Talk:The churches of Christ (non-institutional)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Link Added 2 Ministers 3 Clean up 4 Added Paragraphs 5 C versus c 6 Redlinks 6.1 List of linked articles that haven't been created yet 6.1.1 Biographical 6.1.2 Publications 6.1.3 Other 7 Capitalization 8 "Sound" congregations? 9 Mainline, Mainstream, or Institutional? 10 Definite article beginning this article's name

[edit] Link Added

I added a link today to a site that redemptively reviews the teachings of the non-institutional Churches of Christ. It seems to me that objectivity would demand that a link to views critical of the group be included with the article. Ahnog 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use four tildes to sign your posts here, Jack.

Thanks for the hint. I'm new and didn't know about this feature. Ahnog 16:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't agree that an opposing views article is warranted. However, the consensus on the main churches of Christ page presently allows such (don't agree with that, either, for reasons that have been discussed there), so consistency would dictate following that policy. Jdb1972 13:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your reluctance to allow opposing viewpoints. It would seem that balance would demand that both sides be heard. Especially since the other side is really only represented in this case by a simple link. This is especially true since the link includes written debates advocating both viewpoints. Nevertheless, I respect your decision to abide by the current viewpoint that allows the links. Ahnog 16:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My observation is that almost no other religious bodies' entries have critical links on their page. With one exception (that being Catholicism, which has a page all its own for criticism and has responses in kind), those that do appear to be the result of uncorrected... well, not vandalism, per se, but sneaking a link in at the end. I feel that such controversies belong in Wikiepedia in a historical context (i.e., most of this article) rather than in a campaign based one (i.e., most sites). But, as I said, the consensus was otherwise. Jdb1972 17:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was the link removed and who removed it? I have reinserted it. Please do not remove the link as we have discussed the issue and decided it is proper to include it. If you wish to further that discussion then fine--we can discuss it again, but stealth editing is the not the proper way to address the issue.Ahnog 03:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you check the history, you'll see someone at IP 24.253.82.42 (Los Vegas per Geobytes; registered to Cox Communications) removed it. FYI, anonymous edits of these pages aren't uncommon, and anonymous editors usually don't come on the talk page. Jdb1972 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still learning to use the system. I tried to find the change on the history page but couldn't. Thanks for the help. God bless! Ahnog 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The link is rather offensive and is highly unnecessary for a page simply describing the beliefs. It is better to have it off and only add it if there is agreement about its benefit. Furthermore, since you left the non-institutional churches of Christ, Jack, your participation on this forum is rather suspect and questionable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deusvitae (talk • contribs) 2006-05-31 21:48:32 (UTC)

"Rather offensive"?! It may be incorrect, but it's certainly not offensive. I don't know how I feel about the inclusion of contralinks, but as it's already been established elsewhere that they're acceptable, we can't just eliminate them because we disagree. I'm readding it. SFT | Talk 04:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ministers

Its leading source for ministers and other "church professionals" is Florida College.

  What is meant by "other "church professionals""?  Also, many of the members would be uncomfortable with the
  term "minister" and would use "preacher" or "evangalist" instead...

  It may also be that Florida College is not so much the "source" - it may be that many of the people who end up as preachers 
  attend FC because that's where a large percentage of college age members go to college.  A great many preachers never attended 
  there - and in many congregations, elders look suspiciously at FC trained preachers.

  Perhaps it would be better to say:

Many of its preachers are trained at Florida College - but since there are no formal degree requirements for the job of an evangelist, they are trained in a variety of ways.

This comment is on point and it was right to put it into the article.

Should it be mentioned in the article that perhaps a higher proportion of "NI" congregations lack elders than in the mainstream, and that it some instances this has less to do with size than a very high belief in and literal interpretaion of the Timothy/Titus standards laid out via Paul?

Rlquall 22:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I tried to clean up some of the grammar a bit and clarified a few points. As part of this, I removed a sentence or two on controversy over Florida College (there's enough conflicts there for a whole separate paragraph or even article, and probably belongs on the FC page).

I also removed the sentence fragment on located preachers; while there may be some who flatly object, they are few and far between (I've never met one). It seemed to be referring to Leroy Garrett, Charles Holt and their disciples circa the late 1950s and early 1960s; it's fair to say that the descendants of that movement(s?) aren't associated with NI churches. Indeed, Holt even went so far as to deny there was such a thing as a local church, while Garrett remained with the institutional wing and eventually wound up on the far left there. And you could argue that the located preacher dispute even predates the institutional split, as well.

jdb1972 13:35, 17 Aug 2005

I think I've finally figured out the confusion, based on the Restoration Movement article. It appears there's some conflation of the one-cup/no-classes branch with the NI branch. This is not an uncommon POV from the institutional side, but it's not one reflected in either history (the split over one-cup/no-classes occured some decades before the split over institutions) or association (there's no more association between OC/NC churches and NI ones than there is across the institutional divide; less, in fact, because there have at least been a couple of meetings about reconciliation, though none in recent years). Jdb1972 13:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added Paragraphs

I added a paragraph outlining beliefs the NI group holds in common with other Church of Christ groups. I also added three paragraphs about an ongoing discussion over individually supported institutions that is taking place among the ni churches.

I removed the common views paragraph because it was redundant. There's a sentence in the intro to that section that notes NI churches generally subscribe to the more conservative POVs of churches of Christ. In addition, I've found that the "HS operates and indwells only through the written word" view to be far from universal.

The link is there and I guess that is enough. I just thought a brief overview of the primary positions would be a good thing, but I will yield to your judgment on this one. You are correct that the HS view is in decline at the moment, but it is still very common. Ahnog 16:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the paragraphs on the role of the Internet as overcoming "suppression" (i.e., by the GOT). First, it's a very arguable judgment call; there's not much of a perceptible trend I can see. Second, the idea of it being "suppression" is POV. A POV that's not entirely without merit, IMO, but a POV never the less. Jdb1972 13:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your judgment but yield to it. Ahnog 16:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C versus c

I wonder why should we be bound to the small "c" usage in Church when it is used as a name? It seems to me we should yield to proper grammer instead of the group's usage. Comments? Ahnog 16:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There was an RfC on the main page that decided to use the upper-case C. No one's ever revised this page for it. Lower traffic, fewer active editors (one), and an almost certain edit war to break out at some point. Also, would require trying to rename the main article title, which I'm not even sure is possible. I haven't been inclined to making such a wide-ranging change, probably in no small part because I don't agree with it. :) But, if someone wants to do it, they can go ahead. Jdb1972 16:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Maybe the best policy is that we agree that each will use his personal view on this when adding material but no one will go back and correct this either way on another's work? Also, if you are the sole editor then I will certainly be glad to help assist in the editing from this point on. Ahnog 17:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do to be an editor is edit. :)

Myself, I'd personally prefer consistency one way or the other on the "c/C" (looks better that way), but I'm not likely to invest any significant time in it one way or the other. Jdb1972 17:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I had some time today so I went ahead and brought this boards use of "C" into conformity with the other Church of Christ entries and our discussion here. I also changed a couple of references where the mainline group was referred to as the "institutional" group to "mainline." While the primary differences between these two groups is insitutionalism I think it is unfair to characterize the mainline group as the institutional group since institutionalism is not their main focus. God bless. Ahnog 13:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it looks like you did a mass replace, and so you have capital Cs where they don't belong (i.e., everywhere the word "church" is used rather than simply where the "Church(es) of Christ" are).

I also disagree with a few of the uses of "mainline," since it seems to add confusion rather than clarify is spots. I suppose you could argue "mainline" is also a POV issue, even though it was already in the article in places before. It also seems an uncommon (and dated) term to me. It does seem preferable to "mainstream" which could be confusing since prior to the 1950s churches that gave money to institutions were in a tiny minority. I'll have to think about that one. Is there a description that fits better and is more NPOV than "institutional" or "pro-institutional"? Jdb1972 12:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

On the "C" Issue: Maybe I'm a little confused on correct usage myself then. I tried to only replace the "c" when it was directly a reference to Churches of Christ. When it was just a general reference to a church then I think it is correct to use the small c. I will go back through and try and make it consistent. Ahnog 13:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

On the "mainline" Issue: I will put some thought into a proper term. Can't think of one right now though. Ahnog 13:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks

The fleshed-out history is really great, but for those of you who have gone to so much trouble to add it, I would ask that you really start to write articles about the redlinked personalities and publications; we don't need the article to be so full of them long-term. I'm convinced that many of them are in fact encyclopedic and could make really great articles; I can hardly believe that there's still not one on the GA, but I suppose that is at least as much my fault as anyone's. I would say that anyone who isn't at least fairly widely-known, either on the NI or pro-institutional side, should probably be de-linked; if some one comes forward with an article on them later, it wouldn't be hard to re-establish the link. Rlquall 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I did my bit and created an article for B. C. Goodpasture, and present the following summary list for your contributing and article-improving pleasure. Alan Canon 08:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of linked articles that haven't been created yet

Last updated May 20, 2006 by Alan Canon 08:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC) (please update this list as needed.)

Note: it may be better to create the articles under the full names of the following, with the abbreviated names represented as REDIRECTs.

[edit] Biographical

• Robert M. Alexander
• Royce P. Bell
• G. C. Brewer
• Roy Cogdill
• Edward Fudge
• N. B. Hardeman
• David Edwin Harrell
• Carl Ketcherside
• Reuel Lemmons
• W. W. Otey
• G. H. P. Showalter
• F. B. Srygley
• Fanning Yater Tant
• J. D. Tant
• Foy E. Wallace
• Joe Warlick

[edit] Publications

• Christianity Magazine
• Gospel Anchor
• Guardian of Truth
• Herald of Truth

[edit] Other

• Mental divorce
• Sponsoring church

[edit] Capitalization

I think that it's a quibble and a waste of time to put lots of effort into "Church of Christ" vs. "church of Christ"; "Churches of Christ" vs. "churches of Christ", etc. I think the former conforms with Wikipedia style and general usage; the latter with our real intent as a group, although I never really heard much about it until the last two decades. However, I might write "my congregation" or "my church" and use them with interchangeable meanings as meaning the local body; I would never write someone about activities there and refer to it as "my Church" anymore than I would "my Congregation". This usage is not correct in our context and needs to be avoided, even though I probably have erroneously used it here at times in the past. Think about how wrong the sentence, "I have been chosen to address your Congregation on the 17th," looks in print, and this answers it. Let's don't get hung up on the larger body as Church of Christ vs. church of Christ, but all try to agree that "the local Church" is simply wrong. Rlquall 22:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that "the local Church" (not a reference to a specific local group) is wrong, but would it be wrong, when speaking of the Church of Christ or the Baptist Church specifically to speak of "the Church"? As I understand the rules this would be a proper use. Ahnog 23:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking a quick look around other Wikipedia religious articles, it appears sometimes it is capitalized. However, those seem to be near-exclusively Catholic and referring to the overall body, not a local congregation. For Protestant groups, the lower case "c" seems to be preferred (see the Presbyterian article, for example). Jdb1972 12:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Sound" congregations?

In my limited time in the church, Church, and churches (never Churches) of Christ, I've noticed that NI churches tend to refer to each other as "sound congregations." Is this widespread enough to warrant a mention, or is it just an Arkansan thing? :) SFT | Talk 08:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually, "sound" is more restrictive than "non-institutional." It may mean a church that adopts a certain position on marriage/divorce/remarriage, for example. Tends to be something of a relative term. Jdb1972 01:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainline, Mainstream, or Institutional?

I noticed there was a partial change of some references (not all) from "mainline" to "mainstream" with the note "'mainstream' is preferable as mainline decribes a grouping of Protestant churches." While this is partially true (and one reason I disagreed with some previous changes, see above), I'd note that "mainstream" is likewise used of those same denominations (go Google "mainstream Protestant" and you'll return around 72K results). Leafing through Harrell's and Hughes' books this weekend, I noted both terms were used interchangeably of institutional churches as well.

There's then the question of who the "mainstream" is. I doubt there's really such a thing in churches of Christ, given their inherent fractious nature, and who it is usually depends on who you're talking to. Ask someone associated with Wineskins who the mainstream is and you'll get one answer, another from someone siding with Firm Foundation, another with someone affiliated with GOT, another for FC, and so on. It seems to me to be a POV question, even one with some common use, with the potential for confusion and endless anonymous edits from people who disagree even if it wasn't. Indeed, I believe the reason "mainline" gets used so often is because of the connotation of "mainstream."

My proposal is to simply refer to such churches as "institutional" for the purposes of this article. This seems to be the only designation that's utterly non-judgmental and it highlights what the differences are between the "mainstream" and "NI" churches (as well as giving better parallelism). That is, after all, the whole point of the disagreement.

Comments? Thoughts? Jdb1972 01:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess if we must. My problem with it is that those Churches are not really focused on institutionalism. It is a minor side point to them, and calling them that seems to cast them in the mold the non-institutionals want them cast in and thus makes it a POV kind of thing with a sprinkle of prejudice thrown in. Ahnog 14:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The faction we're referring to in the article had as its unifying principle the defense of church-funded institutions (indeed, once the NIs were successfully exiled, that unity dissolved almost instantly into the debate we see today among them), just as the other faction rallied around denial of the same. I can't see how stating that fact is POV or prejudicial. As I said, it's the whole reason for the division in the first place. Jdb1972 17:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definite article beginning this article's name

As per this Manual of Style page, this article's name doesn't fit Wikipedia naming conventions. I would just change it, but I'm loath to do anything that capitalizes that C. But I don't think this article is one of the exceptions referred to on the MoS page. What do y'all think? SFT | Talk 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)