Talk:Churches of Christ

GA reassessment

Churches of Christ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist for lack of summary style, outdatedness and prose problems. Note that the lack of images in certain sections is not a GA criterion. Femke (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Churches of Christ may warrant re-assessment for a number of reasons, including number of issues with page structure and layout. This includes: the length of the lead; the volume of imagery (none until section four, and none in the sixth section either); sections starting with pull quotes before the subject is introduced in prose; a degree of overcite, other citation needed, and a number of overly short subsections (also in section six); also some badly out-of-date statistics (at least one 2014 source in the infobox); and a general lack of conciseness - at 135,000kb, the page could merit splitting. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I've hacked the lead down a bit, but yes, the entire thing is bloated and would benefit from trimming. I do not think a split is needed--nor do I immediately see an obvious place to do one. It's not something I've paid attention to in a while, and yes, GA could reasonably be pulled from it as it stands now. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Miracles, healing, disability

Can someone provide research about the Church of Christ position on miracles, healings and disability. My understanding is that the CofC believes the age of miracles stopped with the 12 Apostles. Also of interest are examples of New Testament miracles involving people with disabilities (lame, blindness, withered arm and other "afflictions"), injury (Jesus reattaching an ear), mental illness (casting out demons) raising the dead etc. The Biblical history of using people with disabilities as props in order to prove the legitimacy and power of God. Lastly, why is there no exception to the mandatory "full body immersion" form of baptism required for salvation which is apparently denied to those who physically cannot undergo the procedure (i.e. someone hospitalized, in an iron lung etc) despite meeting every other requirement. Annacannafrannistan (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking doctrinal questions, or is there some part of this that will be used to clarify the article? Regardless, the answers to your two questions are broadly yes, and there is no such thing as a human being who cannot be safely immersed in water with sufficient effort and ingenuity. Mind you, there is no such thing as a central catechism or confession, so the answers to your questions will vary based on who you ask. Jclemens (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

To underscore JClemens point about doctrine not being uniform across all, there are _church of Christ (a capella)_ congregations that practice affusion, when medical issues prevent full immersion. Likewise, congregations proclaim that the age of miracles ceased with the 12 apostles but pray for the sick and infirm to be healed. As a general rule of thumb, congregations that have these practices, keep it within themselves. These aren't theological positions to die on, but are to be practiced when the scriptural basis for the non-conforming practices justifies so doing. p (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism

I have found while interacting with people from this specific sect that many congregations and members would consider themselves to be young earth creationists, and feel that noting this both here and on Young Earth creationism's "Adhering church bodies" section could be useful. I am somewhat at a loss for how to go about properly citing this, assuming that there are resources out there which can back this claim up more concretely, due to the generally decentralized nature of the belief system. Does anyone have tips for finding this kind of information? Jhilden13 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that says this is a defining trait. I don't actually think it is: while there are certainly adherents who are, there are also plenty who are not. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Afro-American congregations within churches of Christ.

Whilst the church of Christ has claimed to have been integrated since the Cane Ridge Revival (^1), the War of Southern Rebellion effectively split it into _church of Christ (White)_ and _church of Christ (Colored)_.(^2) None of the pages on the church of Christ that I've found on Wikipedia even hint at this self-inflicted racial division.

The sources I've read that mention this split were either citing records from the Colored congregations, or were extremely racist.(The KKK looks like a bastion of racial tolerance in comparison to some of the screeds emanating from church of Christ congregations. I felt physically sick, reading the screeds from a congregation in Oklahoma.)

Can somebody add an overview of Afro-American congregations to this page.

^1: Circumstantial evidence implies that _Cane Ridge Meeting House_ had several (current?, former?) slaves serving as deacons and elders. My working assumption is that these slaves were not white.(White slaves in north America were virtually unknown between roughly 1600 and 1950.) Church records indicate that at least one Asian became a member of that congregation, as a result of the Cane Ridge Revival. What is undisputed is that the Cane Ridge Meeting House was the first church of Christ building to completely dismantle the slave gallery, albeit that happened twenty years after the congregation voted to support abolition, and dismantle that which aided slavery.

^2: This war effectively put an end to the practice of The Kiss of Peace within _white_ church of Christ congregations. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the practice lasted at least until WW1 amongst some black congregations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:4482:A0D0:0:0:0:5140 (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We need published and reliable sources to include here. I don't think we can use the twice-mentioned "circumstantial evidence". —ADavidB 15:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that this is worth documenting. Also agreed that we need great sourcing to do so. I believe it likely exists in usable and accessible sources, but I haven't the time to go looking for them. Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

And you've been reverted. What the Churches of Christ think about themselves is not as relevant as what sources say. Everyone else in the world sees Churches of Christ as a protestant denomination emerging from the second great awakening. Church of Christ members unfamiliar with their own history might not, but that's hardly Wikipedia's problem. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not surprised that this is an issue, the Restoration Movement has a particularly difficult time talking about itself (just look at the naming issues). The fact that the Stone-Campbell Encyclopedia specifically states that all three streams, including the CoC, should consider themselves Protestant is conclusive evidence for me and should be for Wikipedia. This Encyclopedia was published under the joint cooperation of all three streams, including a diverse set of authors and an editing team that included one editor from each stream. If it made it into the Encyclopedia, it should be considered authoritative. On a related note, I hope to begin focusing more heavily on the Stone-Campbell articles. I have given some focus to the Disciples page over the past few years (I am a member of that denomination), but have not broadened my scope until recently. Articles about the movement are in a sad state. I've been working on categories recently, and it's been a bit maddening all the problems. I may check in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity about starting a work group or project. It will take a lot of work to get these articles up to quality, especially WP:N on CoC and CCCoC. Ha2772a (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Notability? On which articles? Of all the problems, I wouldn't rank that the highest one. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the lesser minister and member articles that solely relate to the RM or one of the streams are either sorely lacking in content for notable figures or are articles about people that really had nothing of note. Sorry, I should've been clearer. I was in the weeds of the categories so have been seeing the worse offenders Ha2772a (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Generally haven't even gone there, with an occasional exception for someone I know. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Since reliable sources identify the churches of Christ as Protestant, I understand the reasoning for using it in the article. To prevent the label from giving the impression that members of the churches of Christ endorse this label, could we place a footnote on the classification that explains the difference? One of the sources for the classification label explains the difference, but a footnote is a truer mark of clarification than a source. —The Sackinator (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure that the label’s use necessarily implies that adherent congregations/people espouse it, but… I don’t have a problem with a footnote if it is reliably sourced and NPOV. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Could Foster & Dunnavant's source work? It explains that the Protestant label is not universally claimed by actual members, though it argues for labeling them Protestant based on historical connections. (Of course, it's already being used as a source for the classification, but a footnote would more adequately represent the metaphorical asterisk.) Additionally, V. E. Howard's source, citation 16, could also be used. Would either or both of these sources suffice? The Sackinator (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)