![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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:
I hope that gets the message across without sounding rude… Lenoxus " * " 03:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Looks very concise and compact. I don't see any issue with it. -- Johnnybegood12 ( talk) 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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".
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 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.
Thanks..
God bless
Manager of COC Radio, Joseph Sullivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian144 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 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)
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)
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)
The section on hermeneutics has a discussion that begins with:
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)
There's a statement in the Hermeneutics/Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology) section that says:
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'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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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:
I hope that gets the message across without sounding rude… Lenoxus " * " 03:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Looks very concise and compact. I don't see any issue with it. -- Johnnybegood12 ( talk) 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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".
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 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.
Thanks..
God bless
Manager of COC Radio, Joseph Sullivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian144 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 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)
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)
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)
The section on hermeneutics has a discussion that begins with:
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)
There's a statement in the Hermeneutics/Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology) section that says:
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'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)
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)