My great grandfather and great grandmother Campbell were members of the Braxton Church of Christ in Cannon County, Tennessee, and after my great grandfather died and my great grandmother moved her three boys to Texas, she raised them in the South Park Church of Christ in Beaumont, Texas. My grandfather and one of his brothers married Methodist sisters and the women succeeded in diverting them into Methodist churches. The reputation that the Churches of Christ had among my kinfolk was that they were eccentric because they did not use musical instruments in worship, they celebrated the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, they didn’t have creeds (except the New Testament), and they seemed not to recognize other Christian churches who did not “bear the name” of Christ in the names of their (our) denominations.
This impression was solidified when in my senior year in high school I responded enthusiastically to an advertisement in a used-book shop in Beaumont promising free Greek lessons. I was taken to a small Church of Christ in Bridge City, Texas, where I got about forty-five minutes of instruction in the Greek alphabet and then I was treated to an hour and a half of heated discussion sparked by a question posed by a younger and obviously inexperienced minister, “If I go to a Baptist revival and I just sit on the back row and don’t sing the hymns or anything, does that constitute having ‘fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness’” (Ephesians 5:11)? The answer, I quickly learned, was yes, it does. And from the conversation in the car on the way to Bridge City and back I figured out that this was a group of Church of Christ folk who regarded a lot of other Churches of Christ folk as mere pretenders to the name. They were, I think, what my Campbell relatives called “hard-shell” Churches of Christ folk.
So I did not have a very positive impression of the Churches of Christ, but I’m beginning to change my mind, and now I’m thinking they may be right on some of those most interesting points that have distinguished them. I attended the Preston Road Church of Christ on Sunday March 6, 2011, deeply enjoyed the service, the singing, and the sermon by Rev. Scott Sager. I also was offered and received the Lord’s Supper there, so my great grandma Campbell can perhaps take solace in the fact that I am now in communion with at least one Churches of Christ congregation however soft-shelled they may be and however unwittingly this happened on the part of the congregation.
Here are five reasons why the Churches of Christ may be right after all.
First, they have a profound insight into Christian music and its place in worship. I’m not sure I buy the rationale that says that because the New Testament doesn’t mention musical instruments, congregations should not be forced to sing with them. The Churches of Christ seem to use plenty of stuff – like collapsible music stands – that are not to my recollection mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. But they sure do sing well and, speaking as a man on this point, I really appreciate a church that does not expect me to sing soprano, even transposed an octave lower. There’s something utterly wonderful about the sound of human voices blending together in harmony. I wonder if we have gone too far with our instrumental fetish in worship. First the instrumentalists just accompanied us, then they wanted to improvise on the last verse, forcing us all to sing soprano, and now they just seem to launch off into improvisation whenever they feel like it with no warning. Maybe we need to send out a message on our projection screens or with a flashing neon lights, “Everybody Sing Soprano Now” or “Altos, Tenors and Basses: Drop Off.” I’m tired of it; I think I like the Church of Christ.
Second, they’ve sure got the right name. If you think about, I mean, think about it from the perspective of a friendly outsider, “Methodist” and “Presbyterian” and “Baptist” are not really ace names for Christian groups. Even “Catholic” sounds a little pretentious and “Orthodox” a little snitty. “Church of Christ” sounds pretty straightforward by contrast. And you don’t find local Churches of Christ congregations named “Wellspring Cornerstone Kewl Informal Non-Stuffy Community,” just “Preston Road Church of Christ” or “Highway 59 Church of Christ.” Like the New Testament, they just name their congregations for the places where they meet, kind of like the hobbits who built a new row of houses and then after a long discussion decided to name it “New Row.” Perfectly straightforward. What’s not to like about that?
Third, the Churches of Christ celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Sunday. Churches of Christ folk haven’t fallen for Protestants’ quirky idea that words can suffice in place of bread and wine. The service at Preston Road was very simple, with an elder of the congregation offering a simple prayer of thanksgiving for the bread (which seemed to be matzot, the kind of unleavened bread that Jews eat during Passover) and a prayer of thanksgiving for the wine (which tasted a lot like grape juice), then the elements were distributed to the congregation in the pews. It reminded me a lot of the simple prayers over the bread and wine in the second-century Didache document; I wondered if the distinguished second-century scholar Everett Ferguson of Abilene Christian University had somehow influenced this congregation or its leaders.
Fourth, there really is only one Church of Christ. That’s one of the cardinal claims of the ecumenical movement of the twentieth century, and the Churches of Christ were way out front in making us aware of that claim. You don’t have to buy the “hard-shell” version of the Church of Christ teaching to own that basic truth.
Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the simplicity of the Churches of Christ allows them to focus on what is most important, namely, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There was no congregational creed beyond the songs we sang, of course, but a member of the congregation got up before the offering and exhorted us to consider the sacrifice of Christ as we give ourselves. He also mentioned that it was the 175th anniversary of the fall of the Alamo, which is pretty sacred for Texas folks and was aimed at driving home the importance of personal sacrifice though I worried that it came a little close to identifying Texan and Christian. But still, this man knew the faith and he presented the Gospel in a simple and straightforward manner. The pastor’s sermon on the salt and light passage in the Sermon on the Mount (St. Matthew 5:13-16) drove home the message that Christians need to be giving themselves for the world. The salt, he said, needs to get out of the salt shaker.
I came away with the sense that Churches of Christ folk really are the hobbits of the Christian world: not a lot of technological razzmatazz, not a lot of heavy emotion, not an elaborate or sophisticated liturgy, they just get the job done. There is a primitive simplicity to their communities that really stands out among other church bodies trying to be the church of Christ. We’d do well to learn from them and thank God for their witness.
Ted Campbell
7 March 2011
chproducer
March 29, 2011 at 9:46 pm
That’s the problem…
1. It’s a bunch of Hobbits. They stay to themselves.
Afraid to go outside. No real evangelizing.
Jesus did not hang out at tuna fish sandwich
devotionals.
2. No razzmatazz = No Holy Spirit (dead)
3. Get the job done = It’s all up to to you Ted to
save souls.
4. No emotion…you got it right on there dude. Just punch
the time clock , follow this list of do’s and dont’s and
nobody gets hurt. And never heard a thing about
grace growing up in the C of C. That’s why most
folks in”the church” were baptized 3 or 4 times.
No one understands the price that Christ paid.
It’s over, it’s done and there is NO way to earn
your way to heaven.
5. Simplicity= Boring. Religion is boring. Life with GOD
is an adventure!!!!!
Dannys Photo
April 1, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Does anyone know of any conservative churches in the DFW area? Thanks.
diedinthewoolcoc
March 30, 2011 at 2:59 pm
My perspective, mine alone. A lady in my church (COC) was baptized. Afterward, she went down a “receiving line” of CoC folks who welcomed her, encouraged her,etc. When she came to me, she asked what sage advice I had for her. I told her that when she was baptized in the Names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit, that was the last she would hear of the Holy Spirit. I was NOT joking.
We (CoC) get a lot of things right (truth), BUT we are instructed to worship in spirit and in truth, but the truth is, we are devoid of spirit. We rely too heavily on truth, with no sense of balance between truth and spirit. I have a friend with whom I used to teach and he does not sing in worship services, for whatever reason. He is a believer of the Bible being God’s instructions to us. He knows we are instructed to sing and make melody in our hearts, yet he choses to do only one. It is similar to our choice to worship in truth, but not in spirit.
CoC’s have a lot on straight, but because we are NOT spiritual people, we are boring and unattractive. The bride of Christ (His Church), boring and unattractive, for shame. Neither hot nor cold, ready to be “spewed.”
We use 2 Bible phrases to stop everyone in their tracks. The word “devisive” is used by leaders to control members. The term used to stop leaders is, “lording it over.” If anyone is doing something we don’t like, depending on who it is, we simply use one or the other.
We have lost at least 2 generations by remaining devoid of spirit. We have no credibility on the great issues of life. Our people perish for lack of someone with HIS vision. We worship, we meet, we study, we worship, we meet, we study, but guess what? The “lost” are still “lost.” BUT (Behold the Underlying Truth), we are right, we have a lock on truth. It means nothing. God loved so much He SENT, Jesus loved so much He DIED, we don’t love enough to even TELL, BUT we’re right, and they’re still “LOST.”
Are there any winners?
Ted Campbell
March 30, 2011 at 3:36 pm
You two guys really need to get together and form the Holy Ghost Fire Baptized Church of Christ.
bhalstead
March 30, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Holy Cow…where on earth have you worshipped? I’ve been a member of the Church of Christ my whole life. I’ve been to many different congregations and I’ve looked into other denominations. Many of the problems you talk about seem to be with people and their various interpretations of the scripture. I’ve been blessed to worship with folks who really get it when it comes to the core, basics of what Jesus Christ was all about: Love and Grace. The rest is all logistics. It was in a church of Christ pew that I was introduced to so many wonderful people and concepts and my life will forever be better for it. no razzmatazz = dead?! seriously? go somewhere else! or liven those folks up where things seem spiritually dead…or at least dormant… God Bless their sweet hearts… There is nothing like the welling up of the human voice joined with others, to edify the spirit and soul. That said…I’ve been in sleepy, dead and otherwise oppressive congregations. They just make me sad. I’ve seen people bicker and divide over silly things. I think it is the human condition to try to make a rule book out of the bible. …to find a measurement by which to gage how we are doing. Grace is a tricky, vague and nebulous thing to so many, that need a list of do’s and don’t in order to think they are saved. Loving people who are just like you is easy. Loving people who are different…well…its tough for a lot of folks. The CofC has a beautiful simple doctrine that follows the teaching of Jesus Christ. People try to complicate it. Its difficult to not blame one for the other…but try… A church of Christ in the hands of secure, mature, loving Christian people…is a beautiful thing.
chproducer
March 30, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Guys…I have been in every kind of church in America and they all are great who lift up the name of Jesus. Sorry I had a little frustration with some of the izzums. Sometime the wounds come out when i think about growing up in a church all my life and never heard or even understood what Grace was all about. I would rather build up than tear down. I would rather sing Acapella any day of the week. Personally I’d rather listen to Tony Bennett.
Bless your guys church and I’ll see you on the other side….
but just remember.. Religion is boring…Life with God is an Adventure. Peace
Left Blank
March 31, 2011 at 8:49 pm
So apparently to comment, I have to have a WordPress.com account. Hadn’t seen that before, but now I have one.
I grew up Church of Christ, and am still a member here in Dallas. I have always considered myself to be very conservative. Yeah, I knew plenty of people growing up that believed we were most likely the ones going to heaven. My grandparents and my wife’s grandparents would most likely tell you that as fact.
The closest CoC to me is still very traditional, but there are others that are not as stoic in their beliefs. I am proud to be a member of a church that doesn’t fit so tightly into that box. Over the years, I have come to realize that there are many ways to interpret the Bible. I can tell you, the original idea of CoCs was to strictly adhere to Biblical instruction, but then you have those that think that if its not mentioned in the Bible it must be wrong. I have known (older) people that have left a church because they did something so audacious as to install a water fountain.
Another big decisive issue decades ago was having a kitchen in a church. As I thought about it, I’d like to ask those people who split to start their own CoC over a kitchen where they thought 1st century Christians met. Hint: it was often in their HOMES. How many people today don’t have kitchens in their homes? Or was Jesus wrong when he taught and spoke over meals? Here’s a good way to stop an “old-school, hard core CoC” member’s heart: Tell them Jesus was a winemaker!
The Bible says take the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. So we do. Other than in Revelation, instrumental music isn’t mentioned in worship, so we abstain. Does that mean I think its wrong, and Baptists are condemned? Certainly not, but instrumental is what I grea up with and what I am comfortable with as I read scripture. If I was out of town, or invited to a Baptist or Methodist service by a friend, would I go? Absolutely. We are all brothers in Christ. Just because I may not adhere to ALL of the same practices as someone else does not give me room to judge them as wrong. I don’t believe that being CoC gives me omniscience in the correct way to Worship.
FAR too many issues both within the CoCs and in our relations with other faiths are often things that I see as potentially petty. How many are legalistic issues and not doctrinal differences? Churches of Christ have gotten a bad name over the decades, mostly because we have brought it on ourselves through close-mindedness, arrogance, or not even being willing to hear others ideas or arguments. Its just like I can’t blame those that don’t attend church for thinking many Christians are hypocrites and not wanting to be a part of it. They see these pastors in TV and in the news that cheat on their wives, church secretaries that embezzle money, priests caught with child pornography, and the list goes on.
One of the things I really admire about our congregation is the willingness to admit that we aren’t perfect, sinless people. We strive to build authentic community, meaning admitting that we have our faults. We’ve had some reputable people in our congregation tell about the struggles they’ve been through in life. You know, those moments when you look at someone you think has it all together and realized they suffer with the same things you do, and maybe even worse. That creates family and it really helps the rest of us to realize that everyone else is just as screwed up as I am! And not that church is a place to hang out with a bunch of other perfect people, but a place to receive grace, forgiveness, and grow with the support of each other.
Thank you for this article and your thoughts. I don’t have a monopoly on how to worship or what to believe. I think far to much of that is open to interpretation. But that also doesn’t mean I can judge others for their interpretations, but must be willing to have honest conversations about why I believe what I do while also listening to those ideas of others.
bms
March 31, 2011 at 9:15 pm
As a young church of Christ minister, I appreciate your generosity. We certainly have our baggage, and we with most any group, we’ve had our share of theological/practical atrocities. We’ve got a lot of growing to do, but as our world dives into this new era, I think churches of Christ (for many of the attributes you mentioned) are particularly well poised to be missionally faithful—that is, if we can get past some of our traditional legalism.
Scott McCown
April 1, 2011 at 7:24 am
Thanks for a positive review of your experience at the church of Christ you attended. Thanks also for your honesty in what you see as beneficial in what we try to be and do. To all those who posted harsh things about their experiences in churches of Christ. Please know (remember) that each congregation is independent and takes on the personality of her members and leaders. An experience at one will not mean the same experience across town.
- Scott
Braden
April 1, 2011 at 7:42 am
chproducer, as a lifelong CoC member, allow me to offer some thoughts to counter yours.
1. They aren’t hermit-like hobbits. Well, not all of us anyway. They do a great deal of evangelism all over the world. Look up Otis Gatewood. He was a CoC missionary who preached in Germany right after the fall of the Third Reich. He’s just one of many missionaries in the CoC.
2. Not sure if you understood the author’s context of the term razzmatazz. But the Holy Spirit is interpreted differently among “soft-shell” and “hard-shell” CoCers.
3. Getting the job done. I think the author meant that that the CoC attempts to worship God without all the excess trappings of post-First Century Christianity. They haven’t perfected it by any means. But they do try to “speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent,” which is in a sense, the de facto creed of the CoC.
4. As far as no emotion, that really varies from church to church. Some are very somber and solemn, almost stoic and some are almost excessively emotional. By the way, I don’t know of a single CoC person who has been baptized 3 times. We believe in baptism for entrance into the body of Christ (Colossians 2:12, Galations 3:27, Romans 6). That is something that is only required once. Some individuals may have doubted their understanding at the time of their first “baptism,” in which case they are baptized a “second” time, but in reality, they were only truly baptized once.
5. I totally agree. Life with God IS an adventure! The CoC has no “creed” that indicates otherwise, at least not to my knowledge.
cashrock
April 1, 2011 at 8:06 am
I’m speaking as a church of Christ member and a graduate of Harding School of Theology (as it’s now called).
Thank you for your kind words. These guys who posted before are right about some of our churches and some of our members. But we are also a movement with a great deal of intellectual activity and a sincere desire to obey Christ. You should really come check out our Christian Scholars’ Conference sometime (http://www.pepperdine.edu/christian-scholars-conference/). William Abraham is on the program
Ted Campbell
April 1, 2011 at 8:26 am
So… are the terns “hard-shell” and “soft-shell” still in use among CofC folks? /ted
Braden
April 1, 2011 at 9:35 am
I’ve heard the terms “hard-shell” and “soft-shell” before. Among many, the terms are typically “conservative” and “liberal” as well as “traditional” and “progressive.” At this point, I’m not 100% sure which category I personally fall under.
arkie55
April 1, 2011 at 10:09 am
The terms are ancient and no longer in general use – but we understand what they denote. There are indeed Spirit-filled congregations in the Churches of Christ. And then there are those who would be critical of my capitalization of the word Church, and would insist that we’re not a denomination. While i do understand where they’re coming from, I’ve come to see this assertion as ludicrous. I guess I’m soft-shell. The Lord seems to be softening my heart, anyway. Shalom.
Don Ruhl
April 1, 2011 at 10:14 am
Ted,
I have preached with the Churches of Christ for over 30 years in California and Oregon, and I have never heard the phrases, “hard-shell” and “soft-hell” in regard to various congregation.
Thank you for your kind assessment of us.
carlmj
April 1, 2011 at 9:37 am
Hi Ted. I am a minister for the church of Christ, and I appreciate your article. I grew up Methodist (my family still is) and converted at the age of 17. I was fed up with a lot of the things you mentioned. The constant clash between doctrines where both couldn’t be right, the issue with names and a few other things, one being the lack of joy or a sermon that actually had application and wasn’t just stories, though I know, like with congregations of the church of Christ that differs from place to place.
Of course you and I don’t agree on a lot of doctrinal issues, but I do thank you for giving our practices a fair and honest evaluation and not just shrugging them off as “so strange they must be wrong.”
The church of Christ, at least in America does struggle with evangelism in many places, but for others commenting, I would never say that no “razzmatazz” means emotionless or dead. Many denominations today will do whatever it takes to bring people in and many times it becomes more of a song and dance, three ring circus. We prefer simple worship of our God, knowing that we don’t need all the fancy stuff to feel His presence and feel hoy as we offer up our worship to Him. Sure, some individuals would rather stay at home and show up only to “punch their card” but isn’t that true in every religious group? Growing up Methodist, I knew many who would come on Sundays and live like the devil the rest of the week. Does that mean that the Methodist church as a whole are just a punch of people who punch cards and have no real sincerity? Not at all.
The issue of the Holy Spirit and how He works is still hotly discussed among brethren today. Most believe He works through the Word (the Bible) and not directly on the soul. That doesn’t mean we don’t rejoice in Him and what He has given us.
Again, I appreciate your post and your willingness to give us a fair evaluation. I feel strange saying this, especially still being so young, but I would be more than willing to answer any questions anyone has, specifically from the viewpoint of one who came out of the Methodist church into the church of Christ. My e-mail is carl.m.j@gmail.com, and I’m fine with it being posted here.
brianmccown
April 1, 2011 at 10:08 am
After 56 years as a member of the CoC and sometimes living in different parts of the US, I have never heard “hard-shell” or “soft-shell” used. Yes there are other words to describe factions with in the church.
WesWoodell
April 1, 2011 at 10:36 am
Ted – not really. Sectarian or non-sectarian, isolationist or non-isolationist, conservative or progressive are more likely terms you’ll hear today.
Appreciate the post.
robertlukenbill
April 1, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I am a church of Christ preacher (we are not Reverends, pastors or priests according to the N.T.) from Andover, KS. you would probably consider me “hard shelled” although I am having a little trouble understanding this term. I noticed several misconceptions about the Lord’s church in your article and by several of the posters. I would be happy to answer any questions you have because you need to get answers from those of us who are holding to the pattern of sound words (2 Timothy 1:13). I do not believe our services are dull or lacking of the Holy Spirit. At our congregation the Holy Spirit works through us in the form of God’s word and it is very active. Maybe to the simpletons of the world who just want a bunch of emotional hub bub, this is dull, but to those who are worshipping the Lord in spirit and in truth (John 4:24) it is just right. Feel free to emal me at rlukenbill@gmail.com if you would like to interact in any way. I think a little knowledge or enlightening would go a long way in understanding us hobbits.
ksublett
April 1, 2011 at 2:59 pm
It is not unusual that people who do not use instruments out of tradition do not know the rationale either in the Bible or historic scolarship. Christ ordained the qahal, synagogue or Church of Christ in the wilderness: The Holy Convocation was a set-time-place for learning the Word of God only.
It was INCLUSIVE of REST, reading and rehearsing the Word of God handed down to tribal leacers.
It was EXCLUSIVE of vocal or instrumental rejoicing. This was the Alarm or Triumph-Over which was left to mark Judas who would fail according to Psalms 441.
Jesus added the Lord’s Supper as an evangelism act and so the Bible clearly excludes all of the hypocritic arts and crafts. This would then enable the teaching of the Word of Christ in the Prophets and the prophecies made more perfect by Jesus of Nazareth whom God made to be both Lord and Christ. In 2 Peter 1 this excluded private interpretation or “further expounding.” in chapter 2 this would identify false teachers as false prophets had been identified.
The Civil-Military-Clergy complex had been abandoned to worship the starry host because of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai. The synagogue from the wilderness onward quarantined the godly people from the not-commanded king, kingdom, temple and animal sacrifices which was the only rationale for the Jacob-cursed Levi tribe to make noise and never music. As with all other Goyim or national temple-states, this was called exorcism and not worship.
The example of Christ and Paul and Peter shut down the performing roles before they define what Paul called synagogue to “use one mind and one mouth” to speak “that which is written for our learning.” This was so obvious that singing as an ACT was not imposed before the year 373 and Constantine had given a wage to pagan priests.
Church history and founders of denominations are absolute in denying that music had any rationale in what the Cambpellls called “A School of Christ.”
Not being able to find the radical condemnation of all performance roles is natural since Jesus said “the doctors of the law take away the key to knowledge.” Jesus further called the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites and in the Ezekiel 33 version Christ named “speakers, singers and instrument players” and used that as the MARK that peoplewould not hear the Word of God.
Church of Christ scholars, like the masses, do not know that the Purpose Driven Church is A school of the Word of Christ. The Campbells called worship “readiing and musing the Word of God.” Church, ekklesia, synagogue has no other purpose.
ksublett
April 1, 2011 at 3:00 pm
It is not unusual that people who do not use instruments out of tradition do not know the rationale either in the Bible or historic scolarship. Christ ordained the qahal, synagogue or Church of Christ in the wilderness: The Holy Convocation was a set-time-place for learning the Word of God only.
It was INCLUSIVE of REST, reading and rehearsing the Word of God handed down to tribal leacers.
It was EXCLUSIVE of vocal or instrumental rejoicing. This was the Alarm or Triumph-Over which was left to mark Judas who would fail according to Psalms 41.
Jesus added the Lord’s Supper as an evangelism act and so the Bible clearly excludes all of the hypocritic arts and crafts. This would then enable the teaching of the Word of Christ in the Prophets and the prophecies made more perfect by Jesus of Nazareth whom God made to be both Lord and Christ. In 2 Peter 1 this excluded private interpretation or “further expounding.” in chapter 2 this would identify false teachers as false prophets had been identified.
The Civil-Military-Clergy complex had been abandoned to worship the starry host because of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai. The synagogue from the wilderness onward quarantined the godly people from the not-commanded king, kingdom, temple and animal sacrifices which was the only rationale for the Jacob-cursed Levi tribe to make noise and never music. As with all other Goyim or national temple-states, this was called exorcism and not worship.
The example of Christ and Paul and Peter shut down the performing roles before they define what Paul called synagogue to “use one mind and one mouth” to speak “that which is written for our learning.” This was so obvious that singing as an ACT was not imposed before the year 373 and Constantine had given a wage to pagan priests.
Church history and founders of denominations are absolute in denying that music had any rationale in what the Cambpellls called “A School of Christ.”
Not being able to find the radical condemnation of all performance roles is natural since Jesus said “the doctors of the law take away the key to knowledge.” Jesus further called the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites and in the Ezekiel 33 version Christ named “speakers, singers and instrument players” and used that as the MARK that peoplewould not hear the Word of God.
Church of Christ scholars, like the masses, do not know that the Purpose Driven Church is A school of the Word of Christ. The Campbells called worship “readiing and musing the Word of God.” Church, ekklesia, synagogue has no other purpose.
ksublett
April 1, 2011 at 3:02 pm
oops
joyb4him
April 1, 2011 at 5:16 pm
I haven’t heard those terms Ted, but I’m in Tennessee and this may be the local vernacular in Texas. I appreciate your fair report about the experience you had worshiping with the church of Christ. I will disagree with you about this however: mechanical instruments being an expedient compared to music stands as an aid to singing. We don’t exclude instruments because they aren’t mentioned in the New Testament. We are told to speak to one another by singing and making melody with our hearts (Eph 5:19). In Col 3:16 we are told to teach and admonish one another singing with thankfulness in our hearts to God. Because we are told to sing, we sing. That’s inclusive. Adding instruments to the singing was not taught or practiced in the church until the 1800′s. The Catholics had an instrument in a church around 800 a.d. None of the protestant church founders believed instruments were acceptable in the worship including John Wesley who said, “I have no objection to the organ in our chapels provided it is neither seen nor heard.” Thanks again for the great post!
wjcsydney
April 1, 2011 at 5:50 pm
A friend of mine was baptised 3 times, once as an about 12 year old, once when he was about 20 when he realised his first baptism was due to peer pressure and not a desire to follow Christ, and then again in his mid or late 30s when he was already an elder but was convicted that he had not understood the work of the HS so was rebaptised in order to “reciece the gift of the HS”.
teacherchick730
April 1, 2011 at 9:46 pm
I grew up a preacher’s kid, and am faithful to the church. It bothers me when I hear people remark “that’s not for me” “don’t you do more fun stuff?” or “no instruments? how boring.” Worshipping the Lord is not about entertaining me or what I find appealing – it’s pleasing Him and following what He has outlined in His word as appropriate worship.
gerrytparker
April 2, 2011 at 9:01 am
Hard Shell CoC? My Dad was a Primitive Baptist Preacher. They were called Hard Shell. But I have never heard it used of the Coc that I have been preaching for 30+ years.
Thanks for the article. It is nice to see something positive said about us.
BTW I believe the Holy Spirit is alive and well and very active!
God bless
faithfulsongbird
April 2, 2011 at 10:25 am
I’ve grown up and am still in the church of Christ. I appreciate your assessment of our congregations. I do believe that the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within the Believer when we are baptized, and we worship in Spirit and in Truth. I agree with many of the posters on here who have stated that we worship Him the way He wishes to be worshipped, and not for our own entertainment. God gives us His Plan for worship. Just like when we tell our children, “Go wash your face, brush your teeth, put on your jammies, and go to bed,” we expect our children to do just that. If the decide to suddenly play the piano in the livingroom before hitting the sack, we are not overly pleased. God is the same way. As with Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, and Moses, and Achan, when they disobeyed, God had something to say about it. Uzzah had no ill intention in his heart, only wanting the Ark of the Covenant no to be hurt, but God killed him for touching the Ark. Samuel told King Saul, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to harken than the fat of rams.” 1 Samuel 15:22.
What I am getting at is this: That God doesn’t want all the pomp and circumstance. He wants to be obeyed. And since He is God, we should do exactly that. Jesus said,” If you love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15; John 15:10. How do we show our love for Christ? By obeying Him in all things. Pure and simple.
ksublett
April 2, 2011 at 7:48 pm
That’s true: Jesus commanded that we teach what HE commanded to be taught That’s pretty simple.
The historic trinitarians never picture the Spirit “OF” God as another person. The Spirit belongs to God and returned at Pentecost as the “another” Comforter. Jesus was resurrected and changed into His post-resurrection state The “another” or different in one respect Comforter is “Jesus Christ the Righteous”
1John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate (Paraklete) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
When we are baptized God gives US “A” holy spirit. In 1 peter 3:21 this is “A” good conscience or consciousness. This, says Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 gives us the ability to read the BLACK text on WHITE paper which the Israelites lost at Mount Sinai. This is a token of our post-resurrection state.
Alexander Campbelland others understand that “A” holy spirit is OUR unholy spirit which has been cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ and not His “spirit.” There is little to no evidence in historic scholarship for the “Tritheism” now common. Campbell notes.
“This is…understood by every attentive reader. The original phrase is hagiasmos pneumatos …it appears to refer to the sanctification of the spirit of believers. It is literally rendered “sanctification [or holiness] of spirit.” There is no article in the original and no epithet that suggests the Holy Spirit in either passage.
God has chosen men to salvation through (or by) holiness of spirit;
not through the holiness of HIS Spirit,
but through the holiness of THEIR spirit.
When Jesus prayed (John xvii.) for the sanctification or holiness of his disciples,
it was through the truth: “Sanctify them through the truth;
thy word is truth.”
The belief of the truth is, therefore, by Paul associated with this holiness or sanctification of spirit.”
arkie55
April 3, 2011 at 12:38 pm
I don’t understand the gift of the Holy Spirit to refer to the cleansing, or holiness, or sanctification of my spirit. I am aware that there those who do understand it thus, but in my opinion that is a misunderstanding. The Paraclete was promised by Jesus as a replacement of His presence. He told the disciples that it was to their advantage that this happen. How so? Because the Paraclete dwells within us…
I tried to read Foy Wallace’s book on the mission and medium of the Holy Spirit a year or so ago, and found myself unable to finish it. I’m sorry to say this, but I actually felt that Wallace’s position was blasphemous. I fear that in many cases we react so strongly against a patently false position that we miss the middle ground and end up on another extreme.
My sense is that many in the Churches of Christ are moving back towards that middle ground where we can accept the indwelling of the Spirit and appreciate God’s grace without being fearful that me may have neglected to pray for forgiveness of some particular sin just prior to death – and yes, I have witnessed serious discussions of that particular mindset…
ksublett
April 4, 2011 at 9:59 am
I don’t understand the gift of the Holy Spirit to refer to the cleansing, or holiness, or sanctification of my spirit. I am aware that there those who do understand it thus, but in my opinion that is a misunderstanding. The Paraclete was promised by Jesus as a replacement of His presence. He told the disciples that it was to their advantage that this happen. How so? Because the Paraclete dwells within us…
When Jesus promised “another” Comforter that does not mean heteros or a different comforter. In John 14:18 Jesus said “I” will come to you. Then the mutual indwelling of father-son in the obedient is also the abiding of the obedient IN father-son. Jesus was “allos” in that He was in his post-resurrection state. When the Spirit Lord appeared to Paul He said “I am Jesus of Nazareth.”
Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven,
and to God the Judge of all,
and to the <b?spirits of just men made perfect,
The Comfoter in John 14 is “Paraklete.” In First John the name of the Paraklete is:
1John 2:1 ¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin,
…….we have an advocate(paraklete) with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous:
1John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1John 2:3 ¶ And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
As you move toward the end of revelation the term “The Holy Spirit” gives way to the two-fold relationship in the salutations of One God the Father and One Lord:
1Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ
…….by the commandment of God our Saviour,
…….and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
Peter made that clear on the day of Pentecost.
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
……that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified,
……both Lord and Christ.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God,
……. and one mediator between God and men,
……..the man Christ Jesus;
Historic churches of Christ are in agreement with the original trinitarian creeds which did not recognize “the Holy Spirit” along with the One God in Heaven and One Lord Jesus. The “three people” Godhead I believe was invented by H. Leo Boles in 1938.
Ted Campbell
April 2, 2011 at 7:55 pm
BTW in reference to “priest”: I’m pretty sure that’s a transliteration (not a translation) of a New Testament word: presbyteros -> presbyter -> prester (as in “Prester John”) -> priest. So a “priest” is an “elder.”
robertlukenbill
April 2, 2011 at 8:02 pm
With all due respect, priest is not another word for an elder. It comes from the Greek word, “ἱερεύς” which means, “a priest, one who performs sacrificial rites.” The references to a priest after Acts 2 or the Day of Pentecost, birth of the Lord’s church (the church of Christ, Romans 16:16), are either to the High Priest of the Jews or we notice that every Christian is called a priest by John in Revelation 1:6. Therefore, in no way was the word priest ever a transliteration of presbyter which is one of the words referencing an elder in the Lord’s Church. My source for the Greek is “The New Analytical Greek Lexicon” Wesley Perschbacher is the editor. Thank you kindly.
Ted Campbell
April 2, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Chambers Etymological Dictionary gives the following as the derivation of the English word “priest”: “O.E. preost, shortened from the older Germanic form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester “priest,” from L.L. presbyter “presbyter, elder,” from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian). In O.T. sense, a translation of Heb. kohen, Gk. hiereus, L. sacerdos.” I’m not disputing of course that “priest is utilized as a translation of hiereus in the NT, but the English word originated as a transliteration of presbyteros. Unless you’re aware of a different origin of the English word “priest.”
robertlukenbill
April 2, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Of course, I knew the etymology of the english word “priest”, but they should not be confused in the Greek or even the Hebrew. When the Holy Spirit used the word “ἱερεύς” He did not intend for man to understand this as another word for elder, bishop, shepherd or overseer. Priest in the N.T. is one who serves in the temple (which is now our body) under the authority of the High Priest, now Jesus Christ. To say because the english word has origins leading back to elder means priest can be another word for elder in the N.T. would be misleading at best. Just as long as all of you readers know, when they read priest in the N.T. it does not mean elder, then all is good in my world
.
brentdavis1
April 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm
The big reason is obedience to the gospel without which everyone will suffer the punishment of eternal separation and exclusion from the pressence of God, the very simple gospel preached at Pentecost: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is in every baptized disciple, of course where the Church of Christ has missed the boat often is making sure the candidate for discipleship is repenting, has counted the cost of discipleship and is making Jesus his Lord and not just trying to get Jesus as savior: it’s a package deal. That’s why ACTS 2 says that Peter continued to exhort them with many other words to “save themselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who received his word were baptized, that is, immersed in water. This is the means of entry into the new covenant, into Christ. All spiritual blessings, including grace, are IN CHRIST. And the only way the scripture says to get into christ is to be baptized into Christ. When we come out of the watery grave of baptism in which we have called on Jesus’ name to cleanse us of our sins and purify our conscience from dead works, to remove the sinful flesh, then we rise up to walk in newness of life, born again, a child of God, and God himself then sends the Holy Spirit, who is available because Jesus poured him out for all time on all flesh earlier on the day of Pentecost, into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out “Abba Father!” Then we begin the process of sanctification and winning the world to Jesus by making disciples. If you, reader are ready, email me at BrentDavis1@msn.com and I will find someone to baptize you and help you grow in Christ and make other disciples! Time is running out! Now is the day of salvation! Repent and obey the good news today by participating in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ in Baptism and rise from the watery grave of baptism born again in the kingdom of Jesus to live the rest of your live as his disciple making disciples!!! Do it now!!! Of course the first thing for you to do is to look at your sin. Your sin is separating you from God if you have not repented of it and had it washed away. You may have repented long ago and just need to be baptized for the right reason, I was in that boat as were the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19. Well repent of your false doctrine if that is the case, be baptized in the name of Jesus! God will send his Holy Spirit inside you and you will have the opportunity to be completely led by the spirit as you daily crucify your flesh. You will need brothers and sisters to encourage you and to encourage, There is no life in Christ without the church. Don’t delay, contact me today!
brentdavis1
April 7, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Why the churches of Christ were mostly right:
RESTORATION OF THE GOSPEL
Acts 2:38-41 “Repent and be baptized (immersed in water)
(who) every one of you
(by whose authority) in the name of Jesus Christ
(why) for the forgiveness of your sins
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the Promise (the Holy Spirit) is for you and for your
children,
and for all who are far off–for everyone who the Lord our God will call.
And with many other words he exhorted them saying
“Save your selves from this corrupt generation.”
And those who received his message were baptized (Immersed for the forgiveness of their sins)
and their were added to their number that day about 3,000 souls.
This is the primary reason that the church of Christ was a good thing: it restored the Bible plan of salvation. Unfortunately they didn’t stress the repentance message enough and did not impress Matthew 28:18-20, the great commission on each new disciple of Jesus enough. We must all bind together to do these things.
gmaof8andcounting
April 3, 2011 at 8:08 pm
I had a friend who was raised a Methodist. One day, after she had married and had a couple of kids, she called to say that her Sunday School class was studying what a Methodist believes. After several weeks of study, she decided she wasn’t a Methodist after all.
danhlovejoy
April 3, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Brother Ted, I’m so glad you enjoyed the worship at the Preston Road church. After many years of resentment and ingratitude toward the churches of Christ, I’ve come to appreciate our good points and understand our weaknesses. I agree that we get a lot “right” in worship, and I have come to truly appreciate the simple style of worship as practiced in most churches of Christ.
You’re probably familiar with these, but I think you might find these interesting and useful. There are two points of doctrine that are not immediately obvious when you visit one of our congregations. The first is the independent governance of a group of elders, with no denominational ties or other hierarchical structure. (We take these instructions from 1 Timothy, Titus, and Acts, mostly) I understand that many Christ-followers use a different model, but I wish the could appreciate the simplicity of this model that the apostle Paul ordained through the Holy Spirit’s leading. I suspect that there are many reasons that this is not practical in other churches, but I see it coming to fruition in many community churches and even one Baptist church here in Oklahoma City, and it brings me great joy.
The second is closely related: we don’t have a single pastor, but all of our elders are our pastors. Many of us do employ “evangelists,” but the evangelist is in submission to the elders. Many people who I love and admire use this title of “pastor,” but they are not “pastors” or “elders” in the sense that Paul used in 1 Timothy and Titus. This usage confuses and frustrates me, as I love these men, but I think their understanding and practice is flawed. Finally, I won’t get into the doctrines of baptism, because that will erupt into a war over Greek prepositions, which is the last thing you need.
I loved and appreciated your comments. Thanks for your kind words about our fellowship.
listeningtothesoul
April 5, 2011 at 6:58 am
“Right”? Perhaps it’s true if it can be accepted that there are many “right” ways. As Christians, is it “most important” to conduct a church service in a particular way or is it “most important” to conduct ourselves as loving Christians in life? And, choosing to “obey” God is not possible unless you know God as God is. What kind of God would kill Uzzah, with no ill intention in his heart and only wanting the Ark of the Covenant no to be hurt, for touching the Ark? That does not describe the God I’d want to obey and it doesn’t describe the Jesus I know. Jesus offered mercy, not punishment. The Bible is full of contradictions and I don’t believe that’s confusion delivered by God, but confusion as a result of the words written by men. I am suggesting that the Bible is a guide, but not a rulebook. To say what is “right” according to God is opinion, unless you are God.
carlmj
April 5, 2011 at 7:53 am
Dear Listening,
I hate to assume something, but it seems that your approach is more of the “What I want” rather than “Thus saith the Lord.” The fact it, God did punish Uzziah for touching the ark of the covenant. He had commanded only a certain group of the Levites to touch it. Regardless of whether or not it is the god YOU want to serve, it is the God of the Bible who all answer to.
Jesus did offer mercy, but to say that Jesus did not punish or speak of punish is to ignore a plethora of texts in the New Testament from Jesus Himself and from those He allowed to speak His will through inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Sure mercy, compassion and love are characteristics of the God of Heaven and His only begotten Son, but so God is also a just God who will be sanctified as He states in Leviticus 9-11.
Your argument literally says that I can’t tell someone that they are wrong for murdering someone. It literally says that neither you nor I can say that Hitler was an evil man for what he did. We know right and wrong because God has said what is right and what is wrong and revealed it to us in His word. If you break the speed limit, I can tell you that you are wrong for doing so, not because I am the judge or created the law, but because the law of the land has revealed the speed limit to us and the result of breaking it. It is the same with God. He has revealed what is right and wrong to us, and has told us the consequences of living in the wrong. If I tell you that you are doing something wrong in the eyes of God, I best be able to back it up with scripture, but I have every right too, at the same time, due to the fact that He has revealed His mind to us. You may not like it, but that doesn’t change the truth.
listeningtothesoul
April 5, 2011 at 10:22 am
Dear carlmj:
My approach isn’t exactly “what I want”, although something close to that. My approach is “what I want”, deep down in my soul, is what Jesus also wanted from himself and from us. I have to try to listen to the spirit within – where God speaks. We can behave in a loving way by our own choice and recognize that behavior, without threat of a wrathful God. We were created with the ability to do that, I believe.
“Saith the Lord”, I believe, comes from what man says, not God. In other words, God killing Uzziah is not a fact to me. It is the interpretation, of what may have happened, by a man. Your God is constructed by your interpretation of the Bible. I have no issue with that. I am suggesting that there is no one right answer to what God is and is not. The Bible does not reveal the truth, it hints at what might be some truth. The rest is up to us to find within us as we connect to the Holy Spirit.
Arguing about the details of the lesson, in my opinion, are not important. Living in a way that embraces the essence of the lesson is the point, I believe. If you feed those that are suffering from hunger and I do the same, because we care about our neighbors, we have learned the same lesson. Our actions speak more genuinely than words.
I understand we have fundamental differences in our beliefs, so we most likely will have difficulty in discussing. I’m fine with that.
barabbas1
April 5, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Careful Ted – you’re going to feed their legendary egos!
While the CoC is initially attractive for their primitive Christian practices – at their core they are a Pelagian heresy.
Scott McCown
April 5, 2011 at 12:48 pm
If by “Pelagian heresy” you refer to belief that man has free will and that I as a Christian deny “original sin” that is that all men are guilty through Adam’s sin then I am guilty as charged.
I do believe in the free moral agency of the individual. God allows us to choose to or not to follow Him. He gave Adam and Eve that choice, as well as Abram, Moses, Joshua, Esther, Paul, you and me.
As for original sin; Ezekiel proclaimed God’s word saying, “the son does not inherit the sin of the father . . .” (18:20). Paul says that all sin and that all should repent (Rom 3:23 / Acts 17:30-31). That seems and individual responsibility not an inherited on.
gerrytparker
April 5, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Now Barabbas,
Is that fair? You have a brush that you use to paint ALL Churches of Christ. You should know that there are several different types just as other groups(eg…Baptists).
And then you make another swipe and call all Church of Christ folks guilty of the Pelagian Heresy. Shame on you.
If you know anything about our history we embraced in the beginning (and many still do) Calvinist, Arminian, And a few Universalist ( with conditions) alike.
God bless,
gerrytparker
barabbas1
April 5, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Of course I’m stereotyping. There are many different shades of belief within their group. Still I think the majority that I’ve encountered and grew up with are operating within a Pelagian mindset of works based salvation.
I can even one up Ted’s list of admirable traits of the group. I think their original (Campbell’s) idea of baptism as a sign of redemption in Christ is spot on. The prevalent Calvanist belief of the elect caused a lot of anxiety among believers. Campbell (coming from a background of Presbyterian Calvanism) pointed to baptism being a sign of redemption in Christ instead of some sort of “experiential” signature of the elect. That is grace and that is admirable.
Unfortunately … Campbell’s children have turned that sign of baptism into sectarian division. I think Alex Campbell would be ashamed of what became of his original movement.
redeemed6906
April 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Some Thoughts on Church of Christism:
If it was wrong for the Corinthian church to form a group calling itself The Church of
Christ and excluding other believers from its membership, it is wrong for us to do so.
If it was right for the Apostle Paul to teach the Ephesian Church of Christ and the
Colossian Church of Christ to use Psalms, which manifestly include instrumental music,
in their worship, then it is wrong for us to refuse to use them as the Lord instructed them
to be used.
If Paul was right in instructing the Roman Church of Christ that the promises of God to
Israel are irrevocable, then it is wrong for us to deny that God still has a plan for the
Jews.
If the Apostles taught that our relationship with God is by grace through faith in the
atoning work of Christ, it is wrong to add holding right opinions on peripheral issues as a
term of admission into the church.
It seems to me that we should be concerned with the Christ of the Church rather than the
Church of Christ. I think that if we do that, God will add to our number those who are
being saved.
kelly55555
April 5, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Dear Professor Campbell,
I grew up church of Christ and am now Methodist.
I see what you are saying in your original post here, although I take some of what you are saying as possibly tongue-in-cheek, aimed perhaps at a few annoyances you notice in the Methodist church, such as too much emphasis on the music, or when the music is too loud. I understand the attraction to the primitive side of things as well. Where I live, I can find that primitive feel in any number of Methodist congregations. And I don’t know if it’s an aberration, but several of the Methodist congregations where I live do have Communion every Sunday. In addition, the UMC megachurch I normally attend has it available in the Chapel on the Sundays when the entire congregation does not have Communion. But I’m not extremely hung up on who is “right” about this. I’d probably still be church of Christ if I thought this flavor of “obedience” was more important than the things the Methodist group emphasizes.
I sort of take your point #2 about “the right name” as tongue-in-cheek, although I’m not sure if it’s tongue-in-cheek.
In your Point 4, when you say there really is only one Church of Christ, I know what you mean and I agree, but the people posting here from the church of Christ mostly do not mean what you mean. They mean there is only one group that “does it right” and it is their sect. I figure you realize that. While there are a number of changed (less “hardshell”) church of Christ congregations today, as you can see from most of the people posting here, the “old” mindset of being the only group that gets everything correct and “obeys” correctly still persists. If you thought they were a small and disappearing minority, just look at the prevailing tenor of the comments here.
Overall, look at the mindset/personality type evident in the comments here. That tells you what it is really like to attend the church of Christ or be surrounded by family members who are still in the church of Christ. An extremely literal mindset along with a strong enthusiasm for debate, plus a lack of appreciation of what I think is kind of a tongue-in-cheek approach on your part. They think you *really mean* that the church of Christ is “right,” because they don’t get figures of speech such as the (I think) tongue-in-cheek approach you meant here, aimed at annoyances in your own denomination. I respectfully submit that they don’t get figures of speech even to the extent that Jesus and the Bible used them. That is why they are so literal-minded and think if you get one thing “wrong” such as using an “addition” in the worship service, you go to Hell.
I’d better stop now so I won’t be guilty of “a strong enthusiasm for debate” myself. I do not think the people who attend the church of Christ are “wrong.” I think they miss the big picture because they share for the most part a similar personality type, which shows in many of the comments here.
The main reason I chose the Methodist church is a much bigger reason (to my way of thinking) than who uses instrumental music or takes Communion every Sunday. All my life I have observed and realized the Methodist church puts major emphasis on helping the poor. The Methodists were the first to integrate in my Southern hometown. The Methodists were the good-hearted mill people who didn’t seem materialist. All my life I have heard the term “do-good Methodist.” I read about the Wesleys having to hide from angry mobs in part because they went out to the poor. This kind of thing is the reason I chose the Methodist church. Meanwhile, such things were for the most part very suspect in the church of Christ. That has changed somewhat, but I heard sermon after sermon against environmentalism in the church of Christ, all with a “gotcha” tone. I have never heard one statement delivered with a “gotcha” tone in the Methodist church. It’s a difference in mindset, emphasis, and personality. Perhaps the “gotcha” tone comes through in some of the comments here. I’d better quit before I am guilty of having a “gotcha” tone.
I am very thankful that Jesus didn’t give up on me and one day a poor, do-gooder, friend dragged me kicking and screaming to the Methodist church where a quiet, humble-atmosphere band of two guitars was playing and I felt my heart strangely warmed.
ksublett
April 5, 2011 at 4:29 pm
It disturbs people that God reserves the right to hand pick specific people to carry out a task. He does not pick to destroy but to bless.
However, there is no example or inference that God ever picked an individual to go to heaven or burn in hell just to prove his power. To whom would He need to prove His Sovereignty?
People like Abel, Seth, Moses etal were called righteous and were not born guilty of sin.
All of those who were unrighteous are blamed for their own sins. Sin entered into the WORLD and not into Eve.
Calvin said that no one could come to faith without a supernatural operation. He said that God gave us the Scriptures and sent out evangelists. Churches of Christ believe John:
Romans 1:16 ¶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
And Faith comes by hearing: never by a direct infusion.
listeningtothesoul
April 5, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Kelly5555,
Good for you for following your heart and finding what connects for you to God. I am with you on not saying one way is the “right” way. There are certainly more important things to think about, such as caring for those in need, than whether or not instruments should join voices in song. I am sorry you were treated so harshly as to be threatened with going to hell. Thank goodness you now feel the unconditional love that Jesus offered to all of us. As a woman (I assume), do you feel more freedom to speak in the Methodist Church? You cannot speak from the pulpit, for example, In a church of Christ, right?
kelly55555
April 5, 2011 at 10:41 pm
I am a woman, but I don’t care much about that issue. I would attend a church that had no instrumental music and didn’t let women speak if it had the … how do I say this …atmosphere? personality? if it emphasized the things the Methodist church does. I have noticed that women preachers will often speak about things male preachers don’t often speak about, such as a time when they felt fear. This speaks to me personally sometimes…but also, I have found the male preachers in the Methodist church every bit as loving, humble, warm, etc. as the women preachers.
Neither women’s roles nor instrumental music nor when baptism should take place nor manner of baptism nor how often to take Communion nor church organization is as big an issue for me as are other, bigger ones. One of the biggest is the approach to the Bible.: (how do I say this) … the church of Christ does not take into account the writings nor the decisions arrived at by the church fathers through the centuries. The church of Christ wanted to start with a clean slate, one person in the New World with just the Bible. I see this as the primitive approach Professor Campbell described. I am not saying it is wrong. I see it as part of a larger movement which took place in the New World and includes the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Seventh Day Adventists. I saw a TV documentary on the Mormons that placed this movement in historical context and it made sense to me. I’m not saying it’s “wrong” to take that approach, one person and his or her Bible and no “manmade creeds” as the church of Christ says. However, I’m not convinced that’s the only way. In contrast, the Methodist church considers what the Orthodox (I think) call “Holy Tradition” as a leg of the stool. This makes more sense to me and I thought about it a lot. I believe this is more what Jesus and the apostles intended. I could be wrong, so far be it from me to hold it out as the only “right” way.
The Methodist church says the Bible is inspired in its original languages (I think) while the church of Christ considers every word (in English) to be literal even in translation. That was one of the biggest things that got me thinking.
Also, I see the COC as influenced by Calvinism even though they sort of don’t know how much they are like the Ortrhodox Presbyterian and other smaller conservative Presbyterian sects. …while the Methodist church never came down through Calvinism. (I don’t think.) If you think I am mean about the COC you should see how mean I am about Calvinism, even though I do not understand it very well. I read their blogs and I notice the tone and the attitudes. I listen to neo-Calvinist podcasts. They are often very hard to distinguish from COC sermons until they say the word “elect.”
I will stop there …anyway I don’t know quite how to say what I most want to say. The aspects of the Christian life that the Methodist church emphasizes are different. Jesus said something about tithing cumin and yet neglecting the weightier matters so I believe Jesus meant He wanted us to give more weight to certain matters. I do not feel other denominations are “wrong,” but I feel the Methodist church (and some others) emphasize the aspects I would also think are most important. For some reason, church organization is very important to the COC and to Calvinists. I can kind of see historically why Calvinists would put emphasis on that…they didn’t like priests…but why is church organization such a huge area of emphasis in the COC? I think it must be because of what they were reacting against historically. But they’ve lost their history, kind of on purpose, because they wanted to be clean-slate. So it seems like the COC has these vestiges of Calvinism but doesn’t know where they came from.
The Methodist church has Bishops. Are Bishops wrong? I don’t know. Do I think God will judge me on whether I went to a church that wrongly had Bishops? No I don’t. I think He is more interested in even larger issues than that, and I don’t think getting something like that “wrong” is “disobedience.” Some even say that with their emphasis on “perfect obedience,” the COC has a works-based salvation. This doesn’t bother Methodists as badly as it bothers those who came down through Calvinism (I don’t think) but when the COC hears someone dissing “works,” they hear “I don’t want to obey. I want to get away with as much as possible hee hee” As a Methodist, I don’t have to wring my hands too much over whether trying to be pious is “works-based” but I also don’t think my salvation is entirely based on whether there was a Bishop or not or Communion every Sunday. I am sorry I was so long-winded.
kelly55555
April 5, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Oh and here’s one more thing. This is a big one that sort of hardly ever gets mentioned.
You hear “Everything happens for a reason” in the COC. You hear it on the radio. You hear it by word of mouth. You hear it in the broad swath of denominations that came down through Calvinism and predominate in the USA.
One place you don’t hear that is the Methodist church. There’s a reason for that. The belief that God directs every happening (such as whether a tornado hits your house) is associated with Calvinism because (well I am not sure I fully understand why.) The church of Christ mostly believes this too, although they don’t present a systematic theology that this belief fits into like it does in Calvinism.
At the Methodist church, you will hear that evil is part of the human condition, not that God caused every happening.
The belief that God causes every happening in our lives is not part of Methodist theology. My preacher every once in a while speaks about this and explains that Methodists don’t believe God caused a certain happening.
I hope I am not messing that up…this is what I have been taught and given to understand in the Methodist church.
Just another way in which the COC is influenced by Calvinism and doesn’t really know it. There is a broad swath of evangelical theology that is a lot alike, that predominates on the radio airwaves and by word of mouth, and the COC believes a lot like this broad swath of evangelical theology even though they think they stand out as different because of having Communion every Sunday and immersing and not having instrumental music.
To me, those are little things. To me the COC is so immersed in the little things they don’t look at the larger picture (I hope that doesn’t sound snobby) I think it’s because they are afraid to. They kind of think it’s “disobedient.” I think. They place huge emphasis on the worship style and church organization and that kind of “obedience.” meanwhile, I have never heard them question “Everything happens for a reason.” or talk about that sort of thing. (God made that tornado miss your house and hit the other house) I have heard thousands of COC sermons on church organization. What is going on?
A skewed emphasis, I think. I’m still not saying they’re “wrong.” I don’t think one group has to be “wrong” and one group “right.” They just emphasize different things.
carlmj
April 6, 2011 at 7:29 am
Dear Kelly,
I appreciate the length of your posts and the time you probably took to write them. I do believe you made some assumptions that don’t hold water though and some that do not hold water in a Biblical and/or historical argument.
I always found it interesting that Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for their obedience, just that they were consistent in it and forgot the weightier matters of the law coupled with the minor. The wording for how baptism should be administered and the purpose of it are made clear by inspiration. If God felt it was important to chose specific words, it should be important to us as well.
The restoration movement was not a one man army either. Many keep going back to Campbell, but if one is willing to do the study, they will find that many were coming to the same conclusions as Campbell without ever knowing him and before he even arrived in America and had any influence.
I have never heard anyone teach that the English words of the Bible are literally inspired. It is still the inspired word of God, but that does not mean the men who wrote it were inspired.
The Methodist church did come down through Calvinism. Pretty much all modern day denominations did. The fact that they teach original sin/total depravity is the starting point of Calvinism.
The church of Christ also does not have a “works-salvation.” We do teach that man must obey God, but we can never say, “God, I obeyed You, You know owe me salvation.” Instead, God has given us commands and told us that we must humbly obey Him in faithful obedience to His Son to have eternal life. We recognize God’s promise and humbly submit to the things He has commanded.
You probably do hear “Everything happens for a reason” from those in the church of Christ. It doesn’t make it true though. No one is perfect. Sometimes even we have a misunderstanding of things and say things without thinking. I’ve often said, “I’m going up to the church” when I meant church building. Does that mean that the Bible teaches that the church is a building instead of the assembly of God’s people? Not at all. It could also mean they are referring to God’s providence. God’s providence does not take away freewill. By providence, God used Joseph in Egypt to bring the family of Jacob to Egypt where they would grow. Did that mean God forced Joseph’s brother to do evil? Of course not.
Kelly, you’ve made a lot of broad statements using a very thin brush. You continually admitted your lack of understanding, but in that lack of understanding you decided to claim things as truth that you then stated you didn’t even know if they were true or not, and that just isn’t an honest or productive way to discuss an issue.
listeningtothesoul
April 6, 2011 at 10:49 am
Kelly, I appreciate you taking the time to explain what you considered when choosing your path. I find individual faith journey’s to be facinating and it is clear, you’ve put a lot of thought and effort into choosing yours so far. The easiest thing to do is to stick with the church you started with, without question, evaluation or soul searching. That’s not to say that you must move on to another church, neccessarily. It may be right for you. I mean to say that I think the decision to leave or stay with a church is best made when a person is free to question, evaluate, soul search and then choose. Your decision was clearly based on that as you gave it much thought. I also appreciate your acknowledgement that your decisions and beliefs are right for you and you are not claiming it to be neccessarily the one true and right decision for everyone. It is very difficult to discuss religious beliefs in a way that does not sound like you are claiming other beliefs are wrong. After all, what you believe is what you believe to be true at that time, according to you. However, you were very careful to leave the door open for other thoughts and that, in my opinion, is how we grow in our faith and respond to each other with love in our hearts.
carlmj, I understand you believe certain things to be true, such as God feeling it was important to chose specific words and those specific words appear in the Bible. However, your belief in that doesn’t mean it is true or it is true for everyone else. You have decided it is true for you. What you use as facts to support your beliefs, are not facts to many and so it’s difficult to discuss in the same way. However, if that is what you choose to believe, that’s fine. My issue with what was written was related to claiming certain practices to be “right” when “right” in this case is opinion based on an individual’s set of beliefs – what that person determines are facts. The bigger picture for me is: no matter what details we each choose to believe, if we live out our lives in a loving way, by caring for others as we would want to be cared for, then we have found God and God has found us. That’s just my opinion, of course.
cashrock
April 6, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Things are not true or false ‘for’ any particular person. They are simply true or false. Consider the following:
1. The Bible is true for me, but it may not be for you.
If truth and falsity is person-relative, then this can’t be right, since it is a truth claim. We need to qualify it with something more like
2. It is true for me that the Bible is true for me (although it may not be for you), but it may be false for you that the Bible is true for me.
But this is another truth claim. So, to qualify it, we need to say
3. It is true for me that it is true for me that the Bible is true for me (although it may not be for you), but it may be false for you that it is true for me that the Bible is true for me.
You see where this is going. Clearly, person-relative truth introduces a vicious regress. If it is a complete declarative sentence, it is either true or false. There is no qualification.
“Opinion” means one of two things. First, it can indicate a matter of taste. When I say that I am of the opinion that chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry, I only mean that I enjoy it more, even if you do not. I don’t mean that chocolate ice cream is somehow more ethical than strawberry. This is not what we mean when we say “that’s my opinion” in debates. Second, it can indicate a belief, a claim to truth. I am of the opinion that Paris is in France, and it happens to be true that Paris is in France. So I have a true or right opinion. Often “opinion” indicates that one has relatively little certainty and so is open to discussion. I am of the opinion (think it true) that drowning would be a less painful death than burning alive. But, as I have experienced neither and may be mistaken, I do not hold to my opinion with a great deal of certainty. Yet I still think that drowning is better than burning.
The phrases “true for you” and “just my opinion” are being used as discussion stoppers. They indicate a refusal to produce evidence for or to rationally justify the users’ claims, as well as a dismissal of others’ criticisms. They are condescending and snooty–suggesting that critics lack sophistication and are not worthy of response. They covertly allow the user to maintain a position for no reason whatsoever. In some circles, this is called “fundamentalism.” It is my considered opinion that such language represents the worst kind of false humility and closed-mindedness when it comes to public debate.
kelly55555
April 6, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Oh, dear. I promised myself I wasn’t going to keep posting like a crazy person on here, post after post.
“I’ve often said, “I’m going up to the church” when I meant church building. “– Here is an example of what it is like to grow up in and attend the church of Christ.
COC’ers think that accidentally calling the building a “church” is a huge infraction, and they constantly bring this up. This is HUGE. Not kidding. If you accidentally say “church” when you mean “church building.”
I can’t even exaggerate how huge this is in COC circles. Your parent is likely to slap you in the face for it. Not kidding. I almost got a belt whipping once for saying “we don’t have a king.” I meant, the USA doesn’t have a king. My mother got extremely angry and started yelling red in the face WE HAVE A KING! Now, there may be parents like this in other fundamentalist sects. Are there more than statistically random in the COC compared to more mainstream denominations? I think so. There is a particular mindset that kind of is overrepresented in the COC and it’s not always cute to be a quaint Hobbit. Just as I’m sure that growing up Amish is not one hundred percent bucolic harmony. Maybe it is and I’m wrong. From my experience the COC is more like the Independent (hardshell) Baptists in the mindset and personality than the Amish, but still….it is not always the most healthy thing to grow up in Hobbit country. “We are a humble people and being puffed up with pride is not our way” is one thing. “Its not a church it’s a BUILDING” 4000 times in your life vs. never getting a real history of the Reformation ever, because “all you need to know about the Reformation is Luther is wrong because his followers took his name” and “all these other churches are wrong because do you see the word Lutheran, Baptist, or Methodist in the Bible?” That’s the not-as-cute side of being a Hobbit. I’m not saying Hobbits don’t go to Heaven. I’m saying Hobbits who leave the Shire and learn about the larger world, can also go to Heaven…it’s the big sin of coveting the gold and the power that both of them need to avoid. I hate that book.
carlmj
April 6, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Kelly, you missed what I was saying completely. I said that I don’t like to say that, but I don’t make a big deal because I know what people mean by it, and it’s the same with pretty much every member of the church of Christ I know.
When you say you can’t exaggerate how huge it is, that’s exactly what you are doing. I have never met a single parent who would slap their children for saying something like that. If you had a bad situation, I’m sorry, but don’t paint broad strokes with your thin paint brush.
I grew up Methodist, and there were some kids in my youth group who cussed and fornicated and were apathetic and only showed up because they were forced to. Is it right for me to say, “Well because they did that, and they were Methodists, all Methodists must be like that”? Not at all, but that is exactly what you are doing and it’s poor logic and argumentation.
listeningtothesoul
April 6, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Cashrock, I disagree with your description and assessment. According to one dictionary, “opinion” means this: “a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty” or “a personal view, attitude, or appraisal”
So, when I say something is my opinion, I am acknowledging that it is my belief about something that is not proven fact with complete certainty. It is my attempt to be respectful of other views. Calling your opinion a fact is a dismissal of other opinions. If you don’t agree with my opinion, that’s fine. We all don’t agree with each other on everything, but that keeps us talking and thinking.
However, your post and Kelly’s last post have helped me to better understand how important specific words are to members of church of Christ. I say that as an observation without judgment.
Scott McCown
April 6, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I keep reading the comments and wish I could apologize for all the well meaning people in the Churches of Christ of the past and present who obviously said things and did things that hurt others. I know the types of people you describe but through the years I have met many more who are earnestly trying to be true followers of (disciples of) Jesus not only in doctrine but also in compassion. I do think some if not many in all denominations, non-denominations, and “un”-denominations fall into the pattern of the Pharisees and push their agenda (their “canon within the canon”) onto others in a non-Christlike manner.
Sometimes we all pick up on “sound-bite” theology and doctrine like kelly5555 speaks of (going to church vs going to the building). I know historically that is something many heard. I think somewhere in an effort to emphasize that we should be Christlike and servants of God in all of life a “bumper sticker” phrase caught on that does not communicate entire truth. But through the years many realized that the word church means assembly so when we attend worship on Sunday we are going to the assembly (church). I have never experienced the “have a king” phrase.
To those discussing truth or opinion. This is the world we live in – many do not accept that there is absolute moral or more specifically doctrinal truth. I will leave that discussion to those skilled in rhetoric, debate, and philosophy. I am a simple person and live in a simple fashion. I know that there is truth in certain areas of life. I know that 100 centimeters equal a meter. I know that if a recipe calls for 2 cups of flour, I cannot substitute 2 cups of sugar or cut back to 1/2 cup of flour and get the cake to turn out right. I know that the sun shines on my side of the world when I call it day and that the surface of the moon reflects the light from the sun when the bright side of the moon is visible in my hemisphere. I know that a shovel head pulled out of a fire has a higher temperature reading than the surface temperature of my skin and that should I touch it, I will know this from experience. There are truths – there is truth. The next question is whether or not you or I accept the Bible and all the narratives contained in them as truth. From a legal-historical and historical-critical perspective I see evidence to accept the Bible as authentic and authoritative.
I despise the “everything happens for a reason” mentality. I believe that we in the CoC picked that up from our friends and neighbors and a misreading of the life of Joseph in Gen 39ff. I believe in “cause and effect” as a reason, but not in the Calvinistic predetermined by God reason. I see in scripture where God’s plans changed because of man’s prayer – think Abraham and Sodom, Moses and the children of Israel, the king who God allowed to live longer, Nineveh when they repented, and so on. We each have free-will that impacts God (I will be accused of Pelagian Heresy for that). Like kelly5555 I see the influence of Calvin in just about every Protestant group including Methodist and in many members and leaders in the Churches of Christ. Calvin’s influence is much greater that we want to admit.
Thanks again Prof Campbell for getting this started.
paulaharington
April 6, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I agree with Scott. I’m sorry that there are people out there who haven’t exactly been ambassadors for Christ. However, there are always going to be people who don’t understand the love of Christ and/or the grace of God.
I appreciate this post and thank you for your time and encouraging words.
ksublett
April 6, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Christ ordained the Qahal, synagogue or Church of Christ in the Wilderness.
It was INCLUSIVE of Rest, reading and Rehearsing the Word of God (only)
It was EXCLUSIVE of vocal or instrumental rejoicing.
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them,
…… which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (Converted-baptized)
Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them,
……that they abstain from pollutions of idols,
……and from fornication,
……and from things strangled,
……and from blood.
Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time
……hath in every city
……them that PREACH him,
…… being READ in the synagogues every sabbath day.
The Lord’s Supper is not magical: it is a showing forth or evangelizing concept of the death of Jesus. That’s it!
For Paul gathering, assemblying or coming together are SYNAGOGUE words. That is defined universally in the letters and early church history the ROLE of the assembly.
Synagogue was a Greek word meaning Set-Time-Place.
Ekklesia was a Greek word meaning Set-Time-Place.
Ekklesia is the collected members OR it means the HOUSE or Place. Church house is proper as “they burned down all of the houses (synagogues) of the Lord.
The Campbells taught that:
Church is A School of Christ.
Worship is Reading and Musing the Word of God (only)
All additions are the product of men seeing Godliness as a means of Financial Gain or Occupation.
Corrupting the Word means “selling learning at retail.”
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Fathers house an house of merchandise. Jn.2:16
Emporion (g1712) em-por’-ee-on; neut. from 1713; a mart (“emporium”): – merchandise.
Emporos (g1713) em’-por-os; from 1722 and the base of 4198; a (wholesale) tradesman: – merchant.
2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Kapeleuo (g2585) kap-ale-yoo’-o; from kapelos , (a huckster); to retail, i.e. (by impl.) to adulterate (fig.): – corrupt
kapêl-euô ,A. to be a retail-dealer, drive a petty trade… kapêleu’ drive a trade, chaffer with your vegetable food Hdt.1.155 II. c. acc., sell by retail, mathêmata sell learning by retail, hawk it about, traffic in grants of citizenship [membership?], prostitutes, playing tricks with life
Hdt.1.155 Heredotus: Cyrus told how to take the FIGHT out of the enemy: [4] But pardon the Lydians, and give them this command so that they not revolt or pose a danger to you: send and forbid them to possess weapons of war,
…………and order them to wear tunics under their cloaks
……….. and knee-boots on their feet,
……….. and to teach their sons lyre-playing [kitharizein]
……….. and song [psallein] and dance
…………and shop-keeping [huckstering].
……….. And quickly, O king,
……….. you shall see them become women instead of men,
……….. so that you need not fear them, that they might revolt.”
The nut, dear friends, is under NONE of the shells.
listeningtothesoul
April 6, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Scott,
Regarding your question: “The next question is whether or not you or I accept the Bible and all the narratives contained in them as truth.”
I’m not exactly sure what you mean. If you are asking whether you or I believe the words in the Bible are to be taken literally and that the words in the Bible are actually God’s words, then my answer to both questions would be no, I see evidence (not proof) that leads me to that conclusion. If you are asking whether I believe parts of the Bible are based on historical accounts , then yes. Some, I believe, are allegories or personal religious philosophy written by inspired men.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and point of view on the church of Christ.
cashrock
April 6, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Listening,
I am open to discussion about the meanings of these phrases and their rhetorical functions. That is why I gave a reason for believing that truth is not person-relative. I didn’t think it was fair that I offer such a strong criticism without explaining my reasons for it. Now those reasons are open to criticism and discussion.
But my reason for offering the criticism was that I think you are being unfair to Carl. Carl offered a case for a particular understanding of Scripture while challenging a few others. He offered evidence that Kelly’s experiences with the churches of Christ may not be representative of the whole movement. And if he’s right, then Kelly has been (no doubt, unintentionally) unfair to 4 million church-of-Christ-ers. I’m not defending Carl’s arguments. But the wording of your response suggests that you’re not really interested in considering what Carl has said. You use your words to dismiss him like a child. That is why I was interested in those words, not because I am a Restorationist.
btw – Even if you don’t intend it this way, your last few lines work the same way. I have engaged in no theological hairsplitting here. Yet, you treat my criticism as if they were the manifestation of cultic brainwashing rather than something you might consider seriously.
listeningtothesoul
April 7, 2011 at 12:15 pm
cashrock,
Kelly’s experience is every bit as valid as any other. I do know that one does not represent all and trust that other readers know that, too. Still, it’s certainly fair to point that out.
Your interpretation of my words and judgment of me are yours – not mine. I cannot stop you from judging.
cashrock
April 7, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Listening,
You answered my earlier post by construing my criticisms as a denominationally-inherited obsession with semantics, even though none of my quibbles were over “church” words. You answered my last post by painting me as a Matt. 7:1 violator, although I have certainly not judged you. I don’t even know you (although I think your earlier posts employed a rhetorical strategy that blocks real discussion by treating others’ views as trite).
I don’t think that this sub-discussion, which has gone from talking about churches of Christ to talking about rhetorical strategies to borderline personal attacks, is what Ted had in mind when he started this post. Nor is it what I had in mind in my first post. But I’ll be happy to continue the discussion on my blog. Just Google “Philosophical Figments.” An introductory post is already up.
listeningtothesoul
April 8, 2011 at 10:01 pm
cashrock,
This sub-discussion, which has gone from talking about churches of Christ and religion to talking about rhetorical strategies and borderline personal attacks is what I had in mind either. Onward.
listeningtothesoul
April 10, 2011 at 6:54 am
Typo in my above post. Should be:
…is NOT what I had in mind either.
kelly55555
April 7, 2011 at 2:34 pm
I am sorry I misinterpreted Carimj’s example about saying “church” instead of “church building.” However, I suggest that anyone reading this do NOT accidentally say “I am going to stop by the church” to a COC’er…you WILL get “it’s not the church it’s a BUILDiNG.” To me, this exemplifies a certain mindset, one that majors in minors. At full volume.
It is true, there are many good-hearted and kind, loving COC’ers and at times I tend to forget them. Again, I do not think they are “wrong” just misinformed and have a particular mindset that I don’t think it’s necessary to stick to. Whether there are 4 million of them, 2 million as I was told in the 70′s, 1.2 million as I sometimes hear nowadays, or 2000…I do not think God will “zap” them for being Hobbits. I also do not think being that kind of Hobbit is quaint in a charming way, even if the music is pleasing and sounds authentic in an independent movie.
As for the child-rearing practices, it is true that not all COC’ers practice the kind of child-rearing practices my parents did…but it is also true that these practices still go on in certain swaths of the COC just like they go on in some other small sects. Some even go farther and follow the Pearls’ child-rearing advice. The Pearls are not COC, but there are COC’s where their child-rearing practices have caught on and found a welcome audience. http://www.examiner.com/attachment-parenting-in-mankato/another-child-s-death-linked-to-pearls-and-to-train-up-a-child
I am thankfully in the minority having received this kind of upbringing (less than the Pearls but not by much.)
I know I am far from alone in having been raised like this. There is an Internet now and we can compare notes. I am far from alone. I would say from my experience this goes on in the more staunch, mostly Southern flavors of the COC. I am by no means alone.
And the thing is, that’s what many COC’ers think God is like. When I was 8 my mother told me to bring her the big Bible. She read to us out of the Bible every night. Most people would rightly find that commendable, and I also do. But they may not know the rest of the story. I asked, “The biiiiiiiiiig Bible?” and she got irritated. “YES THE BIG BIBLE.” I brought the big family Bible, not reasoning correctly that she meant the next biggest one she normally used. I got a belt whipping because she thought I did it on purpose to smart off. Still quaint and charming?
Is using your brain to reason out, “Mother couldn’t have meant THIS Bible, she must have meant the next biggest Bible because that’s the one she’s always used before,” — is that “a man-made creed?” Is trying to reason something out and getting it wrong, really a total zap-worthy “sin?” I respectfully submit we were and are expected to reason things out together (such as at church Councils through the ages) and hammer it out like the Church universal has done for 2000 years. The COC thinks that is “the doctrines of men.” The Methodist church thinks the Holy Spirit is there guiding them when they do so (or so said my preacher.) I respectfully submit that what’s in our heart matters more when we reason out our interpretations. ARE we really trying to get away with something? Then that’s wrong. I also respectfully submit it is not wrong to listen to those who have studied more and know more, such as (back when the rank and file couldn’t read, and even back when there wasn’t a New Testament) a priest.
When I accidentally brought my mother the wrong Bible? This is what some COC’ers think God is like. They think a misinterpretation and inadvertent “disobedience” is that serious.
I still like the four-part harmony and the good-hearted people that Carimj bids me remember. If only that were all there was to it. The not-cute side of being a Hobbit is bad enough it’s not worth it to stay a Hobbit, unless you can’t do otherwise….if you can’t do otherwise I’m not saying you’re “wrong,” but I had to leave the overall mindset behind along with the four-part harmony.
I was a little harsh the other day and now I see that not all the commenters from the COC commenting here are as I accused. I am sorry for the broad brush strokes.
carlmj
April 7, 2011 at 3:33 pm
*sigh* You’re still doing the same thing, Kelly. You had an awful experience, I hate that. I would not teach that your parents and the way they handled discipline was Biblical at all, but seriously…stop saying “the church of Christ does this” because of bad experiences you had with your family and some around you. The attitude you exhibit in doing such is just as bad, if not worse then the ones you come here and complain about over and over.
listeningtothesoul
April 8, 2011 at 10:11 pm
kelly55555,
My heart goes out to you. That is no way to treat anyone.
kennyg01
April 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm
carlmj: “The church of Christ also does not have a ‘works-salvation.’ We do teach that man must obey God, but we can never say, ‘God, I obeyed You, You know owe me salvation.’ Instead, God has given us commands and told us that we must humbly obey Him in faithful obedience to His Son to have eternal life. We recognize God’s promise and humbly submit to the things He has commanded.”
The church of Christ does have a works-salvation. You wrote that God has given us commands and told us we must humbly obey him in faithful obedience to his son to have eternal life. So if we fail to obey him, we lose eternal life. This is the whole difference between COC legalism and a more free faith Paul talked about: The whole Bible story is about the failure of men to obey God, and God’s attempt to reach out to us in our lack of obedience. And to figure out a way to bring us eternal life in spite of our disobedience. For example, I don’t think the Israelites stopped sinning in that 40 years of wandering in the desert, but God was faithful in spite of their sins. It’s a very subtle thing, trusting God to help us obey, rather than trying to obey from our own human weakness, but I submit, that is what leads us from legalism.
You then provided a straw man argument, that people like me are saying: “God I obeyed you, you now owe me salvation”. Please don’t put words in other peoples’ mouths. To accept God’s promise is not an attempt to put God in a tit for tat game.
Thank you for stating so plainly, the legalistic argument of the COC.
carlmj
April 8, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Kenny, you more or less wrote what I was trying to convey. No one said we have to be perfect, but we do need to strive to obey God. We pray for strength and wisdom because we know we need His ways to guide us.
If any has said they have lived perfectly, they lied. It is still not a works salvation though. It is saved by grace through faith. Faith inherently includes belief and submission to the Master’s will (heb 11) not because He owes us anything but because we owe Him everything. Surely you would agree with me that we cannot willfully live like the devil and still be in submission to God.
kennyg01
April 8, 2011 at 8:11 pm
It seems like we are so close, but the devil is in the details. But I suppose I’ve been out of the COC so long things have changed in my absence. I’d have to know how much people worry about losing their salvation over things like speeding or throwing a cuss-word? Or drinking alcohol. Or dancing in public.
These are some of the biggies that many COCs hit pretty hard. In order to get people to stop drinking, they tell them they’ll lose their salvation if they don’t. Where do you stand on that? It’s an easy one.
What about if a person uses an instrument in worship? Is that a sin that will cause a person to lose their salvation?
What about murder, that’s an actual commandment; if you murder someone will you lose your salvation?
These are not new arguments, and I don’t expect they are new to you. I remember studying about “once saved, always saved” theologies back in the day.
What did David mean when he said that God was restoring the joy to his salvation by crushing his bones after the Bathsheba incident?
ksublett
April 9, 2011 at 12:23 pm
The only question is: “What does the Bible say.” The “serpent” in the garden of Eden is defined as a “musical enchanter.” The King of Tyre is called Lucifer as “the singing and harp playing prostitute in the garden of Eden.” Israel lost the Covenant of Grace because of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai. God turned Israel over to worship the starry host but did not command king, kingdom, temple, sacrifices or the Jacob-cursed Levites to “worship the starry host.” The “pattern” passage in 2 Chr 29 is flanked by instrumental noice in Ch 28 and in Ch 33. The word definition in Latin and Greek identify the musical noise as witchcraft or sorcery. If God turned them over to worship the starry host (Acts 7 etal quoting Amos) then whatever they called their gods, the Biblical text and the Jewish encyclopedian proves that they worshipped the starry host.
The first Babylonian king was cast into the pit with his burried-alive harpists and harps. Isaiah 30 says that the marks in sight and sound of God driving His enemies into “hell” are wind, string and percussion instruments.
The Babylon mother of harlots (Rev 17) makes use of speakers, singers and instrument players in Rev 18. John calls them sorcerers who HAD deceived the whole world. This is some of the basic knowledge knowb by all of the church fathers and founders of denominations who believed that God had not commanded, but condemned, the use of instruments (machines for doing hard worjk). It is a simple matter of defining words as used in the contemporaneous literature.
Singing as a ACT was imposed about the year 373 after Constantine began paying unwashed bishops. No one sang congregationally with or without instruments until John Calvin gave his divine permission to radically recompose some psalms (only) to be sung to a simple melody in unison (only). Before that people knew that the direct command was to use “that which is written for our learning” and none of the Bible is metrical and can be sung tunefully.
Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: in the Ezekiel 33 reference by the Spirit of Christ speakers, singers and instrument players are named. The word Hypocrite is firsty the rhetoricians but also chanters or singers or actors. I think people use their own likes and imagination and do not know how to define and understand word definitions as used at the time.
Christ outlawed “vocal or instrumental rejoicing” for the Qahal, synagogue or church in the wilderness. Music from mystery means “to make the lambs dumb before the slaughter.”
Can you be a Disciple of Christ if you do not define disciple and understand that He commanded that we teach what HE Commanded to be taught.
kennyg01
April 10, 2011 at 8:54 pm
ksublett: This is going to sound rude. You are soooo far on the extreme side of what I left that I am not going to dip my toe in those waters again. I know that you think you know what you know. My opinion is that you think you know far more than you can actually know. It’s good to be certain, though, and I am not worried about your soul, grace covers both of our sins. God bless.
cuepond
April 9, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Ted, thank you for creating this opportunity for dialog. While I have definite strong convictions based on understanding I am not given to the back and forth pelting between the right and wrong camps. Thirty-three years ago I was in my late twenties when I responded obediently to an open-Bible study with two elderly ladies at my home in Alhambra California. A small band of workers were eye witnesses to my new birth. One week after my obedience to the gospel I was the silent partner in our door-to-door community work. This was my raw introduction to the warped view of myself and my new family of brothers and sisters in the faith that is in Christ Jesus with the you-church-of-christ-people-think-you’re-the-only-ones-going-to-heaven door slammer. I wondered, Why are people saying this? It didn’t take long before I found that was the message coming from the pulpit and by listeners in the pews. Though the statement is true (was that a collective appall?) it was as misunderstood and distorted like one other phrase by those who said it and those who heard it. Eight months later I enrolled in a Bible seminary at Preston Road, met and married my beloved, beautiful bride at Preston Road toward the end of the two-year study.
Having grown up without any religious instruction and extremely rare church attendance with our grandparents my instruction at the time of my obedience of the gospel was limited to my own reading of the Bible. I became fascinated and absorbed in it giving particular attention to the New Testament. Years later those ladies and I talked about how they wondered if I understood what they were presenting was all about especially when I stood up and said, “I know. I’m ready. Lets go.” The overall reaction I received from my brothers and sisters was one of surprise because I did not resist, as they probably expected, various matters of doctrine. While some might be quick to say I was eager to be brainwashed it was actually that they were not telling me anything I had not read and understood for myself from the scriptures already. I can withstand that as well as I have withstood other charges.
My reason for mentioning this, with all due respect to all on both sides of the thread discussion, is the sectarian, umbrella use of another phrase: “church of Christ” or “I’m church of Christ.” What I have encountered over the years has remained true from the time EVEN BEFORE I came to the obedience of the gospel. The burning desire of my heart before that commitment to Jesus as Lord and Savior was, Lord, I want to know the truth that I may obey and serve you. I can (and have) certainly withstand any mockery or ridicule anyone might cast on my assertion those workers from the Alhambra church of Christ were the answer from God to my prayer.
It did not strike me as incredible that here were believers with whom I held a similar conviction about truth which is rare among too many seekers and followers of Jesus. There’s nothing wrong with opinions and personal thoughts it’s only when a person equates or as easily displaces the authority of scripture for what seems right and feels good to them. However, the reality is the absence or lack of understanding often results in people leaving here to go there. Their absence or lack of understanding then becomes their comfort and reassurance in the form of accusations or barrage of questions to what they previously did not understand. This is true as much of former Christians now Muslims, atheists as of others who leave for the denominational, or non-denominational, church of their preference with whom I have interacted extensively online over the past five years.
The truth is, and I have stated this over the years in Bible class and elsewhere, my brethren succumbed to the pressures of religious rhetoric. This occurred when learning and understanding were displaced by mere parroting of what preacher says or what pastor says at the non-denominational/Bible/Community church some made their new home. The conviction behind the term “church of Christ” was displaced by “I’m church of Christ.” I thought, What?!?!? the first time I heard the use of that phrase. (Just days ago I heard my 29 year old daughter say, “I’m church of Christ.” I pounced on her neither verbally nor physically. Does anyone think I taught her that way?) The acquiescence behind the once confident assertion came about as a back-down from the (truth) stance, “I am only a Christian” which was weighted with misunderstanding on the part of many of my brethren and a distortion on the part of others. The use of the phrase in answer to the question, “What religion are you?” is as poor as answering, “I’m United States of America” to the question of our citizenship. Neither one makes any sense. The use of the term was to avert the uneasiness that came from declaring, “I am a Christian” which invariably produced the response, “Well, we’re all Christian.” Contrary to one poster’s experiences on this thread when I encounter phrases among members of the church of Christ or anyone I prefer to approach it not as an offense or an error, but I see it as the opportune teachable moment.
My preferred response to the question, “What religion are you?” is to ask, “Why do you ask?” Invariably, the response is one of alarm and apology because the person assumes I have taken offense. Nothing could be further from the truth, but it opens the door for dialog. Typically, this is my response to the question, “Are you a Christian?” also. My response to the question, “What church to you go to?” is often “I fellowship (or worship) with the saints in Christ at Round Rock church of Christ.” Blessings dear ones. – - Gil T
cuepond
April 9, 2011 at 6:09 pm
I apologize for my oversight. Here’s my blog and email.
http://roundrockministry.blogspot.com/
GTorresCUE@gmail.com
drooellis
April 9, 2011 at 10:56 pm
As a kid who grew up in the Churches of Christ – I probably have a little different take on this than some, given the background. I grew up in churches that were anti- or non-institutional CoC’s. Long story short; we didn’t believe it was scriptural to support orphans homes from the church treasury (treasury=scriptural?), no fellowship halls, gyms, or kitchens in the building; after all, the gospel wasn’t about being a country-club.
But your article strikes me with a freshness, Dr. Campbell. I have been through a weird metamorphosis, b/c I have gone to a CoC graduate school, served as a deacon in the more mainstream (liberal, from where I grew up) CoC’s, and now am of the position that CoC’s are often just another denominational hierarchy, albeit without a centralized denominational structure. Sure, we don’t have the CoC Headquarters per se, but there are plenty of denominational flags and trademarks.
The Stone-Campbell movement to restore NT Christianity was filtered through their OWN traditions; be it Scottish Presbyterian or otherwise Reformation Protestant. Yet there was a freshness to the idea of “just doing the Bible description of Christianity.”
Fast-Forward to today… how would Stone & Campbell view CoC’s? GENERALLY kinfolk. But I think there was a freshness to the idea of being completely non-attached to any headquarters, or any other churches by affiliation. The idea of being completely autonomous and solitary was an exciting idea to these folks. I consider myself a “Stoned-Campbellite” – meaning I grew up with a DAZED & CONFUSED view of hermeneutics, authority, discipleship, and evangelism.
NOT to mention the Spirit’s work in our daily lives; the empowerment of His love and strength and guidance to those who submit fully to Christ. I still remember when I got up to preach my first Sunday night sermon at the age of 16. One elder said, “You can preach on anything… except the ‘indwelling of the Holy Spirit.’” He actually WASN’T kidding. After all, the Spirit’s work was done long ago, and only in a mystical way now as we read the Scripture, by helping us understand it.
Anyway – sorry to be so long here – but I just find that yours is a unique bird’s eye view, and I appreciate it. It’s easy to get frustrated with what some experience as stifling and laden with un-written creeds.
Keep it real; keep it Jesus.
listeningtothesoul
April 10, 2011 at 7:54 am
cuepond,
Are you saying the Bible is to be taken literally? If so, that is probably where those who worship at church of Christ differ from some other Christians. Those of us who do not believe the specific words in the Bible are not to be accepted literally, but are to be studied, discussed and interpreted, are as Christian as you and you are as Christian as them. I don’t doubt we are equally committed to doing what we believe is the best way to live as a Christian. I am a follower of Jesus and I’m far from perfect. What is most true for me, as a guide for conducting myself as a follower of Jesus, is “love your neighbor as yourself”. I suspect I will spend the rest of my life, understanding the many ways that could be put into practice and then into action. That is what feels right to me as the best way to follow Jesus, yes. But, it is also not wrong.
Gil T
April 12, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Those are good questions, Listening. What would a terse “yes” or “no” reply to your opening question convey by way of understanding other than little or nothing? I see in your comment an answer to the question you pose for me. It would seem you “love your neighbor as yourself” as a literal take on Jesus’ words. Is that take on the Bible which involved study, discussion and interpretation any less or different than applied when we look (with two eyes [a bit of {sick} humor] haha) at Jesus’ words to cut out the eye which offends us?
Where I, Gil, (I was unable to create my profile with my real name, but I sign my comments) am literally interacting with you you seem to approach interaction with me as figurative, as “church of christ.” I take no offense, nor am I hurt. It’s only to make a point how the line of distinction between literal and figurative is often drawn as though there’s room for one but not the other, as though one (like the trite “spiritual vs religious” slogan) were better than the other. I do appreciate and value your comment. Thank you. Gil T
listeningtothesoul
April 13, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Gil – I don’t know if Jesus did actually say or did not say, “love your neighbor as yourself”. From what I know of Jesus, he most likely said something that would suggest that we care for and treat every person as if he/she was someone we loved as much (or more) as ourselves. I think I understand your point that there is an overlapping gray area between taking what’s in the Bible as a basis for interpretation and taking what’s in the Bible literally. Do I understand you correctly? Regarding your other question (eyes), if I understand it correctly, I would apply study/discuss/interpret to both passages. “What was he really trying to say?” leads to interesting discussion. There may be several ways to interpret it and the message was probably delivered in a way that could be accepted and understood by the people of the time. E.g. What was recorded in the Bible about divorce was consistent with the status of women at the time. It’s not consistent with our world today where women and men are equals. I apologize if my description of what I believe sounds like it’s better than the other. I don’t mean to say that it is right for everyone. Thanks.
ksublett
April 10, 2011 at 10:08 am
Division occurs when we do not grasp that the Qahal, Synagogue or Church in the wilderness is defined exclusively in terms of teaching the Word of God handed down to tribal leader: the Patriarchal elders were in charge before the Israelites demanded a Goyim or Gentile-like king so they could worship like the Gentiles (nations). Beyond right or wrong it is a fact that Churches of Christ did not invent NOT using “machines for doing hard work” into the Bible-based assembly.
Adam Clark CHAPTER Amos VI
“The prophet reproves his people for indulging themselves in luxurious ease, and forming alliances with their powerful idolatrous neighbours, 1. He asks if their lands or their lot be better than their own, 2, that they should choose to worship the gods of the heathen, and forsake Jehovah. Then follows an amplification of the sin which the prophet reproves, 3-6; to which he annexes very awful threatenings, confirmed by the oath of Jehovah, 7, 8. He next particularly specifies the punishment of their sins by pestilence, 9-11; by famine, or a drought that should harden the earth so that it could not be tilled, 12; and by the sword of the Assyrians, 14.
Verse 5. “And invent to themselves instruments of music, like David” – See the note on 1 Chron. xxiii. 5; and see especially the note on 2 Chron. xxix. 25. I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read, and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by this prophet; and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian Church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion, and that they are sinful. If there was a wo to them who invented instruments of music, as did David under the law, is there no wo, no curse to them who invent them, and introduce them into the worship of God in the Christian Church? I am an old man, and an old minister; and I here declare that I never knew them productive of any good in the worship of God; and have had reason to believe that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire: but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity. The late venerable and most eminent divine, the Revelation John Wesley, who was a lover of music, and an elegant poet, when asked his opinion of instruments of music being introduced into the chapels of the Methodists said, in his terse and powerful manner, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither HEARD nor SEEN.” I say the same, though I think the expense of purchase had better be spared.
The word µyfrph (Cano: charm, Magic)enchant happoretim, which we render chant, and the margin quaver, signifies to dance, to skip, &c. In the sight of such a text, fiddlers, drummers, waltzers, &c., may well tremble, who perform to excite detestable passions.”
This is easier to digest if you understand that God turned the Israelites over to worship the Starry Host because of musical idolatry on a SABBATH which God gave us to quarantine us from the usual Sabazianism on the “evil” sevent day.
mattgingerkid
April 12, 2011 at 10:20 pm
@Ted – Thank you for the kind assessment.
@Most commenters – Wow. Having been a lifelong CoC member (albeit with 4-5 years of rather loose adherence in college), I am not surprised by the breadth of opinions on this thread. I know many hardline CoC folks. Frankly, many of those folks make me sad. They make me sad because I believe they miss out on SO MUCH that faith in Jesus Christ has to offer–namely a realtionship with The Almighty. While I disagree with much that Kelly has said, I do agree that our brotherhood tends to make mountains out of molehills – and that is to all of our detriment, because the Churches of Christ have much to offer to today’s unbeliever. This brings me to my main thought.
As I see it, my job is follow the path to salvation that I have come to believe. Further, my job is to share that belief with as many people as I can. It is thankfully NOT up to me to decide who goes to heaven.
Why are we all still arguing about this stuff? While we believers are blowing time arguing about fine points of modern Christianity, WE ARE LOSING SOULS EVERYDAY. According to the latest census, the largest growing “religious” group in our beloved country is “no religion.” While we argue amongst ourselves, we are missing the bigger point: There are souls that need to be saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ, and these heretofore unanswerable debates are absolutely not getting the job done. In fact, I would submit that these debates are doing the exact opposite by driving people away from any Christian faith at all.
In my opinion, we all need to change the focus of our skillset. We seem to be able and eager to defend the positions of our particular Christian group. However, we desperately need to be willing and able to explain and defend the basic tenants of Christian belief to a populace that knows little to nothing of Jesus Christ. I believe this same populace is searching for belonging and meaning but don’t know where to find it. It is our job to show it to them.
Sorry for the long post. And I don’t mean to sound like I’m scolding the participants of the hearty debate above. I’ve just been doing tons of thinking about this since I was called a “modern Pharisee” by a Baptist aquaintance when he found out I was a “CoC-er.” My somewhat joking response was something along the lines of “I don’t think we should argue. We need to unite against the Muslims.” I believe Christians are losing a war that we don’t yet realize we’re fighting. Thanks for the forum.
listeningtothesoul
April 13, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Mattgingerkid:
I do not believe uniting Christians the way you describe is possible. A lot of Christians do not believe we need to “unite against the Muslims”. Love your neighbor as yourself does NOT mean love only your Christian neighbor as yourself. There is no “war”. I know some who are not Christian that behave more like the Jesus I know than some who claim to be Christian. I believe what you do and how you treat others is more important than claiming to be Christian. What I’m getting at is you can save souls by feeding the hungry, providing shelter for the homeless, caring for the sick and lonely…showing you care and love them. I believe there is heaven on earth in doing these things. I realize there are several interpretations of what it means to be a Christian. I’m not trying to argue, just trying to share another perspective.
mattgingerkid
April 13, 2011 at 10:10 pm
@Listening & Gil – Thank you for your replies. I must not have stated my main point clearly enough, because both of you latched onto very, very minor peices of my post that were not to be taken literally. I would like to clarify 3 points:
1. My comment to “unite against the Muslims” was a toungue-in-cheek comment made to my acquaintance that was meant to diffuse a rather tense situation after he hurled an insult my way. The manner in which I was insulted in this situation simply served to illustrate the inspiration for my main point. Apparently, I shouldn’t have included it, because it muddied the waters.
2. I chose the term “war” because it is the strongest word I could think of to describe the struggle I believe is before us. I did not mean literal warfare. In fact, I tend to be a peacenik in matters of world affairs.
3. I also do not think that all Christian groups will unite here on this earth. There is a difference in uniting and ageeing to disagree for the greater good of saving souls.
My main point:
The struggle we face to converting non-believers is greater than ever because of our society’s general lack of knowledge about Christianity. It is no longer suffiecent to assume that an unbeliever knows anything about Jesus. Because of this fact, Christians must learn to evangelize differently. We must begin at a more basic level and be able to argue for Christianity using extra-Biblical sources. We have to change our skillset to save souls in today’s society. That’s really my main point.
[Note that the word "argue" is meant in it's truest, most benevolent form--not angry arguing.]
A corollary of my main point is this: I believe that we must turn our focus from church arguments such as this comment thread to concentrate more on sharing our basic faith with people outside of ANY church. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. We can argue doctinal points all day with each other, but that does not do anything for the unbeliever who knows nothing at all of Jesus Christ. That’s my point: That we need to change our focus and change how we talk about our faith.
Yes, this also includes (as it always has) feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and caring for widows, orphans & prisoners. Thanks again for the forum.
Gil T
April 13, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Just a quick thought on uniting agains Muslims, mattgingerkid. There’s nothing to unite about against Muslims. They represent an opportunity like any other like any other group. I wonder, meaning no disrespect to you, if you are aware of the enormity (but certainly not new) inroads of a muslim-like doctrine concerning the deity of Jesus among Christians. This happens primarily because of preachers and reputed scholars so staggeringly ignorant about things they purported to believe in the years prior to their new and improved faith. And to think these were the individuals who had been feeding the straw to the people of God.
Stan Rodda
April 19, 2011 at 8:33 am
It’s impossible to lump every church or denomination into some category. I’ve met Catholics who have no clue why they even go to church and others who are closer to God than I am (which isn’t saying much). I grew up CofC and honestly, didn’t have a great experience. That’s me personally. Still, we need to be careful of just assuming that all of any one group or denomination are a certain way.
Mary Grovine Elliott Raynor
July 23, 2011 at 12:10 pm
My husband and I became “members of the church” during our Army days while stationed overseas. We became members of an American congregation made up of Southerners (we are Yankees!). We were overwhelmed by the Southern hospitality. They had us in their baptistry before we knew it. We did not at the time know “baptism is necessary for salvation;” we had simply joined a neat church. We quiver to think of how it could have just as easily been the Mormons or whatever! We knew nothing of the Bible; I was raised Catholic, my husband generic Protestant.
Things went downhill after we enrolled in ACC after coming back to the States. There were big buildings, some of them with stained glass; ACC was a “rich kid” school; nobody made a fuss over us like they had at that congregation overseas. What had happened to the church we had joined over there? We didn’t know.
We also became aware of the peculiar doctrines “necessary” for salvation — baptismal regeneration, no instrumental music, the necessity of attending every single service and activity; believing we were the only true church (a concept I was programmed for, as a Catholic). Gradually, we started asking questions.
I longed to be re-baptized “for the right reason,” but was too embarrassed and didn’t want to embarrass my husband. I didn’t know what he thought about his own baptism. When you reduce something like an ordinance like baptism to a ritual necessary for salvation, it takes on “magic” principles, and then it matters a great deal how you do it, for what reason, etc. It led to great uncertainty, no assurance of salvation, etc. And, of course, we could never know until we got to judgment “if we had done enough.”
After being the victims of violent crime and the trauma that goes with it, we realized all we had was religion and no personal relationship with Jesus — just with an organization that we worshipped. It was hard to leave, but we left.
We have been Pentecostal for many years, but are distancing ourselves from that now, as it has taken on “witchcraft and wizzard” properties due to the Word of Faith movement that has absorbed all Pentecostals and Charismatics.
My husband now pastors a Baptist church. We do, however, consider “joining the churches of Christ” to be the best thing we ever did, although we did not remain with them. They were a watershed; we will always rever the Bible and consider regular church attendance important. Those concepts have been mainstays for us over these many years.
We’d go back except for the faulty plan of salvation….and they never did count Yankees for much. (P.S. — We have found spiritual abuse just about everywhere, not just in churches of Christ — no one group or denomination or fellowship has a franchise on spiritual abuse.)
Daniel Nketsiah
October 27, 2011 at 7:03 am
may the good God bless you and your family for his work. i have a little problem that i want you to help
p me. pleace i want to that when we meet together as the church is and we ask the members to pray
sillently is it aceptale before God? i mean sillent prayer in the congregation, i will be glad to here
from you my brother thank you my name is mr Daniel Nketsiah from Ghana