Showing posts with label restoration movement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label restoration movement. Show all posts

Introduction to the Independent Churches of Christ / Christian Churches



The Independent Churches of Christ/Christian Churches are not technically an organization, although many will describe us as being a non-denominational denomination. Through this pamphlet, we will do our best to represent the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches, but please recognize that there is quite a diverse variety under this umbrella. Like many denominations, a range of perspectives are expressed through the different local churches. However, unlike formal denominations, an unhealthy view at the local level cannot be corrected by anyone higher up because there is nobody higher than the local elders when it comes to dictating what a church should or shouldn't do. Likewise, an unhealthy denominational view can’t trickle down into the local church and corrupt a healthy local body of believers.

It is our movement's desire to restore the teachings and practices of the early church, hence the name Restoration Movement given to our movement. Throughout history, churches have split over all sorts of different creeds. We want to avoid that. We were founded on a principle of striving for unity while maintaining a focus on the essential truths of the Bible. It would be arrogant of us to say that we haven't stumbled along the way, but this drive is still our focus today. Despite our failings, we strive to go straight to the Bible rather than our founders and be faithful to the practices we find in the early church. This practice of going straight to the Bible and trying to live a church life as we see in the early church is why we emphasize local autonomy, baptism by immersion, the priesthood of believers, and the weekly practice of the Lord's Supper. 

You will see this ideal expressed in our popular slogans. 
  • ·         We are Christians only, but not the only Christians
  • ·         In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things, love.
  • ·         No creed but Christ. No book but the Bible.
With all of this said, the Restoration Movement and the Independent Church of Christ/Christian Church branch of that movement were forerunners to the modern-day non-denominational movement. The battle for local autonomy seems to have been won. Some may not agree with it being a good thing, but local autonomy is proving to be a valid model taking root throughout the world. Barton Stone, the Campbells, and the other trailblazers of the Restoration Movement paved a way that many follow today despite disagreeing on a doctrinal point here or there. Independent Churches of Christ/Christian Churches typically accept many of the churches who are also non-denominational as being in the same spiritual stream despite having originated from different historical streams. It's not about the history that got us here but about the direction we are flowing in together. 

John Nugent, professor of Old Testament at Great Lakes Christian College, had this to say on describing the Independent Churches of Christ/Christian Churches:
"Something that has caused people to look down condescendingly upon our churches is that they judge our beliefs by the local church people who make the news or grow big churches. Yet these people hardly represent where the movement is at and where it is headed. With more structured denominations eloquent people at the top of the ladder represent them through officially approved statements. Yet these don't always reflect what is going on in the trenches of local bodies as much as the vision of where the leaders seek to take all local bodies. But with us, we are often judged by local personalities who may or may not represent us well. Suffice it to say that we, too, have leaders with robust, well conceived visions and are trying to lead local churches forward just like every other denomination. Such leaders are well-educated and experienced and occupy positions in our churches, colleges, publishing houses, and scholarly communities. A true comparison between traditions would have to either compare all traditions by their local expressions or all traditions by their most eloquent and informed representatives. Unfortunately because our representatives are not easily identifiable, we often suffer imbalanced (strawman) comparisons."

DOCTRINE OF THE INDEPENDENT CHURCHES OF CHRIST/CHRISTIAN CHURCHES

From here we will move on to looking at some views that are commonly shared by the individual Churches of Christ/Christian Churches. The key is that there is some flexibility and difference in the way these issues are expressed at the local level because of our loose affiliation without any established hierarchy beyond the local leadership. These are excerpts from the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement.

ON LOCAL AUTONOMY

"Christian Churches/Churches of Christ have opted for a polity fiercely protective of congregational autonomy. This is evident from the total absence of any organizational tie uniting the fellowship of some 5,500 congregations and hundreds of agencies. There is powerful resistance to any effort that might be seen as compromising in any way the complete and total autonomy of each congregation. Thus all extra-congregational efforts and agencies (and there are many) rise ad hoc from private initiative and are sustained by continuing endorsement from supporting congregations and individuals." (187)

ON MISSIONS

"Few would deny that the Independent/direct support method of doing missions employed by Christian Churches/Churches of Christ involves some problems. Few of the religious communions that are more highly structured, however, can rival Christian Churches/Churches of Christ in the number of missionaries that are sustained on the fields. Missions continue to be a focus of major interest among most of the churches, claiming a considerable portion of each congregation's budget." (188)

ON WATER BAPTISM

"True to the Stone-Campbell heritage, Christian Churches/Churches of Christ practice immersion of believers as the only valid baptism because they understand this to be the only method of baptism found in the New Testament and practiced by the early church. They insist that baptism finds its meaning as it relates to forgiveness of sin; but they emphatically reject any form of water regeneration, a charge that is sometimes wrongfully made because of the emphasis placed on this ordinance" (188).

ON THE LORD'S SUPPER

"The other ordinance/sacrament (the latter term is seldom heard) found in Christian Churches/Churches of Christ is the Lord's Supper, which is observed every Sunday in every congregation. This, too, is believed to have been the practice of the early church, and thus it holds a central place in the churches' effort to 'restore' early Christian faith and practice. Emphasis is generally focused on the memorial nature of the Supper. Elders usually preside at the table, although this is not mandated. The Supper is made available to all believers ('open communion')" (188).

ON OUR TEST OF FELLOWSHIP

"Other than the 'Petrine confession' of Christ's divinity found in Matthew 16:18 there is no creedal formula that unites Christian Churches/ Churches of Christ. The historic slogan 'No Creed but Christ' is taken very seriously. Theological definitions viewed as barriers to Christian unity and hence rejected as a basis of fellowship. There is little question that this rejection of theological formulation has sometimes resulted inadvertently in a degree of theological shallowness and simplistic Biblicism, but it is an important component of the heritage of the Stone-Campbell Movement and a basic conviction endorsed by the whole fellowship" (188).

ON PASTORS AND THEIR HIRING

"Christian Churches/Churches of Christ ordain their minister and invest sole authority to do so in the local congregation. The strong emphasis on the priesthood of every believer, however, leaves little room for much distinction between clergy and laity. Thus, laypersons may conduct baptisms, and lay leaders may preside at communion services. There is no system of ministerial placement among the churches. Each congregation seeks and employs its own minister(s)" (188).

ON EVANGELISM

"Evangelism is a continuing emphasis among Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. The methods have changed from the revival meetings of bygone years to newer forms suggested by the church growth movement; but the impulses have not abated. Many 'mega-churches' with attendance averages in excess of 1,000 can be identified...the largest of these is the Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, Kentucky" (188).

ON COOPERATION WITH OTHER CHURCHES

"Christian Churches/Churches of Christ are not formally involved in any aspect of the ecumenical movement. This is due not only to the paucity of mechanisms enabling these churches to join a council but also to the continuing conviction that such official recognition of denominational statuses would be a repudiation of the Stone-Campbell heritage. Nonetheless, ministers from these congregations have no hesitation about participating in local ministerial associations, and they generally support community efforts in association with other Christian bodies...Finally, missionaries often engage in cooperative activity with missionaries from other Christian bodies as they seek to make an impact on non-Christian cultures" (189).

**

You can look at the belief statement of the largest and most prominent Independent Church of Christ/Christian Church, Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, Kentucky, to see a belief statement that is fairly representative of the beliefs of the movement. I share this to just show that we have unity with other churches despite not have a central hierarchy. 
Southeast Christian Church's Belief Statement:
What We Believe

Essential truth. Our Statement of Faith. These things don’t change at Southeast. This is what we believe, and it’s who we are at the core as a church.

We believe…
 We believe in one God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 5:16,45; 6:1,4,8,9; James 1:17/John 1:1; 14:9 / Genesis 1:2; John 4:24; 14:16-20; 2 Peter 1:21)

 We believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible (Genesis 1:1; Acts 17:24-28; Hebrews 11:3)

We believe in Jesus Christ, God’s one and only Son, my one and only Savior (John 1:14; 1 John 4:9 / John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:18)
  • ·         Who was born Jesus of Nazareth, both fully human and fully divine, conceived of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary (Matthew 21:11; John 19:19 / John 1:14; Romans 5;15-17; Colossians 2:9; 1 John 1:1 / Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:26-38)
  • ·         Who suffered and was crucified under Pontius Pilate (Luke 23:1-46)
  • ·         Who died and was buried, and Who rose again bodily from the dead on the third day (Luke 23:44 – 24:8; John 20:24-29; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8)
  • ·         Who ascended into Heaven and now sits at the right hand of the Father (Luke 22:69; Acts 1:1-9; Colossians 3:1)
  • ·         Who will return to earth to judge both the living and the dead (Matthew 24:36-42; John 14:1-3, Acts 1:10-11; 10:39-42; 1 Peter 4:5)
We believe in the Holy Spirit
  • ·         Who is an active and operative part of the triune God (John 16:5-15; Acts 1:7-8; Romans 8:26-27)
  • ·         Who indwells every Christian (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Timothy 1:14)
We believe in the Bible—God’s Holy Word, Scripture. We believe God inspired the autographs (original writings) of the Scripture and those autographs were consequently without error (Mark 12:36; John 14:26; 16:12-15; Acts 1:16; 1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:14-16; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

We accept the Bible as the final authority for all matters of faith and practice (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; Romans 15:4; Hebrews 4:12)

We believe the Bible teaches that man, created by God, willfully sinned against God and is consequently lost and without hope apart from Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12; Romans 3:23)

We believe the Bible teaches that salvation—the forgiveness of sins—is only by grace through the blood of Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:28; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7)

We believe the Bible teaches that one receives God’s grace by putting faith in Christ, repenting of sin, confessing Christ and being immersed into Christ (Romans 5:1-2 / Luke 24:45-47; Acts 3:19; 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9 / Matthew 10:32; Romans 10:9; Philippians 2:11; 1 John 4:15 / Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-7; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21)

We believe in the Church of Jesus Christ, founded on the Day of Pentecost and consisting of all Christians everywhere (Matthew 16:13-18; Acts 2:14-47)

We believe the Bible teaches that the Elders are to exercise authority over the local congregation (Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 5:1-4)

SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q. Why have a church at all if the community is independent from other communities? The main reason I would think most of us attend is for the community of believers aspect, and if the whole community is just one church building, then why not just sit at home in my pajamas and read the bible and call that my personal church?

A. This is a great question and it comes down to what we believe the church's mission to be. We believe God's wants to fill every city and town around the world with communities whose life together points others to God's kingdom. 

The purpose is not to point others to a network of communities, but to God's saving work in this world through Christ and his body. So our goal is not independence for the sake of independence. We simply think this is a viable form of representing Christ. 

We also believe that God's Spirit is the rudder that guides the church. So our independent status allows us to be highly responsive to the Spirit's leading. Since we understand God's Spirit as empowering specific gatherings of believers, irregardless of whatever network they may be a part of, we believe that independent communities work well for the heart of God's purpose for the Church in his mission. 

Because God promises his Spirit to gathered communities, not individuals who do spiritual things by themselves, independent gathered communities are in a fundamentally different category from an individual at home.

We do still have fellowship as a community. We go on mission trips and work with other Christian Churches wherever that may be. We are united in sharing ideals despite not having a formal body holding us together. We have a strange yet beautiful sort of unity that isn't forced or kept together by any organization. We are unified in our common friendships and shared mission.


*

Q. Why do you oppose congressional cooperation and/or covenant relationships between congregations?

A. All of our working with other churches spins out of relationships that people in the churches have with each other or relationships that pastors have with each other. If there isn't any relationship, there isn't much cooperation. Everything really spins out of relationships.

Missions are typically done through multiple churches working together to support a person. Church planting is usually done in cooperation with churches. Stadia is an example of an organization that is planting churches together. Disaster relief is structured cooperation with organizations like IDES. The churches in the area I grew up in work together with an orphanage. Our camps and colleges are a result of us working together. However, our cooperation usually exists by an individual with a vision selling it to multiple churches, which then unites us in the cause. Churches can choose to join in or stay out.

*

Q. How does a new congregation form within the Christian Church movement? What keeps it from moving just into the more independent side of things?


A. We plant churches like crazy. Stadia is an organization from our brotherhood. Exponential is the largest church planting conference in America, and it is Christian Church in origins yet works with all denominations. 

The only thing that keeps churches from moving out of the brotherhood (as we like to call it) is that they share the common core convictions with each other, have good relationships with others in other Christian Churches / Churches of Christ, and desire to work together. A lot of us don't really care if you are part of our movement. We will gladly work with you in your efforts to further the kingdom. Exponential would be a perfect example of this.
The one positive of all of this is that churches also seem to crumble when the Spirit has left the building because there is no system left to just prop it up. Despite this, our brotherhood is healthy and growing.

*

Q. What exactly do you believe in terms of essential truths? If you had to give me what the essential truths are, what are they?

A. This has always been a tough one. For we are anti-creedal in our nature, yet we often have belief statements. Creeds have been typically used to define who is in and who is not.
Disappointingly, some of us have become more sectarian than the sectarianism of the denominations our movement was founded to free the church from. We claim to have no book but the Bible as our guideline for fellowship and the faith, but we all too often place our interpretations of pet Scriptures or even beliefs that are not even expressed in Scripture as issues of fellowship. In denominational churches, they typically have handbooks that describe what the church believes, what it requires to be a leader in the church, and how people in the church should live. We have no handbook outside of Scripture, but all too often, we have erred in making unwritten, ever-changing handbooks, a handbook just as legalistic as those in the denominations, except we are not transparent about them and people do not know what is expected of them.

Our conviction at our church is to not be that way. We want to be non-denominational, not anti-denominational. There is a big difference. Anti-denominational people think that people in denominations cannot be right with God because they are in a denomination. Non-denominational means that we choose to be locally led, but we don’t hate denominations. Through non-denominational lenses we do not see the man-made lines we have created. Non-denominational people do not get hung up with denominational names and view each person as an individual, right with God based upon their own faithfulness to Him and not on their church affiliation. Condemning people in other churches and dividing over the names we use to call ourselves is so contrary to Scripture.

There are four passages of Scripture that should be the cornerstone of what we believe is essential: Love God (Matt 22:34-40), love our neighbors (John 13:34-35), love one another (Matt 7:15-20), accept people as brothers and sisters in Christ who show fruit and claim that Jesus is Lord (1 Cor 12:1-3). That’s it. Once we start broadening beyond that, we start alienating people and continually add to our essentials creating a list that will keep growing and never stop growing.

With all that said, this has been the wrestling match through the ages. Some would want to make local autonomy, baptism, or the Lord's Supper essentials. And that is definitely a view held in parts of our movement. We won’t hold those up as essentials; those are just the way that our local church expresses restoration convictions in our areas. 

*

Q. Can you recommend/is there a history of the churches?


Living in a Church that disagrees with me on Women's Role in the Church



Like the previous post. This post was originally posted over at Chi Rho Live. That was a shared blog with two friends from college. I include the comments below the original post. This was written a while ago. Many of you who go to Riverside will notice that we are not like the church described in this post.

Through the discussion on women's role, I am reminded of my posts on the origins of the Restoration Movement and its attempt at unity.

In that post, I shared Campbell's view that unity could only come about if the people shared a common hermeneutical method (that is a way of studying Scripture). Troy mentioned in one of his replies that women's role is not a salvation issue, and I would agree with that. Both sides believe that it is a "being the church that God intended" issue - something that we believe would make us more effective at being the people of God.

With this post, I am going to share some of my personal thoughts and struggles with the issue since I think Sam laid out the scriptural explanation better than I could. No reason to try to repeat something that was well done and still resides here to be read by anyone.

Sadly, I do not see a way around the issue of women's role creating disunity within a church without one side just acquiescing to the other. It is that way in my current church situation. At my church women are never allowed to teach men, lead in prayer, serve in a deacon capacity, or even lead the singing portion of the gathering. They can do a special musical number, teach other women, be the treasurer, fill the communion cups, or teach the children. I have decided to not make it an issue of division despite the fact that it makes my wife under utilized and makes me uncomfortable as her spiritual partner, and I am hesitant to raise my children (especially daughters) in such an environment. In this situation, I am the one that acquiesces. I struggle with whether I should.

Women's role is not something that can be avoided. I can avoid the topic of spiritual gifts because I believe they will be used whether or not an individual believes in them. I can avoid the discussion of whether someone can be saved without being baptized because I teach that people should be baptized. But I cannot take a similar approach to women's role. By remaining silent, I allow for the women in the church and in my immediate family to be treated as an inferior. If I were to speak up, I would more than likely cause division - even if it was just teaching one Sunday School lesson on the subject. It is difficult to know what to do. Most issues where I disagree with the church, I can still believe and practice what I interpret the Bible as teaching whether or not the church as a whole believes or practices what I believe. With the women's role issue, it is directly related to a women's involvment in the corporate gatherings. There is no private practice or belief that can allow me to be comfortable with the situation. I can treat Lindsay (my wife) as an equal at home, but I cannot convince others to allow her to use her musical gifts and lead worship at our church despite the fact that the church would benefit from her doing so.

I do not feel that one should leave a church over any disagreement. However, I did leave the previous denomenational church that I was attending due to the fact that I would not be allowed to use my administrative gifts because I would not give up some convictions of Scripture that I believed (and still do believe). My experience was that denominations are much more dogmatic about leaders holding certain beliefs than the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches. I find that believing the Bible to be the primary authority on doctrine and practice is enough to satisfy most Church of Christ/Christian Church people. But I am left with the dilemma that Lindsay currently faces the same situation I faced, albeit her dilemma is caused by her gender and not by a conviction she holds about a teaching of Scripture. Ironically, Lindsay's gifts were much more utilized at the church we left.

One other observation on women's role and then I will call it a day. One problem with the situation that many churches find themselves in is that the women who want to be in leadership are the type of people that should not be in leadership. What I mean by that is that in an environment where women are oppressed, the dominineering, stubborn, and aggressive women are more likely to stand up and make their opinions and desires to lead be known. This type of personality does not make a good leader whether they are a man or a woman. The type of woman who would make a great leader is the one who does not make waves and accepts her oppression by reciprocating love. This woman would not make power grabs for the positions of church leadership that she is qualified for; she would not try to manipulate the church behind the scenes. She would respond in love and do what she is allowed to do, or she would quietly leave the church to find a place where she could use her God-given gifts and talents. It seems to me that it is up to the men (only because they are the ones in leadership in these situations) to discover these women and unleash their spiritual gifts upon the church for the glory of the Kingdom, rather than relegate them to "womens" ministries.

But how do we do that in an environment that does not believe the women have that right? I do not have an answer. And I will continue to pray and look for opportunities to bring about God's perfect kingdom here on earth. This is just one part of that.

Orignal comments below:

 shannoncaroland said...
Part of this makes me chuckle. They are not allowed to lead a prayer or worship? I have never heard of that. They are trying to systematically stop women from leading. The funny part about that is it cannot work. It's futile. Leadership is nothing more than influence. Any godly woman will find god's people following her example. It cannot be stopped.
FEBRUARY 26, 2008 8:59 AM

 Sam said...
As I have been considering your predicament, my thoughts were drawn to my own history and spiritual formation. After all, I have not always been supportive of women in leadership position. Thought the churches I grew up in were not overly conservative, I still had the mindset that women were not supposed to do certain things. So the following are factors that contributed to my current perspective. I don’t know if there is a an order or not and I don’t know how you replicate it but take it for what it is:

I reexamined the gospels to see how Jesus treated women and what role they played in his ministry.

This led to a change in my understanding of what God is doing to a Kingdom oriented perspective. The church, as part of the Kingdom should be an inclusive body that reshapes our views of people and molds it into a Godly one.

I saw women leadership modeled well.

I heard a woman from the Disciples of Christ (Cynthia Blake) give a lectureship that destroyed any preconceived notions I might have had about women preachers.

I got a “liberal” education.
FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1:08 PM

 Troy said...
Regan,
I grew up in that Church...I know the music/worship is somewhat lacking (hope I don't offend anyone). I agree that it could use some help. As for a woman leading the music, I think it's a gray area. I've seen it tactfully done and I've seen it so emotionally done that the service turned into a circus. I wouldn't leave a Church if a woman lead songs (tactfully). And you know me, I'm a fundie.
FEBRUARY 26, 2008 8:47 PM

 regan said...
I have seen worship emotionally done from men as well as women. I think the problem is always how things are done and not who is doing them.

I would say the music is getting better though, and I do not think anyone from the church reads this blog.
FEBRUARY 27, 2008 7:20 AM

This is part three in a three part series on women's role in the church.

Part One - The Fall and Women's Role
Part Two - Women's Role in the Church

A Failed Attempt at Unity - The Restoration Movement


I read parts of Christianity Restored by Alexander Campbell earlier this year.

My initial thought in reading the book was that Alexander Campbell threw away all of the established creeds and created a creed that was much more complex in what could be described as a “hermeneutical approach” creed.

Here are two defining quotes:
"Our opposition to creeds arose from a conviction, that whether the opinions in them were true or false, they were hostile to the uniion, peace, harmony, purity, and joy of christians; and adverse to the conversion of the world to Jesus Christ."
"All the differences in religious opinion and sentiment, amongst those who acknowledge the Bible, are occassioned by false principles of interpretation, or by a misapplication of the true principles. There is no law, nor standard--literary, moral, or religious--that can coerce human thought or action, by only promulging and acknowledging it. If a law can effect any thing, our actions must be conformed to it. Were all students of the Bible taught to apply the same rules of interpretation to its pages, there would be a greater uniformity in opinion and sentiment, than ever resulted from the simple adoption of any written creed."
Campbell then goes on to explain his hermeneutical principles for eighty-five pages. Instead of having a ten point creed, he produced an eighty-five page pseudo-creed. It was his firm belief that one must share hermeneutical methods in order to come to the same conclusions. I think he was somewhat correct in his belief that a unity could be achieved if we all shared the same hermeneutical methods; however, that unity would not be a genuine unity. It would be an “intellectual unity” that scholars could share but it would not unite the masses.

Alexander Campbell believed that intellectual unity would bring about a genuine unity; however, history shows that we can be intellectually divided and still have Christian unity or we can have intellectual unity and still be divided. I could beat my head against a wall trying to convince someone to intellectually agree with me. It would be more fruitful to get them to participate with me in action. Unity starts with sharing actions rather than sharing intellectual processes. Shared hermeneutics would result in a shared theology but that does not always translate into a shared spirituality. If we share actions, our differing theology might not matter all that much.

A friend of mine wrote: “Rather than ask how 18-19th century methods of reading ancient texts may guide the church's reading of Scripture, we might ask what contemporary methods are bearing fruit analyzing ancient texts and how such methods may be used to foster a shared hermeneutic for today.” The problem is that modern methods vary as the wind and location of the circumstances the scholar finds himself in. It seems that – at least in secular fields, particularly literature – the original intent of the author is irrelevant next to the interpretation of the reader. People seemed to be enthralled with movies like The Fountain where the writer/director refuses to tell what the point is and proclaims that everyone's interpretation is valid. This modern day approach cannot bring about a shared hermeneutic that would result in an intellectual unity.

Campbell's approach which was not even successful is no longer even practical. Unity will only come through humble communities of believers listening to the will of God.

Original comments below:

 shannoncaroland said...
No creeds but Christ... and this one, but that's it.

True: Writing Creeds has a way of being divisive as it leads hyper-analyzation.

Also True: Refusing to write or accept creeds is even more divisive, because you will be seen as placing yourself above the rest of Christendom.

Also Also True: Creed was a telantless Pearl Jam rip off.
JUNE 25, 2007 12:06 PM

 regan said...
I agree with all of your truths except even mentioning Pearl Jam in the same sentence as Creed is a disservice to the former.

Does your church have a creed?
JUNE 25, 2007 12:25 PM

 Sam said...
My church does not have a creed per se, but rather a "Statement of Faith." You can view it at http://centralholstoncc.org/Page.asp?PID=4

I had no pat in making it and it was around before I came to the church, but nonetheless.
JUNE 25, 2007 3:03 PM

Further Conversation Over My Post on Essentials

The first collection of replies:  The Facebook Conversation Over My Post on Essentials

The original post:  A Proposed Minimal Set of Essentials

Grady replied:
The people in the book of Acts that reieved the Holy Spirit pre baptism, what was the context of those incidents? Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on his disciples He sent out, was this before their baptism? Absolutly the Holy Spirit is the seal, and the judgement is not a judgement of comdenation (to hell), the judgement is the one that we make a decision aas to if a person has obeyed and become. The scripture is very clear on this. When people hear us say you have not become a Christian yet, they are very quick to assume we are making a judgement of comdemnation against them, and use it because of what the common thinking is concerning judgement (don't judge lest you be judged). Sp to our marching order's...if we are to make disciples (and we are) then what do we teach as to how that happen's...the truth of the matter, no matter what others may teach. We are to teach those who would to believe in the gosple, belive Jesus as God's Son, that He died for the sins of the world, and that when this is accepted, we teach that they need to turn from their sin, confess Christ and then to be baptized (first fruits!). Then when they have obeyed we teach them of the promises of the Spirit, and then comes the how to walk.

In the initial post you asked about "In essentials, unity. In opinions, liberty. In all things, love." And said you had never heard anyone give explanation of this. That is what I was addressing.

You may have forgot what Paul said to always interact with one another in a spirit of humility, gentleness, patience, and love. Without that, our message is lost, this is true, he also said to preach the truth.

You can feel free to teach something different as to the essentials of the truth, but I will not. I teach the scripture, not my opinion. It is our JOB to teach them first to become before we teach them how to be, once we have done this then to be is the true course. If wew don't teach them the path of conversion, it is not I who will do any judgement of condemnation (thankfully not my job to do so).

Hey got to run to my people, God bless your day, may He convince you of His truth in all things. Love you! 
 Regan replied:
Ultimately, we just disagree about how one can receive the Holy Spirit through our understandings of the teaching of Scripture, especially the book of Acts. I feel that the Holy Spirit only comes at baptism crowd has "contextualized" away every difficult passage that disagrees with them. Maybe you also do that. Maybe that is the right approach. I am not comfortable with that approach. Those exceptions are there to show us that there are exceptions. Until either I state that baptism is the only place you can get the Holy Spirit or you acknowledge that those exceptions were given to show that there can still be exceptions, we will just be running around in circles if we continue. That is the crux of our disagreement.

We also disagree on separating what we teach from what are the essentials. I will teach that a person should be baptized after giving their life over to Jesus. Baptism is the normative place for people to receive the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean that I will exclude people who show fruit and acknowledge Jesus as Lord from fellowship. Our movement started with open fellowship and open communion. On the frontier, circuit riders could only make it once a month or once a quarter. People were not allowed to take of the Lord's Supper until the circuit rider came into town. What happened was people started gathering for communion without the clergy. They started baptizing people without the clergy. But they joined together as people who wanted to study the word and living under Jesus' lordship.

Over time, we, who started as a unity through Scripture movement, just became as divisive as the denominations we were trying to bring together. Instead of ending sectarianism, we just added another sect to the fray. Over 150 years later, the denominations have stopped being divisive, non-denominational (locally led) churches are flourishing, and nearly everyone is baptized as adult believers except for in a few mainline denominations. We are fighting battles that were fought for us over 150 years ago. We're like Civil War reenactors remembering the battle, but instead of it just being a hobby, it's really damaging to the Kingdom of God.

The men who started the Restoration Movement, from which the modern Church of Christ/Christian Church come, both took this stance.

Alexander Campbell said:
Should I find one [baptized as an infant] more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than…one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians.

Barton Stone said:
None of us are disposed to make our notions of baptism, however well founded, a bar of christian fellowship. We acknowledge all to be brethren, who believe and obey the Saviour, and, who walking in the Spirit, bear his holy image; yet, in the meekness of Christ, we labor to convince such of their duty in submitting to every ordinance of the Lord.

My list of essentials came from the same vein that the Church of Chirst/Christian Church was founded on. We teach baptism, yet we do not make it a test of fellowship. Who am I to say that a person who is not baptized but is more faithful and fruitful is saved? God knows their heart. Paul wrote, "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." I will teach them the Scriptural teachings on baptism, but God knows their heart and their lives show evidence of the Spirit.

I believe I teach Scripture. You can call it my opinion; it is. So is what you teach. Each one of us teach our opinion of what Scripture teaches. Some day we will know fully as is taught in 1 Corinthians 13:12. Until then, everyone filters Scripture, hopefully in tune with the Spirit, through their own brains, experiences, etc. So we always teach what we believe is the truth, but we must always do it as Paul taught, with humility, gentleness, patience, and love.

Do you really believe that every person not immersed as an adult believer does not have the Holy Spirit? How do you reconcile those verses that I mentioned on how Jesus and Paul taught us how to know who are Jesus' followers?
Regan replied to Dan's previous reply: 
It is a biblical explanation of why we can work with people who are not from our particular background on furthering God's work and accept them as brothers and sisters in Jesus where they are, but in a way it also deals with who is saved and who is not. But it does not deal with what I would teach to someone who wants to be saved. I have no qualms saying that the ministers I consider my friends from other denominations are my brothers in Jesus. They don't have to be brothers in Jesus to be my friends, but I see the love of Christ in their lives, the fruit of the Spirit growing in them, and they share my proclamation that Jesus is Lord. It does not mean that we just leave things rest and don't dialogue with one another on our differences. It's just that I think that dialogue should happen in the context of accepting one another as a brother and sister in Christ. I think they have as much to teach me as I do them, as long as we keep the Bible as the center of those discussions.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I agree wholeheartedly. "The church is probably in the state it is in because we love judging outsiders and refuse to collectively judge those inside the church. We have completely backwards maybe because we have not challenged each other's motives." I agree that we have the whole judging people backward. Those outside of Jesus, I do not judge. Those inside, I judge, but in a gentle, patient, and loving way to help them be who God wants them to be. They should do the same to me. Together, we spur one another on to reach the prize.
 Laura's response:
Yeesh, I tried to read all those, but I'm getting sleepy. I'll leave the scholarly talks to you guys...I just felt from the heart that forcing a list isn't what's needed. God could have made the Bible much clearer, shorter, more compact. He... could have used lists and numbers or used only a few writers to keep us from "discussing" what THAT writer intended. He didn't. It requires us to rely heavily on the Holy Spirit to interpret it and over time and seasons and experiences, we see things we'd never seen before. Is this because we were just wrong before and now we are right, or because God gives us these things in His time? I just don't think a list is necessary. I think we can deal with things as they come and have the answer at that time. If I come upon someone and I want to decide if they are a brother or not, I can look at a list. That sounds convenient. But I could also decide in that moment what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell me-through the Bible, through other believers, through experience, and always with love. Or decide over a period of time, etc...

I'm not automatically against lists or creeds or church goals, etc... but sometimes I wonder why we need to put things in OUR (by "our" I mean mine and whoever agrees with me) own words apart from scripture. Call me floppy, but I don't have hard and fast rules about certain things (or most things, for that matter), and I don't think you're wrong for wanting to clarify, for the sake of unity, the essentials. But I don't know that it's best either. I've used catch phrases of the church and have found them helpful to me and to others, but I don't think they were necessary.
 Regan's reply to Laura:
My list was a list of Scriptures and not my opinions. But I understand your hesitancy because it was my opinion that chose which Scriptures to include. How does one decide what Scriptures would be used as a test of fellowship? Do we use all... of Scripture, and they have to agree with us on everything? Do we use more than what I used or less? You would say that it is up to the Holy Spirit. That's what I think I was saying in a more structured way. If they have the Spirit, I can discern that, and they claim Jesus is Lord and follow the greatest commandment, then they are brothers and sisters. The problem is that those who refuse to have a list like this often are the most divisive and sectarian. I'm not saying you are, but I have experienced that. They typically have lists, that if written out would be longer than any denominational handbook.

Would you accept someone as a brother who said that Jesus is not Lord, showed absolutely no fruit of the Spirit in their life, did not strive to live a life of loving God and loving God or loving their neighbor? I am pretty sure I wouldn't. Even in the moment. But the list was focused more on us being able to have fellowship with people in the community who might not go to a church with the same name on the sign as our church or all of the same beliefs as our church.

The four Scriptures I chose were selected to help my local church pull back from all of the divisiveness and sectarianism that our movement in this geographic area struggles with, focus on the essentials, and move forward to minister to our community from there.

Also, in the local context, we are involved in starting a community youth center with other churches. A few struggle with whether that should be done because they were once taught that people in those other churches are not Christians. We make this judgment call whether we want to or not. I laid this out to show what the essentials are and how we are to evaluate whether a person is a Christian or not. I could ignore there frustrations and just say that I think they are a Christian and that should be good enough, but it's my job to teach. So these essentials were more of an explanation of why we can be involved with other churches in a youth center. Not a list to exclude people. I don't think this list would exclude anyone who wanted to be considered a Christian. It's a minimal list of essentials. It's frustrating to some because it includes too many people, not enough essentials. The discussion centers around whether it should be broader, not narrower.

And I understand where they are coming from; we should just teach the Bible. But unfortunately, the issue of who to accept as a brother or sister is an issue that our church was struggling with. So I attempted to teach on that through Scripture. It was a list because I tried to deal with the passages that talked about who to accept and what are the greatest teachings. I could have called it something other than a list, but it was a list nonetheless, whether I called it by another name or not.

How would you teach someone who was saying people are not Christians that those people are in fact Christians? Or how would you teach someone who thought certain people were Christians who you thought were not? Unfortunately, just leaving it alone would not have helped the church move forward, so that really wasn't an option.