Talk:Churches of Christ (non-institutional)

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusvitae (talk • contribs) 2006-05-31 21:48:32

"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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.)[reply]

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

Biographical

Publications

Other

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Being a "sound" congregation is referred more often that you think in "NI" circles. It is used in terms of referring to those congregations who are not institutional. Being that they do not support orphans' homes, nor have fellowship halls, ect. It all goes back to trying as much as possible to be pure (sound)in doctrine and practice. A reference to 2 Tim. 4:3. --208.3.12.18 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

G. C. Brewer

This statement is hearsay, not fact, and it is potentially libelous: "Brewer was further reported to have said at the 1938 Abilene Christian College Lectures that any church without ACC in its budget had the wrong preacher." Furthermore, the basically accurate statements about Brewer that already appear do the work that this quote does. Ergo, this sentence should be removed.

This discussion has already taken place over at Foy Wallace's article. Josh a brewer 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was removed from Wallace's page because Wallace's page is about Wallace, not Brewer. Here, it belongs. It was the leading factor for an uproar over Brewer's remarks and the later disavowals by the various college heads. Thus, it should stay.

Your rationale for why it should be removed changes every time you bring it up, and you have yet to say if you're related to GC Brewer or not. This leads me to believe your issues with it have to do with the substance of the statement rather than the veracity. By all means, if Brewer or his defenders denied saying such, add the source for that as well. If you have access to papers from the time, by all means, look it up to see if the statement is accurate.

Barring that, it appears to me you're simply trying to bind your opinion and bias on the article. In addition, the article is rendered nearly nonsensical as you've editted it; it jumps from 1933 to the 1938 disavowals without any mention of what they were disavowing, while retaining links to the original sources you (wrongly) feel are "libelous."

I'll give a couple of days for further input from others before restoring the passage, however, in the interest of preventing an edit war. I may also delay reversion in order to acquire the Otey biography mentioned as the original source, but I haven't yet decided if it's worth spending $15 just for this article. Especially given that you've reacted to every counter to your points by changing your reasoning, but never your conclusion. Jdb1972 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to cite Brewer's own words from a transcript of that speech or from the Gospel Advocate. Otherwise, you attribute words to him that do not even appear in quotation marks in the documents that you now cite. That's shoddy. No one is questioning Brewer's stance, which seems clear enough. What is in question is the oral heritage of the statement as it now stands. Cite Brewer's actual words in a text.

"Brewer" is, as far as I can tell, a common name, yet it is even more common among the Churches of Christ. I am not related to G. C. Brewer, nor am I a member of the CofC. This is a matter of fact and citation. Cite facts, if you have them, and the sentence can stand as it is. Josh a brewer 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I go to Otey's 1964 biography and it says what the article says, is that sufficient for you? Requiring me to acquire 70 year old documents to appease you is, of course, out of the question, though I invite you to do so if you feel that strongly. Or as a compromise, what about a brief quote about Brewer's comments from the bio? Jdb1972 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book Contending for the Faith (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1941) reprints Brewer's Gospel Advocate articles (pages 199-238), and in 1947 Brewer reprinted three of the articles as a 32-page pamphlet, "Congregations and Colleges." These would be places to find Brewer's own statements. If the Otey biography cites Brewer's own words on this matter, then it would serve as a reliable source, yet it could (for all I know) simply summarize received opinion and other folklore. Biographers aren't necessarily good scholars, and they have been known to have a POV, too. Josh a brewer 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's threshold is merely whether it is attributable to a reliable published source (see Wikipedia:Attribution), not primary sources only. Otey's bio will certainly suffice for that. I'm also amenable to including any quotes from the 1938 ACU Lecture that triggered the controversy if you'd like to acquire them. If this compromise isn't good enough, I suggest we move to mediation, either formal or informal. Jdb1972 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Otey's bio is a published source. Whether or not it is reliable remains to be seen. Because Otey clearly disagrees with Brewer, citing him would be like citing a Jimmy Carter bio of Ronald Reagan. As for the contents of the lecture in question, the burden of proof rests on anyone claiming that Brewer obliquely threatened preachers who did not advocate church funding for ACU. Clearly HE advocated such funding, but it has not been shown that he said that churches should remove preachers who contend otherwise. Find what you can from Otey and others. The truth is out there. I maintain here, as I have elsewhere, that this "Institutional Controversy" warrants its own page. Josh a brewer 19:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to point out that user Josh a brewer has asked me to bring an unbiased eye into this conversation. I am not a meatpuppet. My goal is not to side with anyone. I only want to provide input on the manner in which certain information should be presented.

Some questions that need to be answered:

Was the phrase actually spoken? What was the context?
Does the quote in question add substantial benefit the article?
Will a reader have more of an understanding of The churches of Christ (non-institutional) if the quote is included?

- Charleca 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Charleca. These are some good questions. The second question raises the possibility that that particular statement might not be needed at all, which I clearly support. Yet each person could answer this question differently.

Another compromise might be to quote Otey directly: "According to Otey, Brewer's position on churches supporting colleges . . . " (Or something to that effect.) It seems to me that an interpretation from a published secondary source would be admissible. I am, however, trying to direct this away from hearsay and he said/she said history. As I've said above, Otey critiques Brewer on this point, so his words should be treated with some skepticism . . . or at least very carefully. Josh a brewer 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the phrase was actually spoken is largely irrelevant to the article (and establishing veracity is not the Wikipedia standard). The better question is "Was it believed to have been said and did it spark the reaction and denials mentioned in the next paragraph?" So far, sources indicate yes, but it's entirely possible there are others that deny this. I welcome the introduction of such sources; however, I have yet to see any interest by other parties in finding them, only in trying to get me to find them.

Does it benefit the article? Certainly. Read the section as it's now been rendered. How do you explain the 1938 denials without the 1938 speech?

Will a reader understand NI churches better with the quote? Again, certainly. The division began in animosity, continued in it, and culminated in it (on both sides). Whitewashing the beginnings of the institutional movement serves no useful purpose.

Re: the charge of "scapegoating" G.C. Brewer that Josh_a_brewer levelled on your talk page, it is false. That Brewer was one of the first strident voices to push for church support of colleges is a matter of record. However, he had died by the time the division actually occurred. The leading figures in the division were Goodpasture and Wallace. I believe the article conveys this.

Consulting the biography of Otey should settle this, barring any additional sources being produced. I'll purchase it at my own expense the next time I make an Amazon order. Jdb1972 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is not irrelevant. A denial does not establish anything. Why should I spend time tracking down a retraction or defense of a statement that probably wasn't made? G. C. Brewer promoted what most people in the Churches of Christ believed then and now: churches, Christians, and educational institutions benefit each other and should do so as much as possible. G. C. Brewer's position is clear. The reactionary position is just as clear. There is no reason to impugn the man for words he may or may not have said. This does not benefit the article. As it stands now, the article reads like a bunch of people over reacted to common ecclesiastical practices, and that's pretty accurate. I'll admit the statement about churches having the wrong preacher if ACU was not in their budget only if it can be shown to be true. Jdb1972 should just let this one sentence go. No one questions G. C. Brewer's role as catalyst. That is all the "early rumblings" section needs to do.Josh a brewer 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I won't bother spending my money to resolve this, since Josh's above post makes it clear even unanimous evidence won't convince him, he has no intention of researching and documenting his assertions, and he has no intention of abiding by Wikipedia's standards. Time to go to mediation (my preference)? Or do we have to skip it and go straight to arbitration? Jdb1972 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put the evidence on the table. We are debating the inclusion of this sentence in The churches of Christ (non-institutional) article: "Brewer was further reported to have said at the 1938 Abilene Christian College Lectures that any church without ACC in its budget had the wrong preacher." As I understand it, JDB1972 is citing an article by H.E. Phillips, which in turn paraphrases Otey's book, Contender for the Faith. Here is the context of the source:

Phillips writes, "From W. W. Otey, Contender for the Faith, pp. 287-291, the following information was obtained which I believe to be pertinent to my purpose in this article.

On Wednesday night in February, 1938, during the lectureship at Abilene Christian College, G.C. Brewer was asked to make a few remarks to encourage the audience to contribute to the college. Brewer suggested that if all churches in Texas would contribute to the support of the school, such requests from individuals would be unnecessary. Some who were present understood Brewer to say that churches who did not have Abilene Christian College in their budget had the wrong preacher.

Brewer took the position that it was scriptural for churches to support the college. W.W. Otey wrote Brewer a letter about his statement and received a reply dated March 2, 1938 in which he said, "As to my statement at the college, you did not misunderstand me, but you left off a part of the statement that I think should be included. I said that I had argued for the practice of putting the colleges and orphan homes in the congregational budgets, and I would be willing to argue for it again, if argument were necessary . . . " Brewer said he had understood this to have been the practice since Bethany College was founded in 1840."

The only quote by Brewer comes from his own letter. Phillips summarizes or paraphrases Otey's account of the lectureship statements: Brewer said that if churches supported ACC, then individuals would not need to be solicited. Then some people seem to infer or interpret Brewer in a way that does not match with what he has said. Even though Phillips is clearly against Brewer, and so is Otey (on this matter), neither of them endorse the "understanding" of the people who think that Brewer is threatening preachers. Instead, when Brewer is contacted for further comment, he replies that he does indeed support congregational funding of colleges. He does not say anything about replacing preachers who do not share is position.

Let us return to the sentence that sparked this debate: "Brewer was further reported to have said at the 1938 Abilene Christian College Lectures that any church without ACC in its budget had the wrong preacher." Another look at the source proves that Brewer did not say "that any church without ACC in its budget had the wrong preacher" but that some unnamed people interpreted him in this manner. These unnamed people are not good sources.

The only thing that this portion of The churches of Christ (non-institutional) article needs to accomplish is to set up the early divisions over this issue. One the one hand, Brewer supported congregational funding of colleges and orphan homes. On the other hand, some other people clearly rejected this position. We can compromise by letting the article reflect that Brewer was a leader on the institutional side of this debate, which seems clear enough. Indeed, this sentence comes from the long quote above and would serve the purposes of the article nicely: "Brewer took the position that it was scriptural for churches to support the college."Josh a brewer 03:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, mediation or arbitration? Jdb1972 18:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are not willing to posit some neutral language? You are not willing to come to an agreement about new wording? Your way or the highway? There's no position between ours? Okay, fine. Although I'm unfamiliar with these procedures (and I take it you are not), let's move on to mediation. What's required of me? I can't believe you're unwilling to budge on this. How stubborn. Josh a brewer 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I offered a number of compromises (see above) and jumped through all the hoops you put up. The way I see it, you're the one being stubborn by (repeatedly) moving the goalposts and refusing any compromise that would have Brewer possibly proposing the tactic Goodpasture would use a couple of decades later. You're not even willing to research any source yourself, just issuing blanket denials and trying to get me to do your legwork. There are limits to everyone's patience. I see the uproar over the alleged statement as crucial (not to mention the fact that it's foreshadowing of what institutional churches actually did); you can't see any way to include a statement that might (in your opinion) reflect badly on G.C. Brewer. You're assuming bad faith on my part, and it's difficult for me not to do the same given the apparent coincidences between yourself and G.C. Brewer. We're just repeating ourselves at this point, so it's time to break the impasse and move on. Binding mediation gives us the chance to do just that.

You can read up on mediation here. I'll go enter the tedious paperwork later this week. Jdb1972 01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually done reading on this point in a couple of history books, and I've contacted my local Interlibrary Loan and the Abilene Christian University library in order to obtain a copy of G. C. Brewer's lectures. Josh a brewer 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, by all means, produce whatever you find out about the 1938 lectures. I can wait for it. Jdb1972 03:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Abilene Library is mailing a copy of the lecture to me. Even if I'm wrong, at least we'll have an accurate quote. However, if it turns out that G. C. Brewer did not make these statements, I hope we can let the article reflect that. Josh a brewer 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read "Christ Today: Our Mediator and High Priest," G. C. Brewer's address to the Abilene Christian College Lectures (1938), and I can say without reservation that this text has nothing to do with church budgets. The words "college" and "university" and "funding" do not appear here. There is no mention of ACC or its financial standing.

The lecture addresses Christology, not Ecclesiology. This further calls into question the unnamed people who have claimed otherwise. These unnamed people were cited by Otey, who was cited by Phillips, who Jdb1972 cited in this article. Clearly someone remembers incorrectly. There seems to be no way of verifying the truth of these so-called secondary sources in accordance with Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources, because it is not clear that they are based on a primary source or there is serious confusion about what was actually said. If Otey claimed to have heard these words, then we could argue about whether or not his text is a reliable secondary source. However, we are dealing with a tertiary or quaternary source at best. The credulity required to maintain the veracity of these claims is beyond wikipedia's standards to support. Josh a brewer 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're mistaken (and it's partially my fault for not remembering what the original source said). If you read the second GoT link, you'll note that the occasion was not Brewer's lecture, but apparently some remarks he was asked to give to solicit money for Abilene Christian. I had missed this in my most recent scanning of the source.

In the interest of resolving this, though, and since it seems ACU doesn't have a transcript, let's see what we know to be factual. We know Brewer said something about churches funding ACC there, apparently in extemporaneous remarks. We know that this caused controversy. We know that Otey wrote the heads of the various Bible colleges and, with the exception of Harding, all disavowed the legitimacy of church funding. How do we sum this up without watering down what Brewer said?

(BTW, re: your definition of secondary sources, a published biography meets that, despite your obvious prejudice against it.) Jdb1972 00:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, let me grant you this much: ". . . Brewer said something about churches funding ACC there, apparently in extemporaneous remarks. We know that this caused controversy. We know that Otey wrote the heads of the various Bible colleges and, with the exception of Harding, all disavowed the legitimacy of church funding."

I see nothing in your statement above that is wholly inaccurate. I agree that these seem to be "extemporaneous remarks" and that they were more pointed and specific and more controversial than his earlier statements. Therefore, we can include this sentence: "His position was more specific and more controversial by 1938, when (in unscripted statements at the Abilene Christian College Bible Lectures) Brewer supported direct congregational budgetary aid to Abilene Christian College."

I will be placing this sentence into the article, where it fits quite nicely, bridging the gap we'd created. Let me know if you object or wish to edit it further; or you can just go ahead and do it back in the article itself.

This seems like a rational compromise. Josh a brewer 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his position was specific and controversial throughout the 1930s. You could argue that Foy Wallace's was much more nebulous and nuanced until Brewer's 1936 (not 1938) lecture that was basically just an attack on Wallace; Wallace seems to me to have taken positions based as much on who was on which side as anything else.

Maybe something more like "His unscripted remarks in support of church funding for colleges at the 1938 ACC Lectures provoked controversy." It can then segue into Otey's questioning of the various college heads and the disavowals. It's still weak, but if anyone's really that interested, a reference to the Otey bio can give them any specifics they want. Jdb1972 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your current formulation works for me, though I'll double check that soon. You are right that this debate is difficult to separate from the ongoing strife between Brewer and Wallace in that they both seem to be disagreeing with one another and provoking one another instead of forging sound theology. Sometimes the institutional question gets caught up in these cults of personality and lost or blurred amidst rivalry, debate, and incitement. I hope our discussion and compromise has shown that this need no longer be the case. If only Wallace and Brewer had had access to wikipedia! Josh a brewer 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal

Hello guys,

I'm not sure I'm using this correctly as it's my first time trying to edit or discuss anything on Wikipedia. But I wanted to address an appeal to the main editors of this page. I'm a member of the Church of Christ...was raised in the Church actually. My father preached the Gospel in as many places (instituational and non) as he could reach for 18 years before he was called up.

So I grew up witnessing a lot of the discussions related to the sectarianism that often characterizes our brotherhood over kitchens and singing groups and colleges. But today, when I saw it online, displayed so publicly for the world...I cried, really cried, and then I prayed. I prayed for unity among the brotherhood and for your hearts to be touched to move this page into a section on "The Churches of Christ" where it belongs. We are one Church. One body.

Are these disagreements truly so severe that we need to disassociate ourselves even online? Do we truly need to show the seekers out there that even in Christ we can't find peace with one another? In these troubled times, can we not present a unified brotherhood for the world to see? Can we not show that we overcome our differences in order to serve the Lord and further the cause of Christ?

I have travelled and lived all over the world, fellowshipping with the brethren, as I went and the one thing I have found is that only in America do we have the luxury of sectarianism. In the rest of the world, we are a small presence, struggling to make a difference for Christ in markets overwhelmed with sin and indifference. In the rest of the world the congregations have to live together in harmony and resolve our differences using prayer and love. And if we can't, then we at least learn to fight in love...and in private.

To the editors of this page, I ask: Whatever disagreements we may have in-house, does it serve Christ to display them on the internet to 3 billion people?

I'm a marketing communications executive and I can tell you that if our message is one of unity, freedom, and love...it's definitely not being communicated by what we've done in splitting these two pages. I was looking at the Wikipedia site as a possible independent resource to send to friends who are interested in the Church. And now I would not even begin to consider it unless I wanted to see them shut off all interest and look at us as just another organization with internal political struggles.

Wikipedia, as an independent (if not academic or unbiased) source of information, is a powerful influencer. People believe what they see here. Is this really what you want to show them???

Is this really what Christ would have you show them?

My prayer is that you will consider and pray on these things, think of moving this site back to "The Churches of Christ", and do what God moves you to do.

In Him, Princess (Yes, that's my name. I'm not attempting anonymity or having delusions of grandeur :) —The preceding quasi-signed comment was added by 212.159.200.167 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-10T08:46:53.

I think Christ would have us show the facts, and the fact is that non-institutional churches are indeed separate from the mainline churches. Not to mention the fact that the main Churches of Christ article is so unwieldily long already that incorporating this stuff would make it break Wikipedia guidelines.

So let me ask you this: would you want the main Churches of Christ article to be moved into a section under the Christian Church, or even "Christian churches" in general? After all, we are supposed to be one body.

But that's not the way things are, and to integrate two groups disrepsects the more conservative group, who would not have their beliefs tainted by being lumped in with the more liberal group's (if not vice versa --- if history is any indication, a lot of mainliners wouldn't want the "antis" in their article either).

Sorry. Wikipedia guidelines and the facts are both against you here, I think. SFT | Talk 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd about rather cut my right arm off than have the hard work that's gone into this page be subsumed into the mess that is the main page. If anything, that page ought to be split into 3-6 pieces itself.

There have been a few efforts at dialogue throughout the years, but those inevitably wind up with the institutional side being unwilling to give up "the issues" and the NI side being unable to accept that position. Until such a time as that changes, as 75th Trombone said, the separation is a fact.

It's also important to keep in mind this isn't a "brotherhood" site. It's meant to be encyclopedic in nature. The division being a fact, it's important to report and deal with. Jdb1972 03:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Number of members

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)[reply]

Category: Religious organizations founded in ####

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Name

I know that the group is commonly called "non-institutional". Is there another term that could be used, that does not have the same "push down" quality? (I know I'm oversensitive to the "non-" part of the name. ) jonathon (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the independent COC off-shoot from the Disciples of Christ is included in the Infobox as a distinct "Instrumental" COC fellowship, with the majority COC group referred to as "A Cappella". I question any widespread reference to these groups in this way. Are there reliable source citations? —ADavidB 12:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you requesting a citation that covers the theological differences between the A Capella and Instrumental groups, or are you requesting a citation that those terms are used, or are you requesting a citation that demonstrates that those groups exist? Douglas Allen Foster and Anthony L. Dunnavant, The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Churches of Christ Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004 ISBN-10: 0802838987 ISBN-13: 978-0802838988. probably satisfies those three questions. jonathon (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, I seek reliable source citations for exclusive application of the term "a cappella" to the majority Churches of Christ, given that most of the other fellowships listed here also practice a cappella worship. The Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ are a noted exception, and I question their inclusion among these COC fellowships. Since the probable source is apparently not available for general web searches, could you provide page numbers and quotations that support this (general) use of "a cappella" and fellowship between COC and ICC? —ADavidB 14:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant International Church of Christ, when you used ICC, Kip's material clearly indicates that it is a formal separation,rather than a fellowship within the A Capella branch. I'm pretty sure I can find sources from both the A Capella and non-institutional branches that treat it as a clear separation. (Do I also need to go in to the difference in theology between those two groups?) If, OTOH, you meant the independent Christian Church/church of Christ, the issue is slightly more complex. The 1906 split was mainly, but not exclusively about the use of an instrument. The 1968 split was about congregational autonomy, and, to a lesser extent, institutionalization. Theologically, the only major disagreement between the A Capella branch and the instrumental branch, is when a musical instrument can be used.jonathon (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the non-institutional branch, the defining difference is that it rejects institutionalization. Being A Capella is usually a side effect of that rejection, not a fundamental/defining part of it. For the various "distinct" fellowships within the group, the defining datapoint the specific theology, for example church of Christ (Wine), church of Christ (Foot Washing), or church of Christ (One Handle).jonathon (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this article is about the Non-Institutional branch, and as such, the A Capella branch is a distinct fellowship.jonathon (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean the International Churches of Christ. There remains no reliable source citation, which is what I requested, to support identifying the main group of Churches of Christ as "A cappella" in contrast with non-institutional and other distinct fellowships, or inclusion of the Independent Christian Church/church of Christ as a fellowship with Churches of Christ. —ADavidB 09:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all gets a bit confusing. There are multiple sources for saying that most churches of Christ (specifically, those "churches of Christ" with their historical roots in the restoration movement and that were on the "churches of Christ" side of the 1906 split of the movement) do not use instrumental music in worship. Most of the distinct fellowships within these churches of Christ (such as the non-institutional and one-cup) are on the conservative end of the spectrum, and do not use instrumental music in worship.

The Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ are not a subgroup within the Churches of Christ. They were on the other side of the 1906 split, and do use instrumental music in worship (the use of instrumental music in worship was one of the issues precipitating the split). On the other hand, they were on the conservative end of the spectrum on the "instrumental" side of the 1906 split (the other side of that spectrum were the congregations now part of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)). Other than in the use of musical instruments, the Independent Christian Churches are very, very similar to most mainline churches of Christ (I think we can source that, too).

One of the problems here is that if everyone uses the name "church of Christ," but you want to describe a subgroup that has a particular doctrinal position or distinct practice, you're almost forced to append some short-hand moniker for that doctrine or practice to the name - hence "church of Christ (non-instrumental)," or "church of Christ (mutual edification)." Does that help at all? EastTN (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is not part of the Churches of Christ, the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ link should be removed from the "distinct fellowships" portion of the Infobox. Also, since "a cappella" does not uniquely distinguish the main group of churches from others, we need to use a different name for its link in the Infobox. "Mainline" has been rejected due to its connotations elsewhere; would a simpler "main" name work for this purpose? —ADavidB 09:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ link should go. "Main" works for me, but it might be offensive to non-institutional readers. "Institutional" is not a term that mainstream churches of Christ typically use to describe themselves, but it is the term that non-institutional churches perhaps most often use to describe the broader fellowship. I don't think most mainstream churches of Christ would object to the term, though they might not recognize it. But in the particular context of this article, it might make sense, because it does speak to key distinction here (e.g., "this article discusses "non-institutional" churches of Christ, which . . . "Institutional" churches of Christ . . ."). What do you think? More generally, I like the term "mainstream" because the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement uses it to describe the three-quarters of the congregations that share a general agreement on doctrine and practice - which seems to me to be a pretty neutral way of defining it. But that usage might be seen as POV by many of the readers interested in this article. EastTN (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with using "Institutional" though before I made my first contribution to this section, my use of "Institutional" was undone with an edit summary of "Nobody calls them CoC(Institutional)". [1] Before the fellowships portion was removed from the same Infobox on the Churches of Christ article, my suggestion on its talk page to use either "mainstream or "mainline" was rejected with a statement that it means something else in other contexts. [2] —ADavidB 20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's tough to find ways of describing these groups that everyone will agree with (and if you do find one, I'll definitely support you on it). For myself, I'm happy with either "institutional," "mainstream" or "mainline". It does seem to me that the term "institutional" makes the most sense when used in this article, because the meaning should be pretty clear in this context. I'm not sure it would make as much sense if it were used in another article. EastTN (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I've had a Church of Christ (Non-Institutional) minister claim that they were institutional, I'm not sure anybody knows what Church of Christ (Institutional) means. [I'll grant that that that congregation might not be non-institutional, but how many institutional churches have an A Capella service on Sunday Morning, with no Sunday School classes? More pointedly, no other church functions during the week,were held at the church building. This was a building they owned free and clear.]jonathon (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the word "mainstream", is that implies something closer to Disciples theology, than to A Capella theology,whilst "mainline" implies something akin to United Church of Christ theology. Whilst both Disciples of Christ, and United Church of Christ have Restoration Movement roots, I think that the separations demonstrate a theological discongruence.jonathon (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do others have more suggestions of acceptable one- or two-word summary names for the main group of Church of Christ congregations (to identify them from others in this article's Infobox)? The names "A cappella", "institutional", "mainline", and "mainstream" have been rejected for reasons stated above. A shortened "main" is currently being used; without significant objection, perhaps it can stand. —ADavidB 11:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no alternatives provided for the suffix name of this article. "Non-institutional" seems to be the de facto standard, and a source is provided for it. —ADavidB 11:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One solution might be to simply take the "distinct fellowships" section out of the info box - that's what we did in Churches of Christ. There were only two links - one to that article and one to this one, and they were already available elsewhere.

I do think we can defend the use of the term "mainstream" by pointing to the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell movement. It seems to be as reliable a source as we can find in this area, and it included editors from all of the main branches of the Restoration Movement. It basically defines "mainstream" as nothing more than the largest group within the churches of Christ. I think most of the other histories use either "mainstream" or "mainline" in much the same sense. That seems fairly neutral to me.

A related question we may want to ask ourselves is what the Churches of Christ article covers: 1) just the "mainline/mainstream/institutional/a capella/whatever" group, or 2) the larger brotherhood? For now, I've been treating it as if we're going for #2. My thought is that it should cover the broad history of the fellowship as a whole and describe in at least summary form the primary subgroups, but in describing doctrine and practice generally focus on what the largest number of congregations do and teach. If we do that, we wouldn't need a separate "mainline" article, but we would need separate articles for the most significant subgroups (e.g., "non-institutional"). Does that sound reasonable? EastTN (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with removal of the fellowships section of the Infobox; it seems to introduce concern more than impart useful information. While the different groups exist, arriving at an agreed-upon name for some of them can be problematic. If removed, the complete named reference in that section of the Infobox should be expanded at its other usage in the lead section.

I lean toward having the Churches of Christ article cover the overall brotherhood, and agree with your thoughts and reasons as to why that would be best. Of course, such discussion and consensus should ultimately be made within that article's talk page. —ADavidB 12:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Magazine

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Content

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)[reply]

Image At the Beginning of the Article.

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)[reply]

Classifying the Churches of Christ as Protestant

@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)[reply]