Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 5

message: I removed the following link.  *Christ Justified - Portal for churches of Christ,  articles, links
It is a POV site and not representative in my judgment.  Comments?  Ahnog 13:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy and is intended for informative, rather than didactic or proselyting purposes.  As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I'm not always sure exactly where the line of demarcation is, but I would imagine that Ahnog believed your site was a) intended to promote a specific view of churches of Christ and b) not terribly informative about what the church of Christ is.  Please don't take this harshly--I (and he, for all I know) may very well agree with every word on your site, but truth!=our opinions, right?  Mabus101 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not self promotion.  If your website is significant enough, then a third party should add the link, instead of you, the creator of the site.  I'm sure many of our regular editors to this article (myself included) haven't heard of your site, therefore it really isn't significant.  -Ichabod 13:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link Removed

message: Briefly discussed in "Links", above, but not directly germane to that subject:
It's been a few years, but I encountered a number of books in the Harding U bookstore that attempted to map out different clusters of perspectives among the different congregations.  Unfortunately, at this point I don't remember any titles, but someone who does could link to Amazon listings of those books, or perhaps even include a summary of the classifications (depending on whether that would violate copyright and on whether there is any consistency between them). Mabus101 17:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The flip side of it is the references. A lot of original source material is located on web pages maintained by members of the Churches of Christ, naturally. An article on a contentious subject, as this one is, must be well-referenced and liberal in the use of citations. If I find evidence on the web to support an assertion I make in an edit, I am being irresponsible to the principle of verifiability if I do not indicate from where I draw my material. By the way, you're encouraged to sign your comments with four tilde characters in a row like this: ~~~~ which will automatically sign your comment. Alan Canon 02:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups and Factions 

message: A relatively recent edit added:
Segregationist tendencies still linger in the Church of Christ: one can usually tell a "black" from a "white" Church of Christ as soon as one walks through the door.
This is raw opinion ("as soon as one walks through the door..." and "segregationist tendencies still linger...".  A significant majority of Churches of Christ are not segragationist, by which I mean they are integrated.  Such equality is a point of pride for a large number of congregations.  Also, the only racial designation I am aware of (though I know little about it) are those that choose to call themselves "Black Churches of Christ".  It seems that if the only congregations highlighting race are Black, there is no real segregationist tendency in the context presented in the article.
JSM2005 07:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I clarified and NPOVed the paragraph in question. Jdb1972 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally agreed. There is a difference between congregational membership continuing to reflect historical divisions and separate traditions, and an active maintenance of "separatist tendencies." The historically "Black" congregations do have a different history in terms of which preachers were prominent, what attitudes or doctrines were emphasized, what musical elements were usually present (within the shared a cappella tradition), etc. This doesn't mean either group is actively (or passively!) excluding the other in contemporary times, even though some of the differences may have started during the segregationist era.Lawikitejana 01:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Integration error? 

message: I have a problem with the following section that was recently added:
:Most members of the Church of Christ believe in Young Earth creationism, and that the earth was created with the appearance of age. Apologists such as John N. Clayton advance the theory of intelligent design.
First, I'm not sure there's a way to deduce what "most members" believe on this subject, other than simply deferring to the Bible instead of the assumptions used to justify a young Earth.  And second, Clayton's views are not exactly what most would think of as Intelligent design. I would call his views a combination of ID for basic groups (kinds) and microevolution for changes within those groups .  And third, although the paragraph above doesn't imply it, I need to point out that Clayton certainly doesn't believe in a young Earth .  --Spiffy sperry 04:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about Clayton's views on things, but as far as indicating that most members of the church believe in young earth creationism, I think it's a safe thing to say.  One of the basic beliefs of the churches of Christ is a literal understanding of most of the Bible, including Genesis, which lends itself to young earth creationism.  Likewise, it has been the only doctrine that I've ever experienced being preached in the congregations.  I can't cite a source, but I would like to point out that much of this article is based on widely known facts and not citations.  I think that the above statement is a widely known fact.  Take that for what it's worth. -- Lannon 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to all of the above: well, edit away then! I mainly wanted just to begin the section on creation, it seemed an omission. Sorry what I wrote was so lame, I'm sure it can be improved. Alan Canon 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrine of Creation 

message: I just created the article on Marshall Keeble. Y'all come and help! Alan Canon 07:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marshall Keeble

message: I pushed a bunch of discussion that was 2 months or more old out to archive page 4. I don't believe I got anything currently under discussion. If I've accidentally grabbed something important, feel free to cut and paste it back here. Jdb1972 11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, I was thinking of doing it but didn't know the "protocol." Alan Canon 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: Does anyone think something should be included about the various schools of preaching?  I know Spring Bible Institute, East Tennessee School of Preaching, Memphis School of Preaching and one in Middle Tenn graduate a lot of influental speakers.CJC47 03:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do.  I think that Nashville School at Crieve Hall, Bear Valley in Colorado, Karns in Knoxville, Sunset in Lubbock, and Memphis at a minimum are deserving of mention; certainly there are many others.  The problem, I would say, is that they are hard to categorize, as they aren't really full-fledged accredited institutions of higher learning, aren't seminaries, and aren't secondary schools.  They're probably most similar to vocational schools for the vocation of preaching, but that's not exactly accurate either.  They are not readily explicable to a primarily "outside" audience. Rlquall 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schools of Preaching

message: I've always heard that we should never use ten dollar words when twenty-five cent ones will do nicely.  The sentence, "Many of those related disputes were ramified across schism boundries in polyphylictic fashion," is about as good of an example of "obfuscation by erudition" as I can cite.  I realize that this is about creating a reference work and that it shouldn't be written on a first grade-, or even a fifth grade-level, but this is too much IMO.  Can't we put this in a way that the more-or-less average Wikipedia reader can relate to and understand?  Rlquall 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rlquall, I agree with you, but try as I might I can't eliminate the central point: that because of congregational autonomy, we're barking up the wrong tree if we try to trace the history of schisms in a straight Darwinian "directed graph." Congregational autonomy means that multiple, independently evolving branches of the Churches of Christ might find a new thing to argue about, and then come to the same conclusion, in isolation, while still hating other branches of the movement who happen to agree with them on some particular meme, but who are nevertheless eternally bound to Hell because of some other, unrelated, point of doctrine. Polyphylesis is just the thing, because this term recognises a shortcoming in Darwinian evolution, for example, the eye of the giant squid versus our eye: obviously convergent evolution, but with variations that conclusively prove there was no common ancestor, yet a set of forces which yielded similar solutions in similar situation. Also, being able to wikify a "ten dollar word" lets people link to the complicated concept if they choose. So I want to find a different wording, but I don't want to throw away the concept, because I think it's objectively descriptive..... Alan Canon 09:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ten dollar words" 

message: 4.88.73.184 changed "of other Christian denominations" to "of other denominations of the Church."  This is a POV issue.  From the traditional Church of Christ POV, "the Church" means the Church of Christ (see the Specialized Vocabulary section). "Other Christian denominations" is clear to everyone (even if Church of Christers don't like the word "other" in this context), and is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's usage. So I changed that phrase back. --Danny Reese 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, someone who won't log in has changed the wording to "of other denominations of the church," which still isn't a neutral point of view.  In addition, the rest of the article has used "the church" to refer to the Church of Christ; in this context, "denominations of the church" doesn't make any sense.  I'm well aware also of the CoC POV that it is not a denomination, therefore one should not use the term "other denominations."  So we're trying something different.  The phrase "various Christian denominations" doesn't imply that the CoC is a "denomination," nor that it is the whole "church." --Danny Reese 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Of the Church" 

message: ---As a person who grew up in the Methodist Church and who recently married a "member" of the Church of Christ I was hoping to find a more basic understanding of the differences between my denominational background and the Church of Christ. After reading/trying to interpret some of the discussion on this topic I see why denominations have doctrine. It seems that the argument over "The One Truth" might go on forever. I assumed it would be much simpler to determine what was right or wrong excluding human interpretation and taking directives straight from the Bible itself. I believe I might need to start with a different resource; one that perhaps is written on fifth grade level. Dzgb78 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: I just wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation to all the many and varied contributors of edits to this article. Reading everyone's contributions, and I do mean everyone's has helped me immensely. Alan Canon 05:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks to all fellow contributors

message: Who or what blanked the archives of the past discussions?  They're all "redlinks" now, which is very unfortunate.  Rlquall 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives