Talk:Churches of Christ

Archives of past discussions: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

CofC/Christian Church/D.O.C.

The following text was in the article and I removed it: "Churches of Christ and Christian Churches are fundamentally identical, generally have the same doctrinal positions, the difference usually being only in the a cappella and instrumental worship practices. In contrast, the Disciples of Christ denomination has embraced much of the theologically liberal ideas that are found in many Protestant traditions." I can probably agree that in broadly general terms, CoC and Christian church are generally similar, but I think "fundamentally identical" is a little strong. So, two questions: (1) Is there something wrong with the language I removed? (I would say yes) (2) Is this info that should go in the article? (I think there some value to mentioning it, and the D.O.C. language is probably okay, but is the Christian Church comparison I have a problem with.)--Velvet elvis81 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the ex-Church of Christ links? I guess that really wasn't the best title as some of the links were for websites by members of COCs... Because of this COC's (former?) status with the FBI & BATF as a cult, I would think at least addressing this issue (maybe clearing some of it up?) would be key to any complete informative article on the church. However, this page is still an excellent resource of seemingly unbiased COC information. Even having a wiki entry for COC is a brave step forward. Most COCs teach there is no history (or at least anything post 1st century is not important) and there is only one doctrine, so by simply having this entry, that recognizes some opposing views, you are (hopefully) stimulating healthy discussion among those in COCs. Hat's off from a member Gal 4:16 Wyrmwood 05:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing this group with the International Churches of Christ. As far as I know, there have never been any credible cult accusations against the COC. I'm not sure about the FBI & BATF (do you have anything that could be cited to?), but such charges have been leveled against the ICOC.--Velvet elvis81 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable members section

All right, this section is rapidly becoming a maintenance nightmare. Can we ditch it, or at the very least require a citation for each person listed on it? Shouldn't there be a standard for who's notable as well? Jdb1972 19:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already a section devoted to this listing - List of famous people with ties in the Church of Christ. Even so, each and every listing needs a cite. So many of the more famous celebrities' ties are based on hearsay. I say merge with the other list on the Restoration movement list. --Ichabod 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. As I told VelvetElvis above, "the 'see also' link is sufficient for all but the historical CofC leaders." --Spiffy sperry 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, then. Since there's no dissent, it's gone. Jdb1972 12:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It would seem the person(s) using IP addresses 129.252.106.105 and 70.144.12.195 now dissent, though I consider having the list elsewhere with a link to it is quite sufficient. --Adavidb 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone dissents, they shoudl bother discussing it here, not jsut reverting. The list doesn't belong in an article like this, and if there is to be a link to the list, it shoudl be in the normal see also section, not in a section to itself. JPD (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

What was the reason for adding this section? These don't appear to be directly associated with anything said in the article, and I think we all agree that we don't want every possible article about churches of Christ tossed in there. If anything ties directly into something said above, it should be added as a reference; if not, it should be removed. Jdb1972 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Okay! We have a new sectionstub about "The "race problem" in Churches of Christ" please help by expanding it. --TransylvanianKarl 14:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Who an why deleted the sectionstub of "The "race problem" in Churches of Christ"?

And why have to delete this bibliography?:

• The role of social service in the life and growth of the Madison Church of Christ (Tennessee) by Mankin, Jimmie Moore, D.Min., Fuller Theological Seminary, Doctor of Ministry Program, 1987, 183 pages; AAT 8709312
• "Like rats in a trap": Samuel Robert Cassius and the "race problem" in Churches of Christ by Robinson, Edward Jerome, Ph.D., Mississippi State University, 2003, 306 pages; AAT 3091855
• A critique of the absolute-truth claim of Churches of Christ and its impotence to support God's reign by Hunter, Roderick D., D.Min., United Theological Seminary, 2005, 267 pages; AAT 3214857

--TransylvanianKarl 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Substub sections like that are arguably not so good an idea even when the topic clearly deserves a section. In this case, where there is nothing to suggest that the topic should be an important part of an article on this subject, rather than someone's PhD topic (PhDs are usually written on fairly obscure or at least very specific topics), it is not suprising that someone deleted it. As for the bibliography, as said above, there is really no reason to include those items unless they have been used as references for the text of the article. JPD (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Grayghost's issues with the article

Edited Paragraph on the ICOC

Raised in the mainline, and with my wife from the ICOC, we are extensively aware of the Crossroads Movement, in it's entirety through to Kip McKean's departure, etc.

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, must relate the historical facts. The article, as it was, severely underplayed the birth of the Crossroads movement from mainline, and the very very close ties between these two groups. Additionally, no explanation was given to the Restoration Forums being held at Abilene Christian University, and the dialogues.

Therfore, the material has been added, and a reference link for documentation and proof of this historical facts, and the general attempt to increase the "cooperation" of all four groups (Mainline, DOC, ICC, ICOC).

Please do not vandalize this section by removing the facts and data added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grayghost01 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

If you don't want your writings editted, you're at the wrong place. :) Most information on the Intl Churches rightly belongs on a page about them. I've corrected the section on "anti churches," since it's (1) an epithet and (2) inaccurate in this case, since it's not just NI churches that don't have any part in the RFs. Jdb1972 13:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Neutrality of this Article

This Grayghost dude simply does not get it. If you want to challenge the neutrality of something, go challenge the Roman Catholic Church article which is full of lies but does not allow anyone who isn't approved to edit it. Challenge the baptism article that is historically incorrect and erroneous but also doesn't allow edits. Leave the Church of Christ alone unless you have any quality edits. If you want to make the statements you attempt to make here, you best get the info from the official Church of Christ headquarters (which you won't find) rather than one university that is affliated with the Church of Christ (of which does not even currently promote the stuff you dig up from their past). Grayghost01 05:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Above is an example of the vandalism of my coments by the nameless IP User Special:Contributions/129.252.106.116 hacking this article Grayghost01 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Need for citation of sources

This article is rife with soap-box non-encylcopedia material. The purpose of wikipedia articles is to factually capture information about a topic.

Thus, I have added the ICOC, DOC, ICC, Mainline "Restoration Movement" forums and associated discussion, which is a factual account and record of Mainline activities of an important nature.

Additionally, I have included a brief bit of CENI in the hermeneutics section with appropriate references as an EXAMPLE of how more of the material in this article should be treated. Grayghost01 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality problem

99% of the material here is not documented and not sourced. As a subject matter expert on this topic, I can attest to the non-neutral deletions of cited and sourced materials, and facts concerning the Churches of Christ as a topic. Wikipedia is not a place for religious brochures, rather, a place for encyclopedia-like factual and historical coverage of a topic. Grayghost01

(Vandalism removed)

(Entries already identified as vandalism were removed from this part of the page on June 4, 2007 — this item is substituted as explanation because some comments below may have been referring to the vandalism that is now removed.) Lawikitejana 07:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A plan for this article

Is the plan for this article to be a Church of Christ blog? Or is it a place to document and cite an encyclopedia article on the group, based on historical facts, documented doctrinal stances, and real or current events?

I challenge those of you, like the anonymous IP-User from the University of South Carolina, to start a Blog site, and rail-away on your favorite doctrinal topic. Or have you no shame?

Meanwhile, please leave this site alone to the natural courses of good citizenry, or debate in this discussion column, like a man, with a UserID and explanation of yourself, and contribute in a positive and scholarly manner.

Therefore, I defend the hermeneutical approach the Churches of Christ take, as documented through Harding and others. I also defend the continued Restoration Forums and exchanges which are active and ongoing in larger churches of Christ, whom don't seek to split over every last hand-clapping or church-steeple and so on.

This make the case, by the way, on why a short section of a few sentences is deserving of a home in THIS article on the "Anti's", which is a continuous stream of church-ettes spun off the main "galactic" body of the mainline. The ICOC, the Anti's and the sub-set of "instrumentals" are all planetoids revolving around "mother" Mainline. Grayghost01 15:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

More Anonymous "Anti's" degrading the article

The reversion by nameless NPOV violating user Special:Contributions/74.249.12.243 is an example of how a named user made a good editing change, pulled out some unsourced and biased baloney ... which is then shredded by 74.249.12.243 who is a person using Bell South out of Atlanta.

For instance, as just one example, instead of the official source of the US Census data of 15,000 churchs and 1.5 million people ... Mr. Atlanta wants to revert to the unsourced "claim" of 13,000 churches and 1.3 million "ACAPELLA" churches alone.

This is an example of an "ANTI" and what they do. The 13,000 number is inclusive of the Anti's, who set their own esoteric and tighter definitions of "WHO IS" the "one true church".

Should we lower the number to elimiate the hand-clappers? Or should we also eliminate those who like Max Lucado? And on and on.

This Wiki article ... now that I think about it ... is a beautiful testimony to what the Churches of Christ are ... an eclectic group of argumentative people ... constantly shooting each other when not proclaiming the rest of Christianity as damned to hell. So, perhaps ironically the article shows in a beautiful dynamic way what it is trying to document. Grayghost01 03:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Antis." How quaint. I doubt you could even accurately define what an "anti" is or what they believe (no offense, but most of the so-called "mainstream" can't even come close, lumping one-cuppers, non-Bible classers, non-institutionals, and even conservative institutionals and premillenialists under that header). Jdb1972 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Harding University

This article describes the congregational autonomy. Since there are no "formal headquarters, councils, or hierarchal church government" there can be no formal affiliation with the Church of Christ as a whole. Multiple congregations may affiliate with the university, though the university cannot truly affiliate with all churches of Christ. --Adavidb 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Adavidb's logic, then, it is impossible to have this encyclopedia article on a category or class of topic called the Churches of Christ. If there is no formality whatsoever, then this article exists in defiance of Wikipedia rules, as no secondary sources would document it's existence.

But yet there is this "thing" known as the Churches of Chirst, and secondary sources abound to document its existence and historical nature. It is a collective movement, with distinct notable events in time.

If we go with your logic, an aritcle should NOT exist at all. If we use my logic, the article is justified, and citations of secondary sources are required per Wikipedia rules. Harding claims it is affiliated with the Churches of Chirst ... and it is not that Churches of Christ affiliate with it. They explain so in their school history, in which the name of the school is credited to

"James A. Harding, co-founder and first preident of Nashville Bible School (now David Lipscomb University) in Nashville, Tenn. A preacher, teacher and Christian educator, James A. Harding inspired his co-workers and associates with an enthusiasm for Christian education that remains a significant tradition at Harding University."

Regardless of Harding, James A. Harding makes the quote on CENI, and it is a principle ... dare I say "creed" of the Churches of Christ? Yes, it is, and it is documented as such. Any Church of Christ which denies the principle behind this statement would not have a doctrine qualifying it to be loosely "associated" with what both society ... and people within the movement ... define collectively as this category of churches.

If that is NOT true, then there is no "group" which is definable in a collective sense known as the Churches of Christ, unified about a certain set of principles, and then you would be correct ... and then this article cannot be documented and should be deleted from this website. If the NATURE of the "Churches of Christ" cannot be DENOMINATED into a coherent citable article ... then it's time for deletion of this article, due to failure to meet the Wikipedia standards.

In other words, the mere existence of this article challenges the very nature of this group, and the negative responses (vandalisms) to the article is in-and-of itself PROOF of the groups existence, therebe justifying the article and JUSTIFYING citable sources, like James A. Harding.

Grayghost01 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'source' is the autonomy described in the same article -- and wikilinked in the previous section; I was not using private logic. Individual CoC congregations are governed locally and generally share the same practices. Collectively, all are referred to as "Churches of Christ". Because of their autonomy however, differences exist, which as noted does seem to present problems with article maintenance. With what common board of directors or other central CoC organization can universities and other groups officially affiliate?--Adavidb 02:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether the CofC have a synod. The question is what does Harding University affiliate itself with? The answer is the Churches of Christ ... as non-synodical as they may be. Of course the CofC has no central group, and so, of course Harding cannot associate with something not there. The fact remains ... Harding is associated with the Churches of Christ. It is illogical to say it is associated with "some". What is Harding going to do ... maintain a list for crying out loud? The POINT is that James Harding, a founder and leader of the movement ... is KNOWN for his contribution to the movement's hermeneutical methodology. In response, one person denied that Harding had ANYTHING to do with the Churches of Christ. I'm sorry ... but citation of documented sources over-rides ridiculous assertions like that. The main discussion here needs to be an ACADEMIC one of how to source and give credential to the written article ... NOT argue over never-ending circles of theological debate. That is what a blog or a bulletin board is for. Read the Wikipedia guidelines: You must source and site neutrally written factual summarization of topics through secondary sources. This article didn't even have one citation until I added the NOTES section. Grayghost01 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the "one person" to whom you referred has to do with my changing "the" to "some", and later removing "officially", the motivation behind my edits was/is misunderstood. Others would have to answer for their edits. I agree with the need for citations, particularly for content that remains in the article; one footnote, one inline reference, and two Biblical references (by my quick count) do not provide much verifiability. --Adavidb 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Adavidb you have it turned around. Consider that Harding cannot affiliate with any central church of Christ body because none exists. However, individual church of Christ congregations can support/cooperate/encourage Harding. As such, Harding can claim to be supported by churches of Christ. I hope I'm not missing your point. JBEvans 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The former text, from a March 25 revision, stated that Harding was "officially affiliated with the Churches of Christ" (current emphasis mine). It's only the "the", indicating all, with which I saw a problem. --Adavidb 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lock? Anyone?

This POV editing without any discussion board consensus is getting ridiculous. Anyone know how to lock this page from editing by anonymous users?--Velvet elvis81 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection is not a valid way to deal with the anonymous edits that have been happening lately, as they are not vandalism. I can see the argument for keeping the International Churches of Christ content in a separate article. Its degree of significance to the main topic has not been clearly spelled out (does it deserve a whole paragraph in the Churches of Christ article, just a sentence, or a see also at the bottom?) and there are no sources besides the restorationmovement.org website, so strictly speaking, the onus is on those who want to keep it to provide some justification from reliable sources. It is also any editor's prerogative to edit as an IP rather than creating an account; if disruption becomes unreasonable, the IP can be blocked, but it seems like more of an editorial dispute. Some aspects of it (for example, the census count versus the unsourced "anti" numbers) are clearcut, but in general the problem points are in desperate need of secondary sources.--ragesoss 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I've been helping with this article for going on two years now, and I can't recall a substantial contribution by an anonymous user. OTOH, near-constant ignoring of consensus decisions discussed for weeks, link spam, POV editting, vandalism, and the like by anons has been the order of the day. Perhaps semi-protection would only stop half the drive by garbage that anons drop on here, and perhaps it would discourage that one meaningful contribution a year we might get from an anon, but it seems a small price to pay. Jdb1972 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

-on the other hand Jdb, having seen your edits over and over I have yet to see you do anything that gives any kind of educated perception about the Church of Christ. I see an agenda and a controlling person who needs to do some biblical and historical research (I'd advise using legitimate books rather than bogus websites) before continuing to make edits to an article that most people in the world will see first who search for the Church of Christ on the internet. In short, this isn't your article and you don't own the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.184.14 (talk • contribs)

Weird. I'll put my track record for building consensus against any anon's (particularly one who's raw enough to not know to use 4 tildes to sign his comments). Nor do I know what "obscure websites" you're talking about. Feel free to clarify if you're interested in actual discussion instead of personal attacks. Jdb1972 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

-the International Churches of Christ are historically and fundamentally an entirely separate religious body than the Church of Christ. To even mention the ICC in this article or to make a footnote about the ICC is pushing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.211 (talk • contribs)

A brief mention of the split is probably a good idea. An in-depth description of the ICOC and the history of the split is probably not and rightly belongs on the ICOC page. Jdb1972 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. They did arise out of the church through the so-called "Crossroads Movement." However they were different at their peak and bore little resemblance to the church. A quick paragraph and a link to separate article seems most appropriate. JBEvans 02:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

-the latest count of Churches of Christ and members is actually a little less than 1.3 million/13,000 congregations, per "Churches of Christ in the United States 2006" and as reported in Christian Chronicle. Whoever keeps reporting the 1.5 million/15,000 in the U.S. has old figures and if that's the case the number of Churches of Christ in the entire world would have to be more than the 1.5 million mentioned at the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.211 (talk • contribs)

I added the sentences to expand the ICOC paragraph. This article had a one-line paragraph on a major historical split in this church, between Mainine and Crossroads. It is the norm within mainline to deny or downplay the whole affair, and reminds me of how the Catholic church wanted to condemn Martin Luther to death, despite the fact that Luther was simply reforming the universal Church in his view. So ... this article has a paragraph header ... not just a side comment buried in a paragraph ... on ICOC. It said practially nothing other than ... oh by the way we had a schism, go see another page.

WHOA!!! this was and REMAINS a major issue in this church. So I added just a handful ... a handful ... of sentences, explained VERY succinctly the issue, and provide an insightful reference and website on the topic, which also PROVED that the Mainline and ICOC continue to engage in discussion through the Restoration Forums ... and not just with each other.

Then comes a floodgate of anonymous IP users, who wont discuss anything, not only deleting the material, but overpasting my discussion paragraphs with "Go Turtles!" and goofy baloney. Then ... supposedly more enlightened people think there's no vandalism.

So, so much for discussion, so much for wikipedia guidelines, so much for DOCUMENTING and CITING sources and materials to support the article.

I think this article is very poorly written, very poorly organized, fails to cover entire major points about the church, and doesn't cite its sources as REQUIRED by Wikipedia. Therefore this article MUST be improved.

So, if anyone disagrees with that, then make your point in this discussion, and describe how your point improves the article per the guidelines, as I am trying to do.

Grayghost01 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think protection is the way to go, as long as there is discussion here, rather than simple edit wars. I have several points to make without supporting one version or the other. Firstly, this is not the place for biblical research, or comments on whether certain terms are in the bible. This should be an article about the churches of Christ, not an article promoting of following their views. The article should describe and explain their distinctive characteristics in a neutral way that makes sense to readers who may or may not have anything to do with them. If a CoC teaching has been described in a certain way in sources, it may well be appropriate to describe it that way in the article, whether the description is in the bible or even used by anyone associated with a church of Christ.

Secondly, everything should come from reputable sources, and these sources should be mentioned in the article (as footnotes if nothign else). This helps explain any disagreements. If US census figures are old, then putting the date in makes it clear. If US census figures lump together different groups who don't have anythign to do with each other, then this should be explained, rather than simply replacing the figures with unsourced figures. In fact, even if different sources have different criteria, it may be worth including both figures, explaining the difference. JPD (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A major problem with this article is that most of its writing predates Wikipedia's more recent emphasis on sourcing. Indeed, the quote in question itself isn't even sourced. Seems like we always talk about more sourcing, but it never gets done. It's a huge task. Jdb1972 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably not semi-protection for this, if anon users are strictly vandalizing I think it's at a manageable rate, for the pov/unsourced edits, revert them if they are obvious. There is plenty of policy stating that we need sourcing. - cohesion 01:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am against locking the article, because that seems to defeat the whole point of a wiki. But the churches of Christ and the International Church of Christ are definately different groups, even if they have some simularities. Hjuibar 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What is this article about?

I find it fascinating that an encyclopedic article on the "churches of Christ" can reject direct quotes from James Harding. Would Lincoln's Gettysburg address need to be second-sourced? No. Within Wiki guidelines, some primary sourcing, when pertinent, is allowed.

And the primary hermeneutical methodology of the churches of Christ is also deleted ... nay ... not even mentioned.

And finally, of course, it is the mainline view that any sub-groups by virtue of splitting off, cease to exist.

Is there a Lord of the Anon-IP flies ... or just flies hovering about this article?

Why should one begin the labor-intensive task of second-sourcing an article if one of the most important quotes of one of the "founding fathers" is ripped away?

This article should be closed to Anon-IP intervention, and locked down to a set of contributors who can discuss and source their materials ... which is basically none of the contributors prior to my turning-on of the Referenced Notes section. Grayghost01 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the info was removed because it lacked a reference. Rather, the editor (anonymous as he/she may be) said it was overkill. I would agree. Some of the info that is in there is probably necessary--there should be a mention of hermeneutical methodology--but we don't need 40 or 50 lines of quotes from primary sources. Just a short explanation. The quoting from primary sources in this article tends to get out of hand quickly. The article had to be pruned considerably this past January mostly for this reason--belaboring of minutia and overkill on primary sources. --Velvet elvis81 00:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So I suppose the one-line quote of James Harding was overkill then? Bottom line: The Anonymous IP contributions to this article severely distort the truth and history of the churches of Christ, and the changes from those go unchecked.Grayghost01 00:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

James Harding is not a "founding father" of the Church of Christ. Jesus Christ is our only founder. The hermeneutical method you refer to is no official method as it is not found in scripture (other than the "command" teaching of Christ). The idea that some in Churches of Christ use "necessary inferences" (which really has no biblical basis and cannot be given a real definition) is mentioned in the article already and that concept is "lucky" to even get that much attention. It's time for anyone who holds to the man-made doctrines, such as "necessary inference" to move on from such and embrace the freedom in Christ that He has given us and to respect the actual teaching to obey His commandments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.249.12.80 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Regardless of your opinion, if there is a group distinctive enough to deserve an encyclopedia article ... then by the rules of wiki it must be a citable and sourcable thing or event. Otherwise, just list two points for the article: Jesus and the Bible, and the article is done, because according to you and people like you, there is practically so little distinction, since the churches of Christ are supposedly so in-tune to scripture, that all you can do is simply cite verses of the Bible and nothing else, in which case this article should be deleted, because the "church" of "Christ" is merely a phenomenon which should be a sub-paragraph of the Wiki article on either Christianity ... or the Bible, or perhaps Jesus Christ. The way I view it, however, there is a distinctive set of attributes to a group known as the "Churches of Christ" (big C or little c, take your pick). It has a set of initiators .... leaders ... trend-setters which set it on it's way. I but quoted one of those, and one line of those, and this type of encylopedic-like material and mere hint of a suggestion of citation, along with adding the proper NOTES section ... is blown away by whords if Anon-IP users. The group does ... regardless of your opinion, use a hermeneutic style, which is describable and also sourcable to the group initiators. Your point of view is interesting ... but void of logic, and if taken to it's logical conclusion argues what I have pointed out, which is that this group would only be a mere description of "the church" in the article on Christianity. In fact ... the article reads like a blog or bulletin board ... not an academic reference. It certainly reflects the poor authorship of its Anon-IP donors. And, perhaps ironically, it offers no redeeming value. This article should be deleted, and you all should put in a few sentences and verse-quotes in the "church of Christ" paragraph under Christianty. On the other hand, perhaps the group can be denominated to an extent that it does need an article (properly sourced). And if so, people like David Lipscomb, James Harding and so forth go, without question, as key figures in an historical and academic article.Grayghost01 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something, but just because the church or Christ claims to restore that form of doctrine that existed under the apostles does not mean there is nothing else that can be said about it. I for one, have no problem with a quote from the ones you mentioned so long as the article reflects the fact that these were not men with authority over doctrine. That the church existed in the first century is clear. But would we suggest that early, secular writers could not write about the church apart from quoting scripture? The article belongs and so do the quotes as long as they are properly cited and presented in an accurate context. I think we can all agree to that. JBEvans 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That a Christian church existed in the first century is clear. That it existed in the form that the "Church of Christ" claims is not (as a particular example, assuming that 1st century services were uninstrumented because instruments were not explicitly identified in the Bible is a very weak assumption). Just because a particular group claims something does not mean that it is necessarily so; else the "True Catholic Church" would be correct in its undocumented claim that Pope John XXIII was a freemason and therefore ineligible to be Pope. Claims are easy; proof is hard. Iceberg3k 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Links Policy

Per the policy at Church of Christ/Link Policy, I reverted the added link of an individual congregation. JodyB 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the policy to Talk:Churches of Christ/Link Policy, as it really shouldn't be in the main namespace. JPD (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Church Population

Can the anonymous user who posted the information on non-US churches properly cite his/her sources? Or if anyone else can find the information mentioned, please do; Google turned up nothing for me. FYI, I'm probably going to revert future edits of this section that are unsourced or improperly sourced in such a way I can't find them; if two sources disagree on the size, we should probably direct it here for a consensus of which is the more reliable and/or recent, IMO, to prevent edit wars. Jdb1972 22:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if that user checks this page, we do not allow secret sources for things. - cohesion 23:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To be more accurate, this article is not really allowing any sources at all, and fails to properly document the history of the group. Some anonymous IP users, who seem to reign supreme here, even disregard sources about Stone and Campbell themselves. Therefore, they should seek to contribute to the general article on "church" perhaps, vice this one.Grayghost01 05:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources have been provided if you follow the link: http://churchzip.com/otherdirectories.htm .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehwest (talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Then please attribute it properly. You also might want to use four tildes to sign your comments on this page. Thanks! Jdb1972 12:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use FACTS to describe churches of Christ.

I don't think it helps anyone to include incorrect information regarding churches of Christ in this article. There are so many statements here that may well be aspiriations, but they are not facts. In particular, I point to the Leadership section, where it says congregations are led by elders. This may be an aspiration of some churches, but it is not a fact. Based on the data available, it is known that approximately 70% of churches of Christ have no elders. Nearly 90% of churches under 100 members have no elders. This is perhaps the most glaring example of churches who preach one thing and practice another. These facts are borne out by specific congregational reports here: http://churchzip.com/statesummary/US (for US churches and here http://churchzip.com/statisticalsummary.htm for the rest of the world. A recent churchzip.com post-card survey of 1000 churches having membership in the range 100 - 125 confirms this.

I think it may be somewhat disingenuous to say that churches of Christ in the US are "...historically linked..." to the "Restoration" movement. Many churches of Christ have leaders who either know nothing of the Restoration Movement described and/or would indeed disavow any linkage to that movement. In fact many church plants make no appeal to that part of thier history whatsoever. That movement is certainly not a unifying force or even a distinguishing property of the current generation of churches of Christ. It may have historical significance for some churches, but certainly not all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehwest (talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think the bit on acapella music represents mainstream thinking on this issue among members of the churches of Christ. The FACT is that acapella music remains one of the most visible, distinguising practices of "churches of Christ" that sets them apart from 80% of "Christendom." Many church leaders find the use of instruments in worship services to be sinful and ALL of the evidence available does positively affirm the New Testament church used no instruments, a marked departure from prior Old Testament worship as described of David.

I do think much more critical thinking needs to go into "how would you know if this is a church of Christ, as described..." Would you include Mac Lynn's instrumental church? Richland Hills? Some churches not using the moniker "Church of Christ" aspire to the all of the practices you describe, including several (formerly Mennonite, Charity) churches in Pennsylvania. These churches in fact use "NO" name, vividly demonstrating their non-denominational ties....would you call them churches of Christ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehwest (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Attribution policy clearly identifies the need to use and cite reliable sources for article content, rather than individual belief or original research. If this policy was applied more consistently, many of the concerns you raise would resolve as a result. --Adavidb 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass Deletion of History section on 29 January 2007

I haven't worked on the article in quite some time, but just noticed the mass deletion of the historical sections which cropped up around this time: Version of January 28, 2007

I put in many, many hours of work on this text. I cited sources, and defended my editorial decisions carefully on the discussion pages, in order to try and reflect a consensus view of the real history of this movement, within the context of Restorationism in general, but specific to the Churches of Christ. I'm disappointed to see so much of the story of the Churches of Christ done away with. And I don't have the heart or the energy to put the content back again. I guess the "historylessness" folks won, sigh. Alan Canon 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a rejection of the history as much as poor priorities. The history and traditional beliefs (whatever some churches may practice today) should be the major contents of this article, but it's been editted into... well, basically drivel. Especially over the last 4-6 months. It's probably beyond salvaging at this point, IMO, and certainly as long as it's unprotected. You can only revert so often before you come to the conclusion it's a waste of time. Jdb1972 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I was involved with a lot of that deleting. It stemmed from the fact that, at the time the article was ridiculously long and kept getting longer so significant pruning was necessary. It was discussed on the talk page and agreed to. The general thrust of what was in before was left, but sentences and paragraphs were made less wordy and a lot of the extensive quotes from primary sources were removed. It's not that the information was bad, it was just excessive minutea when placed in a general article on this topic. You should feel free to start separate articles on the specific things you had in there before. --Velvet elvis81 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Perryschonfan account, perhaps someone's sockpuppet, made forty-three edits to this article on January 26 2007, including eight paragraph deletions. That account has made no other edits to any other articles.--Adavidb 11:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

In summary, 72.72.48.25 added an NPOV template popup box noting an (unspecified) dispute regarding this article's neutrality. The template's inclusion was removed soon thereafter by 74.249.12.204, again with no discussion. JPD restored the template within three hours, stating that it shouldn't be removed without discussion. There are some unanswered neutrality entries here by another editor from about a month ago, though there remains no new or recent related discussion, despite the template's Usage section stating that reasons should be explained here. I'll update the template to refer to this talk page section.--Adavidb 14:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On some level, the NPOV tag is reasonable until Grayghost's concerns above have been dealt with in some way and consensus here is that it is not needed any more. In putting the tag back, I was not supporting it's original inclusion without discussion, simply undoing what an edit that was obviously not constructive. As far as the article as a whole goes, I feel like protecting it just to force discussion rather than edit wars, but it is probably not at that stage yet. JPD (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really take the neutrality claims from a month or so ago seriously. Especially when his main beef was that some anon removed his edits and his conclusion was basically that the article should be locked so that only he could edit it.

In fact, one of the article's big flaws is that it takes too many pains to be neutral. How many times must we repeat the same qualifier ("This is the traditional belief, but it's not necessarily held by all of those churches)? As soon as something unqualified gets added, though, someone from some church that doesn't believe that takes offense, jumps in, and starts hacking away at it. Jdb1972 17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since an anonymous editor is determined to remove the neutrality dispute notice with no further discussion, and I've been the only one to put it back since, I'll leave any continuance of the dispute resolution to someone else (JPD?). --Adavidb 00:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the person removing the tag is not at all participating in discussion on this page or even in edit summaries means that they can't really be taken seriously. However, since noone is currently claiming there is a neutrality problem, it should probably be left off. It seems much more profitable to work on adding sources to this article, than discussing whether it is neutral. JPD (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Arminianism

The page states that "Some would label Churches of Christ as typically Arminian, although members do not usually embrace this term and often disagree with certain tenets." Can someone explain which tenets are disagreed with? Thanks, Jcembree 05:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted does need specification and attribution. Regarding your question, the first tenet/belief listed in the intro to Wikipedia's article on Arminianism and its Classical Arminianism section is total depravity, which has been rejected by members of the church of Christ. [1][2][3] --Adavidb 06:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Clergy v Preacher

I was not the one who made the change from clergy to preacher but I certainly do agree with it and think it should be left as preacher/evangelist. The churches of Christ simply do not use the term and generally repudiate the use of it or any other term that suggests a specialized group allowed to do certain things. It seems to me that this is like demanding that we call the British head of state "President." At the very least I would like to see if we could get some consensus on changing the term to preacher or evangelist. JodyB _talk 15:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JodyB. Given that one aspect of churches of Christ is the (at least official) rejection of clergy/laity distinction, calling preachers "clergy" is inaccurate. Not to mention that part of the definition of clergy includes a leadership role, which (again) is rejected by most churches of Christ. Jdb1972 18:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be worthwile to mention that some (many?) in the churches of christ reject the distinction, but I think that a CofC minister/preacher/whatever still easily fits in the common understanding of the word clergy and is treated identically to denominational clergy by the law (i.e., can perform weddings, certain tax breaks, etc.). Also, the trappings of clergy as commonly understood are all there: usually a full-time job, paid by the church, although there is not typically a congregational leadership role there is nearly always an appearance of leadership at least during worship services. --Velvet elvis81 20:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Velvet I think you miss my point. While it is true that preachers in the church of Christ are often called Pastor/Reverend/Clergy by the uninformed, it doesn't change the fact that such is an inaccurate statement. As I said before, you would not call President Bush a Prime Minister because he is not although many of the same appearances link to him. You would not write an article about Louisiana and speak of counties because in that state they are called a parish. When writing about any group or organization we should use their terminology. Now, if you wish to say that there are similarities between preachers and clergy that would be fine. But you cannot impose external names on an article about a group that specifically opposes it. Your suggestions about weddings is not always accurate. In my state there is no law requiring special qualifications to perform a wedding. As for tax breaks, if you read the law clergy is only one of the terms specified, right along with minister. Can you agree that we need to make the change back to preacher/minister/evangelist? JodyB _talk 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Would something along the lines of, "Nevertheless, minsters (and to a lesser degree elders) tend to carry out many of the roles associated with clergy in other groups," be suitable?Klpstyles 13:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the intended point is more along the lines of "Congregations usually employ trained staff, etc."? JPD (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with those two ideas from Klpstyles and JPD. I think that makes the point without resorting to external terminology. JodyB _talk 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to the two aforementioned changes.--Velvet elvis81 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent out) Ok, I have made the change which I think will satisfy the discussion here. Here is the diff [4] for your review. Let me say that I appreciate the discussion here and the desire to work things out. JodyB _talk 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Exclusivity and Critical Views

Should this article mention exclusivity/closed fellowship and critical views of the beliefs of churches of Christ?

(1) My personal experiences with the churches of Christ have generally been with more conservative "mainline"/"mainstream" congregations. I generally collect pamphlets and tracts from the congregations that I have attended, and many of these tracts imply that the one church established by Jesus is effectively synonymous with congregations using the designation "church of Christ" and practicing "a cappella" singing, even if the possibility of other members of the body of Christ outside this fellowship is conceded. (Examples and quotes can be given if requested but are presently omitted for brevity.) Since I am only one person I do not want to make edits to the article if my experiences are atypical. However, if my observations are consistent with the beliefs of a significant segment of congregations or membership (and I suspect that they are, given the definitions of "Christian" and "member of the church" in the deleted "terminology" section), it seems misleading to leave out this exclusivity.

(2) The present article speaks of variations between congregations and largely portrays variations as being seen as friendly matters of liberty ("Congregations and members are free to study the Scriptures and to the best of their abilities determine God's revealed will. This allows for liberty in the continual seeking of God's revealed will." And, "There is much variety that exists from congregation to congregation between these two ideologies [relating to biblical silence/exclusion]. This approach, which is related to the non-denominational/autonomous nature of the church, allows open interpretation for the uninhibited search and discovery of the original meanings of biblical texts."). However, as is demonstrated in the article about the non-institutional churches, many variations are the subject of very heated dispute and aren't merely seen as questions of liberty. The real-world treatment of individuals (e.g., Lucado) who break from the standard views (evidence of which can be found in some of the publications mentioned in the external links) is also proof. While previous revisions may have devoted too much space to splits and divisions, the current revision devotes too little. This perspective on such variations of opinion should be mentioned more explicitly here.

(3) The aforementioned exclusivity is one major source of criticism. As such, if it is widespread, at the least both the exclusivity and the criticism thereof should be mentioned.

(4) Some other major restorationist groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-Day Saints, Seventh-Day Adventists) have criticism/critical sections or pages. I see no reasons why the churches of Christ should be exempt. At present, the only clear mention of a critical view is the former members discussion link.

I ask for your thoughts because (1) though I'm a newbie, (2) despite this, I have watched the progress of the article for some time and understand the effort that went into the current version, (3) I do not want to create an "edit war," and (4) if it is agreed that changes are necessary, I would like feedback about how to incorporate such information into the article. Thanks.

Klpstyles 22:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pamphlets produced by churches of Christ could probably be used as references for exclusivity claims. It would be best if the article could give some idea of how typical these claims are, but that would need decent sources. It seems to me that when talking about variations between congregations, the article currently emphasises the fact that there is no hierarchical structure or authority bringing them together other than the Bible, only briefly even touching on how disagreements are dealt with ("depends on each member and local church"). This could be expanded with references to real-world events. Any group can have a criticism group. The difficulties in this case are that it is harder to criticise something that doesn't have a formal structure. It really should be made clear when criticism is of the "movement" as a whole, or of particular groups with particular practises, and so on. This ties in with problems discussed above about which churches this article is actually about. JPD (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Points taken.

(1) As far as the exclusivity claims, I think that it might be helpful to reincorporate some of the information on schisms found in the RM article back into this one. It could be noted (a) that in addition to congregations differing on silence, they also differ on how to interact with those who do not adhere to views like their own (this would allow for a differentiation of congregations' views on closed fellowship/exclusivity), and (b) that the more exclusive/closed view is correlated with tendencies to become more divided over issued such as those mentioned in the RM article's "schisms" section (the schisms could then be inserted).

(2) As far as criticism is concerned, my major point was that other major groups from the same period (if it be accepted that American churches of Christ have their origin largely in the Restoration Movement) that make similar claims about restoring Christianity have criticism sections, so I don't see why this article necessarily shouldn't. While all groups certainly could have criticism sections, and all people who claim to be Christians don't agree on every point, there are certainly some groups that are looked at as being more or less accepted as mainstream than others, and if the some of the responses to the Winkler shooting (for example, the Nancy Grace interview with a Baptist pastor) are any indication, the churches of Christ (whether fairly characterized or not) tend to fall closer to the "less" side.

If such a section were created, it should probably include (based on the critical literature that I have seen): (a) general doctrinal disagreements (baptism [the major criticism], a cappella singing [Psalm 150], exclusivity [probably the second major external criticism]), (b) hermeneutics (whether principles establishing "authority" are applied consistently), and (c) miscellaneous (the matter of whether the group is really a nondenominational/has no creed, the prevalence of major divisions despite the call for all to be "one"). Of course, some of these criticisms (especially in the general doctrine section) could have accompanying rebuttals. It would be noted that due to the diversity of views, not all criticisms would apply to all congregations and members.

(3) Though not mentioned in my original post, it would seem that the role that schools and magazines play within some branches should be mentioned within the body of the article, for much the same reason as the exclusivity issue (these tools have been used to teach since Alexander Campbell and are not a negligible source of uniformity) and because of the role that they have played in many of the divisions (whether as subject of these controversies or as the method of spreading beliefs on either side of the issues).

As you noted, the major difficulty is that with no recognized hierarchy, it would be difficult to write generally about the beliefs of congregations or members. Further, a lot of information was removed due to the article getting lengthy and cluttered, so figuring how to incorporate information without that problem returning is also a concern. Klpstyles 21:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger

No. This article and the ICOC should stand separatley and must not be confused. The differences between the two are extensive as are their recent histories. JodyB _talk 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

Anonymous user(s) 65.188.13.214 and 74.249.12.54 undid, without explanation, some significant edits by me and others, including three source citations. Specific discussion about why this content is being removed/reverted would be helpful, especially given this article's lack of attribution. —Adavidb 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Another anonymous IP is getting in on the act- 129.252.106.177 Lurker 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Another one: 70.144.12.144 Lurker 17:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this while patrolling my watchlist. My guess is that all of these anon IP removals have been controlled by a single person; and since the restorals have been done by four logged-in users, consensus appears to be keep. I could join the "party" and restore the text again, but as a certain famous Dr. might say, "How's that working for you?". See the Recap I've put together, below.

So, what next? Adavidb has requested discussion on the article talk page (refer to the Recap below for citations), but none of the anon IPs have responded on the article talk page. Lurker and JetLover placed warnings on three of the anon IPs' talk pages, but none of the warnings linked here; two requested an explanation in the edit summary. One of the removals does include an edit summary, and one of the anon IPs commented on another's talk page, but not here. Maybe it would be helpful to place a request on each of the anon IPs' talk pages, specifically linking to this article talk page and requesting they come here before editing a Churches of Christ article again.

Of course, there is no guarantee that this person will be using any of those IPs the next time they connect, so they might not get the message before they remove the text again. Semi-protection might be useful; however, this suggestion has been rejected before for this page for similar reasons, and the policy specifically states "Semi-protection should not be used [in] a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users."

It's a bit unorthodox, but in the spirit of Ignore all rules (if there is a rule against this sort of thing, which I'm not sure there is), I wonder if we could restore the text, then surround it in the editing window with HTML comments, duplicated enough times that someone removing that text cannot avoid seeing them, asking that anyone removing it refer to the talk page first. Something like this:

<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT BELOW -->

<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT BELOW -->

<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT BELOW -->

restored text here

<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT ABOVE -->

<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT ABOVE -->

<!-- PLEASE DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THE TEXT ABOVE -->

Again, I realize this would be unorthodox, but it would have the benefit that the person(s) controlling the anon IPs would see this message regardless of which IP they are using.

Obviously the approach being used so far is not working well, so something needs to be done differently. What do others think about these ideas, and what else can we think of? Thanks for listening. Charm ©† 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion above has my approval. I expect however that the anonymous editor(s) know discussion is sought, and choose to apply their version without encouraging or accepting others' input first. Verifiable attribution supports edits; silent reversion is indicative of a page ownership situation. —Adavidb 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the suggested HTML comments around the restored text. —Adavidb 03:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As anticipated, the same editor reverted the content again, with no associated discussion here. Based on policy, this may need to be taken to dispute resolution. —Adavidb 06:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Expectations aside, 74.249.3.37's recent comment confirms without a doubt that they have read the recap below, so now we know that they are aware discussion is sought, and they know where to find the talk page. Next, the first step at dispute resolution is to discuss the issue. Since they have now edited from the same IP three days in a row, hopefully they will see and accept my invitation to discuss the issue here. If not, there will be no doubt that attempts were made to initiate dialog. Charm ©† 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, semi-protection is not inline with policy, but since users are still so blatantly reverting without discussion, I have protected the page. JPD (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I suggested this long ago. --Velvet elvis81 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Recap

The content about institutionalism, fundraising, and fellowship halls has been: (all times UTC)

• Started 01:17, 3 June 2007 by 74.130.59.106. [5]
• Refined 01:22, 3 June 2007 by 74.130.59.106. [6]
• Further refined 06:14, 3 June 2007 by Adavidb. [7]
• Removed 05:47, 13 June 2007 by 74.249.12.215. [8]
• Restored, reworded, moved to a different section, and cited 12:58, 13 June 2007 by Adavidb. [9]
• Alternatively removed beginning 17 June 2007 by 7 anon IPs (10 times) and restored by 4 logged-in users (9 times).
  • Removed 10 times by the following 7 anon IPs:
    • 65.188.13.214 [10][11][12]
    • 74.249.12.54 [13]
    • 70.157.138.50 [14]
    • 129.252.106.177 [15][16]
    • 70.144.12.144 [17]
    • 70.157.132.14 [18]
    • 74.249.3.37 [19]
    • Only one of the removals included edit summary text that was not automatic. ("irrelevant. this issue is part of a seperate religious movement which belongs in a different entry") [20]
  • Restored 9 times by the following 4 logged-in users:
    • Adavidb [21] [22] [23] [24]
    • Jdb1972 [25]
    • Lurker [26] [27] [28]
    • JetLover [29]
    • Six of the restorals included edit summary text that was not automatic.

Additional notes

• 11:47, 20 June 2007 Adavidb asked for discussion on the article talk page. [30]
  • None of the anon IPs has responded on the article talk page.
  • However, 74.249.3.37 did make a comment on 70.157.132.14's talk page which might have been more helpful on the article talk page. [31]
• Lurker and JetLover placed warnings on the talk pages of 129.252.106.177, 70.144.12.144, and 65.188.13.214. [32] [33] [34]
  • Netkinetic placed a warning on the talk page of 74.249.12.54 for removing text from related page International Churches of Christ. [35]
  • The other three anon IPs have no talk pages so far.
• Six of the anon IPs have recently (since February 2007) edited only Churches of Christ related pages, and have edited more than one such page.
  • 65.188.13.214
  • 74.249.12.54
  • 70.157.138.50
  • 129.252.106.177
  • 70.144.12.144
  • 70.157.132.14
• 74.249.3.37 has recently edited more than one Churches of Christ related page, and has also edited University of South Carolina and Irmo High School.

Charm ©† 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recap. —Adavidb 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• yes and this Adavidb person has recently edited entrys such as knife legislation, Lance Bass, Club Penguin, and Baltimore, Maryland. An interesting combination in deed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.3.37 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Charm's point in listing other edits was to compare or contrast 74.249.3.37's account usage with that of other anon IP accounts which are often used only for editing limited numbers of articles. —Adavidb 06:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting how much editing has slowed down since the lock was put on this? Proves the point that the vast majority of stuff stuck in here prior was just edit wars. --Velvet elvis81 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wars frequently result from a lack of communication. The point of the protection was to further encourage two-sided discussion here rather than quiet reversion by anonymous editors. —Adavidb 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Campbellite

I've noticed that prior to the current edit war, there was a mini edit war concerning whether we should mention that members of the CofC are sometimes called "Campbellites." The rationale given for removing it was that it's offensive and displays an ignorance of the restoration movement. That may be so, but that doesn't change the fact that some people have called the group by that name, which makes it relevant. Also, if you actually click on the link to Campbellite it mentions that some take offense to it, effectively neutralizing that issue in my mind. On the other hand, it may be more appropriate to have that word solely in the article on the Restoration Movement and not necessarily here because Campbellite refers to a broader group than just the CofC. Comments?--Velvet elvis81 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your second suggestion about mentioning it on the Restoration Movement page would probably be preferable, given that it is not a coC-specific term. Klpstyles 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased Content Unsuitable For Consumption!

This article is the first article I have read on Wikipedia that is obviously corrupted by promoters of a particular agenda. This is neither useful or becoming to the promoters of the Churches of Christ, to use what ought to be a unbiased, educational description of their nature,history, and belief system for propaganda purposes. As has been noted already, there are countless ways of spreading one's personal propaganda, and this is certainly not the forum.

The following quote is so full of biased propaganda that is certainly should be deleted in its entirety:

"The difference between Churches of Christ and most other evangelical churches is the teaching on how one receives this salvation. Churches of Christ adhere to the biblical teaching that salvation occurs when one obeys Christ in baptism. This is based on scriptures such as Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and I Peter 3:21. In contrast, most Protestant churches and evangelicals today teach that mental belief in Christ with no response, quoting a "sinner's prayer," or "asking Jesus into one's heart" will suffice. Churches of Christ almost unanimously reject these notions based on these doctrines not being found in Scripture and because of the New Testament scriptures regarding the purposes of baptism. Baptism is performed only by immersion (the New Testament Greek term baptizo always meant "to immerse") and only upon those capable of believing in Christ and repenting of sin (i.e., no infant baptism)."

To suggest that the Bible teaches that salvation occurs only when one "obeys Christ in baptism" is in direct contradiction to many New Testament texts, including KJV Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. The point is mute of course, and can be argued extensively, but the only unbiased way to state the belief of the Churches of Christ in regards to "salvation" or any other doctrine is to say "The Churches of Christ believe that salvation occurs when one obeys Christ in baptism, rather than suggesting they "adhere" to "the biblical teaching," which is totally biased, and based on their subjective hermeneutics.

I personally agree with you here, although I think a good middle ground would be "Churches of Christ believe the Bible says" rather than just "Churches of Christ believe" or "The Bible says" SFT | Talk 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "In contrast, most Protestant churches and evangelicals today teach that mental belief in Christ with no response, quoting a "sinner's prayer," or "asking Jesus into one's heart" will suffice." is so biased, and slanderous as to be unfit for publication anywhere. The contributor is simply making derisive claims that have no basis in fact, and certainly no objective source material to substantiate such claims. Having been involved in both denominational (Baptist and Assemblies of God) and non-denominational charismatic churches I have never encountered anyone who suggested a mental belief in Christ was sufficient for anything, rather the doctrine is called "justification by faith." Even this is irrellevant, as a contributor should not be permitted to make such a derogatory claim that other churches are teaching any doctrine at all without substantiating such a claim. Isn't this is to be a fact based unbiased exercise in knowledge?

Having been a Baptist for most of my life, I strongly disagree with you here. Baptists can't go five minutes without saying "accept Jesus into your heart." You balk at the phrase "mental belief"; however, the "faith" that saves you is purely mental in the minds of most denominations. (They teach that the mental faith should produce righteous acts, but they strongly teach that these acts are not part of saving faith.) Baptists, at least, would not consider any of these remarks derogatory; they'd consider them true. I invite you to look at the hundreds of search results for "accept Jesus into your heart" or thousands of results for "sinners prayer" as proof. Feel free to cite whichever of them you choose. SFT | Talk 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How one perceives this teaching of "accepting Jesus into one's heart," is not really the issue, since I am merely asking for factual statements from real sources. My personal experience being raised a in a Baptist congregation, and being the grandson of a Baptist pastor who served for more than 50 years in my locale, I have never heard anyone suggest that the mind and the heart are one and the same, or that "mental belief" was acceptable. You said "the "faith" that saves you is purely mental in the minds of most denominations." and while I may agree that this is may be the case in many congregations, if the original author in question, writing for the Churches of Christ wishes to make such a claim "most Protestant churches and evangelicals today teach that mental belief in Christ with no response", he should cite sources that are unbiased, whereas he cites no sources at all. When the author decided to contrast the Churches of Christ with other groups or denominations, he is under the obligation to compare factual stated beliefs from authoritative sources, not his own biased perceptions of these other groups. I know firsthand, by valid personal experience that the Churches of Christ in this area use the accapella method of singing in their litrugy, but if I don't have an authoritative Church of Christ document to quote to substantiate such a claim, I am not going to pass off my personal experience or interpretations as being suitable facts for an encyclopedia.Karkfump 20:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you as far as what should go in the article. I was responding to your "slanderous" and "derogatory" characterizations as such, rather than as anything having to do with Wikipedia. :P SFT | Talk 04:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The article should definitely make it clear(er) that any "biblical teaching" followed by Churches of Christ is what they believe the Bible teaches, so a change in wording would probably be helpful. As for the "mental belief", the sentence is clearly trying to address the question of whether baptism is necessary for salvation, not whether faith is simply mental. Perhaps it would be reworded to reflect that? Finally, Karkfump, while you are right to insist of citing sources, you are going a bit too far to insist on an "authoritative Church of Christ document", especially when such a thing is unlikely to exist. JPD (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Protestant

This article seems to go to some length to avoid using the term "protestant" to refer to this group. I understand that the Churches of Christ themselves do not call themselves protestant. However, going by the generally understood meaning of "protestant," it seems hard to deny at least the protestant origins of the movement. The way a religious group chooses to describe itself is certainly important, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of how we describe them. The Churches of Christ clearly fit into a broad understanding of "Protestant" - it arose out of the traditions of the Reformation, and seems to accept pretty much all of the more basic points on which all "Protestant" groups disagree with Rome - rejection of transubstantiation, salvation by faith alone, scripture as the key to salvation, the priesthood of all believers. While we should of course discuss how the Churches of Christ generally don't call themselves protestants, we should also be fairly clear on the fact that, to any outsider, their beliefs are pretty clearly well within the protestant fold. john k 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no real problem with that provided you find a way to say it clearly in one or two sentences and so long as word is only used to address the very broad movement from whence the restoration began. As mentioned above in a discussion of clergy vs. preacher, we ought use the words of the church to describe the church. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 17:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows a policy of Neutral Point of View. While the words of the church to describe itself are, of course, important, and need to be discussed in the article, they shouldn't be the be all and end all. In particular, what scholars of religion say on the subject should be important as well. I'm not sure how best to phrase it, though. john k 18:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with john k. "The Church of Christ came out of the American Restoration Movement, a protestant movement away from Presbyterianism made by Campbell and Stone . . . " OR "While maintaining fundamental protestant beliefs (rejection of transubstantiation, salvation by faith alone, scripture as the key to salvation, the priesthood of all believers), the American Restoration Movement differed significantly from the Reformation.

This is an encyclopedia. The words of the Church of Christ will not be used to describe it. Encyclopedic language should be used. The "churches" of Christ are protestant even to most of its own members. At least, I should say that they recognize it in a list of "Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim," etc. as "their" group, even if they don't use the word themselves. Josh a brewer 06:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Really Josh, I don't think the dogmatism is needed. We can write an article about the church, or any other subject for that matter, in a NPOV fashion and still make clear what the church thinks of itself. In fact we could state it as such. Something like the quote above, "The Church of Christ came out of the American Restoration Movement, a protestant movement away from Presbyterianism made by Campbell and Stone . . . " is fine. It states a fact without pressing the idea that the church is just another part of protestantism. If you want to have a scholar comment on it, then fine. I'm sure the church can provide a scholar to suggest a different view. In reality Josh, we always use the words of an organization or group to describe it while tempered by outside scholarship. As I have pointed out before, the U.S. has a President and the UK a Prime Minister. The Jewish faith has Rabbi's and the Muslum's have Imam's while people of Christ believing faiths have preachers, ministers, etc. Those are terms they use to describe themselves and we can and should respect that. We can, and must work these kinds of things out without such dogmatic statements don't you think? JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 14:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to someone who can edit this page

The article states the following:

"Churches of Christ emphasize the use of the New Testament only to find doctrine, ecclesiastical structure, and moral beliefs, while maintaining that the Old Testament is also the inspired Word of God, is historically accurate, and that its principles remain true and beneficial (although its laws are not binding under the new covenant in Christ unless otherwise taught in the New Testament)."

Of course, they also believe that the New Testament is useful for learning about the life of Christ. Could this please be changed to read "Churches of Christ emphasize the use of only the New Testament..." Thanks! Nyttend 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for it? I doubt it because it's not accurate. I think the above comment (in your first paragraph) is accurate. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Nyttend is saying that the beginning of the quote from the article could be read as saying "Churches of Christ say the New Testament is only used to find doctrine, ecclesiastical structure and moral beliefs, while maintaining...", rather than "Churches of Christ use only the New Testament to find doctrine, ecclesiastical structure and moral beliefs, while maintaining...". The second option is clearly what is intended by the statement in the article, so while a source would be good, I don't see any rason not to change the text to make it clearer. I don't understand the difference in accuracy that JodyB refers to.

This demonstrates that protection is not a wonderful solution to the problems with this article. While it has stopped the edit wars, it is disrupting the normal editing and improvement on the article. The problems will only be solved when all editors actually discuss, rather than edit war. JPD (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can see that. I misunderstood. You mean that the presently existing quote limits the use of the NT itself while the suggested quote limits the doctrine to the NT. I can handle that. I'll watch here and if that's agreeable I will make the change.

Page protection is always frustrating but sometimes essential to keep our work from degenerating into absolute chaos. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 11:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with and made the recommended change above. It now reads, "Churches of Christ emphasize the use of only the New Testament to find..."--Thelonghop 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Big C, little c, what begins with C?

That's from one of my son's Dr Suess books but it's an applicable question here. Because there seems to be no consensus in the article, I propose the following. When referring to the community of Saints, that is the entire family of Christians (including the historical Church- Church When referring to in an individual congregation- church(es) When referring to a specific title such as the 'Memorial Road Church of Christ'- Church

With these guidelines in mind, some changes should be made. In the first paragraph: "Churches of Christ generally emphasize their intent simply to be part of the church" this second 'church' should be 'Church'. In the fourth: "Also realized is that Christians can do this without any prior knowledge of other Churches of Christ" should be 'churches of Christ'.

These guidelines seek to place emphasis on the entire Church versus individual congregations. In my mind, it's either this or use one or the other in every case.

Also, there was an earlier soteriology section from Jan 28, 2007, that listed the commonly accept COC steps to salvation: Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess, be Baptized, and continued faithfulness. This is a basic tenet of the COC, and I feel this was superior to the current section. It is easily possible to list these beliefs of the churches of Christ without contrasting them with other denominations.

And when a scripture is referenced, it seems to be customary on other wikipages to have the quotation typed out after the reference. For example, Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Even if there is no standard practice in this regard, it looks better I think, and offers to readers a clearer understanding of churches of Christ. Thelonghop 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Two other things I forgot to add. How did the administrators for this page become one?

A reference to add: "Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ" by Leroy Brownlow, Brownlow Publishing Company, Inc, copyright 1945. This book, while of course not being any sort of authority offers concise arguments with scriptural basis on a number of topics discussed on this page and can be used as a reference to document commonly held beliefs among the churches of Christ. Thelonghop 03:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is normal on Wikipedia to capitalise terms such as "the church", referring to the community of saints. Capitalisation can be restricted to proper nouns, such as "Memorial Road Church of Christ", as you say.

As to including text from scripture, some people have raised issues about whether it is NPOV to choose a particular translation, although it one if predominantly used in the churches of Christ, that may be appropriate. I did see a page the other day which had links to a site which generated links to particular verses in many different languages and translations, but I don't remember the details.

There aren't any "administrators for this page", as such. The administrators who are able to edit the page are Wikipedia:Administrators for Wikipedia in general. Anyway, since it has been three weeks, and several people obviuosly wish to edit and improve the article, I am going to unprotect the article. As long as everyone remembers to discuss disputed changes rather than edit war, there should be no problem. A resumption of the edit war will lead to the reinstatement of page protection. JPD (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It may not be normal to Wikipedia, but I believe it is in fairly common usage. It is an abbreviated proper title in my view- "the Church of Christ", like the House of Representatives. It's a reference to an official body. It also makes it more clear what's being talked about. That's my two cents, I won't go changing it if everyone disagrees, but the lack of continuity in the current article is bothersome. edit- the most authoritative source available, Dictionary.com, agrees that when referring to the whole body of believers or the historical Church the capital C is acceptable. Ref below, I'll make this edit unless I hear serious objection. church.Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/church (accessed: July 25, 2007).

Regarding which translation to use. I don't believe it's a question of NPOV at all. No one translation has any greater authority than another. It's really just a simple editorial decision, not a doctrinal question. For my money, it's NASB for being considered the closest to a transliteration, or if not, the NIV for being the most widely used.--Thelonghop 17:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is one common usage. Your reference says "sometimes initial capital letter", implying that it is a question of style. I have the impression that WP has chosen not to adopt that style for this and similar words, but I could be wrong.

A transliteration wouldn't be much use! I think the point that people have made is that the editorial decision itself may not be NPOV, which is easily avoided by providing links to many translations. Maybe this is being overly careful, but that doesn't necessarily hurt. JPD (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-identification

"They hold to the biblical and historical reality..." NPOV issue. I believe we need to change the word "reality" to "belief". "Reality" turns the paragraph into a statement of fact, rather that a factual discription of the churches of Christ beliefs. While myself and others may believe the paragraph to be fact, I recognize it as a religious question with which others may disagree.--Thelonghop 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How about, "They seek to hold to the..." or "members say they hold to..." I would prefer the former but certainly think the later is solid. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether they hold to it or not, is not in question. Your changes don't address the issue that the paragraph states as fact that "its doctrines and practices were established long before these other traditions, movements, structures, councils, etc. The church therefore biblically, historically and spiritually transcends these other entities that developed later within Christendom." COC members believe all of the above, but others do not. The quoted statements are open to opinion, therefore calling the above "reality" does not follow NPOV.--Thelonghop 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that by adding what the members believe or say they try to do, as opposed to stating it as reality, avoids the POV question because you remove the statement from the realm of a factual statement and make it descriptive of their beliefs or understandings. While I also believe it to be fact I understand that this article is not the place to prove it. Our purpose here is to describe the Church of Christ. Isn't it important that we state, in a properly worded fashion, what the people who make up the church say they are trying to do? I am not saying my two suggestions are the only way to say it. I only offer those as two possibilities.

Looking at the article paragraph again however, I note that the sentence seems to be trying to describe the realities of the early church (not the present day church) which are not in question so far as I know. We could clean it up a bit and make it clear that the present day churches of Christ "believe they are following in the same paths..." or something like it. Truthfully, the entire 'graph needs a rewrite and good sourcing. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 11:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that Christ established the church long before Catholicism, Orthodoxy (both of which developed no earlier than 300 years after the church was originally established) or Protestantism (which develoed some 1500 years later). This is not a statement biased in favor of Churches of Christ, it only states a historical fact/reality that Churches of Christ embrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.81.213 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is a different interpretation made by another point of view, Wikipedia should not put it that way. If you don't see that there is a different interpretation, you really don't understand, say, the Catholic belief about their own tradition. You don't need to agree with this belief in order to acknowledge that ignoring it is POV. JPD (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Discuss before changing

An editor at 65.4.81.213 unilaterally decided a long past version of this article satisfied WP:NPOV, claiming subsequent changes were arbitrary and made by those of insufficient education. Some such changes were discussed here, and the time for new discussion is before, not after, reverting to one editor's past favorite. —Adavidb 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet Adavidb you still insist on pushing your misunderstandings of history and reality into this entry. "Discussion" on this page does not change truth and reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.172 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion should not be about personal attacks, but instead include specific description of such 'historical realities' and verifiable references to support them, so a consensus can be reached. Please see Wikipedia guidelines regarding attribution. —Adavidb 05:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Article has irrelevant info and info repeated in other links (e.g., colleges affiliated with Churches of Christ). what point is there to putting that on the main page if it is already included in a link on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.172 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting to a previous version after so many changes have been made is a bad idea, no matter how bad most of the changes were. At least put the effort into distinguishing between the clearly positive changes and the ones you disagree with. (See the discussion about the placement of "only" several sections before this, for example.) If you do undo some changes, at least keep the wikilinking. Most of all, discuss disagreements here. The biggest problem ith this article is that people keep changing things undoing changes without even bothering to understand or explain the point that is being made. Finally, Wikipedia does not do "truth and reality". Everything included must be verifiable. So focus on getting sources for the things you are saying, not just writing what you think is true. JPD (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

An undiscussed edit

In this edit, an editor made significant changes to this article which were not discussed in advance. In returning the article's introductory paragraphs to a past version, the editor seemingly used a copy/paste action from a former display format which resulted in:

• Wikilinks to articles on Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and Barton W. Stone were removed. Please discuss a proposed restoration of these wikilinks.

• A subsequent paragraph now includes "they use only the Bible as their official source of doctrine.[2]" with only the bracketed numeral 'two' instead of an actual link to a source. Please discuss a proposed restoration of this source citation.

An entire sourced "Beginnings" subsection was quietly removed from the History in America section of the article. Please discuss any reasons for not including this information, and a proposed restoration. The former content is in the left column in the above-linked "this edit" page.

Despite explicit comments (based on past "edit wars") requesting prior discussion before making changes to the Variations within section, two source citations regarding congregational variation were removed and replaced with a statement that dismisses them with a minority status. See the above "this edit" link for specifics, and please discuss a proposed restoration of the two source citations. —Adavidb 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pending actual discussion on whether or not this should be reverted to, I'm going to revert. If you feel there is consensus to have the old version, feel free to undo. i ^{(said) (did)} 16:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And someone undid it. Apparantly that is the version that is wanted. i ^{(said) (did)} 01:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I, or someone who is able. Can you please revert back to the version before all these changes made by 74.249.12.172? Can we block this guy from making changes? He seems to prefer a much older version of the page and makes drastic changes without discussion.--Thelonghop 07:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Soteriology

I feel the Soteriology section is greatly lacking. It doesn't really go into the church of Christ beliefs at all, other than talking about baptism. I propose the following change the expand upon this:

Churches of Christ profess the doctrine common to most Protestant evangelical groups—that humans (of accountable age) are lost in sin (Romans 3:23) but can be redeemed by Grace (Acts 15.11, Ephesians 2.5) because Jesus Christ, the Son of God, offered Himself as the atoning sacrifice (Romans 6:23.) In order to receive this Grace, churches of Christ teach that one must Hear the Gospel preached (Romans 10.13), Believe the Gospel (Acts 16.31, Romans 10.9), Repent their sins (Acts 2.38), Confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that He was raised from the dead (Romans 10.9-10), be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38, 1 Peter 3.21), and that continued Faith must be exercised through good works (Ephesians, 2.8, James 2.26).

Churches of Christ differ from evangelicals in placing the exact timing of this salvation at the moment one is baptized by bodily immersion. They cite various passages in support of this (Mark 16.16, John 3.3-5, Acts 2.38, Acts 22.16, I Peter 3.21). This stands in contrast to evangelicals who (citing John 3.16 and 1 Peter 3. 21) place salvation at the moment of "acceptance of Christ." Baptism in churches of Christ is performed only by bodily immersion. (The New Testament Greek term baptizo meant "to immerse"; churches of Christ take this to mean whole-body submersion in water). Only those capable of personally making the commitment are baptized; infant baptism is not practiced.--Thelonghop 19:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are any of your guys throwing around all this rhetoric and pushing your edits even part of the Church of Christ? It seems that there is a lot of talk going on here that is very uninformed about this religious group and your points are not reflective of reality. The way you folks are trying to do this, it would be appropriate to have an entry on the planet earth and if a couple of people on the discussion page for "earth" decided that the entry should state that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, then the entry will state such. Facts and reality are thrown out because two or three people have a discussion in a bubble.

I would ask you to consider the statement "Churches of Christ profess the doctrine common to most Protestant evangelical groups—that humans (of accountable age)... Inasmuch as you mention infant baptism again in the last sentence, perhaps we should speak of doctrines common to many Protestant evangelical groups. It might also be more succinct to somehow say that salvation comes at the moment of obedience to all the Gospel commands. Not sure right now exactly how to word it though. But the idea of obedience seems to include all of the above. I do think the five steps and references should be included however. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see your point. Are you saying that 'most' Protestant churches practice infant baptism and therefore, the church of Christ doctrine is common to only 'many' Protestant churches? Regarding salvation at the moment of obedience...COCs view baptism as the last, culminating step of that obedience and the moment salvation is actually obtained, do they not? The five steps are a pretty integral part of COC doctrine, and if they can be explained more succinctly than I have, that's fine, but I think they should be listed. Adding something about obedience to scriptural commands might work, but I'm not sure how or where to add it.--Thelonghop 20:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the pedobaptists, its hard to know who or how many. I'm just saying some might be better or broader. In any case its not a big deal. You are correct about COC and salvation and the 5 steps are integral. Of course obedience is required at every step. Maybe on second thought there is not a tighter way to say it. I'll have to think about it. I would not object to you making the change as you have it. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)