Long-time readers know that I’m very concerned with the direction of the Churches of Christ in general and the progressive Churches in particular. You see, it’s just not entirely obvious where the progressive Churches should go from here.
I mean, it’s easy enough to be defined by your rejection of the false teachings of 20th Century Churches of Christ, but once you get past that, you have to do something with your new learning. Now, at the individual and congregational level, this is a daunting-enough question, but at least we have scriptural guidance for how to be a Christian and how to be a congregation. But what does the Bible say about how to be a denomination?
Well, nothing. Indeed, the Bible seems pretty clear that we shouldn’t have such things. At least, that’s how I read it. So where do we go from here? Do we —
* Form yet another denomination?
* Merge into another existing denomination?
* Initiate some kind of movement against denominationalism — some kind of new Restoration Movement?
* Disband entirely and operate as independent, autonomous congregations with no particular affiliation with other churches?
I’m glad that I’m not the only one worried about such things. The Christian Standard recently ran a couple of articles taking different views of this question — although from the perspective of the independent Christian Churches.
Now, I should pause and point out that the Christian Standard is the Restoration Movement’s oldest, continually published periodical. It’s sister company is Standard Publishing, and Churches of Christ have used their books and Sunday school literature for many years, although they have historically been associated with the instrumental Christian Churches.
Recently, the Christian Standard has begun publishing articles from the a capella Churches of Christ and has worked toward the merger of the two denominations (both of which refuse to be called a “denomination”). You see, they have a lot in common with us, including being birthed in the Restoration Movement and being unsure of where to go from here. The result is that the Christian Standard is the best print periodical within the Restoration Movement. Better yet, they post most of their articles for free on the internet! You can subscribe via email (and you should).
Dick Alexander is senior minister at LifeSpring Christian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio. He writes,
It would be fair to say our fellowship of churches suffers today from an identity crisis. We would be hard-pressed to state our unifying ideals.
Go ahead—try it. Ask five church leaders to write down what our brotherhood stands for. We lack agreed-on, clearly articulated principles.
Now, ask this question among the conservative Churches, and you’ll get a list of doctrinal positions, largely focused on baptism and the pattern of worship. Many would list the restoration ideal of unifying all Christians — by persuading all believers to adopt the positions of the conservative Churches.
Ask this question of progressive Church leaders and you’ll get an emphasis on saving faith in Jesus, unity of believers, and perhaps the importance of God’s mission. You’d get a declaration of the importance of baptism but not it’s absolute necessity. Indeed, the “unifying ideals” of the progressive Churches would be fairly generic evangelical teaching — that is, Protestant teaching with an emphasis on changed lives, evangelism, and mission.
Now, these are, of course, profoundly, deeply right and good things, but what in these principles justifies being separated from those with similar beliefs?
Alexander figures,
This loose-knit network of churches is extremely well positioned for this century. We do share core doctrinal beliefs and a high value for evangelism, church planting, global mission, and practical, hands-dirty Christianity. Unencumbered by hierarchy, we can ramp up significant new ministries while more structured groups are still debating and discussing them. For action-oriented people who want to do something that matters in the world, there is absolutely no better place to be than here.
This fellowship of churches brings together an entrepreneurial spirit and the pooled resources that voluntary cooperation can bring, into a dynamic network perfectly positioned for the fast-changing time in which we live.
Therefore, he urges that the independent Christian Churches should —
• Refresh our unifying values, principles, and terminology. …
• Feed “micro networks.”
The greatest connectedness and life among us today is not in single, monolithic institutions, but in subgroups such as the National Missionary Convention and Exponential. While it’s unlikely any one institution will wire together our entire fellowship, there is great strength in emerging associations, and there is room for more.
• Spotlight innovation. …
• Spotlight catalytic leaders. …
Christian churches/churches of Christ enter the 21st century at a crossroads. This fellowship could disintegrate, or it could thrive! I’m voting for the latter—I love being part of this!
And as you might have guessed, I’m not sold. Yes, the independent Christian Churches and progressive Churches of Christ can be all those things, but where on earth do we get the idea that we should do those things as a denomination among denominations? How can we have any of the Restoration Movement in us and be content to work within a denominational pattern — even if our denomination is a “loose-knit network of churches”?
In my view the mistake Campbell and his generation made was in becoming a denomination — in seeing biblical unity as being somehow accomplished through a denominational structure — not matter how “loose knit” — that competes with other like denominational structures. No, that’s the way of the past — a past that’s dying. There has to be another way.
It's ironic that we try to do our non-denominational thing by creating associations with other like-minded congregations, coming up with a list of core beliefs, coming to agreement on what these congregations stand for, even sharing a name to identify these congregations, holding conferences, finding a common direction… We're so entrenched in the mindset of identifying "us" that we can't seem to break free. Yet we think we're not forming a denomination when we do those things. If instead we were trying to form a denomination, what would be different? Not much, I think.
Maybe a better approach would be to ignore denominational trappings and just cross the lines. Build inter-congregational relationships based on the gospel, period… even (especially) with congregations that have a different sign on the door. Make the dialog be about the gospel… not interminable arguments about things on which we disagree.
The only way to keep from starting a new denomination, or supporting one that is dying, is to focus on your local assembly of believers and dream/vision how you and your local people can touch the most people with the saving message of the gospel of Jesus.
Any subgroup of, lets say progressive churches, that tries to function together, with a common mission, is by definition is a new denomination. I personally don't see the evil in denominations. There will be groups of believers who believe certain common truths, emphasize common missions goals, and because of their commonality, will share written materials, and want their young people taught to follow the same path. There were denominations in the 1st century and will be as long as there is people on planet earth.
There are precious few churches on earth that could justly claim to be nondenominational. I think that just as an individual cannot reach his potential for Jesus by himself, so it is with individual local churches. Eventually every little odd subgroup will find other places where there are folks as odd as they are and they will share together and soon become a denomination by default whether they admit it or not.
The best course in my view is to love and work with everyone who claims Jesus Christ as Lord and whose lives are loving, sacrificial, and holy so far as we can humanly know. It is far too easy to waste energy, time, and resources focusing on "church" and "mission" at the expense of making Christ known and being "church" to a dying world around us. There is no greater good than preaching the good news about what Christ has accomplished for sinners. Preaching that message must be our main purpose or we are only pretenders.
Royce
It is important for any group, our group included to stand on positive issues. It is difficult to be effective if we are known only for the things we are against. Maybe, our direction ought be toward those things we believe change lives.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see conservative churches hanging on past the current generation. To think otherwise would be to assume that the tremendous movement toward progressive churches is going to taper off. I think 20 years from now, there will be only a handful of the conservative-style congregations still hanging on.
I am concerned about the lack of communication among our progressive churches. We've gone too far with the autonomy kick, such that church "A" has no idea what church "B" is doing with missions, benevolence, and evangelism. This is ludicrous. Surely we would be more effective in all aspects if we presented a united front to the public.
God's Kingdom is being advanced by churches that teach Jesus Christ… mostly new non-denominational churches that have no tethers past inception funds… community churches without traditional names…. and founding members that are turned off with church politics…. hopefully the churches of Christ will heed this trend and get back to the basics by planting churches that our young people can develope without fear of repercussion from our old line money membership…. God is alive and well… the only question is whether or not the churches of Christ will participate or simply be bystanders while God goes about His work by utilizing other workers in the Kingdom!!
If there is anything "wrong" with organizations and denominations, it is that we often become pre-occupied with preserving the organization or institution, rather than being the people God calls us to be.
God's family will never be uniform, nor even even focused on the same topics — thus, the analogy to the body — many parts with many functions, but only one head.
I believe part of the issue / problem is simply that we seek to preserve any organization. Progressive churches of Christ have no more right to exist than conservative churches of Christ.
I pray that all of us become pre-occupied with loving others the way Jesus loved us.
Just like our history we as a theological body of believers trip on words. And the church has been devastated by friendly fire. Denominational is not a bad word nor is it wrong. The debate is much like the gun control issues. The old saying is , “guns don't kill people, people kill people”. The same goes with denominations. It is not the structure it how the structure is used. Denominational as an ideology is simply the parts of a whole. The scriptures says we are parts of a whole. 1 Cor.12 is speaking of denominational-ism plain and simple.
“12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”
Now I don't want to buy a car with penny's so I use a bigger denomination of bills if not a check which represents the whole sum. Likewise it is with the church. Is not a church lectureship a "check" the sum of a total represented? Is not para church like a Christian college the sum of the total represented? The problem is our logic which is compared to a pound of feathers to a pound of rocks which is lighter? We have argued in the church some how feathers are much lighter! Notice Paul makes a paradox in which he divides 4 groups by name Jews, Greeks, slave and free. Is Paul asking them to stop being who they are? No….nor could he. Now as compared today if a Methodist, Baptist claim to be in one body does it mean they stop being being who they are? Slave or free ,non instrumental or acapella , High church low church, big organization small non profit. The value in these things are judged by God and used by God to further his Kingdom.
The context of 1Cor. 12 is this discernment. The question we should be asking is the one Paul was answering, verse 3"Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. " Our squabbles over organization first need to answer the question is the part that speaking cursing or praising. This is the only place we should divide are spiritual monetary system.
?Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
Mark, I have heard people use this statement made by Paul in many ways, can you explain what you think Paul was saying.
I don't see the future for conservatives or progressives as promising. I fear the progressives will become too leberal (in theology/doctrine, not worship style) and the conservative will become increasingly legalistic.
There are independent churches transforming people's lives on massive scales. Frankly, they could use people with our heritage and we could use them. Why should a progressive Church of Christ plant another identical church down the road from the independent church that is doing so well? Why reinvent the wheel? Why not just merge with them?
Jay:
Are we finding our identity as Paul guides Christians in his letters to Ephesus, for example, or by embracing the beliefs of those around us — and our culture (even when they are in conflict with apostolic teaching)? Same issue the earliest congregations in Roman Asia faced. How we deal with a spiritual war (Eph. 6) will be the decisive factor.
I am praying we leave the fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) to the marketing organizations. I have no doubt that the future of churches of Christ, congregation-by-congregation, is bright as we subject every thought to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Laymond
I contend that those who had the spirit cooperated with Paul and the authority of his apostleship. Those who did not were not denominational (as if a slightly different brand of Christianity) rather they were outrageously evil and needed to be shown as so. The Bible supports variations of Christianity it does not support various of bad behaviors.
The problems of culture, paganism, and strong Greek influences confused the Corinthians. They were asking Paul a question perhaps by letter and he is responding. The question was who is right in all this division over teaching. I Cor. 2 :13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
Now …1 Cor 12 : 1 Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. 2You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
You should just give up and become new atheists. Or form a society for the purposes of eating flying spaghetti.
Great article and discussion. We are people made to group together so I don't think it is all bad. As a minister at a church that once carried the name Church of Christ but wouldn't be considered one today I understand the discussion. For the people who attend I doubt they care much. For me it is hard because you lose the connections and network and shared support.
While we are very much like a Christian church I have no real connection, no share story so for me it is akward. But for the people who choose to identify with us, the biggest issue is they want ua to act more like whatever group they grew up in for the same reasons I struggle.
Darin,
That's interesting and even profound. And it makes sense. I mean, when a modern church loses its denominational moorings, it's all alone. Most of the other churches in town have denominational affiliations.
I'll address how I think we need to address that problem as we go. But the point for now is that it's entirely insufficient to be an autonomous, nondenominational church trying to make it all alone. That's not how God meant for it to work.