Talk:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Dear Angel of Neutrality Unbelief
If you will note, the title of this article is "Disciples of Christ". It concerns those whose main principle of identity is their belief that Jesus is the Christ. They consequently consider themselves Christians. When you attempt to police the entire Wikipedia, to scour it clean of references to Jesus Christ, even where that title is the only one that makes sense in the context (as in a Christian article) you are pushing a point of view that distorts the articles you are editing. This is not neutrality, it is a form of argumentation; it is ordinary proselytism for your point of view. Please stop doing that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hummm...I think this is a bit strong (albiet, I don't know the full history here). The "Jesus Christ" entry was mine when I re-wrote the article, and is a direct quote from http://www.disciples.org/discover/beliefs.htm: "Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." As such, I believe the statement should remain intact, as a statement of a core Disciples belief from an official church publication. -- Essjay · Talk 06:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Apology
-
- I opened my complaint against this wiki-wide campaign to remove every link to Jesus Christ from articles pertaining to Christian belief (on the grounds that it's "POV"), on a page that I knew you monitored. But on reflection, I know that you don't like controversy, Essjay. I'm sorry to have made you uncomfortable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
If it's a systematic practice, then it sounds to me like it needs an RfC (like BC/AD and BCE/CE, although hopefully more successful). You're correct that as a general rule, I don't get involved in content disputes. With regard to this particular article, however, as I said above, "Jesus Christ" is a direct quote from the church's own website, and should remain intact. If quoting the one essential tenet of DOC faith is POV, then so is including the text of the Nicene Creed, the Eightfold Path, and the Five Pillars of Islam. No need to be worried about upsetting me, but I do believe that if there is a dispute about whether "Jesus Christ" should be used as a general rule, then RfC is the right place to go. No need to apologize to me. -- Essjay · Talk 12:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- The rule of thumb that appears to guide the project, is that articles may contain the phrase (inconsistently followed - as individuals get their own ideas), but none may contain the link. If it's a link, it's a wiki-wide issue (making the phrase "POV"); but if it's an unlinked phrase, it can be isolated to its ghetto of peculiar Christian culture and belief. That's my perception of why they have felt justified in reverting links. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, well I have no opinion with regard to whether it should be linked as the whole phrase Jesus Christ, or as Jesus Christ. However, the statement should remain one or the other, the "Christ" portion, whether linked or not, is part of the actual statement of belief and as such should remain. For all those involved, please feel free to make whatever arguments you wish with regard to whether Christ should be part of the link, but please do not remove it from the statement altogether; that is, argue over link and de-link if you like, but make sure the phrase remains the same. -- Essjay · Talk 00:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Interesting....
I wonder why the editors of this article chose to insert an explanation for Edgar Cayce's membership in the Christian Church, but left unexplained that of alleged genocidal killer Jim Jones. Is it really so much worse to be an occultist than an (alleged) murderer? -- SwissCelt 20:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- You're an editor too. If you think that there should be an explaination for Jones, add it. If you think there shouldn't be one for Cayce, delete it. "Edit this page" works equally for everyone. -- Essjay · Talk 02:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
I removed the commentary on the conflict between Cayce's para-normal activities and the beliefs of the church. If Cayce beleieved that Jesus is the Christ and was baptized, he met the essentials for membership. His other beliefs and practices, while not appreciated by all, were his, not the church's. One of the core beliefs of the Disciples of Christ, which is not always appreciated, is summarized in a dlogan from the early days of the movement "In essentials, Unity; in non essentials, Liberty; and in all things, Ccharity." Members of the Christian Church are NOT required to conform to a "party line." Neither was Cayce. The comment also has some POV problems regarding the validity of Cayce's approach to life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnparkw (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC) John Park (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jim Jones, Disciples minister or not?
Was Jim Jones ever a Disciples minister? This article currently states that he wasn't, without ever saying why one might think that he had been. His bio article says that he was. Anyone have any good references on this? Gwimpey 06:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- The book by Mary McCormick Maaga said that the People Temple Full Gospel Church was an affiliate of the Disciples of Christ (page 2). The DoC had records for the nr. of members (page 3). One prominent member (Carolyn Layton) described herself in 1976 as "Vice President of the Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ." 15:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
>>>Was Jim Jones ever a Disciples minister? <<<
Answer from religious tolerance website:
"Background of the People's Temple: This was a Christian destructive, doomsday cult founded and led by James Warren Jones (1931-1978). Jim Jones held degrees from Indiana University and Butler University. He was not a Fundamentalist pastor as many reports in the media and the anti-cult movement claim. He belonged to a mainline Christian denomination, having been ordained in the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ. (At the time of his ordination, the DoC allowed a local congregation to select and ordain a minister on their own. However, ordinations conducted without denominational endorsement were not considered valid within the rest of the church.) "
See for full article from which the quote was excerpted http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm
and:
"Jones was ordained as a minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in 1964." Taken from this source: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/jones.htm
(lisa pollison)
[edit] Churches of Christ (Aus)
The Australian arm of the 'Disciples of Christ' is the 'Churches of Christ (Australia)'.
"Australian Churches of Christ" are not an arm of the "Disciples of Christ", they are a seperate arm of the restoration movement that was initally heavily influenced by the "British Churches of Christ" and then after that by the US. That is why they used "Church(es) of Christ" and setup a conference structure from the 1860's. Disciples have pastors wearing robes and referred to as "reverend" both of which I have never heard of in Australia. The Australian Churches of Christ probably exist in a spectrum including people in line with the Independent Christian Church and Disciples (as their has never been a formal splitt in Australia.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.121.53 (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment re: the relationships. You are, of course, correct. There is much misinformation and many misunderstandings on talk pagees, aren't there? I looked in the article to see if there was still a reference to the Churches of Christ in Australia, and found none. John Park (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Statistics
Does anybody have a reference of statistics of this church? How many members were listed on the US census? Is there membership geographically isolated to the United States? Cuñado 
- Talk 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[1] and [2] (first two excel sheets). Both disciples.org and the second spreadsheet put the number around 800,000, so I used that in the article. disciples.org says that congregations are located in US and Canada. --MattWright (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The claim that non-Disciples churches with Restoration ties are "so strongly congregational as to make a reliable count of their overall memberships almost impossible" simply represents the decision not to do research on the matter. See the book, The Churches of Christ in the United States (2006 edition), published by 21st Century Christian publishers http://www.21stcc.com/cocus.cfm Josh a brewer 17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
CesarLeo, I don't understand why you delete informations about actual number of members and congregations. Oficcial site of DoC or PC(USA) reports are reliable sources, at least much more than website of single congregation. If you disagree, then confront your source with informations from U.S Census Bureau which MattWright inserted here earlier: [3]. Ammon86 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Updating
This article needed some work, in my opinion, so I did it. Sorry that I'm not being more specific, but I mostly added some information. If anything seems off, let me know.--Atterlep 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] American History X
In the film American History X, some of the neo-Nazis claim to be "Disciples of Christ" and get "D.O.C" tattoos. This seems to be an allusion to the Christian Identity movement. But I haven't found any reference, outside the film, to any racist group calling itself "Disciples of Christ".
So is this
- A reprehensible piece of carelessness on the part of the filmmakers, slandering (though probably without meaning to) the real Disciples,
- A reference to a true racist group that independently calls itself "Disciples of Christ", or
- Some breakaway congregation within the Disciples, taking advantage of the organizational freedom to go off the deep end, similar to the People's Temple? --Trovatore 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- While I would not totally discount #2. "A reference to a true racist group that independently calls itself 'Disciples of Christ'", I am sure that it is not a renegade congregation represented in the movie. It could simply be the fictional creation of the writers of the movie. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has lived since its earliest days using 2 very "Generic" names to identify itself 1. Christian (from Barton W. Stone) and 2 Disciples of Christ (from the Campbells). For the founders, the discomfort of leaders in other denominations, when those names were used, bore witness to the Unity of the church. A slogan, "We are not the only Christians, but Chistians only," captures their rather whimsical spirit. That a movie uses the "Disciples of Christ" phrase to depict a Nazi group, probably should be considered neither slanderous nor confusing. To illustrate: How many people do you know named "John" or "Jon?" If a Nazi group actually used the name, there might be someone who would find that of interest. But it is an entirely different issue. --John Park (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)John Park (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Who really designed the chalice Logo?
Does anyone have a written source for the attibution of the Chalice's creation? I have looked and not found it anywhere. I know from personal conversations with Disciples Leaders that Robert Friedly was part of the process. Is there any documentation of what role John Fulton played in the process? In a meeting I once attended, Disciples cartoonist, Bruce Tillsley, described his role in the process, as well. Knowing those who participated in the creation and their democratic style, I suspect that all would really prefer anonymity to attribution. Can we find an adequate verifyable written source? or, Shall we pull the names altogether? John Park (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mojohook Thank you for your edits this morning. They are are interesting. Do you have a written source that I have not found? May I suggest that we not attibute the chalice logo design to any individuals, for now. Then reserve such attribution until we have a good source. I personally know two of the people who were involved in its creation. -- The source you removed supports the 1969 date and most of the rest of the content of this section. John Park (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding the Division Section in the history portion
At this point the section titled Division is still missing citations and sources. Points for us to ponder:
- Shouldn't the details about the beliefs and practices of the Churches of Christ be moved or otherwise incorporated in the article devoted to Churches of Christ? This material definitely needs source citation. Can someone provide them?
- Should the Division section be named something else? There are two major divisions that have taken place (1906 - the Churches of Christ) and (1968+ -- the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ) The Division section primarily deals with the Non-Instrumental Churches of Christ. The other division was a long time coming, but formalized after the Adoption of the Provisional Design in 1968. It is covered later in the Restructure section of the article.
- Please be sure to cite sources in any edits. I would gladly assist with the formatting if you leave me a message either here or on my talk page. John Park (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I moved the Churches of Christ segment titled "other branches" to the Restoration Movement Article since the Churches of Christ have not been affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) for more than a century (1906), they hardly qualify as another branch of the CC(DOC). They are indeed a branch of the Restoration movement.John Park (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding a Disambiguation at the top
The disambiguation paragraph at the top was placed there because there has been a tendency for editors from the other two branches of the Campbell Stone Movement to add segments describing "other branches, where that material in POV and really extraneous to this article. I can see that the very top might not be the best place for it. The bottom is ridiculous. Is there a place it could be inserted to be effective, yet not at the top? Is it needed at all? John Park (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because the article seems mostly to run chronologically, perhaps we could insert each link in the time period that each schism happened. —ScouterSig 17:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Critical Error
The first sentence of this article is incorrect (as is this article's link being listed on the Mainline Protestant Page). The Disciples of Christ are a division of the Stone-Campbell movement, which is NOT a Protestant movement. It comes out of the Restoration Movement, which was designed to bring Christ's Church(believed by Restorationists to be all One church including all true Christians, no matter their sect) back to "primitive Christianity" (the Church as Christ intended it to be accourding to the Bible, specifically with emphasis from the four cannonical Gospels). This is a new movement independant of the Protestant Reformation. Stone actually, after many years of trying to keep unity, divided from the Protestant groups, beginnig the Restoration Movement later continued by the Campbells and many others.
The Protestant Reformation was a movement designed to reform the Catholic Church towards Biblical Theology and away from Traditionalism. The Restoration Movement started from square one, the Bible only, and left it at that. While they aimed at similar goals(being more as Christ commanded us to be), the source, people, ideas and goals, along with the fudamental beliefs about the unity of God's people (Catholicism and many Protestant denominations believe their sect to be the only way (only their baptism is correct, etc.)) the Restoration Movement was designed to see all groups of Christians as seperate parts of Chris't One Church, as described in the Bible.
And to dismiss the issue by stating that "Any group whose founders were at one time Protestant are all Protestant groups" is to say then that "all Christians are Catholics," for the same logic would have to be applied to the division of the Protestants from Catholicism. To generalize the issue to that point would be expressing the point of view that "all Christian's are the same," which no researched article on Christiantity would state. Such perspectives are narrow-minded and unreasearched and WikiPedia is no place for such shoddy research. They may have split from the Protestant churches, but they are not part of the Protestant Movement. Stone and the Campbells all decided to split, though each decided individually, because they all honestly knew that "reforming" the Church as it was in their time was not the answer; they needed to "restore" it to the way the Bible intended it, hence the name "Restoration Movement."
After all that, simply put: The Disciples of Christ are NOT a Protestant group and should not be listed as such. The significance of making this distinction is that the Restoration Movement was about bringing everyone together in spite of the divisions of disagreement; the cause for the Reformation split, and subsequent divisions, have been for the same reason as the Restoration Movement had to leave the Presbyterian Church: because many Protestant groups by tradition don't accept other groups as part of God's Church. The Restoration Movement was started over that very issue. To lump them together would be to forsake all the work that the Restoration Movement tries to achieve: unification of Christ's church as One complete body.
IanSvinth (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- IanSvinth, Your comments present an interesting perspective. I would be interested in reading more about it. Can you supply the name of a book or two? Thanks! OTOH, While the Disciples are proud of their Campbell-Stone heritage, their focus over the last 130 years has gradually moved toward the first proposition of Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address that "the church of Jesus Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one and includes all who accept Jesus as the Christ." By Campbell's statement, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Catholics, etc. are all part of the church of Jesus Christ on earth. As a result the CC(Doc) has moved away from "Restoring the Church" in favor of other methods.
- IanSvinth, as you know there are many definitions of "Protestant." I will not attempt to play word games with you. I only note that many impartial obeservers place the CC(DOC) clearly within the Mainline Protestant camp. Most of the Disciples I know are quite comfortable with that. With the diversity that exists within the movement, I am sure there are some who are not comfortable with that. Personally, I'd like to hear what their reasons are.
- I know it may be troubling that a group that is one of the inheritors the tradition of Campbell and Stonecould drop "Restoring the church" from its agenda. For Disciples, the goal of Stone and the Campbells was the unity of the church. Restoration was a "Method" by which they sought to show that unity. Did it work? Or did it create yet another bunch that "claims to be the only church?" John Park (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
