Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Archived emergent church discussion
 
Archived capitalization discussion
Line 180:
 
:::The RfD went through. Do we need to archive this, or is there something else that needs to be said? [[User:Jdb1972|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? [[User:Danlovejoy|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. -[[User:Ichabod|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. -[[User:Jdb1972|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. [[User:Danlovejoy|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. -[[User:Jdb1972|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! [[User:Danlovejoy|Danlovejoy]] 21:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 
Well, I agree with you fully - it does seem like sophistry not to capitalize. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|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 <small> generic </small> 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 <small> at least doctrinally </small> 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 [[ELCA|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. [[User:Psy guy|Psy guy]] [[User talk:Psy guy |<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 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. [[User:Jdb1972|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. [[User:Wesley|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. -- [[User:Alan McBeth|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. [[User:Still|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? [[User:Jdb1972|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. -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 20:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)