Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Most members, particularly older members, of this group are apt to object to being referred to as "Protestants", saying that the church was not founded as a protest against anything, other than perhaps the domination of the present world by Satan. However, it certainly fits within the the historic context of Protestantism, growing as it did mainly out of Baptist- and Presbyterian-related reform movements. Rlquall, 10 June 04, 12:55

I'm not sure I'd say "most," but that is common. It could be correct to categorize us as "Protestants" if you take that to mean those who reject the Catholic religion. I've sometimes billed myself as a "protestant against Protestants," too. But I also tend to refer to the Protestant Church as a whole as a fallen religious organization. Jdavidb 16:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Someone, somewhere, is probably also going to object to the categorization of "Christian denominations," as one of the religious tenets of this group is that they are not a denomination and that denominationalism is sinful. Jdavidb 14:45, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses likewise dislike their movement being referred to as a "church", but it nonetheless shows up frequently as such in a discussion of religious groups, since it grew out of a purported study of the Bible, the book supposedly followed by Christian religious groups. C of C semantics don't carry much weight with non-members either. Most non-C of C members are apt to refer to the pulpit minister of a C of C as a "pastor" even though that is NOT his title, and to the group as a whole as a "denomination", regardless of how stridently it rejects that status (and with some reason, as the trappings of a denomination such as conventions, world, national, and regional headquarters, and the like are generally absent. One of the objections to events such as the "Tulsa Workshop" is that they resemble, in many aspects, a convention.)

Recent changes

I'm going to mercilessly edit some of the recent changes. :) For one thing, the text made it clear that since the churches are autonomous, specific beliefs and practices vary. The article attempts to list some things that are commonly taught or associated with the Church of Christ. There is no need to add disclaimers to individual statements to say this. I presume I'll be similarly mercilessly edited, and consensus will emerge. Jdavidb 20:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Churches of Christ generally do believe that denominationalism is sinful. Saying they believe it's a departure from the plan laid out in the Bible implies they believe it is sinful, as they believe departures from the Bible plan are sinful. (Perhaps this should be spelled out more clearly. Churches of Christ believe that tradition, councils, conventions, and local churches do not have the power to modify either Biblical theology or Biblical practice.) Yes, this varies from church to church, but the article states that. Yes, many churches are changing, but the article attempts to document those beliefs and practices that distinguish the Church of Christ from mainline Protestantism.

• In some churches, elders do select the deacons. Some believe (probably without study) that this is the only Biblical way to do it. I'll restore this, but state that it is only in some churches.

• Unresolved: elders are generally selected by the congregation, but there's a significant minority who believe they are to be selected by the evangelist/preacher. Any ideas how to report this? Probably needs more detail on the office of an elder (btw, the Wikipedia article on Bishop, last I checked, had an excellent explanation of the New Testament office of bishop).

• Agree that elders generally do not perform baptisms. (Although maybe they should...)

• Preachers definitely perform baptisms. Some of the less educated probably believe only preachers can perform baptisms.

• Holidays: there are anti-holiday and pro-holiday churches in all regions. I doubt this varies by region. Probably more by age. To be honest, the anti-holiday sentiment has weakened so much over the last 50-100 years that it probably cannot truthfully be reported as a current doctrine, though many still hold to it. Nevertheless, it's a distinctive doctrine the churches are still known for, even if they no longer hold to it (or hold to it only weakly).

• "anti-cooperation" or "anti-" is a perjorative.

The Paden article mentioned under ICOC under Disputes Within the Church, is not really all that impartial. Plus I think that link really ought to be ICOC page, but that's a minor quibble. There's a huge preponderance of non-CoC links on the CoC page though. 12.217.48.171 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage in the Church of Christ

It is incorrect to say that the churches of Christ believe that divorce, without reason of adultery is not divorce in the eyes of God and is therefore adultery. This is a minority view held by some of the more extreme members of the church.

A more accurate statement reflecting the majority view is: Divorce, except for reasons of infidelity, is a sin which Jesus compares to adultery.

Because this is a strenuously debated issue, rather than a defining doctrine, I believe that it should be either corrected or deleted entirely.

I do not believe this "divorce is not adultery" opinion is a majority view. No lesser commentator than Wayne Jackson has written on the topic, an article published in the Introduction to Churches of Christ back in the 80s and reproduced all over the place online (http://www.thebible.net/introchurch/ch26.html). His is certainly the viewpoint I am familiar with as well, not least of which because that's what many people read in their Bibles. On the one hand we have the view of "the bible says..." and on the other we have the view of "what the bible really meant was...". I think it better to leave as is, but say that this is not a universally held belief. (And how can it be since the CoC are autonomous). 12.217.48.171 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

ICOC links

There are 3 links out of ten devoted to the ICOC, but this is the article for the mainstream Churches of Christ. Since these two groups are often confused, I would like to have something to set these links apart. Otherwise, it seems excessive that 30% of the links are about another group. Jdavidb 19:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It is unnecessary and even more confusing to add so many ICOC links to a page dedicated to mainstream churches of Christ. Both organizations consider themselves separate organizations. However Joe User may visit this Wiki article thinking that it is all about ICOC, with all the links to ICOC websites. Ichabod 23:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Baptism

I believe it might be helpful to add to this article an explanation of baptism as presented by Ferguson in his book, "The Church of Christ A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today" (Eerdmans) ... basically, Ferguson explains that generally speaking people in the Church of Christ (consciously or not) believe that they would answer the questions "How am I saved?" by "Grace" "Why am I saved?" because of my Faith "When am I saved?" when I am baptized. Do you'll think this would help people understand better where they are coming from?

I think that this would be a theologically fair exposistion of the views of the majority of this group.

Rlquall 05:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this is an accurate and not emotionally charged way of stating it. 12.217.48.171 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of an update

Capitalization needed to be standardized within the article. I realize that this is a contentious point; many feel that the capitalization of "Church" aquaints to surrendering to the idea that the body is another denomination. However, even though Wikipedia is by its very nature a collabrative effort, the outcome of each article should be stylistically consistent as if written by a single author. Rlquall 18:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Mainline" vs. "mainstream"

I realize that many will see this as even more of a minor quibble than the capitalization "issue". However, "mainline" has become something of a term of art referring to a specific group of major Protestant churches, and it would be wrong to associate the Churches of Christ with this group because it would be historically and semantically inaccurate. Therefore, I have amended it to the more generic "mainstream", which better signifies what is meant here in my opinion. Rlquall 18:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pepperdine

Is Pepperdine the best choice of an example here? I would think that Abeline, Harding, or Lipscomb would be more representative of the "mainstream" of belief. Many in the C of C "heartland" automatically suspect and disdain Pepperdine, admittedly in part just due to its California location, but also for its perceived (and sometimes real) "liberalism" by Church of Christ standards. Rlquall 17:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Would a good minor Wikiproject be "List of colleges and universities associated with the Churches of Christ?)

I have heard all three of the colleges you mention described as having liberal tendencies. ACU especially is condemned. Harding might be the best middle-of-the-road example, but there are complaints even about it. 170.35.224.64 16:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Liberal or conservative tendencies shouldn't play into this discussion. Rather, the willingness and promotion of the college itself as representative of Churches of Christ. Pepperdine has been much less willing in recent years to bill itself as an institution of the Churches of Christ, whereas Abilene Christian University, Oklahoma Chrisitan University, Harding University, and Lipscomb University are still the major colleges that outwardly claim association with the CoC, regardless of liberal or conservative leanings. --Soonercary 03:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pepperdine University is religiously affiliated with the Churches of Christ

I found the above quote on the "About Pepperdine" page of their website. I was a little skeptical about the statement that Pepperdine has been stepping away from association with the CoC. I feel that since Pepperdine is listed both on its wikipedia entry and its website as being affiliated with the CoC then it is perfectly appropriate to include it in this article. Especially since it is the one CoC affliated university that is most noted outside the CoC. Kablamo2007 20:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Pepp is just as CoC as ACU, but the schools list has been moved to a separate article, so it's moot here. Danlovejoy 22:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Florida College in Temple Terrace, Florida [1] should be included in the list of colleges. Although it is not a seminary, it does have a bibilcal studies department whose beliefs are most akin to those of the non-institutional side of the church.

Links to Individual Congregations

Links to individual CoC congregations' websites are unnecessary. There is potential for an overwhelming amount of links if this were allowed to continue. There are already links to website directories of CoCs in the article. Users should use those directories provided rather than link to individual congregations in the wiki article.

--Ichabod 14:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are exactly correct.

--Rlquall 23:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sincerity?

I would appreciate the recent "editor" coming forward and identifying himself/herself. This sort of thing is unfortunate, even though what is expressed is exactly what the American Restoration Movement saw itself as being. But anonymous edits erasing hours of work by several persons strike me as being "un-Christian" in the extreme. Rlquall 23:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

cleanup/npov

This article seems to take the CoC's claims as to its origins at face value; that is, that it is merely a restoration of early Christianity. While the CoC's view of itself should certainly be stated, there needs to be a section on the group's history -- who founded them, what were some of the religious trends and fashions prevelant at the time and place where the CoC was founded. Just giving the CoC's pov and not any more secular historical background makes this article NPOV, though I just put the "cleanup" tag on there to give people time to fix it. I am sick, and unable to write a good section on the history at this time; if no one else comes forward to do so soon, I'll need to put a NPOV tag up there. Zantastik 07:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the statements and links to the Restoration Movement serves this purpose. Otherwise, a "historical and modern origins" section could be added without really removing anything else. This could address Campbell, David Lipscomb, and Daniel Summer. What else is really needed? Carltonh 16:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it and I think it's pretty NPOV now, Carltonh. But I'm sure it could be better if you want to take a shot at it. Danlovejoy 03:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The history of the Church was sort-of in there at one time see Restoration Movement which is also a disputed topic becuase it deals with the American Stone/Campbell Restoration movement. Some of the links provide good information on the history of the church - although many CoC members will dispute the history.

Cleaned up NPOV

I have NPOVed it. However, I am a member of this church, so a Gentile should probably edit me. ;-) And I'd like to say, while this article gets the facts straight, we're not as odd as we look. Danlovejoy 22:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hades?

"No intermediate locales in the afterlife between heaven and hell; Purgatory and limbo are seen as human creations, mentioned nowhere in scripture and unheard of for centuries after the completion of the New Testament."

I grew up in the church of Christ and was taught the doctrine of Hades - a places souls go after death to await judgment. Was anyone else taught this?

Absolutely, that there was such a place for souls between death and the Final Judgement, but that it was (based on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus) either already "heavenly" for the saved ("Paradise", as in the destintation of The Thief on the Cross, or "The Bosom of Abraham", from the above-mentioned parale) or, alternatively, "hellish" for the lost, meaning that the Final Judgement would be essentially a formality. What is meant here is that there is no ongoing intermediate realm after Judgement. Rlquall 05:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Purgatory and Limbo per this discussion and other discussions I've had offline.

Removed Mark Smith Atheist Link

This site appears to be a personal crusade against the Church of Christ and Christianity in general rather than a rational critique of the sect's theology. Witness the URL - the Church is listed under "cults." I would encourage links to more even-handed and level-headed criticisms of the Church of Christ. Danlovejoy 16:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Seemed like a personal vendetta against the Church of Christ rather than any substantial critical offerings. Ichabod 02:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taking the specific terminology even futher ...

... Should we include how that "you can't join the Church of Christ, you can only be added to it? This is huge to some, who will almost disfellowship someone who speaks of himself or someone else as having "joined" the church. (Anyone know if this is an issue in any other group?) Once I saw that list of unique phraseologies, it really brought back lots of memories. Also, should it be noted how the insistance on this rather unique terminology is somewhat lessened among most younger members of urban and suburban "progressive" churches? I am finding this to be increasingly the case. I mut say that I have heard lots of talent among those unrobed choirs, the "Praise Teams", also in progressive suburban churches. Does this trend merit mentioning? Rlquall 02:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it. This distinction of God "adding to the church" is important, and is one of the things I fervently agree with in standard COC doctrine. . Is "praise team" unique to the COC? I think it's a great development, but a pretty stupid neologism. Danlovejoy 22:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

An anonymous contributor came through and de-capitalized many of the instances of "Church of Christ." I reverted. I would contend that this is non-encyclopedic usage. No one outside of the Churches of Christ is going to understand this oddness, and it's explained in the article. In fact, most young people IN the church are not going to get it. Danlovejoy 22:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Camp Yarnhill

I have removed the link to Camp Yarnill under /*See Also*/. It is not nearly as noteworthy as the other two "See Also" links there. It looks like a lovely place, but there are literally hundreds of Christian camps associated with the Churches of Christ. I could name a dozen off the top of my head. To link to just one seems inappropriate to me. Danlovejoy 15:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. One particular camp is not significant enough to have a link all by itself. In lieu of linking to a specific Christian camp, perhaps someone should make a category of "Christian Camps associated with the Churches of Christ." -Ichabod 17:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Some Clarification

Perhaps a section for the (general) leanings of various Churches of Christ. i.e. Conservative = Gospel Advocate, Harding U. types, moderate to progressive = ACU, Christian Chronicle types and finally those moving toward instruments / evangelical models (Max Lucado). Better section titles would be necessary, but it may clarify to the outsider what the differnces are in a more common language.

Secondly, thanks to everyone for cleaing up this entry.

Pspadaro 19:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be quite difficult to fully provide for all the different "leanings". Are we going to take notice of the Max King-related crowd of preterists? The colleges themselves have undergone so many changes that frankly trying to classify streams by leanings akin to the colleges is like chasing the wind. Classifying the different "leanings" by relation to the colleges also smacks of an indirect sort of denominationalism. In talking to family, thirty years ago Harding might have been a bastion of conservative Churches of Christ life. Nowadays Rochester College is quite a bit more strict than even Freed-Hardeman University. Much can change as time passes... Smk 23:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, there are four main groups that can be defined by belief and practice rather than by their affiliations. (I would never associate any one publication, congregation, or institution with the latter three groups, because someone would be offended)

* Non Institutional - obvious

* Traditional Conservatives - those that hold to every dot and tiddle of COC orthodoxy - doctrine of silence, closed fellowship, perfect attendance, great emphasis on works, preaching of "The Church" rather than Jesus.

* Moderates - Quietly questioning closed fellowship, Listen to Christian Contemporary Music, more willing to talk about the persons of Jesus and the Holy Spirit rather than "the church," greater emphasis on redemptive grace. May have videos and contemporary a cappella music in worship.

* Progressives - Open Fellowship, ecumenical practices, instrumental music used in worship or at alternate times in the building, drama and alternate worship practices, women in leadership roles & speaking in worship. Churches are almost indistinguishable from community churches.

There may be some smaller groups, but these are the four that I'm familiar with. Am I wrong? Danlovejoy 16:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I see four groups, but perhaps not the same classifications you have. :) Basing them on divisions in extending fellowship, I'd list:

* Ultra-conservative - one-cup, no Bible class, no located preacher, etc. May subscribe to a subset of these doctrines

* Non-institutional - distinguishable based on role of individual vs. church and church autonomy/cooperation

* Conservative institutional - non-ecumenical, believe in obedience as well as faith, no instrumental music, etc.

* Liberal institutional - as you said, basically community churches; arguable that many of this number are no longer associated with churches of Christ (as with Lucado and Shelly) though they trace their history from them.

There may be better terms to describe each camp, but these are the ones I see. Thoughts? Jdb1972 17:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion that the traditional conservative churches of Christ preach the church rather than Jesus is a point of view that would be very offensive to most members. Jdavidb 17:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That certainly wasn't my intention. Has that not been your experience? I've actually heard people say things like "He preaches too much Jesus and not enough about the church." Danlovejoy 22:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I have not experienced that, but I have experienced persons in group three and four say the opposite about group two. Jdavidb 14:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Not to be coy, but why do you suppose that is? Danlovejoy 22:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone preach the "church" rather than "Jesus". Some discussion of "what is the church?" but nothing more than that. Just my experience. 12.217.48.171 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Vacation Bible School

I think we need to separate out subjects like Vacation Bible School from that big long list. That's not in any way distinctive of the church of Christ, as seen in the Vacation Bible School article.

Maybe a list of commonalities with mainstream evangelical/fundamentalist Protestantism, preceded by (or perhaps followed by) a list of distinctive doctrines and practices (with the ever present caveat that some churches are in various stages of mainstreaming and assimilation with the rest of Protestantism so individual items on the list may vary).

I mean, believe in verbal-plenary inspiration and infallibility of the Scripture is hardly unique to the church of Christ, being shared with fundamentalism and Catholicism, I believe. While it's not something that every Christian tradition in the world accepts, it's also not exactly something that makes the casual observer say, "Whoa! I never heard of a church like that!"

Same goes for beliefs on hell, homosexuality, Satan, abortion, etc.

In terms of truly distinctive beliefs and practices, you have: prohibition of instrumental music (probably not most important, but definitely most notable to outside observers, in my experience), necessity of baptism for salvation, church leadership organization (and lack of clergy), amillenialism, and a couple of others. The vast majority of the rest of that list is either common to almost all southern fundamentalist churches, or else something that's not completely unheard of (such as the position on women leadership). Jdavidb 20:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Link to preachersfiles.com

Hmm, a quandry for me.

I run a discussion website for members of the church of Christ. I have steadfastly refrained from adding it to this article's external links section because I do not believe in using Wikipedia for self-promotion.

However, if you check this user's edits, all he did was add in a link to the similar site Preachersfiles.com, which would appear to be the same kind of self-promotion.

I make a lot of sweeps around Wikipedia looking for self-promotion and removing it, but I feel a conflict of interest about making the same decision here. So I'll bring it to the attention of this article's other editors and let you decide if it's an appropriate link for this article. Jdavidb 20:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that the user owns Preachersfiles.com? The IP 67.141.90.91 belongs to ALLTEL.net, an ISP based in Arkansas. While the Preachersfiles.com is registered to an address in Austin, TX. If there's some type of concrete connection between the IP and preachersfiles.com's ownership, I don't see it. Could it be the IP is just a dialup IP that that particular person was connected to at the time? Maybe they've done other edits through different IPs? -Ichabod 23:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Published by G. E. Watkins of Strickland Grove church of Christ, Georgetown, Texas and by Kevin Cauley of Berryville church of Christ, Berryville, Arkansas." ([2]). Berryville and Harrison (the IP location) are right next door to each other. -Jdb1972 10:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm. Remove, obviously. (IMO) Danlovejoy 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It's been almost two months and there seems to be a consensus in favor of it going away. So, I removed it. If there's an objection, let's hear it now, please. Jdb1972 14:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Not Protestant

I have reverted from Psy Guy's version to the previous version by jdavidb because the prior explanation had a lot more information and the edit removed them. The only new information I saw there was an assertion about the term "second reformationist" being used often to describe the COC. I have never heard this expression before. If I haven't heard it in 31 years, it's not used "often," at least not in the US. Danlovejoy 22:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see the text, but do you think what might have been meant by "second reformationist" was the Second Great Awakening? Alan Canon 14:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I had heard the term "Second Reformationist" used in a more theological rather than historical context. It meant that Protestants refer back to the reformation under Martin Luther. Luther attempted to reform the Catholic Church by going back to the Scriptures. Other Protestant leaders followed Luther. The COC, on the other hand, had their own reformation of sorts by not following Luther but doing what he did (reverting back to the way of the Scriptures but doing it with an memory of Catholicism). I don't know how well the term is used but I have heard it so sum up the difference but mainline Protestantism and the COC. I suppose before using the term before I did I should have tried to find it used in some academic source and/or discussed it on the talk page. I am now more familiar with wiki protocal. Psy guy ^(talk) 00:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

ex-ChurchofChrist.com link restored

An anonymous editor removed this link a couple of revisions ago. I think it's an interesting, informative resource. I don't really like that it exists, but it's there, and it's relevant. I have restored the link. What does everyone think? Danlovejoy 22:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. We can't afford to remove links just because we don't like what they say, which was almost certainly the anonymous editor's motivation. We definitely need at least one link to a diametrically opposed view, and that one is pretty representative. I'd rather we keep that than let a bunch of uninformed confused people add links to anti-ICOC sites, which would have nothing to do with the church of Christ. :) Jdavidb 13:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Believers Baptism

Is it really appropriate to link to the Believers Baptism article? In general, most people seem to think of that term as meaning "baptism of already saved believers," rather than the typical belief of the church of Christ, which is "baptism of people who believe so that they can be saved." In particular, the article starts out defining "Believers Baptism" as baptism given to those who have "made a declaration of faith in Jesus as their personal savior." In general in the church of Christ, the "personal savior" phrase is avoided, and the implication is that the believer is already saved rather than being baptized to be saved. There's a tiny link in the article to the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, but really the main Baptism article covers the point of view of the church of Christ much better. Wouldn't it be better to link to Baptism#Baptism in Churches of Christ instead? Jdavidb 14:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you because of the current content of the two baptism articles, but otherwise, I'd support believers' baptism. I have always used the term to contrast with "unbelievers' baptism" namely infant baptism. We agree that one has to be a believer (or disciple) first to be baptized, but the believers baptism article needs to be NPOVed to avoid forcing the Evangelical/Baptist doctrine of salvation before baptism into the term. Carltonh 16:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Universities

I removed the long list of universities in Church Organization, because it is quite long already, and will continue to get longer as people realize their pet institution is not included. Instead, I have provided a link to the category, which is, I believe, definitive. Danlovejoy 03:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Divorce and remarriage: revisited

We as members of the Church of Christ only believe in two reasons for remarriage, fornication and being married to a non-member who decides to leave the marriage. Those are the only two reasons. Abuse is not considered.

Does ongoing, willfull sinning place one outside the body of Christ? Severe abuse of one's wife is certainly a sin and opposite Christ's explicit instructions. But then again so is divorce. Maybe this is fodder for an email list... I need to study this. 12.217.48.171 04:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In further consideration of the topic, as well as pretty extensive discussion with other members of the church, I don't think it accurate to say that "we" only believe it two reasons for remarriage. There's much debate on the matter, with "only for adultery" being explicitly stated, and "also if divorced by a non-believer" being inferred from a verse in 1 Cor and often a point of contention. It would be more accurate to say that "Members of the Church of Christ believe that adultery alone is reason for divorce between members of the Church, and there is disagreement on the matter of whether a spouse divorced by a non-member other than for adultery may remarry without living in sin." 12.217.48.171 18:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure there's anything like a concensus on MDR among churches. I know of churches/people that run the gamut from any divorce is a sin to any remarriage is acceptable. Not to mention every position in between. And that's just in NI churches. Jdb1972 18:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

My point, which I may have stated poorly above, is that all CoC congregations believe divorce for adultery is acceptable, and beliefs vary from congregation to congregation on the matter of getting remarried after being divorced by a non-believer. Or many other reasons for that matter. 12.217.48.171 17:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I updated the piece on the front to note the exceptions vary and the differences in interpretation of particulars, especially among NI churches. Jdb1972 19:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Interpretation of doctrine on divorce and remarriage may be highly controversial in NI churches right now, but in my experience it varies far more widely in the mainstream churches. I think the NI churches are just seeing what has been going on in the mainstream churches for years. I'd suggest the especially NI clause probably doesn't belong. Jdavidb (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm open to it going away, but most everyone I've ever talked to it believes it's more pronounced (or at least more an issue of controversy) in NI churches. Part of this is due to the "Homer Hailey" doctrine (if you divorce and remarry sinfully before you're a Christian, the marriage you're in when baptized is sanctified), part due to the more recent controversy over "mental divorce" with Truth Magazine. Seems to be the issue of the past decade or so where NI churches are concerned. Either way, no biggie to me. Jdb1972 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Dancing

We believe that all dancing is wrong. Dancing is only allowed between married couples, and then they must limit it to the privacy of their homes.

Not to be too glib, but... "all dancing"? What about square dancing? Plus, it's far from universal in all of the above statements. Would be better to state something like, "Most forms of modern dancing are usually forbidden as lewdness." Even then, I'm not sure it needs to appear in the article, since it's hardly a core belief of churches of Christ (if such a thing as a core belief can be said to exist today) nor unique to us. Jdb1972 16:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing I would like our anonymous contributor to remember is that this article must describe both faithful and fallen churches of Christ. (And please sign your comments with ~~~~.) Jdavidb (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Dancing is permitted scripturally, but in what contexts? 1) Worship, and 2) Joy. Carousing (which is at the very least "most" public dancing) is prohibited explicitly. Dancing for worship isn't commanded, just not condemned in the OT. Dancing for joy is only showin in the Bible in one's home. I'm sure there's lots of ways to interpret these, but whatever you post up on dancing should reflect the range of views, not just my own (which is that we're clearly told not to carouse as well as plenty of other commands that dancing makes people prone to breaking). I hope I'm welcome in these conversations, I'm commenting a lot in the discussion here but if I'm not welcome just let me know. 12.217.48.171 18:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What the scriptural position is or isn't is not the question. The questions to me are (1) what represents the consensus view of churches (or at least the major camps on any given issue) and (2) is this a "core"/defining issue? These are what I tried to answer above; my conclusion is that it's probably not a defining issue. As far as being welcome, you're certainly as welcome as anyone else here; no one owns these pages. Jdb1972 19:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree it isn't a defining issue. 12.217.48.171 17:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Stupid me. I didn't even realize this is already covered by the article until today. Jdb1972 19:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sect

• Removed the word "sect". The primary meaning of "sect" in it's current usage means roughly "branch". The Iglesia ni Cristo did not branch from another church currently existing today. (elantaran 3/31/05)

Church of Christ, Scientist

Shouldn't this church also be included?

You're right, and I'm surprised that was not listed. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Substandard

This page needs some serious work. Its hard to read and is innacurate in a few places (churches of christ for one). I'll put it on my list of things to do, but I've already got quite a list. Someone want to help do some cleanup? --Raogden 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add listings of the various flavours of the Church of Christ, as I relocate them. I had had almost a dozen bookmarked, before losing everything to a Firefox upgrade.(Not all are/were in the Category listing.)jonathon (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NT Claim

The first meaning listed here is:

"Churches of Christ is one of the descriptions found in the New Testament for local bodies of believers/followers of Jesus Christ."

Anyone have a citation for this? Where does the NT call the bodies "Churches of Christ"? –SESmith 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

someone's put up Romans 16:16. Thanks –SESmith 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rom. 16:16 is accurate. Paul calls the bodies churches of Christ in that passage. Of course, scripture also refers to the churches by other names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.130.87 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I propose that this DAB page be moved to Church of Christ. Currently, Church of Christ redirects to Churches of Christ. However, I believe that this page would be more useful as the DAB page, since Churches of Christ is not, in my opinion, the "well known primary meaning for [the] term or phrase, much more used than any other". It might meet this standard if we limited our concern to just the United States, but almost definitely not if you include rest of the English-speaking world. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, now it's completely backwards. The page with "Churches" (plural) should more accurately be the DAB page and include the various denominational assemblies that exist. The singular "Church of Christ" page should point to the original Church, established at the death of Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guile AF (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Church of Christ is NOT a denomination!

The term "christian" is used far to loosly, 1 John: 1: 3 says "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."; to come together and have fellowship, christians would have to think alike, for example most denominations think that baptism isn't necessary (these denominations include Cathlic, Baptist, methodist, and many others); the Church of Christ is not just another denominational name, Acts: 2: 38 says "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you into the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit." so being baptized is God's law. If you are going to write an encyclopedia-article about something, then you should write it corectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwooper (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Correctly" according to whose definition of "Christian"? There is not one monolithic, widely-accepted definition. WP seems to take the approach that persons are Christians if they claim to be so. Anyone can use the name "Church of Christ" — this page simply lists the groups that do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the correct definition would be that of the original Church of Christ, established by Jesus Christ by His death on the Cross. It's the ONLY assembly created by Him, and not by man. And sure, anyone can use the name "Church of Christ" as their name, but you can legally change your name to "Ronald Regan". It doesn't make you a former President of the US. So the page would be more accurate (and that's the goal here) if it would link "Churches of Christ" to this disambiguation page, and "Church of Christ" to the page currently listed under "Churches of Christ". There is only ONE church, with many buildings for members of the Church to assemble and worship. It's the Church of Christ. Guile AF (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Correct definition" is very much in the eye of the beholder.At least a dozen different organizations and affiliated groups of congregations claim to be "the only assembly established by Jesus by his death on the cross."jonathon (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The more appropriate move would be from Churches of Christ to Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental) or Church of Christ (A Cappella) or Church of Christ (A Capella), and have Church of Christ (disambiguation) redirect to Church of Christ. Perhaps also have Churches of Christ redirect to Church of Christ (Non Instrumental). jonathon (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

With Church of Christ as an article about a specific, loosely affiliated group of congregations, it will need more than the current three line disambiguation header that it currently has. jonathon (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

INSTRUMENTAL WORSHIP

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE USE OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN WORSHIP OF GOD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.163.7 (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambig or Stand alone list

If this is a list what is it a list of? Is it a "List of Churches of Christ"? WP:LISTNAME says Standard practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___. Should we move the article to "List of Churches of Christ"? As it stands it seems like this is really a disambig page but then we have two disambig pages with the same name. Bhny (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

church of Christ

In Matthew 16:18 Christ said he would build his Church, one Church that belonged to him. Paul talks about this Church in Romans 16:16. We see that he is addressing the churches of Christ in verses 1-15.Christ Church the only church of Christ that was authorized by God the Father was started on the day of Pentecost in 33 AD.in the city of Jerusalem.