Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 4

message: I placed the policy on a page of its own and added a link from the main article. Dunno how much good it'll do, but it's there. I like the flow Jdb1972 20:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you put it in comment brackets, , then potential editors will see it, but it won't be seen by regular readers. You would lose the link ability, but still a preferable approach in my opinion.  JonHarder 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Observation: this needs to be moved from article space, probably to article talk space.  In other words, rather than being Church of Christ/Link Policy, it should be Talk:Church of Christ/Link policy. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy posted

message: Seems that Leesw  has been adding and re-adding a link to Gracecenter.com.  Based on Leesw's edits and choice of username, it is reasonable to assume that the user is Lee Wilson, employee of FamilyDynamics.net, a sponsor of Gracecentered.com.  What's the consensus on this?  It looks like self promotion in my book.  --Ichabod 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gracecentered.com

message: * Based on the recent discussion, I added a paragraph to try to explain the use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative."  I tried to accurately reflect usage, while still indicating that there are a lot of caveats with these terms.  I consider this to be a patch offered to ragged garment that needs to be replaced, though; the article, I mean.  I still think we need some kind of a rewrite as I described above.  I'm not sure yet how I feel about splitting into separate articles; I think the clear path on what to do about this is going to appear murky to us but may be clearer by the time our children are editing Wikipedia.
* I agree heartlight.org doesn't much belong any more.  At one time it was a very popular site for members of the church, and every mailing list I was on (circa 1997) saw it mentioned often.  Therefore I have previously left it alone.  But I don't think it has ever said much about doctrine, so it's not really a helpful link for an encyclopedia article.  I presume that its presence here probably represents someone's long ago attempt to drive attention to the site, i.e., link spam.  And we all know how I feel about link spam. :)  I've removed it.  (Always open to discussion if someone wants to.)
* I was one click away from removing the VBS paragraph.  I've expressed a feeling that it doesn't belong, so has the recent anonymous commenter, and so has Dan.  It really doesn't belong in a list of things that make the church of Christ "distinctive," i.e., different from other churches the average Wikipedia reader might encounter.  VBS's are a dime a dozen (although nowadays I think they cost a lot more than a dime, especially at the non-Churches of Christ around).  But they are a significant part of the "culture" or "tradition" or "heritage" of the church of Christ, and so I could not bring myself to remove the paragraph (yet) because, while I feel that it does not really belong in that section, I still feel that it might somehow belong in the article.  I think it would certainly fit better in the rewrite I envision.  Perhaps we need a new section in the present article for "church of Christ culture" or something like that (horrible title, but that general idea).  Or maybe a section mentioning various significant efforts that have been made at outreach, such as VBS's and "joy busses."  Always better to rework material than to remove.
* I haven't made any real effort to respond to the recent comments by the anonymous commenter here, as I didn't feel like he really understood that our point here, as Wikipedians, is to produce a good encyclopedia article about the churches of Christ.  In some ways he is just as wrong as some of the fly-by-night conservative editors who come by and remove sentences they don't like indicating that some churches have a more lax attitude toward divorce and remarriage, or whatever doctrine bothers them.  (Did I mention I still get a kick and a grin out of the people who've removed the comments about conscientious objection? :) )  There may be some value in his comments for our purposes here, but he didn't seem to have the right focus and so I felt a lot of what he said tended to be extraneous or orthogonal.  I got much more value out of Dan's responses to him, which distilled things back to the issue of writing an honest encyclopedia article to reflect reality rather than one side's idealistic view.  Certainly more work needs to be done to accurately reflect the changing church.  And certainly we want Wikipedia to be open for all contributions anyone wants to make.  But I think in this case the best work is going to be done by regular, solid Wikipedia editors who understand what we want as an encyclopedia and have been around awhile participating in the community editing effort here.  Our recent anon, like many of the conservative editors I've mentioned, has made a total of two edits.
* Setting aside the issue of writing a good encyclopedia for a minute, let me just say that I'm impressed with Dan for his statements recognizing that reality doesn't always match up to the viewpoint of academia. :)  There are a lot of people in the world on many issues, and certainly a lot of people in the church on these specific issues, who have trouble even recognizing that there are people who disagree with them.
* I have seen some articles start a complete rewrite on a subpage, like Church of Christ/temp.  We could start something like that, but I really, really want to be involved and I feel like I've got too many wiki-projects right now to contribute the way I want.
Feel free to jump into that list above and respond point by point if you need.  :* Prefixed to your line will make an indented bullet. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope to respond more tomorrow with some of the responses to my objections to the article. I didn't mean to be anyomous in my last comment. I am Travis Stanley. I did my undergrad at Lipscomb University, have an MDIV from ACU and am currently working on an MA in History at Theology at ACU. I am new to Wikipedia, as you point out, but am not knew to Churches of Christ or to their history. I have had much experience in congregations across the spectrum, and am currently immersed in Stone-Campbell History. I hope my suggestions were not taken to suggest that the article create a bias in the "liberal" or "progressive" direction. I just want balance. We are a diverse tradition, as I said many times above, and this article currently does not reflect that diversity. It may be the opinion of some that only a few people hold to the things I mention, but I would beg to differ. I will talk more about this later. I have a dinner date to make. --Travs814 23:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes and recent discussion 

message: I noticed that at some point the Rebaptism section was changed to be factually inaccurate, probably by an overzealous, "ahistorical" conservative.  For those who know or want to know:  The history of the Churches of Christ and the Restoration Movement is very clear that the original position of our movement, including David Lipscomb, every one before him, and his Gospel Advocate, was that it was not necessary to rebaptize Baptists, and most anyone who had voluntary immersion to "obey the Gospel."  Many statements can be read where preachers went to various cities and stated, "1500 joined us from the Baptists, and 750 by baptism."  Some opponent of this older belief of our movement must have assumed that his opinion was in fact the original and changed the Wikipedia article.  In fact, it was Austin McGary who was the original "digressive" (tongue in cheek irony) who created the contrary position through his Firm Foundation to oppose the original Church of Christ position of Lipscomb, Campbell, Stone, Scott, etc.  (Yes, I know this is a sarcastic POV statement, but this will stick to the talk page.)
So I (or someone) will correct the Rebaptism section... however, I do not know if the Gospel Advocate has a current position, nor some of the 20th century history to know if it has changed its position.  Foy Wallace was editor of both the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation at different times, so it is possible that GA could have changed positions multiple times.  I do know that the Firm Foundation's position was the more common one in Texas in the 20th Century, and Lipscomb's remained more common in Tennessee, but I don't have a more general perception of the whole movement. Carltonh 00:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the opinions of Campbell, Lipscomb, Stone or other early thinkers automatically determine what a "biblical conservative" congregation thinks?  In point of fact they do not, or at least, no neccessarily. But more importantly is the issue of "do so-called conservative congregations view rebaptism as necessary if the earlier baptism was not done with an understanding that it was for the remission of sins?"  The ones I have had exposure to believe an understanding of why is required (including for the "remission of sins" and to "receive the gift of the holy spirit" and to obey what they perceive is god's command in the matter).  I know this isn't a place for doctrinal debate, but for what constitutes the churches of christ today, and I believe it is more or less accurate as it stands, other than the mistake regarding GA's original viewpoint (which needs correction).JSM2005 23:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is a complete rewrite really necessary, or is simply pointing out that some prominent figures including Campbell and Lipscomb held this position sufficient?  Or even adding a bit of historical detail about the controversy itself?  It's been my experience that there are some (many?) today who take the opposite extreme, that even baptism for the remission of sins isn't valid if they don't understand "the nondenominational nature of the New Testament church."  Is the no-rebaptism view that prevelant in institutional churches today?  Jdb1972 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've never heard that one had to have understanding of the nondenominational nature of the NT church to have an effective baptism.  I'm not necessarily surprised at that, but I think the mainstream opinion is that all that is required is an understanding of what the Bible says about baptism itself (to fulfill all righteousness, into Christ, for the remission of sins, and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit).  The other matters such as the nature of His church are important but not intrinsic to baptism.  I will agree though that the no-rebaptism view is the distinct minority view; the rest is just a matter of degrees.  12.217.48.171 20:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I see the rebaptism section was revised.  The revision is fine, although I think it places too great an importance on what Lipscomb and other early thinkers concluded.  It's using someone elses POV to support a position, or reads that way.  It's valid to point out their beliefs, and that others disagreed, and that the matter is still debated.  It's the tone of POV that troubles me slightly.  To resolve this I would change "The Gospel Advocate publishing house out of Tennessee, as well as its founder David Lipscomb and all the Church of Christ and Restoration Movement leaders before him ..." to read "The Gospel Advocate publishing house out of Tennessee and its founder David Lipscomb, and Restoration Movement leaders before him..."  This states the fact without the evident, though probably inadvertant, bias in tone, and without presuming it applied to "all" early churches and leaders. My apologies if this isn't presented very clearly here. JSM2005 19:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see how the phrase "all RM leaders before him" might sound POV.  If you can show a single counterexample, I'll agree 100%.  However, if it is not just a POV, but a historically accurate statement, then it is an extremely important one because it shows us when the belief first started.  Find any evidence prior to 1880, and I'll agree that my statement was based on incomplete research, no matter how obscure the RM leader before McGary you find. Carltonh 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fairly easy: John Thomas, 1837. His influence is why we have Campbell's opinions on rebaptism in writing in the first place. I also clarified the "rebaptism" debate definition in the main article; from my readings, I don't see that it's over the "exact point of salvation" at all, but over the motive for why one does it: to be saved, or because he's already saved. One group maintains the motive irrelevant (within limits), the other finds it key. Jdb1972 20:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebaptism 

message: I did some editing on the disfellowship paragraph. It would be helpful if someone would add what this means in practical terms, i.e. is the person not allowed to hold church offices, barred from church property, tarred and feathered ...  JonHarder 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disfellowship 

message: I am removing the following paragraph as being entirely POV:
:Although highly exclusive from the standpoint of rejecting other forms of spirituality and religion, the Church of Christ's decentralized structure means that, sociologically speaking, it may more properly be characterized as a sect than as either a denomination or a cult.
What concerns me most is the statement "it may more properly be characterized as [anything]."  I don't think such statements ordinarily have a place on Wikipedia.  Far better to explain the varying points of view.  I don't think Wikipedia can ever take a position on whether a group is a cult or what.
So I'm removing this because it attempts to definitively state the religion is a sect, because it attempts to definitively state that it is not a denomination, and because it attempts to definitively state that it is not a cult.  This is really somebody's original research. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sect 

message: Do we want these links?
*Memphis School of Preaching
*Tri-Cities School of Preaching and Christian Development
What shall be our criteria for including schools of preaching?  Why should we include, for example, Memphis School of Preaching but not Bear Valley School of Preaching, Brown Trail School of Preaching, or Sunset International Bible Institute? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I lean against their inclusion, there are a lot of schools and I don't really know what benefit it would add to the page. If there were an article on Church of Christ schools of preaching that talked about each school and how they were different etc that would be useful, but just a straight link log of them, to me, isn't. - cohesion★talk 19:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My preference would be for a separate article as well. But, of course, I'm too busy/lazy to actually do it... ;) Jdb1972 15:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link review 

message: This edit  was done to add back the sentence on history which was removed for some reason. Also to add "may" back. While most conservative churches do feel this way this is not the sole criterion for saying a church is conservative. - cohesiont 19:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit explanation 

message: This comment was left in the article; I've moved it here. FreplySpang (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by anonymous editor 

message: :Last updated: May 13, 2006
Here is a list of all the links to articles that don't exist yet, which identify subjects that might be considered encyclopedic from a Wikipedia point of view, and which would, if created, likely enhance the Church of Christ article:
*William Kay Moser
*Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand
*Fellowship of Churches of Christ
Alan Canon 18:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also several on the NI churches page that could use some help, as well. I keep promising myself to stub out the articles, and things keep coming up and getting in my way. Jdb1972 13:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linked Articles that Don't Exist Yet

message: Why is this "encyclopedia" entry so full of division?  Has anyone considered championing UNITY...the things we have in common?  If I were reading this explanation of this "restoration movement" church you describe I'd say - so what, they are just one more group with one more unusual idea coming out of the 1800s. Get with it brothers! Champion our similarities so that outsiders may see the Good News and be encouraged to look into the Lord's Church further! I'd just as soon join the tooth-pulling church as to join one as divided as the Lord's Church sounds here. I'm not saying to whitewash, I'm just saying that you are missing the most important point...mysterious general doctinual UNITY exists in the brotherood although we are AUTONOMOUS. 
Furthermore, don't try to be "politically correct." Our Lord didn't worry about "political correctness." Be factually correct and tell people about the Lord's Church, the Bride of Christ, as the beautiful creation it is. I appreciate being a member of the Church and want the WORLD to know that we ARE different from the WORLD for the RIGHT reasons.(and no, I am not a new convert...I was baptized into Christ on November 9, 1983 at 9:30pm). Is a discussion of the Restoration Movement of any value to the non-Christian looking for an answer in Wikipedia to what the Church of Christ is all about?  No.  It is completely unnecessary, confusing and in my opinion a slap in the face to Christ who truly originated Church. I am certain that it will be unnecessary for my children to even know the name of Alexander Campbell or Barton Stone to get to heaven. I am certain, however that they must know that Christ is the Head of the Church and that HE originated it.These men were were JUST men with fallable ideas and I for one identify with the Bible, not Alexander Campbell or any other "founder".I know that most of you you do as well.  Consider these ideas in your rewrites to show the true origins and beauty of the timeless Church.
:(Note, the preceding comment was unsigned, but was made on 02:59, 18 April 2006 by anonymous user 24.99.30.199).
:Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is written by, and intended for, a global audience. Opinions on Wikipedia subjects should be documented as such in accordance with the Neutral Point of View policy. Please see especially the section in the article Wikipedia:Neutral point of view entitled Religion for a specific discussion of the neutral point of view as it relates to religion. Also, you are strongly encouraged (albeit not required) to create a sign-in account and use it when making changes, and to sign your comments with four tilde (~) characters in a row (~~~~) so that users can better identify and respond to your comments. 
:Violations of these policies do not speak well of the person committing the violation, or the perspective or belief systems which motivate such point-of-view edits. Additionally, such edits may be quickly reverted or re-edited by persons who may or may not share your personal viewpoint. Methods to help ensure that your contributions are not quickly reverted or re-edited is to qualify such statements as being statements of opinion or belief, to provide citations verifying that such points of view do exist among advocates of the opinion or belief, and to present countervailing opinions and beliefs (with similar citations.)
:Members of the various branches of the Church of Christ account for less than 0.03% of the world's total population. As a result, assertions of matters of Church of Christ doctrine as being factually and verifiably true are necessarily POV. Please come up to speed on the nature and purpose of Wikipedia before making such sweeping exhortations. Alan Canon 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reformatted this for discussion purposes. IMO, most of the changed sections should be reverted. The leading comment shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia: to be an encyclopedia describing churches of Christ, not a platform for one's own teachings (AKA NPOV). Jdb1972 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. I did a revert to the 24.99.30.199 stuff, but also hand-kept two subsequent edits (to the one I reverted) because they were improvements or not as egregious as the above (see my comment in the above section.) I was a little clumsy, perhaps, so someone might check me. I'll check the User:Aidenj stuff too. (Been away for a week seeing the Yaqui native americans do Easter in their special way in Tucson, a wonderful experience!) Alan Canon 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing the point...please put down the PH.D. and pick up the Bible

message: Edits on 4-17-06 and 4-18-06 by User:Aidenj and User:24.99.30.199 make sweeping changes without prior discussion, which seem to me at least to be biased toward conservative views, removing previous well-balanced presentation of views of which all members of the Church of Christ may not completely agree.  However, I don't want to get into an edit war today.  I will add  to the article.  Anyone care to review this?  (also see the unsigned comments just added to the top of the Talk: page by 24.99.30.199 while I was writing this) Charm ©† 08:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reformatted this for discussion purposes. IMO, most of the changed sections should be reverted. The leading comment shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia: to be an encyclopedia describing churches of Christ, not a platform for one's own teachings (AKA NPOV). Jdb1972 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. I did a revert to the 24.99.30.199 stuff, but also hand-kept two subsequent edits (to the one I reverted) because they were improvements or not as egregious as the above (see my comment in the above section.) I was a little clumsy, perhaps, so someone might check me. I'll check the User:Aidenj stuff too. (Been away for a week seeing the Yaqui native americans do Easter in their special way in Tucson, a wonderful experience!) Alan Canon 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV edits? 

message: I changed all the external scripture references to use Template:bibleverse. I preserved whatever version was referenced in the original article text, so you have NIV and KJV occurring just where they did before. The article looks exactly the same(or should): it just uses a more compact, easier to maintain, and sophisticated mechanism to reference the Bible. Alan Canon 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very cool!  Great find, Alan! -- Lannon 15:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case...that is very cool!  Great find, Allen! And thanks for spiffying up the whole article with it, both of you. -- Lannon 16:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using Template:bibleverse

message: I feel the "self appointed" edit made by Bryant should be removed and the original edit restored.  Among Churches of Christ there is no other kind of representation thus making that point here is in actually representative of Bryant's view that what they did was wrong.  My two cents.  Ahnog 17:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree: good point. The fact that there can be no "official" representation is covered adequately elsewhere. Alan Canon 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree. If I may expand upon my reasoning. There often have been and will continue to be, those who agree to meet and discuss the brotherhood. I'll not question their motives but we know that have no such authority. Maybe the term "self-appointed" rubs some the wrong way. I am fine with finding a different term, but I think to let stand a term that implies there is a representative of the church at large is incorrect. It may be that it is discussed in the article elsewhere but still ought to be clarified here in order to make the text more precise. Ahnog, my view is irrelevant as it should be. It just so happens that this involved ICOC. Other meetings, on both sides of the spectrum have occured and if included here ought be reported the same way. One could go in a slightly different direction and ask if that original statement should be there in the first place. My thoughts. JBEvans 22:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to side with saying something other than "representatives", self-appointed does sound negative, and I would like something else, but even though the fact that they must be self-appointed may be elsewhere in the article, the concept is odd enough that I think it could be confusing for people unfamiliar with how churches of christ operate. Maybe "members", they aren't actually representatives anyway in the normal sense since they would hold no actual position, and were not chosen by any corporate group. I'd be fine with almost any re-write actually, but I think calling them representatives will confuse people regardless of what is in other parts of the article. - cohesion 00:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, in that spirit can we speak of "some members" who met with the ICOC. That removes any suggestion of a perjorative and removes any suggestion of an official delegation. Good thought Cohesion. JBEvans 01:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought we were reaching a consensus here. Alan's term "reconciliation-minded" is at least as bad as my edit, "self-appointed" which I agreed could be changed. The new term suggests others are not reconciliation minded. What was wrong with Cohesions' suggestion about using "members." That way we drop the adjectives and cease trying to color the discussion. I think the point here is to state facts without using a POV. We could avoid alot of work here if we both agree to be simple and very neutral. Thanks. JBEvans 02:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the re-write Alan. I think it sounds much more neutral and is certainly acceptable as far as I am concerned. JBEvans 11:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Self Appointed" Edit