Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"The Emergent Church"

I'm thinking of paring the recent addition down to a sentence or two. Something like, "Some of the more progressive churches identify with the emerging church movement." Given the EC movement has its own page and this reads more like advertising material rather than a NPOV article, I'd think it's more than justified. Seems to me this and the addition of the EC blogs and links is more like astroturfing than useful reference material. Am I mistaken? Jdb1972 21:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I cross-posted with you. I didn't see a conversation on it yet, so started one. If that's a breach of etiquette I apologize! EDIT: Interestingly, the Emerging Church wikipedia page describes this group as "The emerging church is concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of Protestant Christianity in a postmodern cultural context." The churches of Christ don't really see themselves as protestant (not protesting the Roman Catholics after all, but in our view restoring that which came before them). Deconstructing and reconstructing sound like ideas that would be anathema to a group purporting as the CoC does to reflect the original church; they sound like man-made not God-made. Although I suspect they have a non-literal meaning for these terms I don't understand. Finally, the "postmodern context", which is to say, interpreting scripture in our view of what it might mean today in our culture. Without getting into just what I think of that, I will say it doesnt' really reflect a reliance on the bible only - no book but the bible, no creed but Jesus, etc. 12.217.48.171 22:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe this dramatic expansion of the wikipedia entry for Church of Christ is both biased and innaccurate. It certainly doesn't take a clinical tone, and is riddled with opinions that may or may not reflect the reality of the church.

Just a single example: discussion on musical instrumentation. Frankly the whole thing bears no resemblance to any church of Christ I've attended, but much resemblance to a couple baptist congregations and a community church I've been to with friends (despite our disagreements and occasional lively conversations, heh).

This addition, in summary, seems highly suspect and extremely liberal (scripturally speaking) and doesn't reflect at all the church I'm familiar with. 12.217.48.171 22:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess what we need to know is: Can anyone come up with a source to show that there is a movement within the churches of Christ that considers itself part of the emerging church movement? And, if so, can anyone come up with a source that shows whether these churches identify with the churches of Christ in a way that makes them unique within the emerging church movement, that is, are they distinguished in any way from the rank and file emergent church congregations? This article doesn't need to reproduce a bunch of material from the emergent church article, but if there are groups that consider themselves a part of both movements in such a way that they are set apart from the churches of Christ by being "emergent churches" and are set apart from the emergent church movement by being "churches of Christ" they should be covered here in some way. Jdavidb (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've had a bit of exposure to them in the past. Nearly as I can tell, it's a bare handful of churches, mostly represented by the blogs that were posted yesterday. I could, of course, be mistaken since my interaction has been strictly over the Internet, but the entire "movement" has seemed more Internet-based astroturfing than anything else to me. You can look here for one of the few discussions of what an "emerging church of Christ" is. Jdb1972 02:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read at the blogs and the emerging church wikipedia entry, they seem drawn from charismatic or evangelical roots, if they can be said to have roots at all. I've never heard of it before someone added them to this entry. 12.217.48.171 04:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, puhleeze. The "emergent church" movement is a phenomenon of the seminaries and seminarians' blogosphere echo chamber. It has nothing specific to do with the Churches of Christ. Danlovejoy 00:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it possibly that there is more diversity than some of us realize? Is it possible that the writers who have done most of the contributing and defining of the (Wikipedia) Church of Christ are over 45 years of age? The emergent conversation is impacting the church of Christ and will in the future. I only felt it would be fair to give a complete and full representation of what is happening on a much broader scale then what is defined here. If what I did was astroturfing...I was innocent. I didn't know. So please accept my apologize. I'd like to address a number of things I read on this discussion but I'm not sure if this is the place. I found some good questions asked by Jdavidb (22:38) I also found some disparaging statements (most likely made in misunderstanding) in other places. My understanding is that in matters of faith a liberal is one who rejects the death, burial and resurrection. I don't consider myself a liberal and none in the emergent conversation would. The documentation you are asking for is still difficult; this is still a gathering conversation. Most of us who have listed our blogs on the site are involved in the conversation and would probably be consider the poineers in what many feel will soon transition to "movement." At the same time it is important to know that there are a growing number of practicing congregations.(I could name a good number of them but in doing so leave out others)

Six years ago I would stand in the back of the assembly and look at all the white heads (80% or more). Today there are very few white heads (10-20%). This paticular church is healthy and prepared to pass the baton to the next generation. And there are others communities like this. Emergents (Church of Christ) have their online conversations, but we also have our conferences, magazines and ezines. It's worthy of a place in Wikipedia. Remember this: we find value in what you and previous generations have accomplished, and we will make our contribution. I'm sure the future will treat us better than the present. Most important is we are of the same heritage, standing for the same Savior. Because we have the same roots we passionately pursue the values inherent in the restoration heritage. And like the pioneers of the past (who in some measure, large or small, are responsible for our present) we chase the future with the same vigor they did.

Without doubt there will be some differences in what we believe and what the mainline Chuch of Christ believes, (mostly methodology) but please don't refer to us as liberal. The gathering is growing and will continue to grow. It's members are vibrant, passionate, and missional. Have the grace to give it a place in Wikipedia. It will be the future and it is going to be a part of the heritage we both love. If this is not the place to talk further I'd like to do that with one of you via email. Fred.Peatross@gmail.com Thanks for listening. Fred Peatross

Based on your blog pic, I'm probably younger than you are, Fred. ;) The pertinent question to me is, "Are emergents significant enough today to warrant mention here?" This is the general churches of Christ page; obviously, every variant/faction/subgroup within it can't be listed here. The ones that are tend to have only a general description. Given there's another EC article and the EC movement within these churches seems to be, as I said, a handful of congregations, the most I could see is a link to the EC article. If you feel it's significant enough to warrant a longer entry and sufficiently distinct from the general EC itself, I'd encourage you to create a separate page and link to it from here. Jdb1972 13:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the emergent crosses over generational lines. Interestingly, there are some twenty-year olds who are very modern and then there are those, like me, who are more comfortable with the emergent dynamic than the modern. The cultural cartographers seem to be older. And, by the way, I'm older than everybody nowdays.

Your suggesting for a link to another page seems reasonable to me. Since you have more experience with creating and editing pages within Wikipedia can you give me a brief on how to create a page and then link it to the site? And can I adapt the material I wrote so it doesn't have the astroturf feel and link it? Thanks.

Just click on the "Help" link to the left and you should find several articles on how to do this. Jdb1972 23:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred, I am 31 years old. The anon person you're talking about who used the word "liberal" doesn't know what the word means theologically. I have never used that word to describe anyone in the Churches of Christ. I am definitely on the progressive end of the spectrum. I am fairly sure you and I would agree about most things. My problem with what I've read about "the emergent church" in the last few days is that those who are pushing it as a movement are seem quite enamored with their own prolix. These are the folks who are leading the movement, folks who have a vested interest in talking about the established church because they're almost all "professional Christians" on the payroll of a church. I've gotten in trouble on this page for implying that traditionalists "preach the church" rather than preaching Jesus. Now, lo and behold, the progressives are doing it too! ;-)

But regardless of my opinion, I guess the relevant question here is, "Is there a significant "Emergent Church" movement in the Churches of Christ? Or is it an astroturf movement being advocated by a several well-intentioned, articulate, passionate folks? The former merits a mention, the latter does not, IMO. Danlovejoy 16:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

First, of all let me say, we obviously resonate with the EC conversation. But the big difference is (I think) those you refer to a “enamored with their prolix” are of another tribe operating out of fundamentals quite different than those of us of the restoration heritage. Also…if I understand your use of the phrase “enamored with their prolix” correctly, it may be that those captivated for the wrong reason have a heart issue.

We have no intention and no “vested interest” in a negative discussion or comments about the established church. Some emergents are members working with the established church while orbiting it. The emergent churches of Christ I am associated with and the ones I am familiar with have paid staff. The faith community I belong to preaches Jesus, but I certainly understand what you mean when you say you “got in trouble when you implied that traditionalist preach the church.” Not our plan. And I hope we (the Emergent Church of Christ) don’t appear to be preaching the church (again). God forbid! I prefer to say we are attempting to live out the moment we find ourselves in as a body of believers.

You ask, "Is there a significant "Emergent Church" movement in the Churches of Christ?

To me, significant is relevant. How do we measure or quantify such? The idea to quantifying so one can determine whether something is significant or worthy of inclusion is a good example of modernism. Based on my subjectivism (conversation and observation) I think what’s happening here is significant. I know of contemporary CofC leaders involved in the conversation. Some communities seem to be morphing and taking on the early appearances of emergent. Some seem to be hybrids (emergent/contempo). And then there will be those who will continue the status quo. The bad news is unless they change they may become “museum churches.” The EC among churches of Christ doesn’t move at the same pace as the EC outside our heritage, simply because we are often resistant to change. Nevertheless, change is happening.

All I can say with certainty is the conversation is growing. I think it varies both geographically and demographically. Geographically, for example, if you're in Seattle or San Francisco or Washington DC -- I think you're pretty far along in the transition.

If you're in the Midwest or Deep South, in general, you'll probably be more embedded in the modern culture. Demographically, the younger you go, the more likely you're at home on the other side. But of course there are exceptions. There are plenty of 75-year-old postmodern grandmothers in Mississippi, I'm sure.

I could go on and on. But I’ve said enough.

Obviously, my bias and my dealings within the gathering conversation is enough for me to say with certainty that I honestly believe it merits a mention. Give me your thoughts

This isn't something specific to CoC. It isn't something founded on CoC roots. It is its own movement, not a group of CoC. Given its tiny size in relation to movements that directly impact CoC such as ICOC and others, the emergent church movement really only warrants a link in External Links to the EC wiki entry, and even that would be more along the lines of a courtesy than something directly relevant to the CoC. And as if age matters (per above dialog) I am 32. 12.217.48.171 17:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Closing Rant

Let me try again! What the emerging CofC believes is unique/specific to the restoration heritage. The article I wrote (which was removed) proves that. The group represented in the EC Wiki entry, does not have the same beliefs. They are a seperate group of believers from various other tribes with different beliefs. And btw--who cares where or who founded/started the conversation (let me say it again...it's not yet a movement). Somehow we get the idea that someone woke up and said, "Let's start an emergent church." I think the conversation has slowly emerged through the 1990s among many believers in western culture. So does the criteria among the editors(??) revolve around the question--did we the general/mainline Cof C start this movement or conversation? Is that the criteria? God help us if it is!

After reading the post above it looks like it need repeating--the emergent crosses generational lines. There are some in their fifties who are emergent. Conversely some in their 30s come from a modernistic orientation (probably some, if not all, of the writer's here). Because what I read in this Church of Christ wiki entry seems to be the old party line, which by the way is no longer the predominant view. It's naive to think that every Church of Christ looks exactly like what you have described.

Mark it down. The future will find a conversation turned movement which will refuse to get caught up in the control game that has stifled spiritual growth and silenced any real engagement of the broader culture.

In closing I do want to thank DanLovejoy! It appeared that he came the closest to understanding. I think I read somehwere in this discussion that my unwelcomed entry was the first experience/encounter some had with the EC. Branch out, broaden your perspective, be open to the future.

So I'll close. I've had my say and I can read the handwriting on the wall. Sorry I intruded.

Hey, Fred; welcome to Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to work to improve any article you see. The text about the emergent church was not deleted by anyone participating in this conversation here on this "back side" of this page. It appears to have been deleted by somebody who only shows up every few months and changes this article.

I do need to comment about the blog links. You make mention of "most of us who have listed our blogs on the site." Now aside from editing the article on the church of Christ, here, I also happen to be something of a link spam crusader. And I have to say that it isn't appropriate for people to add links to their own sites to Wikipedia. I also have a site relating to the church of Christ, and it's not in this article. Also, in general, articles don't have a section of links to "blogs." So I'm going to go ahead and take those out, though if anyone here in this discussion wants to suggest that they should stay in, I'm quite willing to listen to reason and I'm certainly not making a decision that is final and cannot be reverted. We'll talk it over among the editors of this article, ask outside opinions of other Wikipedia editors if necessary, and come to a consensus decision, which is how we do things here on Wikipedia. I think even if we decided we wanted such a section, though, it would need to not be so oriented toward one viewpoint. One "emergent church" blogger would almost definitely be sufficient. And, of course, contributions to the article itself are more important.

As I said, I've got nothing against including "the emergent church" in the article provided it's 1) verifiable (documentable with sources), and 2) something we can say is genuinely occurring within churches of Christ as opposed to a movement that some churches of Christ have decided to participate in, in which case it would need to be mentioned in passing here and described in its own article instead. (Note to everybody: whether or not it's right or Scriptural isn't a standard for deciding whether it belongs in this article, as this article should describe the entire church of Christ, whether faithful or not. So even if you think the "emergent church" folks are complete heretics, we still need to report on them.) I would like to see more information for ways in which "the emergent church of Christ" differs from the Emerging Church to know how this movement really fits in and needs to be described here as opposed to there.

Since we're on the subject, you talked about how the article allegedly reflects "the old party line" and how not every church of Christ looks like that. The article does explain this, although we probably need to make that clearer because almost every newcomer to the article mentions that. As I mentioned on this talk page recently, we state at the top of the list of "practices and beliefs" that the churches are autonomous and many have rejected some or most of the things mentioned there, yet newcomers constantly seem to find it necessary to go down the list and add "not all churches still do this" to each item (or take them out completely; as a pacifist I note with interest that it bothers some anonymous editors significantly to see it mentioned that the church of Christ used to be almost completely pacifist, even though the article shoots straight and explains that that has changed; this line has disappeared at least once, and maybe more).

Final comments: I'm sure the definition of "liberal" varies from place to place but I've never heard it defined the way you defined it, at least not within any group that called itself a church of Christ. And I don't think the age distinction mentioned holds much validity, but I'll voluntarily declare my age is 27. Jdavidb (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the EC article and included it.

If that many new readers make the comment that the views expressed on the back side of this page are not what "churches still do" it should become obvious that what's written on the main page is no longer the views of the general churches of Christ. If, as you say, "many have rejected the practices & beliefs" stated on the other side of this discussion why give those practices and beliefs a place on the main page and make them the standard? The fact that many in the CofCs have changed their beliefs may be evidence for a reconsideration as to what really is the predominant view among restoration churches. And because some have changed their beliefs doesn't make them unfaithful. For years most accepted the CofC doctrines but upon further study found the context didn't allow the views of the "party-line" to go unchallenged. I no longer go to the Scriptures to confirm my belief...I think that's the difference.

I now understand your comments about links. At the time I included them I honestly didn't.

I agree age doesn't matter. That's what I've been saying. EC has many young adults but plenty of older as well. For the record I am 57.

Howdy - please make sure to sign your entries with four tildes: ˜˜˜˜

For the record, this whole conversation is really freaking me out. For the first time in a long, long time I find myself on the traditionalist rather than progressive side. I guess that's because I am psychologically intolerant of ambiguity, I feel nothing but disdain for the whole postmodern worldview. (But not for postmodern people, of course!)

I remember a bible study I was having in Argentina once. The guy I was studying with was telling me the he believed in determinism - basically, everything was already decided and we were just playing things out. I asked him, "Well, do you believe in putting people in prison to punish them?" He said, "Yeah, sure," as if he were unaware of the inherent contradiction.

To me, this question of church structure and behavior is secondary. The measure of a Church's effectiveness, to me, is whether it is doing God's work. Is it bringing people to a relationship with Jesus Christ? Is it feeding the poor, clothing the naked? This emergent church talk reminds me of late night dorm-room philosophizing. There's a lot of talk, yeah. But are people being saved? I don't believe the Bible teaches that the Church is an end to itself, but a means to do God's work on earth.

I'm sure there are lots of people in "emergent" churches doing God's work, and I'm just spouting off here because I've become turned off by all the blather. So please forgive, and feel fee to educate me.

Since we're not talking about the article so much any more, should we move this discussion off the Wikipedia? Danlovejoy 18:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you admitedly don't know much about the EC you probably shouldn't say much. Otherwise you might offend. Are all you guys Freed-Hardeman graduates? Yes, let's move off the discussion.70.35.170.125 18:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's part of the education. This is a little long.

Gathering Conversation within the Restoration Churches Since the 1960's, sociologists have noted that our culture has been transitioning into what has been labeled “postmodernism.” Authors, scholars, artists, architects, and many others who challenged the existing traditional worldviews, assumptions, and beliefs, introduced postmodernism.

In its essence, postmodernism has fundamentally changed the way our culture thinks and acts. While absolute truth, morals, and spiritual framework used to be an assumption, now they are often negated and even laughed at. Our society has radically shifted away from foundational elements and values that Christianity would hold as key assumptions and beliefs.

Although the entire world has experienced this shift, the generations that have been most affected were born after 1964. They are natives to this new world that is based upon postmodern thought and analysis.

Many churches have chosen to fight against current culture, but a growing number of leaders within the restoration churches have decided to be relevant; believing there is a new, emerging mindset that needs someone to take them into account. It is without question that many aspects of postmodernism are contrary to the Christian faith. Yet, paradoxically this cultural shift has created a greater awareness of this emerging generations need for God. It is the conviction of the emergent Church of Christ that God has provided us with a great moment in history.

The modern age (15th century – late 1980s) was an era characterized by science, progress, and pragmatism. Throughout modernity’s hundreds of years, this systematic structure of thought evolved and, in time, became fully developed. Insipidly, the western world became dependent upon the gods of reason and science. Western authors, scientist, scholars, professors, and artists firmly entrenched themselves in the belief that one could apply logic, look to the sciences, work hard, and in time society would solve its problems and discover truth. The result would be a better world with fewer problems. Although this outlook has provided "progress," it has also alienated the church from society.

Interestingly, there is increased spiritual hunger in our culture---but paradoxically church attendance is down. This cultural shift demands that we “step-up” and claim this moment for Christ. No more, no less. The Amish decided not to live their moment in history and today they remain frozen in the 1800s.

Evolution of the Conversation

Recognizing there are many divisions within the Church of Christ the intent of this section is not to speak to every nuance and teaching within the emergent conversation but alternatively to capture the essence and spirit of a remnant within the restoration movement that has been charmed by grace.

Rallying around the early pioneer’s banner of Christian unity, the a cappella and instrumental churches began to meet and talk once again. But soon thereafter legalism showed its confusion with the principles of biblical unity by insisting on unanimity. The emerging movement refused to bow to the demands of legalism and began distancing itself from the polarizing doctrines of the right branch of the Church of Christ.

This new emerging was soon infused with the early movement’s passion. Their common center was built upon the grace and unity of Jesus Christ. They understood that inferences from scripture may be true doctrine but because each Christian is at a different level in understanding and maturity individual conclusions and hermeneutics were not made tests of fellowship.

With the dawn of a new century the Church of Christ now finds itself on the “edge” of a moment like no other—the end of one age and the beginning of another. Yesterday’s maps are already outdated, and today’s soon will be, too. The uncharted world ahead of us is what we will call “the new world on the other side”: the other side of two world wars and one cold war, the other side of communism, the other side of the second millennium, the other side of 9/11, and the other side of modernism.

During the last fifty years old-world technology has intensified cultural pressures and unleashed tremor after tremor, each far more significant than could have been imagined. These technological tremors have helped bring to an end the old world that created them. Think of the automobile and its effects on the environment, the economy, the family unit, and even courtship and sexuality. Think of radio, air travel, birth-control pills, antibiotics, and the cathode ray tube, and we’re barely past the mid-century mark. Then came the tidal wave of social change set in motion during the sixties. Is it any wonder old maps don’t fit the new world!

The Church of Christ emergent sees present and future theology as creative pursuit and passionate inquiry, like the best art and the best science. Psychology, sociology, the new physics, history, comparative religion, and spirituality—not to mention postmodernism in general—all are calling for creative Christians to unfold new paradigms to use in new world explorations. The old systems are tired, used up, and worn out, but the thirst for God is as strong as ever.

For these reasons the emerging Church of Christ is interested in speaking in a “heart language” the new world understands; to initiate and create environments that encourage Christians to become creative thinkers, pursuers of truth, explorers, and learners, rather than old world memorizers, repeaters, and defenders of old formulations.

Who’s In Charge?

The question that has been on most radar screens for the last quarter of a century is an important one. Is Christian unity built on doctrinal conformity or our allegiance to Jesus Christ? The emerging Church of Christ has found that biblical unity can be maintained through Christ, even in the midst of the most diverse groups. It encourages Christians, as the restoration pioneers did, to freely approach and explore the scriptures for themselves. The emergent church’s oneness plea is not a unity of sentiment but oneness with a diversity of opinions.

The love and commitment to one another is an indispensable that stands above the dogma of conformity. Biblical unity is not an expendable ingredient to be disposed of when there is diversity in understanding and interpretation. The eternal truth is that the early Christians were united well before the Scriptures were completed. Doctrinal conformity has never been the basis for unity. Jesus is the basis of for unity. He is the rally pole for the emergent Church of Christ.

Evangelism

Individually each of us has been called to love and serve the people God has placed in our day-to-day life. Yet God has called his people to collectively incarnate their culture. The emergent Church of Christ is attempting to innovatively infiltrate its communities by architecting “safe places,” spiritual conversation zones that potentially become “church” for the people Jesus misses most.

Safe places stand as a corrective to the prevailing mentality of the church and its uncanny addiction to centripetal ministries, which attempts to drag seekers into its gig. Jesus wasn’t centripetal but centrifugal. The emergent church is simply attempting to model its life after Jesus.

Salvation

The Church of Christ emergent leans toward a “process model of conversion” with less emphasis on dating a conversion event and more thought given to the different stages of the process as milestone events or rites of passage. Synthesizing the value of both event and process is consider a more balanced and biblical view.

With this said, it is important to point out that the emergent Church of Christ continues to celebrate milestone events (baptism, etc.) in the spiritual life of the individual. But events are rooted in their proper context. Without the process, the event would be meaningless.

Belong Before Believe

The traditional Church of Christ attempted to motivate by exclusion. “We’re right, and you’re wrong. If you want to be included, then you need to commit your life to Christ.”

The emerging Church of Christ believes the process model calls for motivation by inclusion; where belonging precedes believing. This approach is more in synch with Jesus’ example. He welcomed and accepted people who did not yet “believe right, think right, speak right, and act right.”

How Are We Organized?

Each congregation is autonomous of every other congregation. The only tie that binds the many congregations is our common alliance to Christ.

Each faith community is pastored locally by a plurality of shepherds selected from among its members. Deacon/ministry leaders are also selected from among the membership.

The pulpit minister is hired by the local congregation to minister and preach the Word of God. Although the emergent Church of Christ states that the pulpit minister is not the pastor, he often serves the congregation in this capacity. The shepherds of a congregation are frequently employed full time in secular work (and not available during the day) so the minister, by default, takes on the role of a shepherd. His day is filled with sermon preparation, lessons, and visiting the sick.

Many emergent churches employee a youth minister and campus minister to oversee youth and campus ministries activities.

How Do We Worship?

Wonder is the basis of the emerging church’s worship.

Public worship could be described as occurring somewhere between the extremes of total passivity and unbridled enthusiasm. The Church of Christ emergent strives to find the balance between intellectualizing emotions and emotionalizing intellect.

The emergent church considers it a mistake to completely divorce its theology from the emotions and experiences of its participants. When a heart is tuned to God and finds itself lost in wonder and awe, emotions and experience become a part of worship. We cannot ignore the normal response and expressions of the human psyche.

Music

Dated spiritual songs, once effective, no longer resonate with 21st century culture. Hymns with archaic words like “smitten,” “vale,” or “pinion” no longer connect with today’s culture and are rarely sung in the emergent Church of Christ.

The days of publicly condemning those who use instruments of music in worship are in the past. Most congregations that align themselves with the emerging Church of Christ see instrumental accompaniment as an acceptable expression of praise to the Lord. Even so, there are vestiges within the emerging movement that perceive instrumental accompaniment to be in conflict with tradition. There are other emergent churches that forgo the use of instrumental accompaniment for the sake of unity. But few, if any, see it as sin.

The Church of Christ emergent believes in the beauty, simplicity, and power of a cappella music and is committed to continuing the tradition. However, it is hesitant to offer it as the only form of musical expression in its attempts to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to our culture in ways, mediums, and forums which our culture relates to and values. It is unrealistic to expect a cappella music to affect, impact, and reach everyone, especially since we live in a culture so conditioned with an appreciation for instrumental accompaniment. Music, a cappella and instrumental, is powerful and has a point of leverage upon the human spirit. In the years to come both forms of musical expression will co-exist among the emergent Church of Christ.

Influential congregations who have made some of the changes are the Farmer's Branch Church of Christ in Dallas; the Oak Hills Church—Max Lucado's congregation in San Antonio, Texas; Northwest Church of Christ—Milton Jones' congregation in Seattle, Washington; the Southlake Boulevard Church in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas and the Amarillo South Church in Amarillo, Texas. Five are cited but many others are moving in the same direction.````

I noticed someone added a paragraph of POV ad-text back in. I went ahead and NPOVed it while maintaining the link that was added, though it could probably be better written. I also notice at least one (perhaps three) of the churches listed above has publically disassociated itself from the churches of Christ. I would assume this indicates this is less of a subgroup within these churches than a breakway movement. Jdb1972 19:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Barring 1) and 2) above per Jdavidb comments, I think this conversation should be archived or deleted - it's the longest discussion section there is for a topic that seems unrelated to the Church of Christ anyway, other than peripherally, and coincidentally. Do we need the longest conversation here to be on something this tenuous? 12.217.48.171 08:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll archive it at the end of the month if that's the consensus. I would note there appears to be a vote on deletion of the emerging church article taking place, so the whole discussion could boomerang back here again. I'd recommend proponents of the EC having a place at Wikipedia rewrite that article with the basics (who, what, where, why, how). Explain it clearly with NPOV, basically, and drop most of the vague, postmodern terminology (or at least include a glossary). Looks like Fred's lost interest in doing that, though. Jdb1972 14:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The RfD went through. Do we need to archive this, or is there something else that needs to be said? Jdb1972 20:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

I am getting frustrated with people who go through and decapitalize every instance of "Church/es of Christ." This bizarre "church of Christ" capitalization is POV and contrary to standard English grammar. In addition, only a small number of churches continue to follow this strange conceit. Why should Wikipedia and the rules of English grammar change for the small minority of a relatively small church? Danlovejoy 03:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You'll note that most of those who decapitalize "church" are anonymous users. It is these users who tend to see the "Church of Christ" (note uppercase "C") as being denominational in naming since the uppercase C makes it a proper noun. Gramatically the uppercase "C" is correct. One could argue that the lower case "c" would make it POV in approach. In any case it needs to be one way or another. All lowercase c's or uppercase C's. -Ichabod 02:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Depends on how it's used. I prefer "church of Christ" because it's meant to be a possessive description. If it's used in the quasi-denominational (or out-and-out denominational) sense of a proper name, I can see why it would be capitalized, though. All in the usage and intent. -Jdb1972 15:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

JDB - I have to nitpick here. It doesn't ever make grammatical sense not to capitalize "church" in this context. It takes some kind of strange Jedi mind trick to say - "No, that's not the name of the church." It's just a generic church, just like "the clothes of Christ" or "the beard of Christ." But the Church of Christ is not generic - it's a specific body, with a discrete belief system and a discrete membership. If we claim not to be a denomination, fine. Then we're the one true church - the "Church of Christ." Call it what you want, but it really seems like sophistry not to capitalize it. Danlovejoy 22:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll see if I can explain better, then. I'm not part of any group named the "Church of Christ." I am part of Christ's church, or the church of Christ. Just as I am of the church of God. The former is a denominational name; the latter is a description. The latter is scriptural; the former is not. Usage of "churches of Christ" in the Bible is a description, not a name. Using it as a name (particularly exclusively), IMO, shows a lack of understanding, albeit a common one. Regardless, the misuse has probably become so common it's academic where Wikipedia is concerned. -Jdb1972 22:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I have submitted an RFC to reach a consensus once and for all on this issue. I feel like I need it to have the moral authority to rv anonymous editors who go through and change a few instances to lower-case. If consensus goes against me, that's fine too. Let's just be consistent! Danlovejoy 21:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you fully - it does seem like sophistry not to capitalize. john k 21:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Support for Capitalization

Lower case "c" churches of Christ is a theological statement about the nature of the church. It is done for the same reason the "He", "Him", et cetera are capitalized in ref to God. It is also the reason that "God" is capitalized. That is not "His" (sic) name. YHWH is the appropriate way to address God but simply capitalizing a "G" implies the meaning YHWH. Since the churches of Christ existing in a society of religious pluralism and denominationalism, the proper name for this particular group of believers is the "Church of Christ." From the theological perspective of this group, there is only one Christian Church and they are it; therefore, the members belong to Christ's generic church. In ref to Jdb1972's comment: Usage of "churches of Christ" in the Bible is a description, not a name. That is true in the theological sense. By in the descriptive and encyclopedic sense it is the proper name of a group of believers in YHWH: the Church(es) of Christ. Another example to just drive the point home, the Roman Catholic Church regards itself as the only "Church." While not doubting that salvation can be achieve by believing in Jesus Christ outside of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church does not recognize any "churches" other than those in communion with them. Other groups that have a Christian heritage outside the Catholic Church at least doctrinally are called "eccelsial groups" (I hope I spelled that correctly). Calling this article the "churches of Christ" would be equal to me changing all articles on Protestant and Restorationist churches to "eccelsial groups": the Evangelican Lutheran Eccelsial Group of America. I would be asserting a POV that only one group holds. In a wiki sense, NPOV really is the issue here. I personally write the "c" in lower case in personal writings, because I understand most of the sentiment around it. Most of my family is COC, so I have dealt with this issue my entire life. I hope I have been able to contribute postively to the RfC. Psy guy (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said, the misuse has become so common that it's probably academic. Though I disagree with the RCC example; my feeling is that John the Baptist is a better example. Technically, the "b" in "baptist" (or "baptizer," to be more accurate in modern English) should be lowercase, since it's a description, not a title. However, because of misuse over the years, it's now the commonly accepted practice to capitalize it. Where Wikipedia is concerned, common usage for clarity tends to trump technical accuracy, which has been my (probably poorly-explained) point.

I would recommend adding a brief blurb explaining the controversy, much the same as the denominational/non-denominational one, though. Jdb1972 13:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

In the case of John the Baptist, I agree that "Baptist" is not his title, but I do think that it has become part of his name, much like "Alexander the Great." And while members of the "church of Christ" may not think of themselves as a denomination or even as a distinct group separate from other Christians, in this article we almost have to treat them like a distinct group in order to talk about them at all. I like your suggestion that the controversy be briefly explained, along with the typical usage within the "church of Christ," and that "Church of Christ" be used for most of the rest of the article simply because of common usage. Wesley 03:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree with most of you: since a group (whether "denominational" or not) is being named, the name, when referring to that group, must be capitalized. Mentioning the controversy would be fine, too.

However, it is possible that a group could use irregular orthography and spell its name with lower case. If this is the case with the group being described in this article, then the article should be "church of Christ (affiliation)" or something of the sort, with the lowercase-title note explaining technical restrictions as well as an explanation. -- Alan McBeth 21:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the capital C in the case of this organization is correct. Because there is an organization called "Church of Christ", the capital letter is warranted. The controversy over capitalization appears to be more of a political (i.e., PR) one, as if this particular organization were "a" church of Christ, and therefore "the" church of Christ. The modifier in the organization, however is not "church", as in "this is Christ's church", because there is no such thing. To have been such a thing, one would have had to prove a direct unbroken organizational lineage from Christ to the present day, which can't be done without Catholicization. The modifier is "Christ", as in "This is a church, and this church is of Christ." Hence the capitalization. Still 18:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your conclusion, you're mistaken in much of your reasoning. There isn't really a recognizable organization called "Church of Christ" described by this article. No real structure above the congregational level. If the lowercase "c" is a POV issue, certainly the assertions that there is no such thing as a "church of Christ" and that one must prove an unbroken lineage are no less. So, the rest of the argument falls apart from there. Right conclusion, wrong reasoning to get there. Best case, you could argue (correctly) that it's generally used as an exclusive proper noun rather than a description and thus should be capitalized. To try to deny it can be used as a description, though, is unquestionably POV.

While I'm editting, isn't it time to close this? There's been two months of open discussion and no one's popped up to disagree with the capital "C". Time to archive this and move on? Jdb1972 20:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Two similar topics were disucssed in other places that may help provide precedence. Capital "C" in Church was discussed at Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 3#Why the capitals.3F and the use of a capital "The" in the church's title if it is part of the Legal title at Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 5#Page rename.2Fmove discussion. In the first case, it was approved, but since, an editor has seen fit to lowercase the "C" in church on most pages. On the second, although "The" is a part of the official name, (like The George Washington University, The Beatles or The Hague, it was shot down. Both are relevant to this discussion. To me the capitalization denotes "only" or "set apart" or importance. I think it is appropriate for Church of Christ or The Church of Christ to both have captitalizations as a reference for an organizational name. The capitalization has a great doctrinal ramification in some cases with churches, hence why it is not smiled on by non-adherents. I firmly believe that religious articles should be written from the POV of the adherent and then the detractors opinions added in as a secondary, but important, thought. Therefore if adherents of the religion agree on capitalization, then it should be that way. To me this makes sense and follows numerous comments by Jimbo and others. However, presendence by non-believers currently rules, although it is not standard in business or other organizational writing sytles. I guess a non-capitalization is a wikipedia style, but it should not be. -Visorstuff 20:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)