixing stuff. I did comment on the Church of Christ (disambiguation) page that it looks terrible (and is innacurate in places. I think it needs serious work, but I've sorta stretched myself with a huge "to do" list in my first week of wikidom--R.A. Ogden 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement)" seems best to me. I think "Churches of Christ" should redirect to this article, but I don't know what I think about "Church of Christ". It could go to the disambiguation page, but most of the other choices on the disambiguation page have specific terms that people are likely to include in their search (e.g. united, mormon, Australia, etc.), so perhaps it still should redirect to this article. --Danny Reese 00:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically, if we can achieve a consensus here, no voting should be necessary. What I would propose is to move the disambiguation page to Church of Christ and move this page to either Church of Christ (Restoration Movement) or Churches of Christ, whichever proves more popular. I have no strong opinions as to either; "Campbellite" seems a non-starter. No one is going to directly link to Church of Christ (disambiguation), although if there were a Church of Christ, Disambiguationist I'd probably join it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've thought for a while that "Churches of Christ" should be the main page. Not so sure about "(Restoration Movement)"; I don't really think it's necessary since "Church of Christ" without qualifier isn't used as the name of any religious group to my knowledge, aside from a Filipino cult that is usually designated "Iglesia de Cristo." And no one uses "Churches of Christ." Jdb1972 12:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the Mormon church consider itself part of a "restoration movement" in a sense? Therefore "Church of Christ (Restoration Movement)" might not solve the problem. I'd object to the Campbellite label since historically it has been used by critics of the movement and not by members themselves. --Ichabod 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This is their name. It was available to the older denominations, but they chose differently. It borders on abuse of the process to democratically usurp the very name from under a minority group. But I guess all is fair that isn't specifically forbidden by the Bible, right? I am agnostic, and so not a spokesman for this group. However, I grew up in this church until I reached the age of reason. As for the congregations with which I had contact, there was considered only one church. For this reason, "Churches" of Christ would be a source of lamentation to many of them. This would be similar facing a sad fact built into your very name, like the "Church of dropping attendance". They even refused to recognize themselves as belonging to a denomination, because this is seen as a division of the "one" Church. They were careful not to glorify anyone but (Christ/God/Holy Spirit). Therefore, "Campbellite" would be unacceptable. Recent Church history was not typical curriculum. I'm going to guess that only half will recognize the "Restoration Movement" is associated with their church; I didn't. Changing their name will only cause confusion and bruised feelings. Arbeiter 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Catholic Church has always used and continues to use "Church of Christ" to describe itself. My vote goes for "Churches of Christ (Restoration movement)"Jemfinch 18:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The name "Churches of Christ" refers not to many universal churches, but to many local congregations of the one church. I don't know of anyone in this group who would have a problem with the title "Churches of Christ" especially given that Paul himself used the terminology ("The churches of Christ salute you..."). I think that perhaps in your youth you misunderstood? (and I don't mean that in any kind of derogatory way!). I think this objection is based on a misunderstanding.

To agree with the anonymous contributor before me, "Churches of Christ" is an often used and widely accepted term among the CoC. There is nothing offensive (or lamentable) there. --Danny Reese 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To summarize the above discussion, it seems that 3 options are rising to the top:

Churches of Christ
Church of Christ (Restoration Movement)
Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement)

Anything to do with "Cambellite" is out of the question. Is this assessment correct? Are we choosing between one of these three? --Danny Reese 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats an accurate summary, yep! :) btw...Reese sounds very familiar. I was a member where a Jack Reese was a shephard. Glenda was his wife. Any relation?

Misunderstood? Perhaps. To clear up the matter, I contacted the most devoted Church of Christ attendee that I know, my mother. I asked her if she had seen the (imaginary) newspaper article about "The Churches of Christ". She immediately latched on to the nuance, and said, "that's probably about those Unitarians". I then asked her about the "Restoration Movement". She understood it, but when pressed, she (also) speculated that only half of her congregation would identify this movement with their Church. My brother did not latch on to the "Churches" nuance, but speculated even fewer in his congregation would identify the "Restoration Movement" with their Church. I know that this is a very limited straw poll, but it does exemplify the shortcoming of this endeavor. I suggest leaving the page here with a disambiguation tag. Anything else will breed confusion. If necessary, work a sentence or two into the opening paragraph to further highlight and explain the disambiguation link. Arbeiter 20:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've almost suggested moving this to something like Churches of Christ before. As mentioned above, this does seem to be used quite a bit to refer to the different congregations collectively. It is not at all clear that this group did use "Church of Christ", or even "church of Christ" as a name for the group, rather than to refer to the universal church of Christ which may or may not have been understood as only including members of these congregations. The only problem with simply moving it to Churches of Christ is that the article is mainly about one of the groups resulting from the restoration movement. I don't know whether the other groups in the US use the term "Churches of Christ" at a significant level, but it is definitely used by the Churches of Christ in Australia, etc. JPD (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a relative newbie to editing Wikipedia articles . . . having contributed only a few minor edits in the past few weeks. So count what I say for only what it's worth (which might not be much). How to identify ourselves is the problem we've faced with Yellow Pages listings for years and "Churches of Christ" seems to be the most common, IMO. That is what I'd favor. However, we should be aware that Independent Christian Churches are known as Churches of Christ in some parts of the country so we would not be free of confusion with them unless we added some kind of distinguisher such as (a cappella) or (non-instrumental). Also, if the (Restoration Movement) distinguisher is chosen, perhaps it should be modified to either (American Restoration Movement) or (Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement) because there are other restorationist groups, although I don't know that any of them use "Church of Christ" to identify themselves. I'm fine with whatever you all decide (so long as you don't use Campbellite). Johnfgaines 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Restoration Movement" seems redundant to me, as I don't know of any group using the name "Churches of Christ" that isn't somehow part of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, in the US or otherwise. Whenever I have seen this group disambiguated from others, it has been with something like "non-instrumental", but I don't know whether that it still considered appropriate. JPD (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Churches of Christ" is also used by the Unitarians, and Damian Macafee is sitting on the domain name. I know your in here Damian! I also find it suspicious that all these CoC members are so willing to give away their Church's identity. I suggest leaving the page here with a disambiguation tag. Anything else will breed confusion. If necessary, work a sentence or two into the opening paragraph to further highlight and explain the disambiguation link. Arbeiter 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"I also find it suspicious that all these CoC members are so willing to give away their Church's identity." *scratches head* I have no clue what you're talking about. We are identified with Jesus. At question is whether this particular internet article should be moved for clarification. I've never heard of the Unitarians using the term "churches of Christ" but even if they do, I think it far more likely that someone coming to Wiki for information about them will search for Unitarians rather than Churches of Christ. --R.A. Ogden 21:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I removed the move tag for this article since it's gone a few days past the usual WP:RM expiration date. Also, none of the moved proposed here are obstructed so no admin assistance is needed. Once you've all decided on a new article name, if you want to move the dab page over the top of this one, let me know and I can do that. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Ya know, I'm one of those "liberals" who contributed 300 edits in three days a few months ago. I've tried to absorb all the above Talk messages, and you know what? I can't: it's more than I have time for. But what I can glean from a cursory reading is a lot of evidence of very good people in conversation with one another. Alan Canon 07:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

May I add my vote against the use of such phrases as "a capella" or "non-instrumental" to define the CofC, especially because this is no longer entirely accurate, nor is the use of a capella music limited to the CofC. Also, I have to agree with the person who said that the use of the collective word "churches" would (though biblical!) annoy many people who attend a Church of Christ, because they would see it as implying a political or organizational connection between various churches that simply does not exist de jure, though I think that we can all acknowledge that these connections do, indeed, exist de facto. "Churches of Christ" implies, as a phrase, that there is an overarching corporation (a collective body formally, legally, or contractually defined), but there isn't. On the other hand, "The Church of Christ" indicates an international association (or, to use the more theologically correct term, a "fellowship") of loosely affiliated believers who more or less agree on matters of doctrine, without any formal declaration of conformity or hierarchy of uniformity to police this coalition or alliance. Therefore, I vote for the continued use of the phrase "Church of Christ." The articles "the" or "a" should prefix the phrase to indicate reference to the larger fellowship or to an individual congregation, respectively. However, because the Church of Christ most often resembles an anarchy on the global level and a representative democracy on the local level, I also recognize that my use of the term "vote" should hereby only refer to the internal processes of wikipedia.

It would be good to have some evidence from reliable sources concerning this. A quick look on the web (including the sites linked from this article) shows frequent use by Church of Christ websites of the phrase "churches of Christ" to refer collectively to these congregations. The phrase "the church of Christ" is also used, but in a less clear sense that doesn't obviously only refer to the subject of this article. (I didn't find any evidence of Unitarians using "churches of Christ", either). As for non-instrumental, etc., I think I have also seen "(non-denominational)" used as a disambiguator - would that be better? JPD (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good thought to go looking at websites. I am still convinced that "churches of Christ" is a widely used and accepted term within churches of Christ. In fact, despite the eloquent stance above, I often have heard "churches" defended over-against "church" since the former recognizes the autonomy of congregations instead of making it sound like an overarching organization. Hence, the Prebyterian Church, but the churches of Christ. About "non-denominational": that too has increasingly come under criticism from some within CoC who move toward acceptance of denominational categorization (e.g., The Jesus Proposal and many similar books, though of course this position is far from a majority position). So I don't think "non-denominational" is representative enough. --Danny Reese 18:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of members of the Church of Christ as decribed in this article would object to being renamed as any of the names listed in this talk thread. The reason goes deep into their doctrine. The congregations are "churches of Christ" (the lower case 'churches" having significance in distinguishing between individual congregations vs. the Church as a whole. Note that the reference the Apostle Paul made in Romans 16:16 was "churches of Christ" and not "Churches of Christ".)

Why on earth would anyone want to rename a religious group to something other than what they call themselves or would wish to be called?

Such a change would make it much less likely for some one looking for information about the "Church of Christ" to find it in Wikipedia.

It goes way deeper than that that. A major point of doctrine of the Church of Christ is that there really is only one "Church" that Christ established. It is a fact that many religious groups call themselves the Church of Christ if you look in the fine print. This is testimony to there being only one Church. They do however choose to be known by some other name. The Restoration plea was to decard creeds and names that separtate Christians. Other groups have different views (they are entitled to do so) but this group takes what they call themselves seriously and it is extremely offensive to call them something else.

RFranklin

RFranklin, you may well be right in some points, but the biggest problem I have is that we need to see evidence, not just statements from you about "the vast majority of members". I can understand that this may be hard to find, but it what we are looking for. My limited experience and a quick glance through relevant websites reveals lots of references to the groups collectively as "churches of Christ", and a one or two references to the "church of Christ" that could be understood as using it as a name, or implictly asserting that these congregations make up the one universal church that you speak. I readily accept that this evidence isn't exhaustive or conclusive, but we need more than unsupported statements to the contrary.

Danny has already explained how some members, to some extent for the same sorts of reasons as you give, actually avoid using the singular "church" in that way. Maybe this is just a different way of using words, but we can't ignore it completely. (After all, Paul did not use capital letters, so the distinction you make regarding Romans 16:16 is simply a matter of using modern usage of capitals to make a point about the original meaning.) Maybe there is more to it, and it reflects different view among members concerning other Christians. Either way, we need evidence from reliable sources. As for why the article might be renamed, you yourself said that other groups would consider the term to refer to or include themselves. In theological and spiritual terms, it may well be good to discard the names that separate Christians, but it doesn't work very well when writing articles about the different groups that do exist. JPD (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence that most members of churches of Christ refer to the Church as "Church of Christ" is not hard to find and is overwhelming.

The evidence is how individual churches identifiy themselves in directories

e.g. The phone directory
http://www.dexonline.com

- DEX will force you search for "church christ" in an individual city, but it returns overwhelmingly what the churches call themselves i.e. "Church of Christ". It also has mixed in "Christ Church" or "United Church of Christ" or other variation that are not churches of Christ - if you doubt it, contact a few of them and ask them if they are part of the Chruch of Christ as described in this Wiki article.

Check your own local paper phonebook.

and internet directories, for instance;

http://church-of-christ.org/churches/United_States/United_States.htm

http://www.cocn.org/congreg.html

Congregations that hold services in Spanish identify themselves as "Iglesia de Cristo" which translates directly from Spanish to English "Church of Christ". Congregations that hold services in other languages translate "Church of Christ" into their own language.

The typical listing is "XXXX Church of Christ", "XXXX church of Christ", or "Church of Christ of XXXX", where XXXX is the name of a place or other identifying feature. I defy you to find a congregation that identifies itself in any ohter way. You may find one or a few, but they are very very rare. --RFranklin 02:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the point. The question isn't whether individual congregations are referred to as XXXX Church of Christ, but whether the term "the Church of Christ" is used to refer to them collectively. The sites containing the two internet directories you link to consistently use "churches of Christ" in that context. Interestingly, johnfgaines claims above that "churches of Christ" is sometimes used in yellow pages, etc. I don't know whether this is true - I don't know why you think my local paper phonebook would help! At any rate, it's not particularly relevant unless there is an entry for the churches collectively. JPD (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the disabmiguation section is sufficient to explain that this article does not refer to the "CHURCH OF CHRIST" (in the sense of all christians worldwide). (AUhl - not signed in)

Thanks to all fellow contributors

I just wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation to all the many and varied contributors of edits to this article. Reading everyone's contributions, and I do mean everyone's has helped me immensely. Alan Canon 05:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)