Talk:Christian churches and churches of Christ

message: The "Watchman Herald" link has no place on this page.  This paper is published by members of the non-instrumental Churches of Christ; I'm not really sure if it would be considered as "mainstream" even among them.  Please quit just sticking the link onto this page; if you insist on doing so, please at least show the rest of us the courtsey of establishing an account, logging on to this page, and justifying what you are doing to the rest of us so that we can discuss it.
Rlquall 15:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchman Herald 

message: I'd like to change the list of churches to list them by state then country.  The current list is poorly organized at best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckvkkeek (talk • contribs)  14:15, September 22, 2006
:I agree that would be useful.  Census regions don't mean much to most people. --Danny Reese 20:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article, the movement has 5500–6000 different congregations. Should we even have a list of member churches at all? -Branddobbe 06:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like useful information to have, but perhaps not on the main page.  We could create another page called "List of Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ" or something like that, and then reserve the main article for more descriptive info.  Just a thought. --Danny Reese 15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Branddobbe. Entire sections of this article have become an  external link repository which is not really appropriate.  The list is already much longer than the rest of the article and should be removed. -- Satori Son 21:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Satori.  I prefer the first item in the Ext. Link section  over a hodge-podge list of churches.  I've been meaning to see how other denom. deal with this.  Some include a list of dioceses (1) or synods (2), which have no correlation to this article.  Others include a list of megachurches (3) or the largest churches (4).  I wouldn't object to the latter within this article, if there were a good source, or at least splitting the list to a separate article. --Spiffy sperry 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the link to the locater is sufficient. Many of the churches listed are linked to that site anyway. I think it would be worthwhile to link the annual list of Megachurches from The Christian Standard (I added a link to the Standard's web site) Links to the pdf. If that is awkward then we could move that into another page called Christian Church Megachurches and include the text in tere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBobBrown (talk • contribs)  01:29, January 15, 2007
Based upon the emerging consensus here, and Wikipedia guidelines, I have removed the List of Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ section. The current websites included under External links will direct any interested reader to the information, and there are some other options mentioned above which would not overwhelm this article. -- Satori Son 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort by state... 

message: This article states as a fact that "During this time the DoC made several attempts to take over facility and property ownership from many Independent congregations and Independents attempted to take over facility and property ownership from many DoC congregations. In this 45+ years both types of congregations were forced to seek legal representation. Representation was necessary in order to maintain ownership of their property and to prevent eviction and forfeiture of assets."  There are debates about how much this happened.  If there were legal cases they should be referenced; if you make a claim like "many churches" than some survey should be cited.
Atterlep 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churches_of_Christ&oldid=103905843 alludes to these court cases.jonathon (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed for Property Issues 

message: While the Bible would be an appropriate source in an article written by a member of the church to explain the reasons for a doctrine, it isn't the appropriate kind of source to verify that a doctrine is indeed practiced by the independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.  I've removed the Bible verses that were used as sources for specific CoC beliefs, but they'll need to be replaced with sources writing specifically about this group of churches, and I know that many of the most useful of those are in books that I don't have.  If anyone out there can provide better sources, that would be groovy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing the Bible

message: Where did that logo come from? Given the autonomous nature of these congregations, I have major doubts that any of them accept it as a corporate logos for their strain of the CoC. jonathon (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to come from this web site, which doesn't make any claim for it as an official logo of the CoC.  While I appreciate that pictures  = good on Wikipedia, I think the logo is presented as an official logo representing the whole group of churches, and that isn't what it is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: I would suggest that the baptism section needs some rework, as it is at odds with the practice in many of the ICC/CoC churches, who believe in salvation by grace alone, and that baptism is the public expression of the inward change upon acceptance of Christ.  If you look at the statements of faith from many (if not most) of the major ICC/CoC churches, they would be at odds with what is recorded in this article.
Example from the largest ICC/CoC (Louisville Southeast) <http://www.southeastchristian.org/sqa/life.aspx?id=168 here>:
:The act of baptism cannot save an individual. We are saved only through accepting Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Baptism demonstrates the believer's acceptance of Christ and is the point of time when the believer receives assurance of his or her faith.
As it is written, though, I'm not sure you'd get most churches to agree with the characterization put forth.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since only three of the bullet points in the article can't be supported by cites to that website --- but can be supported by cites to other CoC church websites, I'm not sure how they would be at odds with what the article claims. jonathon (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Suggestion: Rewrite the section in the talk page, so it does not say what you think is at odds with the data on that link.jonathon (talk)
This section very much sounds like advocacy cloaked in descriptive language.  The objections raised by "those of a Calvinistic" persuasion and the counterpoints to the objection sound very much like advocacy.  In addition, the use of the "proof texts" lends to the idea of advocacy.  This is a description of the theology of the movement.  This is not supposed to advocate.  Nor are encyclopedia article supposed to be an exhaustive treatment of the rationale for positions.  They need to describe and direct the reader to the right sources for more exhaustive research.  I'll try to clean up the language at a later date.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koine2002 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptism Section 

message: As I've been a member of both Churches of Christ and Christian Churches, I question the statement that "The instrumental Christian Churches and the a cappella Churches of Christ are otherwise fundamentally identical."  There are several differences, probably the most important being that Christian Churches are fundamentalist in character, while the Churches of Christ are not.  I think this sentence should be removed. Dwight911 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fundamentally Identical"

message: The current name of this page, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ seems rather artificial.  I am concerned that it comes across as a proper name, and that it is one that Wikipedia has created.  I propose instead that we move the page to Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, which is more descriptive and seems less like a proper name.  Furthermore, the latter gets 6 or 7 times as many hits in a Google search.  
I am wondering if there is any comment before I go ahead and attempt the move.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It works for me.  Where you might find a rub is that some may consider "Christian Church" to be a generic description of all Christian churches.  I have no problems, though.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: "The Christian churches and churches of Christ are a part of the Restoration Movement ..."
First concern: aren't we talking about proper names which need to be capitalized?
Second concern: no citation
Third concern: Factually incorrect in that "Church of Christ" can refer to more than one denomination and the lede does not distinguish them.
GeoBardSemi-retired 00:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) This grouping of churches has no formal organization, thus it is not a proper name.  2) Which statement do you doubt the truth of?  We can discuss your concerns and add a citation if necessary.  3) The lede does not say "Church of Christ" but "Churches of Christ", which is a common name for a grouping of churches closely related to the subject of this article.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invited to comment, first off, the lede is completely out of compliance.  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Christian churches and churches of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110040322/http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/2000s/vol_42_no_1_contents/kragenbrink.html to http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/2000s/vol_42_no_1_contents/kragenbrink.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified