Talk:Restoration Movement

1 Flaws

This whole article is seriously flawed. There are factual mistakes. Example: 20 sects in the Church of Christ from 1920-1960? if a position was held by only one or two congregations, that doesn't constitute a sect. There is a major problem of focus. 80% of an article on this should be history before 1900. The ICOC was a schism out of the Restoration Movement, and it would be just as extraneous to include many details about the ICOC as Mormonism since Sidney Rigdon was once part of the Movement. Whoever is responsible for the bulk of the article was not a student of the breadth of scholarship on the subject and probably only read one article. Focusing on the splits as the bulk of the article creates a serious NPOV issue. Carltonh 01:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Books and tracts from the 1960s notwithstanding, as a longtime member of one of the independent churches of Christ and a current Bible college student, I can assure you we are well aware that we are Protestant. I appreciate where the authors of those words are coming from and the sentiment is noble. But coming as we do from the Reformed tradition and with Presbyterian and Baptist roots, it borders on absurdity to deny our Protestantism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.166.184 (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

2 latter part of it is applicable only to Churches of Christ

This page contains lots of valuable information. However, the latter part of it is applicable only to Churches of Christ. Should much of that information be moved to that page? Or is it properly located here, since they are the main one of the groups still pretty much sticking to the theme of "Restoring New Testament Christianity in the Twenty-first Century."

It would take a pretty good editing job to merge the "Church of Christ" article with this one; at least I feel that it would be beyond my skill set. Also, I would suggest that many of the members of the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ (instrumental) still voice this interest fairly frequently. The links are important; the last I saw, the articles on the other groups were far less developed than the one on Churches of Christ. Rlquall, 2 Jun 04; 22:20

Two Church of Christ articles

The Church of Christ article linked from this article and the group mentioned here Church of Christ, but not linked, are one in the same althogh the one not linked is slightly more critical and more developed. The ICOC are specifically mentioned in both articles. The two articles on the Church of Christ need to be merged proabably. The linked article is much less critical.

The Church of Christ in of itslef is an odd church with many variances in teachings and customs, even though they claim not to have any customs or a creed. In some of the churches they do still teach that other denominations are damned, particularly catholics and that the founder of the catholic church is the Beast (Satan). I personally attanded such a class and witnessed this first hand, although they of course have nothing in writting of such. Also many of the churches do indeed delienate the age of 12 as the age of adulthood and the period in which women should not teach young men. This varies between church to church. Some of them don't allow the physical church building to be used for non-service activities such as weddings while others allow it as long as the same rules are applied as the services (No Instrumental Music, no Dance, No Booze), while others yet still allow weddings with instrumental music, dance, and drink. Some churches of christ are very inclusive and fellowship with any protestant church where as others will only fellowship with other churches of christ but there is a minority which won't even fellowship with other churches of christ. It goes on and on.

The schisims of the Church of Christ and Splits from the Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ, the splits and re-unifications of the United Church of Christ, is important in understanding the movement and the various schisims of the Church of Christ into the developement of the ICOC. The ICOC, which is generally considered a cult by the mainline churches and by several local authorities and ex-members (In paticular Jerry Brown of MO- is very very critical of the ICOC).

Probably add history from the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ (instrumental)- which is already in there. It should be noted that the Independent Churches of Christ split from the Disciples of Christ much later than the Church of Christ did. They both use the term Church of Christ though.

The mainline churches of christ is sort of miss-linked also. The mainline churches of christ is a newer term that started to come into use within the last 10 or 15 years to identify themselves from the ICOC/Crossroad churches. The crossroad movement is still alive in the Church of Christ, although many church of christ don't allow crossroad teachings into them, some do welcome it. The crossroad movement is more or less the combining of the Church of Christ Ideology with Asembly of God Ideology. The Boston movement/ICOC is different yet as it takes it further. The ICOC had to change stop using the name Church of Christ as they were sued by the Church of Christ (Hence why they changed names)

3 should talk about Barton and Stone, and what they taught and did

I think most of the last part of this article, after the point where the Disciples and the Church of Christ have split, should be moved to the Church of Christ article. This article should talk about Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell, and what they taught and did. It shouldn't cover any later traditions that have their own Wikipedia articles.

Article appears unstable - not editing properly

Are there too manny "< - - ...- - >" insertions Paul foord 13:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Added Separate Entry for Barton Stone

I have added a link to a separate entry for Barton Stone as per the suggestion in the discussion.

Pspadaro 17:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link only to ICOC

There probably should only be a reference or link to the ICOC entry. Currently there are three separate accounts of the International Churches of Christ in the Restoration Movement entry, Church of Christ entry and the actual ICOC article. Due to the developing nature of the ICOC, post 2003, it may be prudent to consolidate the information to one article and link to it.

17:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

link to Restorationism

A sentence in the lead reads, "Restorationism sought to renew the whole Christian church ..." From my understanding this sentence is correct as applied to the Restoration Movement. Would it be appropriate in that context to link the word "Restorationism" in this sentence, to the article on Restorationism? It might not be the intention of the sentence to refer to an "attitude" or "tendency", as described in that article (but rather, to use the word synonymously instead of "Restoration movement". What do you think? May I link from there, to Restorationism? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

To our anonymous editor at 206.74.91.199

Please read the NPOV article. Your edit on the one-cup/no-class churches may give valuable perspective with a bit of tweaking. However, the use of the term "mainstream" (or "mainline") is the way it is; its usage refers to the number of people in it rather than any historical positions. Jdb1972 17:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

External Links

I would like to have a link to my website added to the external links section of this article. Please take it under consideration.RestorationUnity.com. Pspadaro 22:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and add it. We've got one like that now, might as well add another. Jdb1972 13:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed Ahnog 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Branches of the Restoration Movement

I don't know that I would assert that there are five branches, or streams, of the Restoration Movement. The non-institutional churches of Christ, with all respect to my friend Jdb1972, are really a sub-branch of the church of Christ, not an additional branch. I am not sure if the International Churches of Christ should be listed, either. While they split long ago with mainline churches of Christ, and are their own church, they are in such a state of flux that the ICOC doesn't have a firm identity. It seems that the "original" three would be the the branches, and everything else a "sub-branch"

Also, the Christadelphians, while they have some roots to the Restoration Movement, really don't belong in the branch section of the article. We might wish to consider creating a subsection of the article dedicated to religious groups that were influenced by the Restoration Movement. I can think of several religous groups including the United Church of Christ, the Mormons, and the Church of God that have been affected by the movement but shouldn't be listed as a "branch" of the Restoration Movement.

Finally, I'm not sure why there is a link to Jesse Moran Bader in the branches article.

What do you all think?

Re: Christadelphians. I wondered this myself whether they should be included (full disclosure - I am a Christadelphian). However, researching the Restoration Movement (RM) tells me that they were not simply affected by the movement. Many of the original Christadelphians came from RM and John Thomas was a leader in this movement. The Christadelphians would be a "branch" of RM, if the term "branch" was defined as a a movement having its origins in RM but separating based on certain criteria. (GlenninBerlin (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

(Use four tildes for name ;) ) I tend to agree with the three-way division for the purposes of this article, with shorter notes on factions within each of those. The five/six branch predates my time here. I tend to see the churches of Christ alone as having a five or six way division on their own, depending on where the ICOC is placed. But, by the same criteria that the ICOC would be considered a separate body (issues of fellowship, organization, and doctrine), you'd have to split out the various other church of Christ factions as well.

All that's left is someone to write it. Jdb1972 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an outline format with the three streams of the Restoration Movement and their respective flavors outlined below each main heading. The oranization should be based on historical splits not nearness of ideology or doctrine. For example; the ICOC split from the church of Christ but is ideologically and doctrinally distinct. It (the ICOC) should still be considered as an offshoot of the churches of Christ in the context of history. This approach also bypasses the instability issues of certain branches.For those not familiar with the Restoration Movement, it gives a quick visual reference.

I. Churches of Christ

A. non-institutional

B. one-cup

C. ICOC (See Article)

II. Independent Christian Church / Church of Christ

III. Disciples of Christ

Pspadaro 11:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to order the various factions in chronological order of the division. Thus, non-class/one-cup division, premillenial division, institutional division, ICOC, etc. Jdb1972 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

jowston First of all, I appreciate everyone's efforts in making this article better — it is rather disjointed. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, but not to the RM. I agree with the suggestion to divide the descendants into three major group. When generally speaking of the movement, it is usually split thrice with the sub divisions listed among the major groups. If we characterize the RM family, COC, Independent CC/COC, & DOC as daughters of the RM family. The various non instrumental groups (one cuppers, non institutional, etc.) could be considered as granddaughters. The Disciples Renewal would qualify under this type of division as a subsection of the DOC. Unlike others, the Renewal movement continues to operate in the framework of the DOC trying to change the denomination from within.

I will also have to admit that I am the guilty party for including the Christadelphians as a quasi-member of the RM. This really is a debated matter, but some writers such as Murch place the Christadelphians within the RM. There are some major differences between Thomas' movement of Christadelphians than with the others mentioned above. Some would even categorize the group as cultic.

Of the examples listed above to be grouped alongside the Christadelphians as connected to the RM, none of the others have the clear cut descent from the RM as do the Christadelphians. Dr. John Thomas is the only example of a movement's primary proponant who exited from the RM tradition and started his own denomination. Although a rift between Thomas and Campbell had been brewing for some time over doctrinal and control issues, Thomas left the Disciples in 1844. I used the term quasi in my description as it is a tenuous argument at best to include this group as part of the RM. It certainly is not mainstream and may best described as a disinherited daughter of the RM.

The UCC, covered under the Christian Connection section, has some of the same roots as the RM, but did not come out of the RM per se. O'Kelley, Smith, Jones, and Purviance (also Stone to a point) were major influences on the Christian Connection; the Campbells, Stone, Scott, some of the O'Kelley followers the major influences of the RM. While the RM sometimes claims Smith and Jones, these two men and their churches had the least impact upon the RM and more influence upon unitarian beliefs in the northeast. The UCC could not be considered a daughter movement of the RM but rather a cousin sharing much of the same genealogy.

The Mormons, while influenced by former RM preacher Sidney Rigdon who joined with Joseph Smith, could not be considered as a legitimate RM descendant. My point is that, while Rigdon's influences continue to the present day, he was not the founder of the LDS Church and was later out of fellowship of the majority of the Mormons. Perhaps we might best characterize the Mormons as a stepdaughter's second cousin once removed by marriage. Close enough to see a connection, but not close enough to be put on the family tree. To a lesser extent William Miller and the Advent Christian Church experienced a similar RM influence.

As far as the Church of God, I am assuming that this is the Church of God of Anderson, Indiana. It is my understanding that this group was one of the churches that was a part of the holiness movement that descended from Methodism. The holiness movement also produced the Free Methodists, Nazarenes, Weslyan Churches, Salvation Army, and the Christian and Missionary Alliance. It also laid the groundwork for the rise of Pentecostalism out of the holiness movement. The only connection I know to the COG is that a level of fellowship existed (exists) between some Independent Christian Churches and some Churches of God (Anderson, IN); this started during the late 1980s. To my knowledge, this fellowship affected only a minimum of churches on both sides; The COG may be described as one of the RM's granddaughter's best friends -- but no kinship.

In regards to influences on the RM, we may want to consider the Haldanes, Glassites, and Scotch-Baptists. A number of writers have addressed the influence these groups had upon Alexander Campbell and Walter Scott.

---

Danoldh (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure. I am an Episcopalian with a degree in Religion, concentrating in American Religious History. I came here more interested in Mormons than anyone else. I want to suggest that the Christadelphians be described as "an outgrowth" of the movement rather than as "a branch".

Danoldh, Welcome! This page has a number of factual errors and needs a lot of source references. Thanks for you input. Your suggestion of "outgrowth" instead of branch is a good one. I am sure the Christadelphins will see that as a move toward NPOV. As for the Morman link to the movement: please note that two of the signers of the "Last will & Testament of the Sprinfied Presbytery" were later among the founders of the Mormpn movement. (Dunlavy and McNamar, I think.) In addition Alexander Campbell gave a strong denunciation of the Mormon church as based on some preposterous propositions. These were published in the Millennial Harbinger. The original tests are probable available with a google search. John Park (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Connection

Why is this here? There's a Christian Connection article that is almost word-for-word the same. Any reason why it shouldn't be shortened to a paragraph (at most) and a reference dropped to the main article? Jdb1972

I say drop it until there can be found a better articulation of the actual link between these two movements. (If there is, in fact, such a connection.) The Christian Connection seems to emerge from Methodist roots, whereas Stone and Campbell were clearly Presbyterians. Also, the print sources cited here seem hopelessly out of date. Josh a brewer 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The role of women

One important distinction that this article fails to make is the accepted role of women in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Churches of Christ. In most Church of Christ congregations, women are not allowed to speak publicly or even to teach children above a certain age. This is of course in keeping with the CoC's understanding of the Bible as literal instruction, and several admonitions against women's speaking found in post-Pauline epistles. (It should be noted, though, that as the Church of Christ continues to have a congregational polity, some individual CoC congregations do allow female leadership to varying degrees.

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), however, no longer prohibits women from holding the role of preacher or congregational leader. In fact, the current General Minister and President of the DoC is the Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins; as such, she serves as the "head of communion" and chief representative of the denomination both nationally and internationally.

I have no idea about the history of this difference in practice or teaching, but was curious to find it omitted here. I hope that someone with more knowledge than I have will add this subheading to the article at some point in the future.

Amcormack (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Separation of the Churches of Christ and the Christian Churches in 1906

"Congregationalism" was NOT one of the reasons for the separation. After the separation, Both groups were (and still are) congregationally governed. Questions:

• Shouldn't there be a better title for the section that does not use the word "Split?"
• Is there is really a source that states that this was an issue in the split?
• Editing this section is going to be tricky if we seek to have a neutral point of view.

John Park (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the verb in the section title, "separate" seems a better word than "split". Perhaps "Separation of" at the beginning of the article's section name (as used here) would be clearer than a single verb at the end. —ADavidB 06:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with using some the word "separate" rather than "split" in the title. There may be some justification for a term similar to "split" at some point in the discussion, if not in the title, to contrast the final recognition of division from the growing separation that had developed over time. My sense is that the groups had been growing apart ("separating") for decades at the very least. What we think of as the date of the split really just represents a formal and final recognition of a de facto division that had developed over a very long time. Whatever we do, I think it would be useful to maintain that sense of a long-term growing apart that finally resulted in an open separation.

As for a re-write, the articles on both groups have sourced material on the division in the sections Churches of Christ#Christian Churches/Churches of Christ separation and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)#Division. It might make sense to start by raiding and merging those sections. EastTN (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a few minutes, so I took a first stab at bringing in some sourced material from the other articles. It isn't good yet, but at least it gives the section some sources. I've also tried to add a couple of subheads to make it easier to follow. The text sweeps in the Disciples/Independent Churches of Christ split as well, which seems a bit confusing (I've dropped it into an "aftermath" section). We might want to move it out into a completely different section.

I've also had a second thought on the "congregationalism" issue. From the point of view of the CoC, the missionary society and other organizations above the local congregational level were a big issue. The current text doesn't doesn't explain it very well, but that may be what the sentence "One of the issues that lead to the split was congregationalism" is intended to convey. If so, we may want to see if we can give a neutral description (with appropriate sources) that helps readers understand the issues involved. EastTN (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at it, I'm not happy with the results of the edits I made yesterday. It ends up being duplicative - we talk about these issues in the Early history section, in the subsections Restoration Movement#Internal strains and Restoration Movement#Division. We then cover the same material again under the Twentieth century divisions in the Restoration Movement#Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ separation subsection. I'd like to make a suggestion for cleaning this up.

Specifically, I'd suggest that we:

• Create a new article, called something like Separation of the Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ where we could cover all of the issues in detail;
• Keep the main discussion for this article in Early history section, because the 1906 "final split" itself is over a 100 years old now, and the roots go back to the Civil War at least - it's part of the overall narrative for that period - and link to the new article for details;
• Provide just a short summary in the Twentieth century divisions section, basically covering the 1906 recognition of the split and having a "main" link to the new article.

Basically, I'd like to improve the organization, and create a rational place to have a full discussion of the separation of these two groups. I think we have enough material to create a start-level article on it, and have we handle it right, we should be able to make this article less confusing.

Does that make sense? EastTN (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

EastTN, I think we have enough articles, but I agree that they need to be better organized. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, does it need to replace the more comprehensive historical treatments already published. Shouldn't it really be a synopsis that tells the story in articles of about 30 kb each, with references which point to the published works for those seeking more depth?

I have a problem with using the "Disciples of Christ" phrase in the conversation about the groups that existed just immediately after the 1906 Religious Census. In 1907, almost no one would have used Disciples of Christ to describe any group in the movement. It was Churches of Christ and it was Christian Churches. It actually took decades for that nomenclature to filter out. I served a Disciples congregation that was legally named Church of Christ until state law required that the Articles of Incorporation be updated in 1954. They actually did it about 1960. The Disciples nomenclature began to emerge in the 1950's. The "Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)" did not even exist until 1968. But this properly belongs in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) article. I am certain that the issue around whether or not congregational polity was an issue in the 1906 separation grows out of a myth that the Disciples are no longer congregation in their polity. I am not aware of ANY group that has emerged from the Campbell - Stone Movement that is anything other than congregational in polity. It cannot therefore have been a dividing issue.

Part of the reason that historians have not been more direct in the causes of the 1906 separation is that it was truly a bitter separation that was fueled by resentments in the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War. Southern churches and northern churches said and wrote things that should never have been written of said by followers of the Prince of Peace. The economics of that era meant that practically no southern church could have afforded an organ. And northern churches seemed bent on rubbing the economics in the faces of their brethren. Locating Missionary Society headquarters in Indianapolis, where there had coincidentally been a center of Abolitionist sentiment did not help matters, either.

We are still fighting those battles in the "who separated from whom" discussions more than 100 years after the separation was formalized.

I'd like to suggest that we focus the Restoration Movement article on the early history, ending it with as NPOV a description of the groups that evolved from the separations, and referring readers to the appropriate articles. Then I'd like to suggest that each of the group articles have briefer histories prior to 1906 (referring readers to the Restoration Movement article.) What do you think?John Park (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That might work (and I'd like to get on board with anything that will). I'm certainly comfortable using the "Christian Churches" to describe the events circa 1906. You've made that point before, and I just keep slipping into old habits - I really don't mean anything when I type "Disciples of Christ." And honestly, I don't think of this as an "X separated from Y" situation - it seems much more like a marriage where both spouses drift apart over the years and then wake up one day and say "I don't know who you are any more." At that point you usually get doors slammed, dishes broken and recriminations all around. There were clearly socio-economic factors at work. It seems to me that there were also legitimate disagreements - which were made all the more difficult to solve by the socio-economic complications. It was clearly a mess, and looking back a century later, I truly don't know how to figure out which factor or factors were most important.

I also agree that the Disciples have a fundamentally congregational polity - I misspoke if I gave you any other impression. I do think it's fair to say that they have a level of organization above (or in addition to) the local congregation level that the Churches of Christ and Independent Churches of Christ aren't willing to accept for themselves. I'm just guessing, but I suspect that's what the editor meant who stuck in the sentence about "[o]ne of the issues that lead to the split was congregationalism." I believe a more accurate way of describing the traditional church of Christ perspective would be to say "One of the issues was whether the brotherhood should adopt organizational structures, such as missionary societies and conventions, above the local congregational level." Does that strike you as a reasonably neutral was of describing that particular question? Rightly or wrongly, sources written from the CoC point of view have consistently over the years identified the development of a missionary society as one of the two fundamental issues leading to the breakup (the other one, of course, being the use of musical instruments in worship).

I guess I'd like to have a solid, encyclopedic discussion of this in one place. My preference would be to have it in this article - it seems the most natural home for it. I'm just frustrated that the way this article has developed, we have it in two places within the article - and offhand, I'm not quite sure how to fix it. That may just mean that I need to dig in and think harder about how it might be reorganized. But if we can find a home for it, then we can have a fairly short summary in each of the other articles (the Churches of Christ article currently has a three-paragraph synopsis, which feels reasonable to me).

Is that where you're going? If I'm interpreting you correctly, the bulk of the article would be a chronologically organized history of the movement, building off what we have in the "Early history" section. To the extent there's anything useful in the 20th century divisions section, we could just add it into the main time line - that way we wouldn't get any duplication. But we could dump the section on "Variations with the Churches of Christ," for instance. Then we'd go to the Modern Branches section, perhaps beef it up a bit, and then we'd be done. Is something like that what you have in mind? I could get behind something like that.

I would really like to see us cover how the movement divided really well, though. The division between the Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ has defined the shape of the movement ever since (if it hadn't, people wouldn't still be fussing about it). I don't think we can understand either group without at least trying to understand how the united "Stone-Campbell" movement broke apart. In an ideal world, we would identify all of the primary issues involved - economic, political, exegetical, theological, ecclesialogical, etc. - with proper sources. Keeping it neutral will be a challenge, but we can find good sources that say the "Christian Church" congregations were generally more northern, more urban and more affluent than the "Church of Christ" congregations, which tended to be more southern, more rural and less affluent. I'd be shocked if we can't find good sources that say there was rancor on both sides (as well as people who tried to avoid the split on both sides). I'm pretty sure we can find historians from both groups who'll identify the missionary society and instrumental music as points of conflict. If nothing else, maybe we can say "Writers from the DoC heritage, such as X & Y, attribute the division to . . . while writers from the CoC heritage, such as P & Q, attribute the division to . . ."

Is that too ambitious? EastTN (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As good faith first step, I went ahead and changed the heading of the section to "Churches of Christ and Christian Church separation." EastTN (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are definitely on the right track. I'd like to suggest a new outline for the article. See below.John Park (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the Missionary Societies and the issues of Conventions and co-operative work among congregations were issues in the CoC / Christian churches separation. A bigger "Elephant in the closet" was the issues of how the Bible should be interpreted. (The question of how the late-19th-Century German textual analysis tools be applied.) At least one source suggests that David Lipscomb chose the instrumental music because it was a more visible (and therefore more delineating issue than the other two). The journey of the CC(DOC) group has led to much more Extra Congregational Structure for them.John Park (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Toward a revised outline

I played with the present outline and added some additional detail. The numbering is from the current Contents section so you can see where I moved stuff. What do you think?John Park (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OUTLINE

1 Early history

1.4 Other related groups (retitle something like: Influences & context that set the tone)

Currently this section is about influences on Stone, Perhaps it should move into the Stone section as introductory materials.

1.1 Stone movement

1.1.1 Early influences

1.1.1.1 Okelly & guifford accademy

1.1.1.2 Cane ridge revival

1.1.2 Stone's tenuous ordination by Presbyterieans

1.1.3 The Springfield Presbytery

1.1.4 The "Christians" only

1.2 Campbell movement

1.2.1 Tutoring in John Locke

1.2.2 University of Glasgow

1.2.3 Presbyterians in the new world still fighting European battles (newlight/old light -- Seceder/ Anti-Seceder -- Burgher/ Anti Burgher)

1.1.3 The Declaration and address

1.2.4 The sojourn with the Baptists

1.2.5 Free at last to be reformers

1.3 Merger of the Stone and Campbell movements

1.5 Internal strains

1.6 Division

3.1 Churches of Christ and Christian Church separation

3.1.1 Factors leading to the separation of 1906

3.1.2 Aftermath

2 Key principl

4 Time line

3 Twentieth century divisions

3.2 Variations with the Churches of Christ

3.2.1 Largest subgroups

3.2.2 Other issues

3.3 Churches of Christ/International Churches of Christ Split

3.4 Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) / Independent Christian Churches - Churches of Christ Separation

7 The Restoration Movement internationally

1.7 Pioneers

6 Christian Churches and Churches of Christ reunion efforts

8 See also

8.1 External links

8.2 History and Sources

8.3 Notes

8.4 References

Text to drop or redistribute

5 Modern branches Though I think some of the best writing is in this section, this should be incorporated into the separations text.

1.8 Early congregations (Drop this one?? or move to footnote status at the end)

John Park (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I might drop the distinction between "Early history" and "Twentieth century divisions," though. How would you feel about having one continuous "History" section, along the lines of the following?

1 History

1.1 Background influences

We could talk about the setting of the Great Awakening, influences on Stone and Campbell, John Locke, the frontier environment, etc.

1.2 Stone movement

1.2.1 Early influences

1.2.1.1 Okelly & guifford accademy

1.2.1.2 Cane ridge revival

1.2.2 Stone's tenuous ordination by Presbyterieans

1.2.3 The Springfield Presbytery

1.2.4 The "Christians" only

1.3 Campbell movement

1.3.1 Tutoring in John Locke

1.3.2 University of Glasgow

1.3.3 Presbyterians in the new world still fighting European battles (newlight/old light -- Seceder/ Anti-Seceder -- Burgher/ Anti Burgher)

1.3.3 The Declaration and address

1.3.4 The sojourn with the Baptists

1.3.5 Free at last to be reformers

1.4 Merger of the Stone and Campbell movements

1.5 Internal strains

1.6 Division of the Churches of Christ and Christian Churches

1.6.1 Factors leading to division

1.6.2 Formal recognition in 1906

1.6.3 Aftermath

1.7 Subsequent development of the Christian Churches

1.7.1 Restructuring and development of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

1.7.2 Separation of the Independent Christian Churches / Churches of Christ

1.8 Subsequent development of the Churches of Christ

1.8.1 Separation of the International Churches of Christ

1.9 Christian Churches and Churches of Christ reunion efforts

2 Time line

3 Key principles

4 The Restoration Movement internationally

5 List of key Restoration Movement figures

6 Notes

7 References

8 See also

9 External links

It looks to me like the only thing in "History and Sources" is an external link

That would turn it into almost a pure history article, but that might not be so bad. All the current stuff like the variations within the Churches of Christ are already covered in that article, just like all the stuff about the current beliefs and practices of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) are in that article. It might simply this article if we limited it strictly to "how did we get to here from there?"

Or is that too minimalist? I think I'm suggesting dropping even more stuff. I agree about the "Early congregations" section; it's not well sources, and it doesn't really seem to add much to the reader's understanding of the movement. Honestly, it feels almost like a trivia section to me. I think I agree with you about dropping the "Modern branches" section; it doesn't seem necessary if we have both the timeline template and the Restoration Movement navigation template. If we do include it, I'd suggest keeping nothing but the names, a "family tree" relationship between them, approximate numbers of adherents, and links to the appropriate articles. I am inclined to drop the "Variations with the Churches of Christ" section; most of the material there feels like it should be covered in the main Churches of Christ article.

Also, and this might be a challenge to find good, solid sourced material, but how would you feel about trying to add a section after the "Key principles" section called something like "Common characteristics of Restoration Movement groups"? I'm thinking about things like congregational organization, etc. While there are real differences, my sense is that there is a very real common heritage as well. EastTN (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent outline! Let's go for it. Making it a history article makes sense to me. I like the "Common characteristics of Restoration Movement groups." Perhaps the Key principles could be discussed within that section. We are about 8 kb too long for a feature article right now. Perhaps as we eliminate redundancy, that will change. Nothing needs to be considered set in stone. We can talk as we go. John Park (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds great to me. I'll start moving things around as I have time; with any luck, I can work on it some this evening. EastTN (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a first stab at restructuring the article. Please feel free to fix anything I've messed up! Having lined everything up as a chronological history, my impression is that there's a fair amount of good material we could usefully add. EastTN (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at what we have so far, I'm wondering if the "History" section heading is adding much. The outline is getting pretty deep. Would the article be easier to use if we dropped that heading and promoted each of its subsections one level, or is it better to have it to clearly delineate what portion of the article is dealing with history? There's no rush on figuring this out, but I did want to broach the question. EastTN (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that a 'promotion' of the current "History" subsections would benefit the article, with the two paragraphs that open the History section being merged into the lead section. Thanks, by the way, for putting so much effort into reworking the page. —ADavidB 03:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

O.k., I'll take a stab at it as soon as I get a chance. And thanks for cleaning up another botched edit for me. I need to learn not to do this late at night  ;-) EastTN (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of the terms "eucharist" and "believer's baptism"

We've had some editing back and forth on the question of linking to the articles titled Eucharist and Believer's baptism from the lead of this article. The concern that has been expressed is that the individuals in the Restoration Movement do not use those terms, and would not agree with the theological and ecclesiastical positions that they imply. I think this is worth discussion, because there are some fundamental issues about how an encyclopedia should work involved.

The lead text does not actually use the terms "Eucharist" or "Believer's baptism" - instead, it uses terms that would be familiar to all of the groups that have their roots in the Restoration Movement (i.e., "Lord's Supper" and "baptism of adult believers"). The question involved is not one of the text itself, but whether linking to these other articles will mislead the reader concerning the Restoration Movement.

There is no stand-alone article on the Lord's Supper; just a disambiguation article (Lord's Supper) that links to articles entitled "Eucharist" and "Last Supper." The article on the Eucharist says, in the lead, that it is also known as the "Lord's Supper" and that there are different interpretations of it. There are detailed discussions of the beliefs of a number of different Christian groups. There is not a section for either the Churches of Christ nor the Christian Church (DoC), though.

The article on "believer's baptism" presents it as the baptism of adult believers, in contrast to infant baptism. In the section entitled "Theology" it explicitly discusses the point of view of one Restoration Movement Group:

"Churches of Christ for example, teach that baptism by immersion is a necessary part of salvation without which one cannot enter into the kingdom of God, John 3:3–5; 1 Peter 3:21. The church, set up by Christ with the keys given to the Apostles (Matthew 16:16–18, 18:18) was established on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 and required baptism for “remission of sins” amongst the penitent believers and promised the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Without the indwelling Holy Spirit obtained at the time of immersion, there is no salvation, Acts 5:32, Romans 8:9–11, 16."

I'd also note that at least one of the more respected sources on the movement - The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement by Foster and Dunnavant - uses both the terms "Lord's Supper" and "Eucharist" throughout. Part of that appears to be due to the use of the term "Eucharist" by the Christian Church (DoC). Be that as it may, this is a reliable source for the Restoration Movement, and it uses the term extensively.

So, here are my thoughts.

1) It is important to use language in the text that is consistent with the subject; in this case, the terms "Lord's Supper" and "baptism of adult believers" - as is currently the case in the lead - is probably best. I don't think that's under dispute.

2) It is not the place of this article to discuss the background and theology of the Lord's Supper, or how different Christian groups approach it. Readers may well be interested in that, however, and we need to have an appropriate link. The article where that is discussed is entitled "Eucharist." We need to link to that discussion. If there's a problem with the impression that article might leave, we should fix it in that article by adding a section on the beliefs of Restoration Movement groups. If something more is needed in this article, it should be done in the body of the article rather than in the lead. Turning the lead into a discussion of why some restoration movement groups might reject the term Eucharist is off point and disrupts the flow - especially since the lead doesn't otherwise use the term.

3) It is also not the place of this article to get into a detailed discussion of the debate over adult baptism versus infant baptism. Again, though, we need to link to that discussion - and that article is currently entitled "Believer's Baptism." We should discuss, in the body of this article, the unique aspects of the Restoration Movement point of view, which is the role that baptism plays in salvation. The lead already does that: "baptism of adult believers, by immersion in water, is a necessary condition for Salvation."

4) The term "Eucharist" is not entirely foreign to the Restoration Movement tradition, as evidenced by the Encyclopedia. Those in the Churches of Christ may not use it, but others in the Restoration Movement tradition do, and it shows up in the secondary literature discussing the movement.

We need to give readers some credit - if we say that a characteristic Restoration Movement belief was that the "baptism of adult believers, by immersion in water, is a necessary condition for Salvation" and link to an article that discusses how some churches baptize adults rather than children, it seems highly unlikely that the second article will trick the reader into think that the Restoration Movement did not also believe that baptism was necessary, just because most of the other groups discussed in the second article did not. EastTN (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

EastTN, I am separating my responses in this discussion into sub sections. I trust that that will not confuse others. John Park (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Believer's Baptism

I think the phrase that best describes the historic practice of baptism by the movement is "Believer's Baptism by immersion." For a long time, we seem to have been baptizing our children as soon as we think they are old enough to understand what it means to be a follower of Jesus. We have not baptized infants.

1. I agree that this article is not the place to debate the nuances. Our task should be to describe the beliefs and practices of the movement.
2. Yes, we need to link to Believer's baptism. Perhaps adding a footnote that contains information regarding the differences with the other article would help (in addition to bringing the other article up to NPOV.

John Park (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your description makes sense to me. The question has gotten me thinking, though. I don't remember running into the term "Believers Baptism" very often, if at all. I honestly don't know why, though, unless it's because the term is associated with other groups such as the Baptists, or perhaps because it's thought to imply that baptism happens after one becomes a Christian rather than as part of that that process - it's a believer (i.e., a Christian) that's being baptized. I am inclined to include the link to Believers baptism, but it may make sense to use the text baptism of adult believers to avoid raising any potential sensitivities.

Anyway, I'm comfortable with your formulation. The key elements seem to me to be baptism 1) of adults, 2) who have heard an believed the gospel; 3) by immersion. Pre-1906, at least, a 4) of "for the remission of sins" would probably appropriate too.

Where were you thinking of putting the explanatory footnote? Would it make sense to add (when we have some time) a "Restoration Movement point of view?" section to the "Believer's baptism" article? EastTN (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The commonly used phrase in the restoration movement is simply "baptism by immersion." The believer's portion is assumed, but for an encyclopedia article, I think it needs to be included. In the real world, even the churches who practice infant baptism will use believer's baptism for adult converts.

I need to think about the footnote idea a bit more. The believer's baptism article already refers to the Churches of Christ.John Park (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with "baptism by immersion." For purposes of the article text, what do you think about highlighting "adults" rather than "believers"? What may be most helpful to the average reader is to know that Restoration Movement churches baptize adults, and not infants. As you note, if an adult is baptized, you can pretty much assume that they are a believer. We would still link to the Believer's baptism article, because that's where adult baptism is discussed and contrasted to infant baptism.

What's in the lead right now is:

". . . and that baptism of adult believers, by immersion in water, is a necessary condition for Salvation." EastTN (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Eucharist / Lord's Supper

While Eucharist is a term most often used in the broader church, I never heard it used in our churches until I was in Seminary 40 years ago. I am surprised that The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement by Foster et al. uses it so extensively. I agree that the discussion does not belong in the lead paragraph. Also we need to add text to the "Eucharist" article to allow it to have a more NPOV so that readers from Stone-Campbell churches won't question the appropriateness of the link. Since we are really dealing mostly with the pre 1906 Movement in this article, I would suggest that this article use the term "The Lord's Supper" in deference to those who have not come to use the term Eucharist, even today. It probably would not have been used within the movement prior to 1906. John Park (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it's not a term I've encountered much either. I may have overstated the extent to which it's used in the Encyclopedia, but I really was surprised by how many hits I got on "Eucharist" when I did a Google Books word search for it in the Encyclopedia.

I also agree that the main article on Eucharist could use some work. Honestly, though, I'm not that uncomfortable with the lead in to the article. The first sentence says:

"The Eucharist, also called Holy Communion or The Lord's Supper and other names, is a Christian sacrament, generally considered to be a commemoration of the Last Supper, the final meal that Jesus Christ shared with his disciples before his arrest and eventual crucifixion."

It's not quite the way I would describe it (and most members of the churches of Christ wouldn't choose the word "sacrament"; "ordinance" is more typical), but it strikes me as pretty good overall. It certainly seems to make it clear that the Catholic or Orthodox "Eucharist" is not the only way of viewing this.

What do you think would do the most good? Perhaps adding a "Restoration Movement" subheading to the "Eucharist#Ritual and liturgy" section of Eucharist? EastTN (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sub-articles for the Pre-1832 Stone and Campbell Movements?

Would there be any benefit to creating separate articles for the pre-1832 Stone and Campbell movements? I'm thinking that we have enough material here to create a short article on each one, and they could easily grow with time. It would also give us useful links for the Restoration Movement Timeline and for related articles to use when we talk about the roots of the Restoration Movement. For article names, I'm thinking about something along the lines of "Christians (Stone Movement)" and "Disciples of Christ (Campbell Movement)." Does that make any sense? EastTN (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created the articles Christians (Stone Movement) and Disciples of Christ (Campbell Movement), and started linking them into the other Restoration Movement articles.EastTN (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Glasites/Sandemanians, Haldanes and Thomas Reid

This article would benefit from a short discussion of the influence of John Glas and Robert Sandeman and their "Church of Christ" on the S-C Movement, as well as the influence that the Haldane Brothers had on Alexander Campbell while he was in Glasgow. Also, a mention of the influence that Thomas Reid, Dugult Stewart and the Scottish School of Common Sense Realism had on Campbell's thought would also be a great addition to article. Dwight911 (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Christianity portal

Should "Restoration Movement" be added to the Christianity footer at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Christianity_footer&action=submit ? If so, Restoration Movement would probably go into the list "Denominations and movements: Western." Rammer (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that would be appropriate. EastTN (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

John T. Walsh

Much work is to be done at the article John_T._Walsh_(Adventist)? Was he an adventist at all? Or rather a restorationist? Mendelo (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't find an entry for him in the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell movement. EastTN (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the one source that the article for him links to on therestorationmovement.com The Life And Times Of John Tomline Walsh, it does appear to describe someone closely affiliated with the Restoration Movement. I wonder if there could be two different John T. Walsh's? EastTN (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing

Sorry about linking blueprint; I knew it was used metaphorically; must have been on autopilot as that was absolutely in error.Parkwells (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem - autopilot happens. EastTN (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Book

An interesting book that provides context for the relation between Presbyterianism and the revival/restoration movements is "Holy Fairs: Scottish Communions and American Revivals in the Early Modern Period" by Leigh Eric Schmidt (1989).Parkwells (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds interesting - it's going on my Amazon wish list! EastTN (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

New to editing and this page. Although an older entry, this book reference relates to my background in Presbyterianism and being persuaded by the principles of the restoration movement to dig deeper into the Bible and its relevance to today. I'll add this reference to my reading list. Meta Voyager (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Not Protestant

In the opening to this article, we find the sweeping statement, "Especially since the mid-20th century, members of these churches do not identify as Protestant but simply as Christian." It has three citation, but none of them actually establish that, as a general rule, members of churches in the Restoration Movement identify as non-Protestant. Here are the three sources:

(1) V.E. Howard. The quote given here does not establish that Restoration Movement members in general identify as non-Protestant. It only tells us that Howard, personally, identifies the church of Jesus Christ as non-Protestant.

(2) Baxter and Ellis. This source, likewise, doesn't tell us what members of the Restoration Movement in general think about Protestantism. Instead, it tells us that Baxter and Ellis identify as non-Protestant, and think you should too.

(3) The Encyclopedia of Religion in the South. Unlike the previous two sources, which are essentially personal theological essays, this looks like a more reliable sort of source. However, it doesn't actually tell us that members of Restoration Movement churches generally think about Protestantism; it just tells us that it is common for Restoration Movement members in the American South, who are in the "Churches of Christ" branch of the movement, to reject identification as Protestant.

Now, there may be a salvageable statement of some kind about how parts of the Restoration Movement regard Protestantism, and if somebody wants to write something that doesn't go beyond what the sources say, I'm all for it. In the meantime, this statement shouldn't be sitting here in the intro like this. Alephb (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Franklin College

Franklin College (Nashville) seems to have been a significant institution for the church. Several leaders were alumni and Tolbert was its long serving president. The school seems.to have taken on the issue of abolition to some extent and there are indication James T. Rapier studied at the school or with its educators? Currently the subject is stuck in draft space at Draft:Franklin College (Nashville) but hopefully mainspace, expansion, clarification, and umprovement await soon!!!

Marshall Keeble

The link to the Marshall Keeble article gives the date of his death as 1969, but the page it links to says 1968. This should be verified and corrected. 98.19.29.176 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This is corrected to 1968. —ADavidB 17:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)