![]() | 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'm thinking of paring the recent addition down to a sentence or two. Something like, "Some of the more progressive churches identify with the emerging church movement." Given the EC movement has its own page and this reads more like advertising material rather than a NPOV article, I'd think it's more than justified. Seems to me this and the addition of the EC blogs and links is more like astroturfing than useful reference material. Am I mistaken? Jdb1972 21:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe this dramatic expansion of the wikipedia entry for Church of Christ is both biased and innaccurate. It certainly doesn't take a clinical tone, and is riddled with opinions that may or may not reflect the reality of the church.
Just a single example: discussion on musical instrumentation. Frankly the whole thing bears no resemblance to any church of Christ I've attended, but much resemblance to a couple baptist congregations and a community church I've been to with friends (despite our disagreements and occasional lively conversations, heh).
This addition, in summary, seems highly suspect and extremely liberal (scripturally speaking) and doesn't reflect at all the church I'm familiar with. 12.217.48.171 22:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Gathering Conversation within the Restoration Churches Since the 1960's, sociologists have noted that our culture has been transitioning into what has been labeled “postmodernism.” Authors, scholars, artists, architects, and many others who challenged the existing traditional worldviews, assumptions, and beliefs, introduced postmodernism.
In its essence, postmodernism has fundamentally changed the way our culture thinks and acts. While absolute truth, morals, and spiritual framework used to be an assumption, now they are often negated and even laughed at. Our society has radically shifted away from foundational elements and values that Christianity would hold as key assumptions and beliefs.
Although the entire world has experienced this shift, the generations that have been most affected were born after 1964. They are natives to this new world that is based upon postmodern thought and analysis.
Many churches have chosen to fight against current culture, but a growing number of leaders within the restoration churches have decided to be relevant; believing there is a new, emerging mindset that needs someone to take them into account. It is without question that many aspects of postmodernism are contrary to the Christian faith. Yet, paradoxically this cultural shift has created a greater awareness of this emerging generations need for God. It is the conviction of the emergent Church of Christ that God has provided us with a great moment in history.
The modern age (15th century – late 1980s) was an era characterized by science, progress, and pragmatism. Throughout modernity’s hundreds of years, this systematic structure of thought evolved and, in time, became fully developed. Insipidly, the western world became dependent upon the gods of reason and science. Western authors, scientist, scholars, professors, and artists firmly entrenched themselves in the belief that one could apply logic, look to the sciences, work hard, and in time society would solve its problems and discover truth. The result would be a better world with fewer problems. Although this outlook has provided "progress," it has also alienated the church from society.
Interestingly, there is increased spiritual hunger in our culture---but paradoxically church attendance is down. This cultural shift demands that we “step-up” and claim this moment for Christ. No more, no less. The Amish decided not to live their moment in history and today they remain frozen in the 1800s.
Evolution of the Conversation
Recognizing there are many divisions within the Church of Christ the intent of this section is not to speak to every nuance and teaching within the emergent conversation but alternatively to capture the essence and spirit of a remnant within the restoration movement that has been charmed by grace.
Rallying around the early pioneer’s banner of Christian unity, the a cappella and instrumental churches began to meet and talk once again. But soon thereafter legalism showed its confusion with the principles of biblical unity by insisting on unanimity. The emerging movement refused to bow to the demands of legalism and began distancing itself from the polarizing doctrines of the right branch of the Church of Christ.
This new emerging was soon infused with the early movement’s passion. Their common center was built upon the grace and unity of Jesus Christ. They understood that inferences from scripture may be true doctrine but because each Christian is at a different level in understanding and maturity individual conclusions and hermeneutics were not made tests of fellowship.
With the dawn of a new century the Church of Christ now finds itself on the “edge” of a moment like no other—the end of one age and the beginning of another. Yesterday’s maps are already outdated, and today’s soon will be, too. The uncharted world ahead of us is what we will call “the new world on the other side”: the other side of two world wars and one cold war, the other side of communism, the other side of the second millennium, the other side of 9/11, and the other side of modernism.
During the last fifty years old-world technology has intensified cultural pressures and unleashed tremor after tremor, each far more significant than could have been imagined. These technological tremors have helped bring to an end the old world that created them. Think of the automobile and its effects on the environment, the economy, the family unit, and even courtship and sexuality. Think of radio, air travel, birth-control pills, antibiotics, and the cathode ray tube, and we’re barely past the mid-century mark. Then came the tidal wave of social change set in motion during the sixties. Is it any wonder old maps don’t fit the new world!
The Church of Christ emergent sees present and future theology as creative pursuit and passionate inquiry, like the best art and the best science. Psychology, sociology, the new physics, history, comparative religion, and spirituality—not to mention postmodernism in general—all are calling for creative Christians to unfold new paradigms to use in new world explorations. The old systems are tired, used up, and worn out, but the thirst for God is as strong as ever.
For these reasons the emerging Church of Christ is interested in speaking in a “heart language” the new world understands; to initiate and create environments that encourage Christians to become creative thinkers, pursuers of truth, explorers, and learners, rather than old world memorizers, repeaters, and defenders of old formulations.
Who’s In Charge?
The question that has been on most radar screens for the last quarter of a century is an important one. Is Christian unity built on doctrinal conformity or our allegiance to Jesus Christ? The emerging Church of Christ has found that biblical unity can be maintained through Christ, even in the midst of the most diverse groups. It encourages Christians, as the restoration pioneers did, to freely approach and explore the scriptures for themselves. The emergent church’s oneness plea is not a unity of sentiment but oneness with a diversity of opinions.
The love and commitment to one another is an indispensable that stands above the dogma of conformity. Biblical unity is not an expendable ingredient to be disposed of when there is diversity in understanding and interpretation. The eternal truth is that the early Christians were united well before the Scriptures were completed. Doctrinal conformity has never been the basis for unity. Jesus is the basis of for unity. He is the rally pole for the emergent Church of Christ.
Evangelism
Individually each of us has been called to love and serve the people God has placed in our day-to-day life. Yet God has called his people to collectively incarnate their culture. The emergent Church of Christ is attempting to innovatively infiltrate its communities by architecting “safe places,” spiritual conversation zones that potentially become “church” for the people Jesus misses most.
Safe places stand as a corrective to the prevailing mentality of the church and its uncanny addiction to centripetal ministries, which attempts to drag seekers into its gig. Jesus wasn’t centripetal but centrifugal. The emergent church is simply attempting to model its life after Jesus.
Salvation
The Church of Christ emergent leans toward a “process model of conversion” with less emphasis on dating a conversion event and more thought given to the different stages of the process as milestone events or rites of passage. Synthesizing the value of both event and process is consider a more balanced and biblical view.
With this said, it is important to point out that the emergent Church of Christ continues to celebrate milestone events (baptism, etc.) in the spiritual life of the individual. But events are rooted in their proper context. Without the process, the event would be meaningless.
Belong Before Believe
The traditional Church of Christ attempted to motivate by exclusion. “We’re right, and you’re wrong. If you want to be included, then you need to commit your life to Christ.”
The emerging Church of Christ believes the process model calls for motivation by inclusion; where belonging precedes believing. This approach is more in synch with Jesus’ example. He welcomed and accepted people who did not yet “believe right, think right, speak right, and act right.”
How Are We Organized?
Each congregation is autonomous of every other congregation. The only tie that binds the many congregations is our common alliance to Christ.
Each faith community is pastored locally by a plurality of shepherds selected from among its members. Deacon/ministry leaders are also selected from among the membership.
The pulpit minister is hired by the local congregation to minister and preach the Word of God. Although the emergent Church of Christ states that the pulpit minister is not the pastor, he often serves the congregation in this capacity. The shepherds of a congregation are frequently employed full time in secular work (and not available during the day) so the minister, by default, takes on the role of a shepherd. His day is filled with sermon preparation, lessons, and visiting the sick.
Many emergent churches employee a youth minister and campus minister to oversee youth and campus ministries activities.
How Do We Worship?
Wonder is the basis of the emerging church’s worship.
Public worship could be described as occurring somewhere between the extremes of total passivity and unbridled enthusiasm. The Church of Christ emergent strives to find the balance between intellectualizing emotions and emotionalizing intellect.
The emergent church considers it a mistake to completely divorce its theology from the emotions and experiences of its participants. When a heart is tuned to God and finds itself lost in wonder and awe, emotions and experience become a part of worship. We cannot ignore the normal response and expressions of the human psyche.
Music
Dated spiritual songs, once effective, no longer resonate with 21st century culture. Hymns with archaic words like “smitten,” “vale,” or “pinion” no longer connect with today’s culture and are rarely sung in the emergent Church of Christ.
The days of publicly condemning those who use instruments of music in worship are in the past. Most congregations that align themselves with the emerging Church of Christ see instrumental accompaniment as an acceptable expression of praise to the Lord. Even so, there are vestiges within the emerging movement that perceive instrumental accompaniment to be in conflict with tradition. There are other emergent churches that forgo the use of instrumental accompaniment for the sake of unity. But few, if any, see it as sin.
The Church of Christ emergent believes in the beauty, simplicity, and power of a cappella music and is committed to continuing the tradition. However, it is hesitant to offer it as the only form of musical expression in its attempts to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to our culture in ways, mediums, and forums which our culture relates to and values. It is unrealistic to expect a cappella music to affect, impact, and reach everyone, especially since we live in a culture so conditioned with an appreciation for instrumental accompaniment. Music, a cappella and instrumental, is powerful and has a point of leverage upon the human spirit. In the years to come both forms of musical expression will co-exist among the emergent Church of Christ.
Influential congregations who have made some of the changes are the Farmer's Branch Church of Christ in Dallas; the Oak Hills Church—Max Lucado's congregation in San Antonio, Texas; Northwest Church of Christ—Milton Jones' congregation in Seattle, Washington; the Southlake Boulevard Church in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas and the Amarillo South Church in Amarillo, Texas. Five are cited but many others are moving in the same direction.````
I am getting frustrated with people who go through and decapitalize every instance of "Church/es of Christ." This bizarre "church of Christ" capitalization is POV and contrary to standard English grammar. In addition, only a small number of churches continue to follow this strange conceit. Why should Wikipedia and the rules of English grammar change for the small minority of a relatively small church? Danlovejoy 03:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I have submitted an RFC to reach a consensus once and for all on this issue. I feel like I need it to have the moral authority to rv anonymous editors who go through and change a few instances to lower-case. If consensus goes against me, that's fine too. Let's just be consistent! Danlovejoy 21:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you fully - it does seem like sophistry not to capitalize. john k 21:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Lower case "c" churches of Christ is a theological statement about the nature of the church. It is done for the same reason the "He", "Him", et cetera are capitalized in ref to God. It is also the reason that "God" is capitalized. That is not "His" (sic) name. YHWH is the appropriate way to address God but simply capitalizing a "G" implies the meaning YHWH. Since the churches of Christ existing in a society of religious pluralism and denominationalism, the proper name for this particular group of believers is the "Church of Christ." From the theological perspective of this group, there is only one Christian Church and they are it; therefore, the members belong to Christ's generic church. In ref to Jdb1972's comment: Usage of "churches of Christ" in the Bible is a description, not a name. That is true in the theological sense. By in the descriptive and encyclopedic sense it is the proper name of a group of believers in YHWH: the Church(es) of Christ.
Another example to just drive the point home, the Roman Catholic Church regards itself as the only "Church." While not doubting that salvation can be achieve by believing in Jesus Christ outside of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church does not recognize any "churches" other than those in communion with them. Other groups that have a Christian heritage outside the Catholic Church at least doctrinally are called "eccelsial groups" (I hope I spelled that correctly). Calling this article the "churches of Christ" would be equal to me changing all articles on Protestant and Restorationist churches to "eccelsial groups": the Evangelican Lutheran Eccelsial Group of America. I would be asserting a POV that only one group holds. In a wiki sense, NPOV really is the issue here. I personally write the "c" in lower case in personal writings, because I understand most of the sentiment around it. Most of my family is COC, so I have dealt with this issue my entire life. I hope I have been able to contribute postively to the RfC. Psy guy (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC) |
I generally agree with most of you: since a group (whether "denominational" or not) is being named, the name, when referring to that group, must be capitalized. Mentioning the controversy would be fine, too.
However, it is possible that a group could use irregular orthography and spell its name with lower case. If this is the case with the group being described in this article, then the article should be "church of Christ (affiliation)" or something of the sort, with the lowercase-title note explaining technical restrictions as well as an explanation. -- Alan McBeth 21:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the capital C in the case of this organization is correct. Because there is an organization called "Church of Christ", the capital letter is warranted. The controversy over capitalization appears to be more of a political (i.e., PR) one, as if this particular organization were "a" church of Christ, and therefore "the" church of Christ. The modifier in the organization, however is not "church", as in "this is Christ's church", because there is no such thing. To have been such a thing, one would have had to prove a direct unbroken organizational lineage from Christ to the present day, which can't be done without Catholicization. The modifier is "Christ", as in "This is a church, and this church is of Christ." Hence the capitalization. Still 18:45, 28 October 2005 (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'm thinking of paring the recent addition down to a sentence or two. Something like, "Some of the more progressive churches identify with the emerging church movement." Given the EC movement has its own page and this reads more like advertising material rather than a NPOV article, I'd think it's more than justified. Seems to me this and the addition of the EC blogs and links is more like astroturfing than useful reference material. Am I mistaken? Jdb1972 21:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe this dramatic expansion of the wikipedia entry for Church of Christ is both biased and innaccurate. It certainly doesn't take a clinical tone, and is riddled with opinions that may or may not reflect the reality of the church.
Just a single example: discussion on musical instrumentation. Frankly the whole thing bears no resemblance to any church of Christ I've attended, but much resemblance to a couple baptist congregations and a community church I've been to with friends (despite our disagreements and occasional lively conversations, heh).
This addition, in summary, seems highly suspect and extremely liberal (scripturally speaking) and doesn't reflect at all the church I'm familiar with. 12.217.48.171 22:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Gathering Conversation within the Restoration Churches Since the 1960's, sociologists have noted that our culture has been transitioning into what has been labeled “postmodernism.” Authors, scholars, artists, architects, and many others who challenged the existing traditional worldviews, assumptions, and beliefs, introduced postmodernism.
In its essence, postmodernism has fundamentally changed the way our culture thinks and acts. While absolute truth, morals, and spiritual framework used to be an assumption, now they are often negated and even laughed at. Our society has radically shifted away from foundational elements and values that Christianity would hold as key assumptions and beliefs.
Although the entire world has experienced this shift, the generations that have been most affected were born after 1964. They are natives to this new world that is based upon postmodern thought and analysis.
Many churches have chosen to fight against current culture, but a growing number of leaders within the restoration churches have decided to be relevant; believing there is a new, emerging mindset that needs someone to take them into account. It is without question that many aspects of postmodernism are contrary to the Christian faith. Yet, paradoxically this cultural shift has created a greater awareness of this emerging generations need for God. It is the conviction of the emergent Church of Christ that God has provided us with a great moment in history.
The modern age (15th century – late 1980s) was an era characterized by science, progress, and pragmatism. Throughout modernity’s hundreds of years, this systematic structure of thought evolved and, in time, became fully developed. Insipidly, the western world became dependent upon the gods of reason and science. Western authors, scientist, scholars, professors, and artists firmly entrenched themselves in the belief that one could apply logic, look to the sciences, work hard, and in time society would solve its problems and discover truth. The result would be a better world with fewer problems. Although this outlook has provided "progress," it has also alienated the church from society.
Interestingly, there is increased spiritual hunger in our culture---but paradoxically church attendance is down. This cultural shift demands that we “step-up” and claim this moment for Christ. No more, no less. The Amish decided not to live their moment in history and today they remain frozen in the 1800s.
Evolution of the Conversation
Recognizing there are many divisions within the Church of Christ the intent of this section is not to speak to every nuance and teaching within the emergent conversation but alternatively to capture the essence and spirit of a remnant within the restoration movement that has been charmed by grace.
Rallying around the early pioneer’s banner of Christian unity, the a cappella and instrumental churches began to meet and talk once again. But soon thereafter legalism showed its confusion with the principles of biblical unity by insisting on unanimity. The emerging movement refused to bow to the demands of legalism and began distancing itself from the polarizing doctrines of the right branch of the Church of Christ.
This new emerging was soon infused with the early movement’s passion. Their common center was built upon the grace and unity of Jesus Christ. They understood that inferences from scripture may be true doctrine but because each Christian is at a different level in understanding and maturity individual conclusions and hermeneutics were not made tests of fellowship.
With the dawn of a new century the Church of Christ now finds itself on the “edge” of a moment like no other—the end of one age and the beginning of another. Yesterday’s maps are already outdated, and today’s soon will be, too. The uncharted world ahead of us is what we will call “the new world on the other side”: the other side of two world wars and one cold war, the other side of communism, the other side of the second millennium, the other side of 9/11, and the other side of modernism.
During the last fifty years old-world technology has intensified cultural pressures and unleashed tremor after tremor, each far more significant than could have been imagined. These technological tremors have helped bring to an end the old world that created them. Think of the automobile and its effects on the environment, the economy, the family unit, and even courtship and sexuality. Think of radio, air travel, birth-control pills, antibiotics, and the cathode ray tube, and we’re barely past the mid-century mark. Then came the tidal wave of social change set in motion during the sixties. Is it any wonder old maps don’t fit the new world!
The Church of Christ emergent sees present and future theology as creative pursuit and passionate inquiry, like the best art and the best science. Psychology, sociology, the new physics, history, comparative religion, and spirituality—not to mention postmodernism in general—all are calling for creative Christians to unfold new paradigms to use in new world explorations. The old systems are tired, used up, and worn out, but the thirst for God is as strong as ever.
For these reasons the emerging Church of Christ is interested in speaking in a “heart language” the new world understands; to initiate and create environments that encourage Christians to become creative thinkers, pursuers of truth, explorers, and learners, rather than old world memorizers, repeaters, and defenders of old formulations.
Who’s In Charge?
The question that has been on most radar screens for the last quarter of a century is an important one. Is Christian unity built on doctrinal conformity or our allegiance to Jesus Christ? The emerging Church of Christ has found that biblical unity can be maintained through Christ, even in the midst of the most diverse groups. It encourages Christians, as the restoration pioneers did, to freely approach and explore the scriptures for themselves. The emergent church’s oneness plea is not a unity of sentiment but oneness with a diversity of opinions.
The love and commitment to one another is an indispensable that stands above the dogma of conformity. Biblical unity is not an expendable ingredient to be disposed of when there is diversity in understanding and interpretation. The eternal truth is that the early Christians were united well before the Scriptures were completed. Doctrinal conformity has never been the basis for unity. Jesus is the basis of for unity. He is the rally pole for the emergent Church of Christ.
Evangelism
Individually each of us has been called to love and serve the people God has placed in our day-to-day life. Yet God has called his people to collectively incarnate their culture. The emergent Church of Christ is attempting to innovatively infiltrate its communities by architecting “safe places,” spiritual conversation zones that potentially become “church” for the people Jesus misses most.
Safe places stand as a corrective to the prevailing mentality of the church and its uncanny addiction to centripetal ministries, which attempts to drag seekers into its gig. Jesus wasn’t centripetal but centrifugal. The emergent church is simply attempting to model its life after Jesus.
Salvation
The Church of Christ emergent leans toward a “process model of conversion” with less emphasis on dating a conversion event and more thought given to the different stages of the process as milestone events or rites of passage. Synthesizing the value of both event and process is consider a more balanced and biblical view.
With this said, it is important to point out that the emergent Church of Christ continues to celebrate milestone events (baptism, etc.) in the spiritual life of the individual. But events are rooted in their proper context. Without the process, the event would be meaningless.
Belong Before Believe
The traditional Church of Christ attempted to motivate by exclusion. “We’re right, and you’re wrong. If you want to be included, then you need to commit your life to Christ.”
The emerging Church of Christ believes the process model calls for motivation by inclusion; where belonging precedes believing. This approach is more in synch with Jesus’ example. He welcomed and accepted people who did not yet “believe right, think right, speak right, and act right.”
How Are We Organized?
Each congregation is autonomous of every other congregation. The only tie that binds the many congregations is our common alliance to Christ.
Each faith community is pastored locally by a plurality of shepherds selected from among its members. Deacon/ministry leaders are also selected from among the membership.
The pulpit minister is hired by the local congregation to minister and preach the Word of God. Although the emergent Church of Christ states that the pulpit minister is not the pastor, he often serves the congregation in this capacity. The shepherds of a congregation are frequently employed full time in secular work (and not available during the day) so the minister, by default, takes on the role of a shepherd. His day is filled with sermon preparation, lessons, and visiting the sick.
Many emergent churches employee a youth minister and campus minister to oversee youth and campus ministries activities.
How Do We Worship?
Wonder is the basis of the emerging church’s worship.
Public worship could be described as occurring somewhere between the extremes of total passivity and unbridled enthusiasm. The Church of Christ emergent strives to find the balance between intellectualizing emotions and emotionalizing intellect.
The emergent church considers it a mistake to completely divorce its theology from the emotions and experiences of its participants. When a heart is tuned to God and finds itself lost in wonder and awe, emotions and experience become a part of worship. We cannot ignore the normal response and expressions of the human psyche.
Music
Dated spiritual songs, once effective, no longer resonate with 21st century culture. Hymns with archaic words like “smitten,” “vale,” or “pinion” no longer connect with today’s culture and are rarely sung in the emergent Church of Christ.
The days of publicly condemning those who use instruments of music in worship are in the past. Most congregations that align themselves with the emerging Church of Christ see instrumental accompaniment as an acceptable expression of praise to the Lord. Even so, there are vestiges within the emerging movement that perceive instrumental accompaniment to be in conflict with tradition. There are other emergent churches that forgo the use of instrumental accompaniment for the sake of unity. But few, if any, see it as sin.
The Church of Christ emergent believes in the beauty, simplicity, and power of a cappella music and is committed to continuing the tradition. However, it is hesitant to offer it as the only form of musical expression in its attempts to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to our culture in ways, mediums, and forums which our culture relates to and values. It is unrealistic to expect a cappella music to affect, impact, and reach everyone, especially since we live in a culture so conditioned with an appreciation for instrumental accompaniment. Music, a cappella and instrumental, is powerful and has a point of leverage upon the human spirit. In the years to come both forms of musical expression will co-exist among the emergent Church of Christ.
Influential congregations who have made some of the changes are the Farmer's Branch Church of Christ in Dallas; the Oak Hills Church—Max Lucado's congregation in San Antonio, Texas; Northwest Church of Christ—Milton Jones' congregation in Seattle, Washington; the Southlake Boulevard Church in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas and the Amarillo South Church in Amarillo, Texas. Five are cited but many others are moving in the same direction.````
I am getting frustrated with people who go through and decapitalize every instance of "Church/es of Christ." This bizarre "church of Christ" capitalization is POV and contrary to standard English grammar. In addition, only a small number of churches continue to follow this strange conceit. Why should Wikipedia and the rules of English grammar change for the small minority of a relatively small church? Danlovejoy 03:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I have submitted an RFC to reach a consensus once and for all on this issue. I feel like I need it to have the moral authority to rv anonymous editors who go through and change a few instances to lower-case. If consensus goes against me, that's fine too. Let's just be consistent! Danlovejoy 21:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you fully - it does seem like sophistry not to capitalize. john k 21:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Lower case "c" churches of Christ is a theological statement about the nature of the church. It is done for the same reason the "He", "Him", et cetera are capitalized in ref to God. It is also the reason that "God" is capitalized. That is not "His" (sic) name. YHWH is the appropriate way to address God but simply capitalizing a "G" implies the meaning YHWH. Since the churches of Christ existing in a society of religious pluralism and denominationalism, the proper name for this particular group of believers is the "Church of Christ." From the theological perspective of this group, there is only one Christian Church and they are it; therefore, the members belong to Christ's generic church. In ref to Jdb1972's comment: Usage of "churches of Christ" in the Bible is a description, not a name. That is true in the theological sense. By in the descriptive and encyclopedic sense it is the proper name of a group of believers in YHWH: the Church(es) of Christ.
Another example to just drive the point home, the Roman Catholic Church regards itself as the only "Church." While not doubting that salvation can be achieve by believing in Jesus Christ outside of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church does not recognize any "churches" other than those in communion with them. Other groups that have a Christian heritage outside the Catholic Church at least doctrinally are called "eccelsial groups" (I hope I spelled that correctly). Calling this article the "churches of Christ" would be equal to me changing all articles on Protestant and Restorationist churches to "eccelsial groups": the Evangelican Lutheran Eccelsial Group of America. I would be asserting a POV that only one group holds. In a wiki sense, NPOV really is the issue here. I personally write the "c" in lower case in personal writings, because I understand most of the sentiment around it. Most of my family is COC, so I have dealt with this issue my entire life. I hope I have been able to contribute postively to the RfC. Psy guy (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC) |
I generally agree with most of you: since a group (whether "denominational" or not) is being named, the name, when referring to that group, must be capitalized. Mentioning the controversy would be fine, too.
However, it is possible that a group could use irregular orthography and spell its name with lower case. If this is the case with the group being described in this article, then the article should be "church of Christ (affiliation)" or something of the sort, with the lowercase-title note explaining technical restrictions as well as an explanation. -- Alan McBeth 21:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the capital C in the case of this organization is correct. Because there is an organization called "Church of Christ", the capital letter is warranted. The controversy over capitalization appears to be more of a political (i.e., PR) one, as if this particular organization were "a" church of Christ, and therefore "the" church of Christ. The modifier in the organization, however is not "church", as in "this is Christ's church", because there is no such thing. To have been such a thing, one would have had to prove a direct unbroken organizational lineage from Christ to the present day, which can't be done without Catholicization. The modifier is "Christ", as in "This is a church, and this church is of Christ." Hence the capitalization. Still 18:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)