Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Proposal for condensation of really long hatnote

I was going to go ahead and do this myself, but an invisible note on the made motivated me to post my thoughts here first. As it currently stands, the first hatnote reads: The Churches of Christ discussed in this article are not part of the United Church of Christ; The churches of Christ (non-institutional); the International Churches of Christ; the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ; the Disciples of Christ; the Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science); The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other denomination within the Latter Day Saint movement; the Churches of Christ in Australia; the Fellowship of Churches of Christ in the United Kingdom; the Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand; or the Philippines-based Iglesia ni Cristo. Whew!

Happily, all of those (even the redlinked ones) are listed on the disambiguation page Church of Christ. Therefore, here's what I think the hatnote should look like:

This page is about a specific Restorationist movement of Christian congregations. For other uses, see Church of Christ.

I hope that gets the message across without sounding rude… $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 03:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I expect that "United Church of Christ"..."the Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science); The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other denomination within the Latter Day Saint movement" can be removed without causing undue stress. Removing "the International Churches of Christ"..."the Fellowship of Churches of Christ in the United Kingdom; the Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand; or the Philippines-based Iglesia ni Cristo." probably won't stress anybody out. jonathon (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is with The churches of Christ (non-institutional);... the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ; the Disciples of Christ.jonathon (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion: The Churches of Christ discussed in this article are not part of the The churches of Christ (non-institutional); the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ; or the Disciples of Christ.

This page is about a specific Restorationist movement of Christian congregations. For other uses, see Church of Christ.

jonathon (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the hatnote. I also changed the identification from Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental) to Church of Christ (A Capella). "Non-instrumental" is a put down.(Maybe I spent too many years as a non-person under Pik Botha and his ilk.)jonathon (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I've never seen non-instrumental as a putdown, and a cappella has its own problems--like most people who don't speak Latin and/or are not familiar with religious music not knowing what it means. I can live with a cappella, but I would tend to suggest non-instrumental was fine and easier to understand. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with "A Capella" is that it is usually misspelled. I might be too sensitive to the "non-" prefix. jonathon (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Correction noted--spelling never has been my strong point. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, NOW I'm confused. Wikipedia seems to agree with how I spelled it in the first place. You got a cite for one-p "a cappella"? Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A Capella is Latin, which is the language of the Magisterium, which is where CoC gets its theology regarding instrumental music from. jonathon (talk)

Sounds like a great addition to the A Cappella article, to which A Capella redirects silently. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That article really needs to have a section spelling and etymology. jonathon (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-identification

I would suggest adding the Biblical references members of the Church of Christ use to justify their beliefs as such format was used in the "Non-Instrumental Worship" section. References to include are references to believers only being call Christians found to be in Acts 11:26 and congregations simply being called "churches of Christ" referred to as such as found in Romans 16:16. --Johnnybegood12 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The references are fine to add, but the section formatting in Non-Instrumental Worship has far too much whitespace. I'm going to modify it a bit, and see if everyone can live with that. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. I just think the format need to be the same when identifying the origin and justification of a said belief. --Johnnybegood12 (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, made it more compact, and added linkage using the bverse template for the scriptures themselves. Like it? Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks very concise and compact. I don't see any issue with it. --Johnnybegood12 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Congregational autonomy

It might be noted the churches of Christ purposefully do have not headquarters...etc due to the belief that congregational leadership only has over sight of the local congregation of which they are a member . This belief stems from the 1st Peter 5:2 passage stating "shepherd the flock among you."--Johnnybegood12 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably sufficient to just state that the congregations are autonomous, which is mentioned a couple times in the article.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Schools of Preaching

We have a list of colleges associated with Churches of Christ--would it be appropriate to catalogue schools of preaching as well? If so, should it be just one article, or do the various schools (Sunset, Bear Valley, etc.) each have sufficient notability? Jclemens (talk)

Probably should list them in a category. Take a look at Category:Ministers of the Churches of Christ for format. --12.218.70.24 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Listing them in a category would be easier if there existed Wikipedia articles for them. I haven't found many--I looked for Bear Valley, Brown Trail... Only found Memphis School of Preaching and Sunset International Bible Institute. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The barrier to being included is higher with a category, than with a list. What criteria will be used to decide what gets on the list? jonathon (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

... and the very reason I haven't started it yet. I was thinking that a unified article 'Schools of Preaching within Churches of Christ' would be a better approach, and summarize/reference SoP's with their own entries. Criteria for inclusion should be any documented and sourced school of preaching overseen by a Church of Christ (as referenced by this article), regardless of notability: individual schools may not have notability, but such schools overall are an interesting phenomenon which speaks to the historical CofC distrust of theological higher education. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Another editor and I are having an issue over capitalization of 'church' in "church/Church of Christ" at Obong University. It's obvious that the other user is not a member of the church of Christ, so I would like some help from members of the church of Christ or at least people who know more about the church of Christ than the average person. As a member of the church of Christ, I strongly feel that the church itself should not overshadow the One who paid the price for the church. Not to mention, this article is really rather obscure in the long run and I wrote it, yet this other editor feels the need to consistently revert my "church" to his/her "Church". Please add your thoughts at Talk:Obong University. Thanks so much. Jlrich (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That issue was discussed at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Christ/Archive_Page_7#Big_C.2C__little_c.2C_what_begins_with_C.3F amongst other places.jonathon (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed there a year ago, and the few pronouncements there generally do not match the article in its current state. "church of Christ" appears only once, clearly referring to all of Christianity. "Church of Christ" appears more than a dozen times, referring to the denomination or specific congregations thereof. It would seem consensus either never really supported the "church of Christ" variant, or that it has since changed. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The "little 'c' " spelling is pretty unique to the churches of Christ. While it isn't universal among churches of Christ, it is quite common. I suspect that the predominant use of the "big 'C' " spelling throughout the article may be due to the influence of editors from outside the churches of Christ. It would probably make sense to add a short section that discusses this usage, and the reasoning behind it. The "Self-identification" section might be a good place for it to go. That way editors who're unfamiliar with the churches of Christ would be clued in to what's going on with all the references to "church of Christ" and wouldn't automatically "correct" it to "Church of Christ"(and if they did, there would be a great place to refer them to when changing it back). We'd need to find a good third-party source for this, though. Off hand, I can't think of one, but there has to be one out there. EastTN (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I rather dislike the (probably unintentional) implication that Wikipedians from the Churches of Christ cannot use the English language correctly. Church of Christ and Churches of Christ are correct English and are to be used consistently throughout the encyclopedia, except in the cases of direct quotes, where the stylistic, non-standard usage is preserved. It's really just the same as referring to Jesus with a consistently capitalized pronoun, ("Him"), that Christianity articles in general deal with. Having said that, I agree that it should probably be noted as a stylistic preference among some members and congregations. Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no such implication. Standard English usage is to capitalize proper nouns (including multiword proper nouns and titles), but not common nouns. We capitalize the word "church" in "Church of England" because it is a proper noun referring to a specific denomination or ecclesiastical entity. If we think of the church of Christ as a separate, identifiable denomination or ecclesiastical entity, then the correct form would be "Church of Christ." Historically, though, members of the restoration movement have thought of themselves as non-denominational, and the branch known as the churches of Christ have not created any formal synod, conference or other organizational structure above the local congregational level. Traditionally, most churches of Christ have viewed themselves as a church (common noun) belonging to Christ (proper noun) and let the orthography follow along (or, collectively, as autonomous churches (common noun) belonging to Christ (proper noun)). See, for example, the usage here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. The issue isn't one of correct English versus incorrect English, but simply whether the word "church" is being used as a proper noun or as a common noun. Is the usage universal? No, but it is quite prevalent and characteristic of the movement. EastTN (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Yes, I know you intended no slight, and tried to imply that with my phrasing--apologies if I didn't succeed--it's the implication that bugs me, (that, and church signs in ALL CAPS to avoid squabbles over capitalization) not your repetition of it. I'm also quite familiar with CofC polity, history, and ecclesiology, so apologies for your effort to recount the reasons for the non-standard usage. The real issue, as I see it, is common English usage, which says that an individual church building is a church, or at the very least an individual congregation is. These expect a proper noun, regardless of CofC self-identification as "not a denomination." Thus, non-standard use should be explained by a secular encyclopedia, but not adopted, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be explained. I don't think the proper versus common noun issue is as clear cut as you seem to be suggesting. People expect a proper noun because they are accustomed to thinking of churches (buildings or local congregations) as being associated with "Churches" that are formal ecclesiastical organizations (Church of England, Southern Baptist Church, Roman Catholic Church, etc.) - not because the rules of English grammar and orthography require it. We make similar distinctions with the word "hospital." One can quite correctly refer to "the Columbia County hospital" where "Columbia County" is a proper noun and "hospital" is a common noun. The correct name for the institution may be "Columbia County Hospital" where "hospital" is part of a proper noun; but it could equally well be "Columbia County Community Medical Center." We should be careful that we're not implicitly letting our usage be driven by our preconceptions of the group.

I would argue that, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, it's a simple courtesy to use the designations that the group itself prefers. While the usage is unusual, it doesn't violate the rules of English, it's not a peacock term that unfairly biases the discussion, and it's not too unwieldy to be practical. EastTN (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That will be fine with me, as long as you can provide an independent, reliable source that documents that such usage is denomination wide. There are only two problems with that: 1) it's not universal and I can't imagine the existence of a reliable source which would (inaccurately) assert that it was, and 2) if it was universal, it would be establish the Churches of Christ as a denomination, regardless of congregational autonomy. "Churches of Christ" would then be a proper name for the collection of denominations. I haven't sought to correct the non-institutional article's use of the term, but out of common courtesy, not because it is less inaccurate than usage in "institutional" Churches of Christ--it still fails #2, even if #1 may universally apply among non-institutional Churches of Christ. How about adding a self-identification section that documents the usage? I think we're agreed that that has a place in the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we're at the point of compromise here (though I can't help kidding you back a bit about the phrase "documents that such usage is denomination wide" applied to a group that explicitly claims not to be a denomination - that would seem to at least suggest a POV that they're wrong). I agree that the usage isn't universal. It is widespread, though, and in my experience it doesn't break down along a clear institutional/non-institutional line. Many congregations and individual believers will use "church of Christ," but have no objection to supporting a Christian college or orphanage.

Can we agree to discuss the usage in the self-identification section? I know we can find examples of the usage, and I believe we can find discussions explaining the usage. I don't know if we can find a source that documents its prevalence. Do you have any thoughts there? EastTN (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, the denomination bit was another dig--as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the Churches of Christ are yet another Christian denomination. :-) At any rate, I'd encourage you to yes, go ahead and put in some text documenting that many Churches of Christ use "church of Christ" in their signs, stationery, etc., and that many others just use "CHURCH of CHRIST" in their signs, etc., presumably to avoid taking a position on the matter. It'll be harder to source the reasoning than the actual sign verbiage. Just be bold and add something--we can edit collaboratively in the article without needing to discuss everything to death first. It's not a salvation issue. ;-) Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few days - I seem to remember a pretty extensive discussion of these issues in Redigging the Wells-Seeking Undenominational Christianity by Monroe Hawley. Real life is raising its ugly head, though, so it may be a day or two before I can dig in and re-read it. EastTN (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gathered some sources and started working on it. It may take me a while - there's been a good bit written about this over the years, and it's taking longer to condense it all than I originally expected. I've got to hang it up for the evening and do some other stuff. I hope to pick it up again in a day or two. EastTN (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's a whole lot of changes at once. First, let me emphasize how absolutely delightful it is that you've made the effort to source everything--well done! Only downside I see right now is that I liked the old hatnote better. Trying to sum up the difference between "mainline" and non-institutional Churches of Christ in a one-sentence doctrinal statement is likely to be contentious. I'll try and go through and give more detailed feedback later. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the hatnote is pretty ugly. My issue was that it was trying to do two different things: 1) distinguish this group from other, unrelated groups such as the United Church of Christ, and 2) distinguish it from the non-institutional churches of Christ, which are more of a subset of this group. The existing text seemed to be implying that the non-institutional congregations were a completely separate group, which isn't quite right. If you can think of a better way of doing this, it's certainly not going to hurt my feelings. Looking back at the article again, I notice that we have the non-institutional group linked in the info-box under the heading "Distinct fellowships." Given that, could we drop them from the hatnote entirely? A reader would still be able to find them from this article. EastTN (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hermeneutics Section

There appears to be a problem with the paragraph immediately following the bulleted points in the Hermeneutics section. There is an unverified, and what I would consider opinionated, statement: "Cooperative application of these two axioms can lead to a growing local congregation that recognizes differences in their members and community. On the other hand, divisive application of the axioms can lead to division and strife within the local congregation.". This appears to simply be an opinion of someone promoting "cooperative application" of the two axioms listed in the bullets. 71.61.185.203 (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If it's not sourced, it's likely original research and should be removed. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The more I look at that section, the more I think it needs a complete rewrite, tossing everything out. For starters, the axioms are about the split between what is allowable -- "that which is not explicitly prohibited" v "only that which is explicitly permitted" -- and what is prohibited. Secondly, the consequences are how the different axioms lead either to the same result, or to polar opposites. (Now to find the Mission Messenger article that covered this.jonathon (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the way it looked a year or two back. I think that this is far more helpful and accurate than what we have now:

A closer look at the Church of Christ requires an understanding of its historically accepted hermeneutic. This hermeneutic is often summarized in three parts: "Command", "Example", and "Necessary Inference".

• "Command" refers to a direct command found in the Scriptures (this being further complicated by what some mainstream evangelicals would refer to as the dispensation principle; for example, the command to build an ark was directed to Noah specifically, as opposed to being directed to Christians in general. Additionally, commands are classified as 'Specific' or 'Generic' in nature.)
• "Example" is sometimes phrased as "an approved Apostolic example." The intent here is that the apostles or 1st century Christians performed some action or engaged in some practice that was approved of (or not condemned).
• "Necessary inference" refers to some interpretational conclusion that would be necessary in order to obey a command or example.

The principle of silence is also observed by the Churches of Christ, to varying degrees. When the Bible does not specifically or indirectly allow any certain practice in a worship service, it is considered forbidden. The disagreements within the Churches of Christ primarily derive from differences in interpretation of the meaning of "necessary inference", and the conclusions which can be rightly drawn from "silence". The non-instrumental chuches of Christ agree that the absence of references to instrumental music in New Testament worship mean that their use is forbidden. Comments?Josh a brewer (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that does a great job of describing most Churches of Christ from 30+ years ago. While this is still normative in many quarters today, it has been completely rejected in others. It would be misleading to use as-is, without the addition of a ton of conditional phrases and weasel words. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What if the stuff about instrumental music could be removed? I know that not all Cs of C hold to the "Command, Example, Necessary Inference" hermeneutic anymore, but most still do. It certainly beats what this section has now, at least in terms of coherence.Josh a brewer (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes in perception of instrumental music--in theology as well as practice--go hand in hand with changes in perceived hermeneutical principles. The bigger issue is that I don't know where either of us can find reliable sources to back up our perspectives. Jclemens (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you all are busy. I am just writting to ask permission to add my url to the link section of the site

I thank you for the time and review of my request. In the radio section of the link portion of the site, I would like to ask your humble permission, for inclusion of my link. My link is called Church of Christ Radio, by the grace of God it is one of the largest music/bible broadcasts on the net. The Station is divinely blessed to be aired in 132 Nations and 150 Countries Worldwide.

The below wording is what I would like to add if I am allowed.

• Hear Christian Acappella and Bible Sermons - A place to Belong

Thanks..

God bless

Manager of COC Radio, Joseph Sullivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian144 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Joseph, Thanks for asking first. WP:EL is the relevant guideline. I have a few questions for you--the answers of which should provide some insight into the answer:

• Is this link educational for non-Church of Christ folks to learn about or better understand Churches of Christ?
• What differentiates this link from every other ministry's website? What makes it unique? In other words, is there a clear rationale for saying "this should be linked, but it's not an excuse for 100+ other ministries to be linked, too."
• Are you motivated to get this link included in Wikipedia in order to increase your ministry's exposure? If so, whom do you hope to reach?

Hope that helps. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Brother for getting back so quickly. This are very thoughtful screening questions. Question 1 The link has an internet Bible Radio broadcast, that has programs about who we are and what we believe. There's sermons and recorded shows that talk about issues within the church as well as inform those without. Question 2 I understand, there are many great websites out there. For me, I believe the difference is in content and reach. This Broadcast is aired in 132 Nations and 150 Countries worldwide. There are 19 (conservative) Church of Christ Preachers who share there content. I'm in the process of updating the Bible station to have 70 hrs of new material each week. Also all the audio content will soon be on iTunes for download. The Pro is it's easy to listen to. The Con is, though people can access and listen, there's still some final construction being finished. Question 3 Yes, I hope people can learn about this work through Wikipedia. Your listing can help this Station reach the lost with the Gospel. The Brotherhood can find comfort in this Broadcast as well.

I appreciate you listening to me.

Manager of COC Radio, Joseph Sullivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian144 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Brother, are you going to respond back? Or does this silence mean no? If so that's fine. :) May Christ bless you. Have a good day... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian144 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

From the answers you gave, yoru reasons for adding the links indicate a conflict of interest, and as such, not permissable.jonathon (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank Brother Jonathon for letting me know. Take care.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.98.246 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding citations

User:Jclemens and User:EastTN, I applaud your boldness! Thanks! Two questions for you however: 1. wouldn't it be helpful to have page numbers with the citations so others do not have to read the whole book to verify? 2. Isn't it a bit premature to remove the citations needed banner? There are still a lot of uncited assertions. John Park (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about page numbers. Supplying them can make the references awkward, though. You can't include them in named references, unless you want to have a separate named reference for each page or set of pages. I've seen some articles that combined named references with the Template:Rp. That seems to work well, but not many editors are familiar with it - and sometimes those who aren't "correct" it away (I almost did that a couple of times myself, before I figured out what was going on). If people like that approach, I'll be glad to adopt it. So far, I've been including page numbers when a direct quote is included in the footnote (which creates a separate ref anyway), but not otherwise. My sense is that page numbers probably aren't needed for journal or magazine articles, which are generally short, or to books that survey various religious groups and have a specific section on the churches of Christ (unless the information isn't in the section on the churches of Christ). They would be very helpful for longer works, though.

You're also correct in noting that there is still a lot of unsourced material. I'd like to suggest that we start flagging specific sections with Template:Unreferencedsection, instead of having a single banner for the entire article. That might do a better job of focusing editorial efforts than a general tag for the entire article. EastTN (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at the article for sections to tag, I think we may be using the Template:Refimprovesect template; most sections have at least one reference now. EastTN (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree--let's flag statements and sections, rather than the article. As the article references improve, tagging should move from page to section to assertion/sentence. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers are no a problem if the Notes section is properly used and refer to Items in the Reference Section. (As we would do in a coleege term paper) If you put the page #s in, I will find time to edit the notes and make the adjustments. John Park (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The editors for some articles do it that way, but my impression is that it makes the maintenance more difficult, because you have to manually provide citations in each note - with something like the author (date) format - to link with an entry in the References section. You can end up with notes that don't match to a reference, and references for which there are no notes. There's been enough difficulty getting people to provide sources for this article; we don't need to make it any harder. If the consensus is to go with another approach, I'll certainly comply, but my vote would be for keeping things simple at least for now. EastTN (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess to be more specific, I'm suggesting that we adopt the footnote system for citing sources in this article (instead of the shortened footnotes system). It's consistent with existing practice, can be extended with the Template:Rp for citing page numbers if need be, and is likely to make it easier for us to get other editors to supply proper citations. EastTN (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started using the Template:Rp to indicate specific page numbers. I'm thinking of this as an experiment. If it works, and everyone likes it, I'll continue using it. If not, let me know, and we can drop it and try something else. EastTN (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Fundamental Theological Axioms"

The section on hermeneutics has a discussion that begins with:

Their fundamental theological axiom is either of the following:

• A. God binds people only to the explicit commands of New Testament Scripture, meaning that anything commanded must be obeyed in its proper and obvious context but that anything not expressly forbidden is allowable and open to interpretation and preference;

• B. Only what is expressly commanded, given as an approved example, or indicated as permissible by inference is allowable as a practice in the church. The latter view means that if something is not specifically mentioned and approved of in the New Testament, then the church should not take the liberty of doing it. This is known by the Churches of Christ as "The Law of Silence" or "Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent". This plea was first made by Alexander Campbell during the restoration movement. [1]

Both of these principles have been common among the churches of Christ, but the analysis that's given sees a fundamental tension between the two, and attributes conflicts within and between congregations to that theological tension. This may be right, but no source is given. I've flagged this as potentially representing original research. If anyone is aware of a potential source, it would be helpful if you could bring it in to the discussion. EastTN (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

One of those axioms is from Studies for New Converts. I've forgotten which book lists the other axiom.  :( The rest of those paragraphs were a rewrite of the then-existing material, with indirect help from a mid-C20 magazine aimed at the Instrumental branch. jonathon (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can find a good source that would let us bring some of that back in. I do think there's a tension between only saying "yes" to what's in the NT, and only saying "no" to what the NT says "no" to. My sense is that this may play out better in the "history" section and the section on diversity than in the hermeneutics section, though. EastTN (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit only operating through the scriptures

There's a statement in the Hermeneutics/Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology) section that says:

"In Restoration theology, the agency of the Holy Spirit in salvation is viewed strictly in His inspiration of the scriptures which teach men what God has done and what they must do in order for salvation to occur."

I've flagged it as potentially dubious, because it seems as it it may be overstating the case. It's a common view, but I don't think it's the only one, or necessarily even the prevailing one any more.

I've found a source that suggests a rationalist approach was common in the early years of the Restoration Movement, but that other religious movements since then have affected the common understanding among churches of Christ. (DOUGLAS A. FOSTER, "WAVES OF THE SPIRIT AGAINST A RATIONAL ROCK: THE IMPACT OF THE PENTECOSTAL, CHARISMATIC, AND THIRD WAVE MOVEMENTS ON AMERICAN CHURCHES OF CHRIST," RESTORATION QUARTERLY, 45:1, 2003) Foster concludes with "[f]or better or worse, those who champion the so-called word-only theory no longer have a hold on the minds of the constituency of Churches of Christ. Though relatively few have adopted outright charismatic and third wave views and remained in the body, apparently the spiritual waves have begun to erode that rational rock." It's been years since I've read it, but I believe that Harvey Floyd's book, "Is the Holy Spirit for Me?" also argues for the real indwelling of the Holy Spirit. EastTN (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think word-only is mostly an historical oddity at this point. Certainly, larger suburban/urban churches of Christ tend to reject that view. Foster's quote seems accurate to me. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is an oddity inconsistant with Walter Scott's "five finger excercize" (Plan of Salvation) used in the 1830's, which concluded with God's Action: The gift of the Holy Spirit. There has always been a wide variety of understandings in the movement. NPOV probably suggests that no one POV be elevated to the status of "This we ALL believe" status. John Park (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--throughout the CofC's history, there have been majority and minority viewpoints, and they should be reflected as precisely that. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources for non-US congregations

I'm not sure what to do with it, but I ran into what looks like it might be a good source for the history of churches of Christ in Britain. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=57321#s8

I'm still not sure exactly how this group relates to the Restoration Movement in the U.S. EastTN (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Detailed discussion of amillenialism in the eschatology section

A recent edit took a couple of sentences out of the second paragraph of this section, dealing with the identification of the beast of Revelation with the Roman Emperor Domitian. The deletion wasn't explained, and it's been reverted - which makes sense to me, since it took out the only part of that paragraph the was actually sourced.

It may make sense to talk about that paragraph, though. I've left it in because it is at least partially sourced (it's not clear to me how much of the paragraph is covered by the source). It feels to me as if it needs work, though. It's basically giving Biblical arguments for the position taken be amillinialists in the churches of Christ, and reads more like a Bible class than an encyclopedia article. We could edit the tone, but I'm wondering if the content would be better suited in the article on Amillennialism. On the other hand, the source is a book on Revelation by a prominent 20th century brotherhood preacher and author (Homer Hailey), and would seem at least one valid source for arguments made by amillinialists.

What do people think? Do we want to try to summarize the amillinialist view here? If we do, how much detail do we want to provide on the biblical arguments made in support of it? EastTN (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The main challenge I see with the passage in question that you haven't raised is that it's only representing one specific amillennial view. Others can fall within the realm of amillennialism without endorsing a first century intepretation of Revelation. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at churches of Christ as a whole, how much of the identity of the movement is wrapped up in amillinialist perspectives? How does this discussion help people understand the movement? Isn't it just a distraction? John Park (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens' point - what we have only covers one particular flavor of amillenialism. We could probably do a better job of describing what amillennialism is without getting down into the weeds of which Roman emperor was represented by the beast. More broadly, if we summarize the amillennial view, should we also at least summarize the postmillennial view? There are some premillennialists among the churches of Christ, but they seem to be a very small minority. The brotherhood seems to have turned pretty solidly anti-premillennialist since, oh, at least the early 1970s - I think in response to the emphasis placed on end-times speculation among the evangelical movement. I honestly don't know how prevalent the postmillenial view is; before starting to research this, I'd have guessed that 90%+ of preachers and teachers associated with the churches of Christ were amillenialist, but that's based on absolutely nothing other than my own experience.

I also agree with John Park - this movement isn't defined by its millennial views (which have changed over time). It seems to make sense to have some discussion of them here under the "other theological tendencies" rubric, if for no other reason than because readers may be interested in how their views compare to those of other Christian groups, but it certainly doesn't have the same significance to members of the movement as baptism, church governance, or the use of a capella music in worship.

My personal sense is that the article would read better if we either entirely dropped the second paragraph until we found a source that provided a more general explanation of why the amillennial view has prevailed in the brotherhood, or replaced it with one or two sentence definitions of what each view means. Or, we could try a one paragraph summary of amillennialism that tries to explain it more generally, without getting quite as focused on specific interpretations of the symbols in Revelation. What makes sense to you guys? EastTN (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support just linking to the Amillennialism page. There are enough flavors of this that picking just one probably doesn't do the CoC position justice.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Aside from historic debates over premillenialism, it hasn't been my experience that escatology is either 1) a major subject addressed regularly in Churches of Christ, or 2) a set of doctrines where Churches of Christ have a well-developed, consistent view that tends to be representative within most congregations. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I'd like to suggest that we drop the second paragraph, then, and add a link to Premillennialism to the first paragraph. It already has links to Millennialism, Amillennialism and Postmillennialism, so with the addition of Premillennialism readers should be able to pretty easily find any background information they might need on the various eschatological points of view. EastTN (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I made these changes this morning. If you get a chance, please take a quick look and see what you think. EastTN (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)