Talk:Churches of Christ/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Origin of the church of Christ and making more articles for it

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."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, 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."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"? 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.” —The Sackinator (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Making more articles for the churches of Christ

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:

• Inside the Churches of Christ: The Reflection of a Former Pharisee On What Every Christian Should Know About the Nondenomination Denomination {http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Churches-Christ-Nondenomination-Denomination/dp/1438901399/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1} An editorial summary:

"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)