Jump to content

Talk:Churches of Christ/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Churches of Christ

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:23, 21 June 2023 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Churches of Christ) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2

Origin of the church of Christ's name

The church of Christ gets its name from a sentence in Rom. 16:16 which says, "The churches of Christ greet you" (NKJV). I noticed that the present consensus of the editors is that Scriptures should not be used in the introduction. However, should we make an exception for this case, since it would make since to explain where the church of Christ gets its name? The Sackinator (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The Churches of Christ did not get their name from Romans 16:16, they got it from whomever proposed it be adopted. If you can find a reliable source--and there are plenty of books on the history of the denomination--explaining who, how, and why the Romans 16:16 name was adopted during the split from the Disciples, as opposed to any of the other descriptive titles used in the New Testament, then that should go in the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The church of Christ has existed before the Disciples of Christ did. The Disciples began during the early 19th century; a man, William Rogers by name, died on Feb. 15, 1862, a while before the Disciples' existence, yet he was a member of the church of Christ. See http://www.therestorationmovement.com/rogers,wm.htm, which shows pictures of his tombstone (for lack of knowledge on whether or not the pictures have copyright restrictions, I did not post them here). Is there anything I'm not considering? The Sackinator (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, the owner of the image, Scott Harp, said, "Everything on my site is free to be used by anyone. I have nothing filed in the way of an official copyright, although I request that I am given credit for anything posted or produced in print."Tombstone of William Rogers, courtesy of TheRestorationMovement.com. Rogers' grave helps to bear out the fact that the church of Christ is not to be identified as the "Campbellite" church, stating that Rogers was UNITED WITH THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AT CANE RIDGE IN 1807.The Sackinator (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Now, since this tombstone, at least I would think, is a reliable source, may I create a paragraph titled "Origin of the Church of Christ's Name," explaining with this tombstone why the church of Christ is not just the result of Campbell or the Restoration Movement? If there is something I am not considering, please let me know. --The Sackinator (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The tombstone associates Rogers with a church at Cane Ridge that used the name "Church of Christ". Do you have any other information about this church other than its name and location? Is there information that reliably ties this church with the churches about which this article is written? —ADavidB 09:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You guys are going in different directions. One is where does the modern usage of the name come from, and the other is where does the name originate. The name originates in the scriptures. The Catholic Church calls itself the Church of Christ in many publications for this very reason. The Mormon Church originally called itself the Church of Christ for this reason. I am sure there are others that do the same. It is for this reason obviously that many congregations today that this article is written about call themselves the churches of Christ. As for the modern-movement that sprung most of the congregations we are talking about--which usually use this title--there is debate, and there always will be. Some believe that it always has been, and other believe some in the 18th or 19th century began practicing what the New Testament actually teaches. So the argument is really moot. If a church in the 13th century was practicing what the New Testament teaches, then people who are of this faith would say that they were members of the church of Christ. Likewise, if a person was a member of the "Church of Christ" as used by the Roman Catholics, then most of this faith would say they are not.Todd Gallagher (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the two directions, though per WP:NOR, such inclusion(s) in the article cannot be based on our own logical thought and 'original research'. Instead, it should come from a published reliable source. —ADavidB 08:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't added to the article. But the person gave a moron answer--"It comes from whoever named it." That is like saying 2+2 is whatever the creator of all things said it would be rather than saying 4. It is obvious from all publications where the verse "churches of Christ" comes from. Other religions, as I showed, even use the name--both today and in the past.Todd Gallagher (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
A more productive question that would get an appropriate answer might be: "Why do most of these congregations call themselves 'churches of Christ' rather than 'churches of God' or the 'church of New York' or other applicable city, and so on?" That would get the answer probably sought, rather than where does the name come from.Todd Gallagher (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
ADavidB: Sadly, I do not know much more about this church. I believe that it is in the place where the Cane Ridge Revival was held.

The churches of Christ's roots

Everyone: I guess what you're saying is this: that the church calling themselves the "Church of Christ" doesn't in and of itself prove that they were of the same faith as the modern churches of Christ. Well, I guess you're right; his tombstone doesn't by itself connect them. I suppose I'll use a different thing than William Rogers' tombstone to answer this question. Hans Grimm, member of the church of Christ and writer of "Tradition and History of the Early Churches of Christ In Central Europe" (translated by H.L. Schug), wrote in this book, as the title suggests, the tradition and history of the early churches of Christ in central Europe. He wrote, ". . . the American Restoration Movement had been totally unknown to us." He wrote, "I met for the first time in my life a member of the restored churches of Christ in America. What he had to tell me was not other than the faith of my ancesters which I had taught and practiced all my life." He also wrote, and I'll shorten it a little, "It has always been a real church of Christ in this world since Pentecost, and this means: a church believing in faith, repentance, confession and immersion for the remission of sins—a church which worshipped at least the first day of the week with hymns, prayers, the Lord's Supper, Bible study and contributions for the saints . . ." He also wrote, "The churches of Christ have no official system of doctrine, for the Bible alone is their standard of faith and practice." I believe this describes the modern churches of Christ influenced by Campbell. On page 2, he showed a picture of certain tombstones and wrote under it, "Picture is of a cemetery in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, of New Testament Christians living there from 1000 to 1525 who are still called by the people Bogomila—friends of God." All of this should connect the modern churches with the old ones, I think. It seems to me that Alexander Campbell helped to plant churches that were already in existence elsewhere, rather than start a new religion. Is there anything I'm not connecting? —The Sackinator (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's been a few days now. May I edit this article? If there's anything I write that's wrong, it of course can and should be removed. —The Sackinator (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest writing what you like and posting it here for discussion as there seems to be some lack of consensus about exactly what should be written. After a consensus about the inclusion and wording of a new section is reached then it can be added. Flofor15 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get the revision I would like completed soon. —The Sackinator (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
For now, what I want to do is remove whatever says that the churches of Christ's roots are in the Restoration Movement. Also, I want to place in “Overview,” right after the quote by Batsell Barrett Baxter:

The members of the churches of Christ get their name from a part of Romans 16:16 which says, “The churches of Christ salute you.” They do not necessarily consider it a title and usually believe that it is not wrong to use other biblical names, such as the “church of God” which is found in I Cor. 1:2 [1]. They consider themselves the “one body” mentioned in Eph. 4:4.

What does everyone think? —The Sackinator (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The source you provided identifies itself as "Internet Ministries", apparently associated closely with some churches of Christ. A secondary source, that says churches of Christ apply Romans 16:16 in their use of this name (and did so from the start), would be best. I'm not saying it's not the case, just that a better source should be used for this inclusion in the article. Regarding the text itself, I'd suggest a different verb than "get" – perhaps "take", "use as", or "borrow", depending on the source. I read over the article again and see a lot of (sourced) general content in its "Name" section, just after "Overview". —ADavidB 03:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do you want to remove the fact that churches of Christ have their roots in the Restoration Movement? You will need a source for this type change. The reference of church-of-christ.org is clearly a secondary source, and not reputable at that. Nor does it say anything about the origin of the name churches of Christ, it only gives a list of names used in the bible. While what you say may be true, there isn't the evidence here shown, yet. Flofor15 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
ADavidB, to be honest, I actually didn't notice the “Name section” before. Maybe this church's roots, whether or not they're in the Restoration Movement, should actually be what I'll talk about.
Flofor15, is “Tradition and History of the Early Churches of Christ In Central Europe” a reliable source? May I use that?

—The Sackinator (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that would be considered a reliable source from the looks of it. If it contradicts other books on churches of Christ, then both sides of the argument should be included. Are you using this as a source for churches of Christ not having their roots in the Restoration Movement? I think that adding opposing views on the history of churches of Christ to be the best option. Flofor15 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to use this book to oppose the idea that the church of Christ began during the Restoration Movement. Maybe we could make a paragraph titled “History,” and the two paragraphs titled “History in America” and “Churches of Christ outside the United States” could be put in it; then, if there are references which say that the churches of Christ began in the Restoration Movement, it could have an introduction paragraph which could say the following:<blockquote|>The time in which the churches of Christ began is not agreed upon. Some have said that the churches of Christ began with the Restoration Movement. However, Hans Godwin Grimm, author of the book "Tradition and History of the Early Churches of Christ In Central Europe," born in 1899,[1] wrote that in March, 1955, he met for the first time in his life "a member of the restored churches of Christ of America." Grimm continued, saying, "What he had to tell me was not other than the faith of my ancestors which I had taught and practiced all my life. … the American Restoration Movement had been totally unknown to us."[2]How does that look? —The Sackinator (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The addition appears good to me. I would suggest adding more clarification about Grimm's connection to the churches of Christ previous to his encounter with a restored churches of Christ member. Was he a part of a church of Christ? Was this church just similar in doctrine? Its nice for someone to say they are a part of a denomination, but the reality is, this page is not about churches that happen to call themselves a church of Christ, but is rather about the movement called churches of Christ. I understand that because of the biblical name there may be many who call themselves churches of Christ that have very little connection to this movement. Perhaps clarification about this point should be made. Remember that readers of this page are likely to not be a part of churches of Christ, and many will not even be Christian, so there must be clear explanation of all of this. Perhaps adding this to the beginning of your addition: "Because of the absence of formal structure in the onset of the churches of Christ, clarity about membership, history and distinction are not easily agreed upon." We want to be sure that people understand the main source of confusion and disagreement about the name and history of Churches of Christ. How does that sound? Flofor15 (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, doesn't the fact that Grimm said, "What he [this 'member of the restored churches of Christ of America'] had to tell me was not other than the faith of my ancestors which I had taught and practiced all my life" connect his faith and the faith of the American he is talking about together? Unless you actually were talking about the faith of the American whom Grimm met. If you were saying that, then should we just add the part of Grimm's book which says, "The churches of Christ have no official system of doctrine, for the Bible alone is their standard of faith and practice"?[3] This part of his book should connect it well with the faith of the churches mentioned in this article; the article says that members of the church of Christ "consider only the Bible authoritative for doctrinal beliefs, rather than any human councils." What do you think? —The Sackinator (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Was I unclear on anything? —The Sackinator (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you have confused me some. I only suggest that we make the article as clear to non-church of Christ members as possible. Grimm and this American clearly had some agreement on how they followed God. I would be willing to be they also had disagreement, or that Grimm would have disagreed with certain other members of the American churches of Christ. It sounds like these two men from different continents magically discovered the same exact cultural representation of the church on every matter just because they read their bibles. This is not churches of Christ tradition, it is within every denomination the feeling of being completely right and being connected to others who are completely right based solely on the fact that they both found right. The reality, even within the churches of Christ, is that there are quite a large number of differences between the beliefs of different churches (i.e. One cup). This article is about the Restoration-based churches of Christ and other churches that happen to believe the same exact thing aren't then churches of Christ as well, they are just other churches from another movement whose beliefs are the same or are very close. To say that throughout history many churches had enough overlap to be considered churches of Christ is denominationalism. This article is encyclopedic, and not a statement of history exclusively from the perspective of the churches of Christ. To anyone outside the churches of Christ (like myself), this sort of connection doesn't appear very amazing. And Grimm doesn't really appear to me to be a part of a church of Christ. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. If you want to include this quote, I simply want it to be explained as a phenomena of churches of Christ that they meet others who agree with them. Since there is no official membership, and no official doctrine, the connections to Grimm are hard to nail down. I would suggest doing the best you can to consider my thoughts and proceed. If further changes need to take place, we can discuss them here. If I feel that adding a little more would help, I will. Flofor15 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
About you saying this: “This article is about the Restoration-based churches of Christ and other churches that happen to believe the same exact thing aren't then churches of Christ as well, they are just other churches from another movement whose beliefs are the same or are very close.” I don't believe that's correct. The article mentions this (words in bold are for emphasis): “Churches of Christ in Europe arose separately from the American Restoration Movement and during the 1840s onwards various movements came into fellowship. A group in Nottingham withdrew from the Scotch Baptist church in 1836 to form a Church of Christ.” Also, it is not only discussing one set of beliefs which churches that wear this name have; for it mentions that “all but 'a very small segment' use unfermented grape juice instead of wine,” showing a variation in doctrine. Maybe I incorrectly interpreted what you said, though. Regardless, perhaps the change I wanted to make could have a better explanation at the beginning. Maybe the first sentence could instead say, “Because the churches of Christ have no source for authority except the Bible, its origin is not easily agreed upon.” What do you think? —The Sackinator (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
That should do it. Thanks. Flofor15 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me. There's one more thing I request: that it could mention the members of the churches of Christ's belief on its origin, that “It has always been a real church of Christ in this world since Pentecost.”[4] —The Sackinator (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Hans Godwin Grimm. H.L. Schug, trans. Tradition and History of the Early Churches of Christ In Central Europe. Firm Foundation Publishing House. p. 41.
  2. ^ Hans Godwin Grimm. H.L. Schug, trans. Tradition and History of the Early Churches of Christ In Central Europe. Firm Foundation Publishing House. p. 42.
  3. ^ Hans Godwin Grimm. H.L. Schug, trans. Tradition and History of the Early Churches of Christ In Central Europe. Firm Foundation Publishing House. p. 5.
  4. ^ Hans Godwin Grimm. H.L. Schug, Trans. Tradition and History of the Early Churches of Christ In Central Europe. Firm Foundation Publishing House. p. 5.
Sackinator, You have made more edits than you originally suggested, including cutting a lot of the article. I believe that the significance of these edits calls for some outside perspective, as I am not as connected with the Churches of Christ personally. I do believe that this article is about churches of Christ with roots in the Restoration movement, and as such, taking out Restoration movement descriptions and definitions is not acceptable. I am willing to admit that I cannot say this with certainty. I am inviting other users with expertise or interest to comment. Thanks for you work Sackinator, I just want to make sure you are on the right page here. Flofor15 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
First, I do think that this article is discussing a little more than the churches of Christ that started during the Restoration Movement, because the first sentence under the paragraph “Great Britain” says (emphasis in bold), “Churches of Christ in Europe arose separately from the American Restoration Movement and during the 1840s onwards various movements came into fellowship.”
I guess it was quite a while ago, but I did say that “what I want to do is remove whatever says that the churches of Christ's roots are in the Restoration Movement.” However, if you do not agree with that, perhaps we could put the large part I cut out into the paragraph “History in America” and merge it with the first sentence (but still change it so that it will not say that the Churches of Christ began that way). What do you think? Thanks for making sure I'm on the right page. —The Sackinator (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is already quite big. I'd suggest limiting the scope of this article to the "churches of Christ" that arose from the Restoration Movement, and create a separate article for European groups that arose separately. That gives this article a well-defined subject and would avoid confusion with groups that are historically unrelated. We can create appropriate links between the separate articles. EastTN (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I agree, as it is quite easier to manage the information on the churches of Christ when it is in the smallest possible number of articles. But, that is my own oppinion. —The Sackinator (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking more along the lines of EastTN. This article is long and somewhat confusing. I think that when people come to this page, they are almost always thinking of the restoration based churches of Christ. But to be honest, I don't think I have enough knowledge on the subject to have a strong opinion either way. If I had to guess, I'd say that The Sackinator is from the non-restoration churches of Christ and his views are thus directed. It would be helpful for one or two restoration church of Christ members to give their opinion.Flofor15 (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a good guess, but the church I am a member of is in the United States, so would that make the church I attend a Restoration based one (although we're technically based on the Bible)? However, it is non-institutional; we do not believe the Bible authorizes institutionalism. Regardless, if we do make this article only about the churches that arose during the Restoration Movement, I believe we should not categorize them as if they were different religions than the other churches of Christ but instead connect them. —The Sackinator (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
My primary motivation for suggesting limiting the scope of this article is to improve the clarity. Splitting out a separate article for other groups that use the same name but have different historical roots should not make the articles that much harder to maintain. I agree that appropriate cross-links should be built in both directions. On the last point raised by The Sackinator, I'm not suggesting that we classify anything as a "different religion"; this article was originally written to describe a group of churches with a common historical heritage. In my judgement this approach still makes sense. If other churches of Christ have a different historical heritage, then it makes sense to give them their own article. EastTN (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I am also primarily concerned with clarity. This subject is fairly complex even within the Restoration movement. It needs to be accurate, but also very readable. We want people who visit this page to understand the beauty of this particular group of people and not become confused. I don't have the time or skill to make much more, but am willing to offer my reaction and perspective as someone who has never attended a Church of Christ church, but is familiar both from an education and work perspective.Flofor15 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, to be honest, when I first read this article, I thought that it was saying that all churches of Christ began with the Restoration Movement; so, perhaps I am wrong here, and confusion should be avoided by making more articles. Perhaps making an article about churches of Christ in general would also be good; it could explain the main differences in doctrine (i.e. one-cup, institutionalism, etc.), and it could briefly tell the histories of places in which they started. What do you think? —The Sackinator (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The article, which seems to be primarily about the more numerous "mainstream" churches, has a sizable History section that covers some of the doctrinal differences, as well as a "Variations within Churches of Christ" section. You recently changed the heading here to being about more "categories". Wikipedia categories are groupings of articles that appear at the bottom of a page. Are you instead proposing only more articles, as initially stated in your above posting? Perhaps an earlier or clearer description of the various doctrinal differences? Keep in mind that reliable sources should be used for any newly added content. —ADavidB 15:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Whoops! I was only talking about making more articles. Thanks for noticing that. Anyway, as I said above, if we make more articles about the churches of Christ (i.e. the ones that arose during the Restoration Movement), I am asking if we could also have an article about churches of Christ in general which could explain the doctrinal differences and briefly explain the histories which record their coming into existence, similar to the way this current article is at the time (all of these having reliable sources, as you said, of course). What do you all think? —The Sackinator (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
My time has been eaten up by other things recently, but I'm hoping it'll get better soon. I'll take a stab at splitting out a separate article for groups that don't have any historical connections to the Restoration Movement, and then we can figure out where to go from there. EastTN (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Great! Perhaps one of the articles (maybe this one) should speak on churches of Christ in general. —The Sackinator (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Have you seen the disambiguation page Church of Christ? It explicitly distinguishes between Restoration Movement groups originating in the U.S., non-U.S. Restoration Movement groups (from Australia and Canada), and other groups with a historical affiliation with the Restoration Movement. It would be simple to add a link to a page on European churches of Christ right next to the Australian and Canadian groups, and to also add the link to a hat-note on this article. I think we could do this in a way that would make it easy for readers to find their way around. EastTN (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Those edits seem good to me. Maybe the hatnote for the Restoration Movement article could say, “This article is about churches of Christ that began with the Restoration Movement. For European churches of Christ with the same beliefs, see [insert name of article on European churches of Christ here]” —The Sackinator (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Will do. I'm trying to finish up some work on another article, which I hope to complete in the next few days. I'll turn to this next. EastTN (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I'll let you know if there's anything in your work that I believe should be changed, removed, or added to. —The Sackinator (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I've created a new article on Churches of Christ in Europe and added it to the footer template, the hat-note for this article, and the disambiguation article Church of Christ. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look and add anything you think should go there - the European churches aren't really my area of expertise. I'll turn towards reorienting this article to the groups that clearly arose from the Restoration Movement. EastTN (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It looks good so far! As of now, I've only made a few changes. But, if you're going to “turn towards reorienting this article to the groups that clearly arose from the Restoration Movement,” the church's origin may be confusing unless the title can be changed. I don't know if that can be done. If it can't, maybe we could have this article be about the churches in general with these similar beliefs that primarily go by "Church of Christ." How does that sound? Thanks again for what you're doing. —The Sackinator (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I expect EastTN will clarify, though my understanding is that "this article", to be reoriented to Restoration Movement groups, is referring to the Churches of Christ article, not the new 'in Europe' one. —ADavidB 07:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, that this article (Churches of Christ) would focus on the "churches of Christ" that arose out of the American Restoration Movement. That was the original focus when we brought it up to Good Article status, and it made for a well-balanced, nicely focused article. I'd really like to get it back to that point so it doesn't loose good article status the next time it's reevaluated. We have a variety of mechanisms to point people to other articles on related groups, such as the footer template, the article Church of Christ, and interlinking hat notes. If you think we need something more, I'd suggest a "Churches of Christ (disambiguation)" page. I don't personally think that's necessary at this point, but it wouldn't give me heartburn if we did it. EastTN (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a first stab at reorienting the article. As you can see, the changes are not huge. As I have time over the next few days I may try to do some miscellaneous clean-up (I've noticed some cruft that's crept into the article). EastTN (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
What happened‽ I didn't intend on the article again saying that “Modern Churches of Christ have their historical roots in the Restoration Movement” rather than American churches of Christ. However, I also see where you're coming from, EastTN. The problem is that this article (Churches of Christ) is saying that “Modern Churches of Christ” have their roots in the Restoration Movement, unintentionally implying that all “Modern Churches of Christ” with these beliefs, regardless of the places in which they are located now, originated in one way or another from the Restoration Movement.
May we change these phrases, and is there a way that we could rename this article's title something like “Churches of Christ in America”? If not, may we start a new article for these American churches and place much of the Restoration Movement-related things into it?
I do hope we can get these things resolved. I appreciate the effort you have put in so far. —The Sackinator (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts. First, "Modern Churches of Christ have their historical roots in the Restoration Movement" is not the only thing that's said. The next two paragraphs carefully explain which group we're talking about, and the hat note points to all of the other related groups for which Wikipedia articles exists. Second, like it or not, the vast majority of "churches of Christ" are related to the Restoration Movement. The Canadian ones certainly are, as are the British churches of Christ, and the standard sources suggest that the Australian ones also had a connection through the writings of Alexander Campbell. There was a huge surge in mission activity beginning in the 1800s that led to the planting of restoration movement churches in Africa, India, Asia, South America and Europe. There are claims that some European groups arose entirely independently - and that may be true - but those claims are difficult to verify. To put it into context, the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement says that European mission efforts began in the 1870s - long before Mr. Grimm was born. The fact that he never met anyone that he knew to be associated with or influenced by the Restoration Movement doesn't settle the question of whether there's a historical connection. Let's face it - many current members of U.S. congregations that are documented to have originated with the Restoration Movement are not aware of the connection.
It may be worthwhile to address the William Rogers tombstone as well. It is evidence of the connection between the modern "churches of Christ" and the Restoration Movement. A key event in the development of the Restoration Movement was the Cane Ridge Revival which occurred at the Cane Ridge Meeting House. The Presbyterian congregation there was led by Barton W. Stone, who - along with the congregation - decided to renounce denominationalism; those who agreed with him were known as "Christians". The tombstone tells us that Rogers was baptized in the congregation at Cane Ridge in 1807, after the revival and after the congregation had withdrawn from the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky. The Christians later joined with the "Disciples" led by Alexander Campbell. That was the Restoration Movement, and at that time "church of Christ" was one of the various different names in common use among them. The church at Cane Ridge that the Rogers tombstone references wasn't just associated with the Restoration Movement, it was at the epicenter of the movement. By the time Rogers was buried in 1862, the term "church of Christ" was in common use within the movement. The point the website is making when it says "A point of verification given by the Rogers monument is the designation, 'Church of Christ.' Those who participated in the development of the American Restoration Movement desired to do Bible things in Bible ways" is that the term "church of Christ" is deeply, deeply rooted in the Restoration Movement - not that the "churches of Christ" in Kentucky pre-dated the movement. The movement later divided in 1906, and the current "churches of Christ" were the more conservative wing of that split. But neither they, nor the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), nor the Christian churches and churches of Christ were created in 1906 - they were part of the Restoration Movement all along. The website does make a pre-dating argument, but the claim is that the Stone movement predated the Campbell movement - which is correct - so that the churches of Christ did not originate with Campbell and cannot therefore be called "Campbellites". ("Roger's grave helps to bear out the fact that the American Restoration Movement is not to be identified as the "Campbellite" church. ... Hence, writings in stone help to verify that the group the Campbells united with New Years Day 1832 had considered themselves as Christians, and that as a body, were members of the church of Christ many years before." - note that the group the Campbells united with in 1832 was Stone's "Christians" from Cane Ridge.) EastTN (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it's appropriate to talk about the claims of independent origin in the article on European churches of Christ, and to include sources like Grimm. In my judgment, though, to do more than that would give undue weight to Grimm. I would argue strongly that it's not appropriate to limit this article to U.S. churches of Christ or to restructure the lede of this article based on the possibility of an independent origin in central Europe. EastTN (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
On another note, I would be open to renaming this article "Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement)". But if we do that, someone needs to write an article on "Churches of Christ (Non-Restoration Movement)" or some such title. Frankly, I don't have the sources that would allow me to do it. We have Grimm's claims. I'm aware of some similar claims for an independent origin for some British churches of Christ, but they're from self-published web sources, and the standard scholarly sources I've worked with don't support them. (One confounding factor is that since the term "church of Christ" is taken from scripture, it has been used throughout church history, dating back to the early church fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, through Augustine and Luther. Christians have been saying "we're the church of Christ" as long as there have been Christians - and it's easy to look back at a group that did and say "that must be where we came from." In most cases there isn't a real historical link, though.) I'm happy to make the name change to "Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement)", but unless a credible article is written for churches of Christ that aren't related to the restoration movement, someone in the future is bound to suggest changing it back. EastTN (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
We would also need to give some thought to whether it makes sense for the average reader. Ideally, articles should be named in a way that makes it easy for most readers to find what they are looking for, using names and search terms that they will naturally use. Most readers who are researching "churches of Christ" will be looking for information on the group historically associated with the Restoration Movement. Given that, I would suggest that if we think we have the sources to do it, we should create an article on "Churches of Christ (Non-Restoration Movement)" or the equivalent. We can link to it from here. (That's what I thought we were doing with the Churches of Christ in Europe article.) If there prove to be a lot of the, then we can re-think the title of this article. EastTN (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) In interests of moving things forward, I'm going to make some "bold" edits to try and address what appear to be some of the underlying concerns here. These will include creating a "Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement)" page with the Grimm citation, linking to it from the hat note, and adding it to the article on the Church of Christ. Sackinator, I'll have to defer to you to expand it on out, because I am not aware of much reliable information on "churches of Christ" that have no historical connection to the Restoration Movement. Once I've done that, I'll tweak the lede of this article to make it clear the churches associated with the Restoration Movement do not believe themselves to be establishing a new church, but rather restoring the New Testament church. Sackinator, I really think where we go next may depend on how much solid content you can find for the new article on churches of Christ that have no Restoration Movement connections. If there isn't much out there, then there simply may not be any justification for doing more. EastTN (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sackinator, I've created a new article on Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement) and added links to it in all the appropriate places. I'd appreciate your taking a look and adding any reliably sourced information you have on "churches of Christ" that have no historical connection with the Restoration Movement. EastTN (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Occasional talk-page watcher here, viewing this topic with serious concern.
I appreciate your motivations for creating Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement), but I think it was a Terribly Bad Idea. Encyclopedias don't have articles about "things that don't fit in a major topic." The hatnote in this article also is inappropriate, as it is much too long and most of the topics are not proper subjects for disambiguation. The lead of this article can and should be revised to (1) introduce the topic of Churches of Christ as a set of autonomous Christian congregations, mostly in the U.S., with roots in the Restoration Movement, (2) prominently discuss the related Churches of Christ in Australia, Evangelical Christian Church in Canada, and Churches of Christ in Europe as related groups and link to the separate articles (in the article; not in hatnotes), and (3) prominently indicate that the Churches of Christ in Europe are distinct, but possibly related.
I'd like to delete the new article and clean up this one as described. --Orlady (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Orlady, my concern is this. Standard references are very clear that the churches of Christ have their historical roots in the Restoration Movement. This article was written to address those churches, and we brought it to Good Article status on that basis. Recently there have been edits that are intended to throw in, to use your phrase "things that don't fit in [this] major topic" - which I think is "a Terribly Bad Idea". My primary reasons for thinking it's a bad idea are 1) it unnecessarily complicates and confuses an already lengthy topic, 2) it gives, in my judgment, undue weight to the sources involved, and 3) we're talking about groups that are supposedly unrelated to the rest of the article. (I also think it's a mistake to turn the lede into a catalog of different groups and then discuss which are related, which are possibly related, and which are not. I am totally comfortable adding a short paragraph that says there are related churches throughout the world, such as Africa, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, etc., though.)
My primary goal is to make sure that at the end of the day, we still have a clearly, digestible Good Article quality article on the churches of Christ with roots in the Restoration Movement. I don't care for the Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement) article myself, because none of the sources I've seen suggest there is a notable group of "churches of Christ" that are completely unrelated to the Restoration Movement; but there is at least one other editor who believes the sources on allegedly unrelated groups are notable and should be covered. That being the case, it seems inevitable that we're going to have a place for that material, and I'm absolutely convinced that it should not be this article. Well-written encyclopedia articles don't include discussions of unrelated topics. EastTN (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Orlady, your point about the hat-note is well taken. I've pulled out the bit that links to specific national articles. I originally put that in because because the Churches of Christ in Europe article seemed a natural place for information from Grimm. It seems cleaner to have a separate Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement) for any such groups, and to leave out the country by country listing. EastTN (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The hatnote is still excessive, but thanks for improving it.
IMO, the personal recollections of Herr Grimm are not a sufficient basis for Wikipedia to declare the Churches of Christ in Europe to be unrelated to the Stone-Campbell Movement (Restoration Movement), nor for declaring the Restoration Movement itself to have been purely a U.S. phenomenon. Works like The Stone-Campbell Movement: A Global History document the international aspects of the Restoration Movement, including the establishment of groups in central and eastern Europe. As I see it, Grimm's assertion (apparently based mostly on personal recollections) that his church had existed long before the Restoration Movement is in fact fully consistent with the Restoration Movement's assertion that its constituent groups are not in fact "new" churches, but rather are a continuation of the early church. IMO, this article can be rewritten to include coverage the Churches of Christ in Europe, with an indication of the existence of opposing views on the history. With revision over time, I can see this becoming a featured article! --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure. I suspect that we agree more than we disagree. I don't believe the Restoration Movement was a purely U.S. movement - it clearly extended to Canada, was influential in Great Britain and Australia as well, and by the late 1800s had an actively world-wide mission effort. The line I'd like to draw in the sand is between the "churches of Christ" that have a historical connection with the Restoration Movement, and those that don't. The former is a well-defined, but very large topic for an encyclopedia article. If there is no historical connection, we'd be better of treating the unrelated group somewhere else. The obvious question then becomes "where do we discuss the lack of relationship between the two group?" My answer would be in the article Church of Christ, where we already gather together all the groups that use the term, such as Church of Christ (Temple Lot), United Church of Christ, Church of Christ, Instrumental and Church of Christ in Congo. As for Grimm, I do think it's sufficient to cover his view in the article on the European Churches of Christ. EastTN (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I've trimmed the hat-note a bit more, and brought the subject of non-U.S. churches of Christ into the leded. EastTN (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, as an aside - I'd love it if we could polish this up to FA status! EastTN (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I've gone back and found the website I mentioned earlier that claims there have been "churches of Christ" in England for 1,000 years: Traces of the Kingdom. The web site owner now has a book that he's self-published. I don't think it counts as a reliable source for our purposes under Wikipedias WP:SELFPUB guidelines. The first couple of sentences of the "publisher's statement" make it clear that he understands his position to be inconsistent with accepted scholarship on the subject. ("Forbidden Books is how we have named ourselves as publishers. The reason for this is much of the information we are publishing is held back by the established authorities, academia, atheists, denominations and theologians. History has been revised to such an extent in our God denying secular society that it has become a lie.") Without reliable secondary sourcing on this, it doesn't even seem to meet the requirements for inclusion under Wikipedia:Fringe theories. EastTN (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Guys, I think I have a solution. Separate and apart from the documented history of today's congregations, it's an article of theological faith among churches of Christ that at least a remnant of faithful, non-denominational Christians has been preserved throughout church history. Many have tried to look back through church history and identify these groups. The Anabaptists of the 16th century have often been identified, for example, as spiritual forerunners of today's churches of Christ even though there is little if any real direct historical connection. Taking a closer look at Grimm's book, that's what he's doing. His core contention is not that churches of Christ arose spontaneously in central Europe some time before 1840. Rather, his contention is that "It has always been a real church of Christ in this world since Pentecost, and this means: a church believing in faith, repentance, confession and immersion for the remission of sins—a church which worshipped at least the first day of the week, with hymns, prayers, the Lord’s Supper, Bible study and contributions for the saints—a church which worked under the oversight of bishops, deacons, and evangelists—a church—not some isolated seekers, but an organized church, which trusted in the Lord’s promise that 'the powers of death will never prevail against it.'" His book - he describes it as a "brochure" - attempts trace this remnant through the centuries.
It's going to take some research, but I'm pretty sure I can find solid secondary sources to document this belief, the scriptural basis for it, and some of the groups that have been identified as examples of the "uncorrupted" church in the past. If so, this could become a fairly short, tightly focused subsection under the "beliefs" section. This way we can handle the issue in a way that's true to the historical record, respects the beliefs involved, is informative to the reader, and doesn't spin the article out into something unmanagable. EastTN (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
So, let me confirm that I understand. So, you're going to try to find solid, secondary sources on the belief that “It has always been a real church of Christ in this world since Pentecost …”? Or, is it that you're trying to find sources that have churches with the same beliefs but don't necessarily go by “churches of Christ”? Or, maybe the goal is to find either one of these? —The Sackinator (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The former - that a common belief among churches of Christ is that the "true church" has, by the grace of God, always existed. I have one good source to that effect already, and several on the "historylessness" of the movement. I've got to break and do some other stuff tonight, but will turn back to it tomorrow. EastTN (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) P.S. - I just found a good example of a prominent 20th century church of Christ preacher who held this view (V. E. Howard). EastTN (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this sounds good! Thanks for all of the work you're putting into this. —The Sackinator (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, it's truly my pleasure! (I'd do a lot more if it weren't that nagging little "gotta earn a living" problem.) EastTN (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at dropping in a section on how churches of Christ view church history. EastTN (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've done some clean-up, and I think I've appropriatley closed the loop on Grimm. EastTN (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks good as of now. Good job! —The Sackinator (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm glad we were able to work through this one. EastTN (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Church of Christ in Reliable Sources

I came across these criticisms when discussing matters with @EastTN and wondered whether they should be included in the Churches of Christ article:

"The Pharisee of Jesus' day placed obstacles between lost souls and salvation in much the same way that modern day Pharisees hinder today's salvation seekers from accepting Christ. Inside The Churches of Christ reveals those obstacles as they are manifested throughout modern day Churches of Christ. Author, Charles Simpson, reflects an unmistakable Pharisaical attitude toward other Christians, Christian traditions and Christian institutions typical of those he personally witnessed as a 50-year active member of the Churches of Christ. Dozens of quotes from Church of Christ practitioners from all over the USA validate the legalisms prevalent within this group. Church of Christ readers will come away with a new perspective on the actual theology of their own brethren and the potential impact of that theology on other believers. All Christian readers will have a better view of the non-denomination denomination and gain much insight into the Church of Christ claim of being Christ's 'one true church'"

  • The Truth about the Church of Christ with a little summary: Dr. Hugh Pyle shares with us that many years ago, a strange religious sect’’’ joined the so called "Christian" community. Over the years they have gained a notable following of ill-taught people who are being convinced that this is the one true church’’’, and that it was actually founded by the Lord Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost. In order to prove their points of doctrine, they use the most chopped-up portions of mismatched and ill-chosen verses imaginable. About three-fourths of their proof texts do not even relate to the subject at hand.”

Further…

The Christian Research Journal {http://www.equip.org/articles/the-churches-of-christ-the-christian-churches-the-disciples-of-christ/#christian-books-2} with a few notable quotes:

  • “The COC go even further and teach that those who have been immersed as believers but do not regard baptism as essential for salvation are also not truly Christians. This rules out almost everybody except members of the COC (and some of the NACC churches) as genuine Christians…CRI has received numerous letters from members of the COC, as well as testimonies of non-COC Christians, that confirm the prevalence of this teaching.”
  • “The depths of error into which this principle of Restorationism can lead is best illustrated by the fact that the early leaders of the movement were prepared to accept Barton Stone as one of them, despite the fact that he denied the Trinity and the deity of Christ… Indeed, the members of the Restorationist churches are a prime target of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because of their weakness on the Trinity.”

Any thoughts?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we put these criticisms in the article, I think we also should put some of the arguments these churches have that are in favor of these beliefs. For example, let's say we add something like this to the article: "The Christian Research Journal said that churches of Christ 'teach that those who have been immersed as believers but do not regard baptism as essential for salvation are also not truly Christians. … CRI has received numerous letters from members of the COC [churches of Christ], as well as testimonies of non-COC Christians, that confirm the prevalence of this teaching.'" I think we also should add right after, "Steven Wallace, a preacher for the churches of Christ, argued that passages such as Acts 2:21 teach that 'You must "call on the name of the Lord" to be saved,' a phrase which he connects with being immersed, using Acts 22:16. Another preacher for these churches, Donnie Rader, used verses such as Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 to defend this belief." I'll note that both of these preachers are members of the non-institutional churches, so hopefully this article is not only about the churches that are institutional. How does this sound? —The Sackinator (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I also have the sources in which these preachers say these things, if we agree to do this. —The Sackinator (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
If specific criticism is to be included in the article, published responses to such claims should also be included, as we're going for neutrality. —ADavidB 17:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The core criticisms here have already been included using more academic sources. The primary criticism about baptism boils down to the claim that churches of Christ teach baptismal regeneration, which in the view of most Protestants is inconsistent with the concept of salvation by faith alone. This criticism is mentioned directly in this article, as well as in the articles on Baptismal regeneration and Baptism. The question of whether someone needs to understand the purpose of baptism (the argument made by the CRI) receives a full paragraph in this article, covering the disagreements within the movement over the issue. The current text may not be perfect, but it doesn't gloss over what the group believes, and it explicitly states that some people criticize their understanding of baptism. The section on the view of church history includes the argument that the approach taken to restorating the New Testament church can lead to a belief that the "true church" had disappeared and thus to exclusivism (this is the argument that Pyle is making). The divisions that have arisen in the churches of Christ are discussed, as is the history of race relations. The article on Barton W. Stone (which seems the most appropriate place for it) directly addresses Stone's understanding of the Trinity (the second issue raised by the CRI), and this article links to that one when it discusses the role played by Stone it the early history of the movement.
We worked very, very hard for a long time to get this article sourced appropriately. Given that there is no central organization, we managed to find very strong sourcing for the beliefs of the churches of Christ. For the key theological beliefs we've been able to find scholarly sources, and have included the major criticisms covered by those sources. That's how we were able to get it to Good Article status. The reason we've been able to find solid secondary sources is because the movement has been around long enough that a significant scholarly literature has developed about it. If there are parts of the article that need to be expanded, we should work on it. But given where we are, and the extent of the literature on the movement, it would be a serious mistake to go backwards on the quality of our sources. EastTN (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you believe about Jesus Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.231.183.16 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

United Church of Christ

This article should mention what, if any, relationship there is or was between the Churches of Christ and the United Church of Christ. And, a see also. Don't Be Evil (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than the similar name, there is (and was) no relationship. The "Church of Christ" other-uses link at the end of the italicized paragraph at the top of the article includes an entry for United Church of Christ. —ADavidB 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Christian Connection is the common denominator between United Church of Christ and churches of Christ. In 1997, United Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ signed an agreement that theoretically will lead to both denominations being in full communion with each other, thereby partially closing that circle. p (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
While they share some history, Disciples of Christ is not the same as churches of Christ. —ADavidB 16:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The recent debate as to whether it should be said that "Christian church" is generally considered scriptural by members of the church of Christ.

JaconaFrere and I have been debating as whether it should be said that "Christian church" is generally considered scriptural by members of the church of Christ. "Church of God" is found numerous times in the Scriptures (Acts 20:8; 1 Cor. 1:2; etc.), so it's generally not controversial, I would assume. Some members of the church of Christ feel weird about "Christian church," on the other hand, as Christian is always used as a noun, not an adjective, in the Scriptures; and if "Christian church" is viewed as referring to Christians, it is believed that it may take the focus away from "Christ" Himself. Maybe these beliefs are uncommon within this church—I don't know. I've talked to two members on the subject before, and they feel weird about "Christian church." Maybe they're not 100% convinced it would be sinful (I know one of them isn't 100% convinced), but they definitely seem to feel uncomfortable about it. Although I was given a link to WP:PROVEIT, it actually says that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material," so, unless I'm interpreting it wrong, it seems that the text in question should be removed until JaconaFrere can prove what I am saying to be wrong. Any thoughts from anyone? —The Sackinator (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The WP:PROVEIT section on Verifiability does give the restorer the responsibility for proof, and JaconaFrere did restore the text in question (three times so far). That sentence is followed by three citations for two sources. I don't believe I have ready access to them to review how or whether the name "Christian church" is discussed as being scriptural; the third citation merely states (paraphrases?) that the name is used most often by churches who use musical instruments. Neither source includes applicable page references. —ADavidB 17:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, that being said, I will remove the text in question as for now. If anyone wishes for it to be restored again, we can discuss it here. —The Sackinator (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This article should state that the Church of Christ separated from what is now the "Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)" not the other way around.

The Christian Church, Disciples of Christ was the movement that came from the merger of the Campbells "Disciples of Christ" and Barton Stones "Christian Church". The "Church of Christ" eventually asked to be removed from the yearbook and statistics of this movement. Therefore the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is "officially" the original branch of the Stone-Campbell movement. The article needs to be changed in support of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.250.228.162 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be conflating the Disciples of Christ (Campbell Movement) and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). What specific content do you want changed? There is no separate article for the united movement from about 1832 to 1906 (during which multiple names were used and differences in worship began forming). The article already includes the following two (sourced) sentences within the History in America section:

While there was no disagreement over the need for evangelism, many believed that missionary societies were not authorized by scripture and would compromise the autonomy of local congregations. This disagreement became another important factor leading to the separation of the Churches of Christ from the Christian Church.

—ADavidB 04:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Churches of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The restoration movement began in Europe, not the US

The well-researched book, Traces of the Kingdom is the result of Keith Sissman's research in England where he lived. He traced church and political records all the way back to around 1200 AD in England.

There were members of a congregation of the church of Christ in London aboard the Mayflower when it arrived in the US in the 1600s. The restoration movement did not start with the Campbells. Alexander had a newspaper and perhaps that is why people think it started with him, but he was 150 years too late to be called the founder of this movement in America.

Actually, the term "Restoration Movement" is ambiguous because, in England where the New Testament church has been known to exist at least for 1000, when people began introducing creeds and new church offices and forms of worship not authorized in the Bible, the Christians fought to maintain what they had already been doing. The same is true in Germany. Another book has been written by a descendant of a man who arrived in Germany around 1300. One of this man's ancestors was burned at the stake for objecting to the changes.

So, in some cases, it is a matter of restoring the church as it was in the first century. But, in a larger sense, it is a matter of struggling to maintain what has always been and objecting to the changes70.58.251.156 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Katheryn Maddox Haddad.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Churches of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sentence under soteriology seems to be incorrect

Although I don't have access to the books referenced in 15 and 17, from what I can tell, it looks like the following sentence is technically incorrect:

"Children too young to understand right from wrong and make a conscious choice between the two, are believed to be innocent of sin.[15]:107[17]:124"

A quick search found me this page: http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/church-of-christ which would indicate that not unlike many other Christian groups, they believe that children are guilty of sin, but are not accountable for sin. Should this be changed to:

"Children too young to understand right from wrong and make a conscious choice between the two, are believed not to be accountable for their sin.[15]:107[17]:124"

It's a minor change, but there are large implications. It would be a significantly different belief to consider children to be actually innocent, as it would imply that children are superior to their parents in that way. I don't post very often so forgive me if I did it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurupilgrim (talk • contribs) 10:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the sentence is essentially accurate. Churches of Christ, by and large, do not teach in any sort of inherited sin, either actual, guilt thereof, or "sinful nature." They teach that babies are innocent, nobody is judged if they cannot understand right and wrong, and each person is guilty of his or her own sin only. 98.22.172.220 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality on beliefs

I have repaired some neutrality issues in the lede section. It is important to frame theological beliefs properly and not assert them as true in Wikipedia's voice. I will go over the rest of the article later. Elizium23 (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would say this issue certainly needs more work in the article. It reads almost like an advertisement or apologetic for the denomination. natemup (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Universities

The article seems to omit the various universities associated with the CoC, including my alma mater of Pepperdine. I suspect they would claim that they don't technically run the universities, as their polity disallows such things, but the reality is clear enough and deserves a section here somewhere. natemup (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen List of universities and colleges affiliated with the Churches of Christ? It needs cleanup, obviously, and the inclusion criteria seem to have gone off the rails some time ago. Jclemens (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Churches of Christ/Restoration Movement

To say churches of Christ are a product of Stone/Campbell Restoration is a false assertion. While many proport the New Testament church has never ceased to exist, that is highly questionable. While the game of baseball might feasibly cease being practiced for hundreds of years, as long as there is a precisely written set of rules, years after ceasing it could be resumed simply by adhering to the rules. Same is true regarding Christ's church; the example and commands so written as to make little inference necessary. All that is necessary to become a Christian is to follow New Testament teaching. sola scriptura Tomtreadway (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a religious position. It reflects a religious take held by some within the Churches of Christ at odds with history, much like the agrammatical capitalization "churches of Christ" [sic] represents an intentionally deviant use of the English language to make a point. Neither has any place in a neutrally-worded encyclopedia article. The Churches of Christ are a specific religious denomination having roots in the second great awakening, and are properly described as such herein. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Why on earth would one state failure to apply a capital letter to the word church to represent an intentional deviant of the English language? I'm not at odds with history at all, in fact my greater part of history (back to the first century) denounces your comment entirely and I especially denounce your false statement the Lord's church is a denomination. Obviously you would not use God's word as authitative which would be our main disagreement. Tomtreadway (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Neither of us are answerable to each other for doctrinal matters, and I should apologize for poking at your grammatical excursion--not only was it impolite, it detracts from the real point here, which is that I and others have to spend a fair bit of time removing religious statements, assumptions, vocabulary, and the like from this article. This article is not about reality as sectarian members of the Churches of Christ may believe it to be. Rather, it's about what has been documented by third-party sources. Reality is that, yes, the wikt:denomination using that name is in fact a product of the Stone/Campbell movement, and specifically those congregations that divided from the Disciples of Christ over stained glass, missionary societies, and acappella music which, coincidentally enough, none of the Restoration movement churches in the former Confederacy could afford in the aftermath of the American Civil War, even though the formal division wasn't recognized until 41 years later. I can recommend several good books on this if you'd like. Regardless, Wikipedia is not written from any particular religious point of view: We don't postfix Mohammed's name with PBUH or any such appellation even though it is a sincerely held and diligently followed practice among his followers, nor do we present confessional history as actual history. That is, we don't write Wikipedia as if Churches of Christ are the direct successors of the 1st century Christian church, any more so than we trace Freemasonry back to King Solomon. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Christ's church, I agree, we are only answerable to God. I'm sure you realize I am strenously opposed to the Lord's church being referred to as a sect for in no way could the New Testament church be considered heretical nor should it be concerned with third party documents. Campbell's Disciples of Christ and Stone's Christian church realizing they were both preaching the New Testament doctrine of the churh of Christ made the decision to combine their congregations under the scriptural name of the one who had purchased it with his blood, churches of Christ. The Christian church upon the decision to revert to the use of instrumental music necessitated the Lord's church making a split. To date there are some falsely using the name church of Christ that do use instrumental music and fellowship denominations. We of the New Testament church (not successors but practitioners of NT doctrine) encourage those denominations to change their name. Tomtreadway (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Meant to note the combining of Disciples of Christ and the Christian church occured 1/1/1832, some 29 yrs. before the Civil War and being able to afford instruments has never been any part of the equation. Tomtreadway (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Look, I get that either 1) you genuinely believe what you're saying or 2) that you're quite familiar enough with the anti-intellectual strain of thought within Churches of Christ to troll the talk page so effectively as to be indistinguishable from someone who does actually believe it, but in neither case does this affect how we portray the Churches of Christ on Wikipedia. Understand that the vast majority of humanity familiar with the situation--that would include non- and former members--thinks that such a perspective is anti-Christian in its combination of ignorance and arrogance, but we don't let them write this article, either. Rather, it's written from a neutral perspective that treats things like "Established 33 AD" signs, "we have no creeds but the Bible," and "We're not a denomination, we're the Lord's church," as tenets of denominational belief, rather than generally agreed upon facts. Within that framework, there's a lot to be documented about the rise and fall of this particular religious movement... but we do it as encyclopedia writers, rather than denominational adherents. And my date reference was to this, which catalogued the split as having already happened. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
So, for Wikipedia to claim "we do it as enclclopedia writers," they sure do come across as in no way endeavouring to be compatible with Encyclopedia Britannica (the only one I have just consulted). I certainly do genuinely believe God's word and not sure of what you mean by "anti-intellectual strain of thought within Churches of Christ (sic)." There are as noted earlier false churches of Christ in which anti-intellectuals will be found but not among adherents to God's word as that word is holy inspired. Sad you would want to place "the vast majority familiar with the situation to think God's work as ignorant and arrogant" into consideration even. If you have a bible please read Matt. 7:13-14. I won't argue with you but this should be published. Tomtreadway (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't confuse a narrow way with the narrow way--there are plenty of equally exclusive religious systems, even others within Christianity, that have such mutual exclusivity in common. That's why we describe them all from a neutral perspective, rather than privileging any one's perspective or even vocabulary. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me that Tom is trying to establish an orthodoxy (though Churches of Christ don't use this word) rather than trying to write an encyclopedia article. He's trying to transcribe "the correct way" to view the C of C here instead of attempting to write a NPOV Wikipedia article. If one thing is clear, especially in a Congregationalist polity, it's that there's no orthodoxy or one way of seeing things (and no ultimate human arbiter of the truth, not even scripture, which is inherently debatable/interpretable). Josh a brewer (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Such a sad commentary. Enroute to Heaven mortals are incapable of establishing orthodoxy. Also sad wiki would attempt to uphold man made cults and religions. Tomtreadway (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Cult is a value statement. We don't call new religious movements cults, per WP:NPOV, but I will note that the International Churches of Christ, an offshoot of this denomination, have been so described. Jclemens (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

“New Religions?” The muslim cult established 7 cent. AD can hardly be called new. To call The International Church of Christ an off shoot of the COC denomination is highly insulting; as explained already, the church of Christ is not a denomination, NOT A PART OF but is the church the Son of God gave his life for and for you to put such as fact within the publishings of Wikipedia is nothing shy of libel. Tomtreadway (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand you firmly believe that. Also understand that the vast majority of the world does not. If you want to make CoC-pedia, you're welcome to--that's the part about this being a free as in freedom resource. I can't say I like how Wikipedia chooses to phrase everything either, but describing religious peculiarities in neutral terms is what I would consider the reasonably best way to approach this. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You’re absolutely right, the rest of the world doesn’t accept that Jesus porchased “one church,” but denominates the Bible to fir their personal agendas. Totally in keeping with Matt. 7, wide gate/broad way. Tomtreadway (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

purchased Tomtreadway (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Miracles, healing, disability

Can someone provide research about the Church of Christ position on miracles, healings and disability. My understanding is that the CofC believes the age of miracles stopped with the 12 Apostles. Also of interest are examples of New Testament miracles involving people with disabilities (lame, blindness, withered arm and other "afflictions"), injury (Jesus reattaching an ear), mental illness (casting out demons) raising the dead etc. The Biblical history of using people with disabilities as props in order to prove the legitimacy and power of God. Lastly, why is there no exception to the mandatory "full body immersion" form of baptism required for salvation which is apparently denied to those who physically cannot undergo the procedure (i.e. someone hospitalized, in an iron lung etc) despite meeting every other requirement. Annacannafrannistan (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking doctrinal questions, or is there some part of this that will be used to clarify the article? Regardless, the answers to your two questions are broadly yes, and there is no such thing as a human being who cannot be safely immersed in water with sufficient effort and ingenuity. Mind you, there is no such thing as a central catechism or confession, so the answers to your questions will vary based on who you ask. Jclemens (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
To underscore JClemens point about doctrine not being uniform across all, there are _church of Christ (a capella)_ congregations that practice affusion, when medical issues prevent full immersion. Likewise, congregations proclaim that the age of miracles ceased with the 12 apostles but pray for the sick and infirm to be healed. As a general rule of thumb, congregations that have these practices, keep it within themselves. These aren't theological positions to die on, but are to be practiced when the scriptural basis for the non-conforming practices justifies so doing. p (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism

I have found while interacting with people from this specific sect that many congregations and members would consider themselves to be young earth creationists, and feel that noting this both here and on Young Earth creationism's "Adhering church bodies" section could be useful. I am somewhat at a loss for how to go about properly citing this, assuming that there are resources out there which can back this claim up more concretely, due to the generally decentralized nature of the belief system. Does anyone have tips for finding this kind of information? Jhilden13 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that says this is a defining trait. I don't actually think it is: while there are certainly adherents who are, there are also plenty who are not. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Churches_of_Christ/Archive_2&oldid=1161158910"