Talk:Churches of Christ (non-institutional)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ministers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I disagree with your judgment but yield to it.  Ahnog 16:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Paragraphs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Sound" congregations? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mainline, Mainstream, or Institutional? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definite article beginning this article's name  

message: How about this instead of what we've got now: "The label "non-institutional" refers to a distinct fellowship within the Churches of Christ who believe that there is no scriptural basis for the funding of church or para-church organizations (such as colleges and  orphans' homes) by congregations."  (I do these small changes mainly to clarify the now-vague word "support," which I understand, but most would not.  Also, it is my understanding that the term "local" would not be needed here.)  Sentence two could be this:  "This distinct interpretation of the New Testament contends that there is no authority, neither in the form of a first-century pattern nor in an explicit command, for churches' support of such institutions."  (This clarifies the difference by bringing the phrase "distinct interpretation" to the front of the sentence, while downplaying the "anti" stereotype implied in the combative phrase, "They reject this practice because . . ."  It also removes the archaic word "therein," and finally, it suggests a biblical hermeneutic out of which this group has developed.)  What do you think, guy who watches this page like a hawk? Josh a brewer 01:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though not the referenced 'hawk-like watcher', I generally agree with the first sentence change suggestion, though "funding" doesn't capture the full meaning of 'support'. The issue is over support/influence by congregations as opposed to individuals, as I understand it. I'd alter the suggested second sentence's beginning to "The associated distinct interpretation...." and use 'either/or' rather than 'neither/nor' since the preceding "no authority" already conveys the negative. —Adavidb 09:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "financial support," which attempts to capture both meanings?  You second sentence would be the following(?): "The associated distinct interpretation of the New Testament contends that there is no authority (either in the form of first-century pattern or in an explicit command) for churches' support of such institutions."  Changing the clause to a parenthetical statement carries the negation through better, but that might just be me.  Thanks for your suggestions. Josh a brewer 05:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: We've got a discrepancy between the opening paragraph (120K members) and the closing one (130-145K). Can I recommend we readjust the opening paragraph to read 120-145K with all three sources and move the number of churches there, while removing the final paragraph? Jdb1972 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of members 

message: I just removed the category listing "Religious organizations founded in 1960's". Since these congregations are adamantly autonomous, I can't see a justification for any category "Religious organizations founded in ####. Individual congregations can be put in that category, as they usually have a definite founding date.  jonathon (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It's false for a number of reasons. There are more than a few NI congregations that date back to the 1800s. In addition, the vast majority of division by institutionals from NIs occurred during the 1950s. Just another anonymous drive-by. Jdb1972 (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Religious organizations founded in #### 

message: I don't think the disagreement that some members have with Truth Magazine warrants a mention (let alone a subsection) in the history of the church of Christ. The text reads a little passive-aggressive, as well. Can anyone give a good reason for keeping it in? 192.158.61.141 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, if no one objects by 8 AM EST 4/15, I'm planning on deleting that subsection and also the transition paragraph following. 192.158.61.139 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth Magazine 

message: I thought this article was very well written and informative. My only suggestion/complaint would be that not much is said about the positive beliefs of the non-institutional groups. This article defines what the church of Christ is by pointing out all that it doesn't believe, focused mainly on the subject of the treasury. I totally agree with the position of the NI groups as far as how money is spent. However, shouldn't more be said about what we "do" believe, not just what we "don't" believe.
For the casual wikipedia searcher - is this really all that we want said about what the NI church of Christ is and believes. It's part of a split over money-issues.
If someone who had recently visited a church of Christ used a google search or searched wikipedia to get an idea of what they had visited - is this all that we would want said?
 
All I'm saying is - you might consider adding more to the section about common beliefs - other than just what we do and do not believe about how money can be spent, and what we divided over. Is that really how we want to define ourselves?
 
I would think something along the lines of belief in who Christ is, the resurrection, and perhaps even other authority issues (instrumental music, acts of worship, silence of Scripture,etc).
 
I fully admit that those things might not be the point of this listing - but I would certainly hope that NI churches of Christ are about a lot more than just what is written on this page - how to spend/use the Lord's money!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobchaney (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: I noticed that there currently is no image at the beginning of this article. Is everyone okay with me placing this one?  —The Sackinator (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image At the Beginning of the Article. 

message: @Ha2772a made an edit categorizing the churches of Christ as Protestant, which I have reverted. While sources exist that categorize them as Protestant, the churches of Christ themselves do not identify as such. To reach a compromise, I propose we discuss the different views in a manner consistent with a neutral point of view, leaving the orientation of "Restoration Movement" without the "Protestant" classification. Is this a reasonable solution? The Sackinator (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifying the Churches of Christ as Protestant