I played and spoke at a Church of Christ church yesterday evening and learned a lot about the denomination’s history. I know that’s not all that interesting to most people but I guess I’m a nerd: to me it’s fascinating.
The Church of Christ was bopping along just fine, so we were told, until a difference over biblical interpretation arose around the early 1900s. One group said the church should only speak where the bible speaks and remain silent on everything the bible is silent on. The other group said that was silly. They said we should of course speak about what the bible speaks about and where the bible is silent they felt we can exercise our freedom wisely.
They split from each other. The first group was called Church of Christ and the second group was called Disciples of Christ. Disciples of Christ used instruments in their church services; the Church of Christ did not. They did not because the bible doesn’t say to and doesn’t describe church meetings after Jesus as having instruments present. The bible doesn’t speak,m in other words, on the subject of instruments in the early church. Of course the New Testament also doesn’t speak about the churches back then having buildings, a paid full-time pastor, pews, but…
Then the Church of Christ split again, this time over cups.
There are two cuppers and one cuppers apparently. One cuppers see that when Jesus taught communion (or the Lord’s Supper) to his disciples in the upper room just before he was arrested, Jesus only used on cup – what some churches call the “common cup.” Two cuppers thought, I’m just guessing, that logistically it made more sense to use many cups to serve a crowd larger than 12 in a church service. They split into these two groups.
Then the Church of Christ gave birth to another faction called the Anti-Church of Christ. The Anti-Churchers don’t have kitchens on church property because Paul, scolding early Christians for being gluttons and pigging out at communion, told them to eat at home. And they won’t give money to orphanages because they believe the church is supposed to take care of orphans. And they won’t give money to Christian education of any kind because they believe education is the parent’s job – though one guy said he dated an Anti-Church girl who went to public school and knew no other Anti-Church folks who didn’t.
That’s just one denomination, folks. Fractured again and again. All of them have a strange tragic past like this (or at least I’d describe it that way). Baptists? Split. American Baptists were the ones against slavery and Southern Baptists thought it was ordained by God. Methodists? Split. Methodists wanted to push out the poor and the black skinned so they allowed the rich to purchase their seat in the pew, pushing those without money to the back and the balcony and sometimes out the door. Free Methodists thought church seating should be, you know, free. And on and on and on…
Now we split over politics, musical style, architecture, decor, women in ministry, homosexuality, and lots of other things that are “important.” What’s important enough to split the Church over? Thoughts?
This blog…
If a Christian church doesn’t follow the Bible and Christ’s teachings….
sorry to be harsh…
but it ain’t a Christian church.
I have to agree with Pam…a church isn’t much of a church if it’s split/splitting. I honestly don’t think that “church split” is even a term that makes any sense.
The same reason why I don’t like the terms “healthy” and “unhealthy” when referring to a church. Either a church is a church or it’s not a church. A “healthy” church is one that makes mistakes and learns and grows in and from them.
The church is the body of Christ, not just because a group of people get together once a week to worship in a corporate setting and give themselves an official name, but because a group of people is functioning as a church. A body must be alive and growing and healing from the bumps and scrapes to be a body…anything else is a cadaver. A body that truly splits is a dead body. Maybe a social club or a feel-good cause, but not a living body.
When a church “splits”, it’s either because one side is believing/acting on something unBiblical while the other side is believing/acting on the truth or because both sides are on two wrong sides of an issue(s). In the first case, only one church emerges (with a new, good haircut or really good bathing)…in the second case, there probably was not any church to begin with, and if there was, it’s now dead.
Nate
so, they were okay with you playing an instrument in their church?
Shaun,
As a church of Christ-er I’ll chime in. (Note the lower-case “c” in church, because we are NOT a denomination)
You bet we’ve had our splits. It actually goes back way before the early 1900’s; it was just a census in 1904? that officially listed the Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ as separate groups. And, of course, you’re also correct that it is not a disease common only to we non-instrumentalists. And it still goes on, with new arguments and the old fights renewed.
I semi-mock the traditional way we use a lower-case “c” in church, because for all intents and purposes we are in fact a denomination. But that has never been the goal. We recognize that God never intended His people to be so fractured, and try to give heed to that in name (“the churches of Christ salute you” – Rm 16:16, a very biblical name not adopted after a person or theological set) but still almost encourage division in our actions. If it’s not one person or group being kicked out for one scriptural reason or another, its the preacher resigning only to have members of the congregation stand up on the pews and shout “Oh captain, my captain, we will follow where you lead” and all march out together. The last is a true story; happened at the church where my wife grew up (conveniently, she had brought a friend that night who was not a Christian).
What’s important enough to split a church over? Well, obviously over doctrinal issues and matters of salvation. What doctrinal issues and what are matters of salvation – there’s the argument. My parents would list near everything under that, so that the slightest disagreement would result in a parting of the ways. I know many people for whom there is no barrier or line at which fellowship should be broken. For me, I’m in there somewhere. I have a hard time fellowshipping with the ex-husband of a friend who walked out on her, has treated her terribly in the divorce, and is having “sleepovers” with his new girlfriend according to his five-year old girl. But I still have to ask myself where I differ: I haven’t left my wife, but I’ve had times when I treated her badly, and my thoughts have been far from pure at times. Am I any less guilty than our friends ex? I have strong beliefs about music in the church and other things, but I have to constantly ask myself where my heart is getting in the way and where I/they may be acting sinfully in some issue. In the end, while I do not believe some things that other denominations do to be right, I do believe that they are no more or less sinful than am I and I sincerely hope they truly seek Christ above all in everything they do. I won’t condemn them for something they do I think (emphasis on think, not know) is wrong – the other side of the silent where the bible is silent mantra, which is less polished for its lack of use. But I will have vigorous discussions over the issue.
Separating from a church is not to be taken lightly. Look what all Martin Luther went through trying to not split from the Catholic church. He fought hard to have discussion on matters of great importance to the church, but he never wanted to split. I think there is a lost art that we need to rediscover, the practice of hearty disagreements among friends without fomenting enmity. I agree that church history is interesting. Really, nothing we argue over today is a new issue. Like it or not, splits are a part of that history. Denominations don’t form amicably but in dissension to something that was/is going on.
And yes, Hale, most CoC’s will allow a person to play instruments for a Christian concert inside the building. But clear delineation is made as to when any corporate worship service is ending and when the music beings. A big part of the belief in no instruments comes from modern Christian worship meetings being modeled after the Jewish synagogue worship, which did not use instruments, as opposed to temple worship which did include instruments. This, in connection with the lack of biblical and historical examples of first century Christians using instruments in a corporate worship setting is where we base the reasoning. We (mostly, I can’t really speak for everyone) don’t think it wrong to use one’s God-given talents in His praise – that’s why He gave us these talents – and so most people in the Church of Christ will listen to Christian music with instruments. But I’m also sure that Shaun will attest to the beauty of the a cappella singing (which is Latin, used today to mean without instruments but translating as “in the manor of the church”).
I come from the aforementioned heritage. It’s sad, because many churches almost take pride in their splits – they were doing God’s work by maintaining high standards and sticking to their doctrines.
I think that the days of the cofC are numbered, as what defined the denomination (though they would NEVER use that word) is what they are opposed to – instruments, women speaking and cooperative church activities to name three. Most people my age couldn’t care less about those issues and will instead choose a church based on what it is for rather than what it opposes.
I will say though, that the c of C still has the best congregational singing.
P: “If a Christian church doesn’t follow the Bible and Christ’s teachings…. but it ain’t a Christian church.”
Pam,
Just playing Devil’s advocate, this is a very ambiguous statement.
1) Who gets to decide what following the Bible and Christ’s teaching looks like? In the examples Shaun gave, all sides thought they were following the Bible and Christ’s teaching.
2) If the Holy Spirit is the only one who decides, how do we know what He is communicating? I know some Mormons who are convinced the burning in their bosom is the Holy Spirit.
3) Are we talking about the Bible in English or the original languages? Which Bible? The bible is a library and not a monolith. Various groups disagree about such fundamentals as which books belong and why. Few members of any group can give a decent explanation of why their group accepts the books they do. Fundamental ideas like this have huge implications for more “practical” ideas.
Disclaimer: All of the comments below ignore the concept of Church within church split and focus on the idea of a two groups of believers who no longer act/function in unity. There has been a visible (and to them) significant parting of ways.
It might help if we define what splitting entails. I will throw out three definitions.
1) No intercommunion.
2) A different set of beliefs.
3) A different form or style of worship
3) A different ecclesiology
The first is more visible, but some split groups have intercommunion while others don’t. Also, it is really the byproduct of the second.
The second is more fundamental, but the summary above is too simplistic and gets messy. For one, how many people within the same church have exactly the same set of beliefs? Practically nobody. So, then we are talking about the “important” beliefs, but such definitions are not laid out in Scripture and are themselves subjective and thus common points of contention over which splits occur. Has any split occurred over what the groups thought were not important questions? Perhaps among non-denominational groups this happens more regularly, but denominational splits have tended to be over doctrine/belief, not just approach and personality conflicts (in my meager study of them).
3) Three is narrow and is often easier to nail down. If two groups can’t even agree on the form of communal worship, then they won’t be worshipping together. At least, if they do, one group will be worshipping in a manner that they believe is unGodly/unBiblical. That rarely lasts long.
4) Ecclesiology sets how we think the leadership structure should function within a group of Christians. This sets who we think the arbiters are who can lead the church when disagreements arise over deciding doctrine/enforcing discipline. If you don’t accept their authority, you will go somewhere else. If you think there is no authority other than Christ, you will find people who agree with you. If you think there is a pope/magesterium, you will be Catholic. If you in one of the millions of positions in between, you will find others who agree with you.
If there are fundamental disagreements over the last two issues (the form of worship and ecclesiology), I don’t see how people can function as a unified group of believers a practical level. Such disagreements if they can’t be resolved almost necessitate a “church split.” Today, there are so many varied views on such ideas, that the concept of the Church in Corinth (or Nashville, etc.) acting in unison is beyond the comprehension of most people, except in the broadest sense of the term and with very low expectations for what constitutes unity.
MB
E: “Look what all Martin Luther went through trying to not split from the Catholic church. He fought hard to have discussion on matters of great importance to the church, but he never wanted to split.”
Euphrony,
I must take exception to this characterization of Luther as careful in his methods and open to dialog.
Luther wanted his way, not just to have a discussion. People were sent to reason with him about doctrinal problems that he had. He was convinced that his way was right, and he wouldn’t listen to reason. In his own words, “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy of faith.”
It’s extremely difficult to avoid a split when dealing with a person or group of people who believe in the divorcing of reason and faith and who won’t accept anyone’s interpretation of Scripture but their own on the point of disagreement.
I think we’ve learned from Luther quite well.
MB
MB,
Perhaps you’re right. Poor example. Luther wanted unity, but was hard-headed. Thus, he is remembered as the focal point for protastantism (is that a word? it must be, I just used it!).
My point was more along the lines of needing to be people who can disagree but remain unified. I’m thinking in particular of a man who recently died at our church: himself very hard-headed, he would tell you in no uncertain terms you were wrong. But, at the same time, he could put his arm around your shoulder and you know it was out of love, not fearing there was a knife in his hand ready to stab at you (figuratively, of course).
John 17…May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me…
Jesus said that. Unity is important for non believers to understand Gods love. Jesus’ prayer clearly states that our unity is a major part of a potent witness. It is apparent that the lack of unity distorts the picture Christians portray and Jesus was concerned enough about this he prayed specifically for these things.
E: “My point was more along the lines of needing to be people who can disagree but remain unified.”
MB: Excellent point. One we can all learn from. (assuming there is agreement that the issue is nonessential).
Even when the issue is one of essentials, it is important to disagree in love like the man you mention. It’s tough to find examples of that in history, but they are out there. It sounds like you are fortunate enough to know a person like that.
MB
MB
If someone “hears” the Holy Spirit that disagrees with the Bible …I would question whose voice they are hearing. It is truly a disgrace for Christians to split over things that don’t matter. But I will stand by my original comment that those who misinterpert or “pick and choose” what parts of the Bible they choose to believe –because when someone does this they are making a religion of there own making – not Christianity. A couple of comments from those much more studied in the scriptures than me…
“If there isn’t something in the Bible that offends you…you’re probably not reading it right.”
“We feel the need to protect the Gospel like it’s fragile and can’t survive on it’s own” ~ referring to how so many people constantly try to disprove it’s authenticity
no. no matter how you look at that, it’s queer for them not to host that service. how about we BE the church and be an example to the survivor and this man’s family? seriously.
by hosting a memorial service, you aren’t automatically accepting his lifestyle.
again. BE the church. not what people think the church already is.
sorry, that comment was in reference to the “there’s something queer post” that’s seems to no longer be up.
“those who misinterpert or “pick and choose” what parts of the Bible they choose to believe –because when someone does this they are making a religion of there own making – not Christianity”
I do this. I couldn’t possibly try to understand the entire bible in my 33 years. (try – not understand, but try to). I’ve, literally, picked the parts that interest me, that I think I need, that I think have been understood, that are mysterious, that are easy, that are hard. I pick and choose. To think I haven’t, to think I’ve sought to understand every bit of scripture, church history, Jesus, Holy Spirit and God equally would be self-deception.
It’s this part of my being human that makes me Christlike too…Christ: the mingling of flesh and divinity.
Just a thought on humility is all, not an argument against anything that’s been said so far.
Pam,
What of the issue of, say, baptism. I would not call this a disagreement with someone who is “picking and choosing” but an honest difference of interpretation: is baptism, or even more specifically adult baptism and not infant baptism, essential for salvation. There are very good arguments that it is essential, and there are also good arguments that it is a work, and works do not save us. Nevertheless, many churches have split, even bitterly, over this issue.
I would say that not all splits are over issues of triviality or of selfish, scripture-ignoring problems. Many, of course, are; but many have come over doctrinal issues. For example, the split of eastern orthodoxy from western Catholicism around 1000 AD, over issues such as iconography (which also arose in the protestant split). Yet this issue is not seemingly as doctrinally divisive to many today, judging on the popularity of Jesus dolls, bobble heads, etc. among American protestants, while others see them as scripturally errant.
MB: I was lucky, indeed, to have known him. I learned much, including the need to love like he loved – something that requires years of practice.
Euphrony,
If you go back to my last post you will see that I said that it is a disgrace to split over trivial things—Not worthy of breaking fellowship. So, one congregation believes in full immersion baptism and one sprinkles … that’s why we have different denominations but still both are Christian churches—please point out where it is clearly spelled out how baptism MUST take place… does it have to take place in a river, does it have to be done by John the Baptist? It can get ridiculous depending on the nth degree we take it. But where scripture clearly tells of things we should do or shouldn’t do…I don’t think it’s debateable.
Shaun
As for picking and choosing, I suppose we can create our own version of the Jefferson Bible…with the scriptures we like and cut out the ones we don’t… at best its loosely based on Christian values …but don’t call it Christianity because it’s not. I don’t for a minute suggest we all have every scripture down and we “get it” perfectly. But there is a stark difference between the process of learning what the gospel says and simply eliminating or re-interpreting the areas we have trouble.
Maybe it comes down to are we willing to submit to God’s Word or do we know better than God? As for me, I trust God’s Word any day over my own.
Pam,
I suspect that somewhere in here we are misunderstanding eachother (at the least, me misunderstanding you). Let me sleep on it and reread tomorrow.
Pam,
P: “If someone “hears” the Holy Spirit that disagrees with the Bible …I would question whose voice they are hearing.”
MB: I agree completely and would bet that everybody who has commented so far would agree too. Yet (to use E’s example) I have a fundamental lack of trust in my own personal ability to discern whether or not baptism is required for salvation. Does that make sense? I get the feeling we are all much closer to agreeing on issues discussed thus far than appears at first glance.
Shaun,
This discussion has gone far afield from your original question. I proposed two areas where I don’t see the possibility of maintaining unity in the midst of disagreement (ecclessiology and the form of worship). Euphrony proposed doctrinal issues and matters of salvation, though defining which one’s is tough (which is partly why I ducked on that one). Do you have any thoughts on what is important enough to split over?
Euphrony: As a complete aside, I love acappella congregational singing during the mass. Have you ever been to an Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholic Church? They have some of the most ancient, stunningly beautiful, theologically deep, amazing acapella worship singing I’ve ever heard. I like to drive across town and visit at least once a year, just to experience it. To hear the Trisagion sung in harmony is like a little taste of heaven to me.
MB
I used to get all bent out of shape over church splits. In fact I lost my job because my church split.
It sucked, but now I realize that splitting is quite possibly a natrual and healthy thing.
Different people have different gifts. I think it’s ok to have a niche local church that focuses on a few things and does them well.
Craig Groeschel had some wise words on this topic recently.
Actually you can trace Church of Christ, Christian Church and Disciples of Christ to the Restoration Movement of the 1900’s.
I would recommend “Union of Truth” by James B. North, thru Standard Publishing for more about this history.
http://www.amazon.com/Union-Truth-Interpretive-Restoration-Movement/dp/0784701970
The Gospel Advocate Magazine also did a series last year (2006) on the origins of the Church of Christ, Christian Church and Disciples of Christ from the Restoration Movement and through the official recognition of division by the 1906 (corrected) census. For those interested in history.
MB: I’ve never attended an Eastern Orthodox worship, but being a music lover I have heard the singing. Beautiful.
I also think you are correct that we are all closer on this issue than we may realize. Communication on a simple issue can be tough when done in snippets; a more complex issue like church division is even more difficult to communicate well.
Pam, I think we may be defining church splitting in slightly different ways. I get the impression that you would not consider the various denominations to be separate, but that they are a unified church. I would consider that the multitude of denominations are evidence of the fracturing of the church, based on the origins or most and the historical lack of interaction/cooperation between them which still persists (for the most part). Am I reading you wrong on this?
——————
Where do you draw the line and split? Still coming back to this question. Ecclesiology? Worship style? Doctrine and matters of salvation? I think it important to recognize that we cannot all be physically of one “congregation” though we are one “church”. The requirements of population size, distance, etc. necessitate multiple “congregations”. This does allow the individual some freedom of choice to worship with a group where he/she feels more comfortable – in style of worship, meeting times, congregation size, and a host of other issues which mostly come down to personal preference. No division, no splitting, just physical separation. When we start seeing real splits is when people believe the church/church leadership to be off-base on doctrine/actions or when a person/group feels hurt or offended by the church’s actions. That may be an issue of ecclesiology (I’ve known churches that were run by a preacher or eldership as a personal fiefdom, brooking no argument or dissent from his will – not a healthy authority to submit to; and then there are those whose leadership is not so dictatorial but actually shepherds the congregation). I been in churches with both of these, and did not necessarily feel the need to leave because of it. It may be some doctrinal disagreement. I have disagreements with my congregations’ eldership over some doctrinal issues, but I’m not planning on leaving anytime soon.
I did, in high school, leave a church (along with my parents) because of doctrine. The leadership was doing what James told us not to and showing preference to some people because of their wealth – not quite reason enough to leave by itself, but they were elevating these people into leadership not because of their spiritual qualities but because of their pocket book. We found it hard to stay in a congregation where the leadership was more an aristocracy than a spiritual group. Just a personal example of why I have left a church in the past.
I think we’re losing some stuff in the semantics of “split”. I assumed that Shaun was referring to the ugly kind of split which is where my previous posts have been coming from. It seems others of us are talking about a good kind of split, something I would call “multiplying”, liken to a cell splitting because it is multiplying itself for growth and health. That kind of split is a good and prosperous thing for both sides of the split. Similar to a larger church sending out a smaller group to plant a new church, or a church splitting because it is grown larger than it’s ability to function well…the two churches consider themselves intimately involved with one another and continue to partner in ministry/mission in some healthy way.
Nate
Mamma’s Boy said (I think – I’m a bit confused) tat difference over “ecclesiology and form of worship” would make it impossible for a church to stay unified and together.
Can you define “ecclesiology and form of worship” for me?
Is that the structure and organization and goal(s) of the church AND the way a worship service is organized? What is that to you, MB?
Several people have also said “doctrine” is a good reason to leave a church or split a church. Can those people define “doctrine” for me as they mean it? What’s an example of doctrine for you?
(This discussion is a good example of what we’ve been talking about on the Words blog in the Static book. There’s a lot of insider language flying around in these comments and confusion abounds because those words don’t all have the same meaning to all Christians…but sometimes we assume the words we use have absolute and widely accepted definitions among all Christians.)
I like rob bells quote in Velvet Elvis: “doctrine is a great servant but a terrible master”
I did try to give an example in my last comment, about a time when I did leave a church over a doctrinal/ecclesiastic issue.
“Doctrinal” – My frame of reference on this is looking at scripture: the examples of Jesus and the righteous actions of God’s people, the teaching of Jesus, and (dare I say it) the law (yes, we are not under law but under grace, but it is the starting point of discernment of God’s will which He gave long before He started explaining things like grace). Sin verses righteousness. Loving actions verses selfish ones (after all, God is love). Does an action match up with that which we have been commanded or given strong examples by God/Jesus of doing?
Okay, that probably doesn’t help much, but it’s all I can get down at the moment.
Shaun,
You asked, “Can you define “ecclesiology and form of worship” for me?
Is that the structure and organization and goal(s) of the church AND the way a worship service is organized? What is that to you, MB?”
MB: I’ve already defined these briefly, so I guess I’ll add examples and see if that suffices. I’m not really sure what more you are looking for.
By the form of worship, I mean how worship should be done communally. If people can’t even agree on the form of communal worship, then they won’t be worshiping together. At least, if they do, one group will be worshiping in a manner that they believe is unGodly/unBiblical. That rarely lasts long. One example of this would be those who think the Church is the people, period and that sacred buildings are unBiblical vs. those who think it is OK (even preferred) to meet in buildings set aside for the worship of God. Another example would be those who believe that communal worship should be centered around the Eucharist vs. those who think it should be centered around singing/preaching vs. those who think those both previous groups have missed the point (e.g., Lutheran vs. Calvary Chapel and most Baptists vs. more unusual groups).
Ecclesiology sets how we think the leadership structure should function within a group of Christians. This sets who we think the arbiters are who can lead the church when disagreements arise over deciding doctrine/enforcing discipline. If people don’t accept the interpretive/disciplinary authority of other people, then splits will inevitably occur until the masses at large are reasonably satisfied that the doctrine they hold to be true as individuals is being taught among the Christians they fellowship with regularly. If there is anything we have learned since the in the last 500 years, it is that deep disagreements will arise. If you think there is no authority other than Christ, you will tend to find people who agree with you and have only informal support networks without doctrinal authority. If you believe that the church should function with elders to rule it vs. a single person for a given congregation, you will try to find a church like that. .
While ecclesiology and the worship style/form are not the most important doctrinal issues, they are foundational in classifying/determining why and how splits have occurred in the past. They also determine in broad categories which particular group(s) of Christians most people will even consider worshiping with on a regular basis.
Did I answer your question?
What issues do you think are important enough to split over?
MB
Every issue has two sides. Some churches split over trivial things. Some fail to split over really really important things. What is a church split, anyway? It’s not usually a way of saying, “Everyone in the other group is going to Hell.” It’s usually a way of saying, “We disagree on some matter of faith or practice of sufficient consequence that we can’t share church government anymore.” The Protestant Reformation made it possible for Christians to sincerely hold a variety of convictions. Most Protestants consider their church to be part of a larger Church which includes Christians of every denomination.
I’ll take a denomination which splits every 50 years over something that turned out to be not-so-important in the long run, compared to a denomination that tolerates creeping relativism for generations in the name of unity.
Way to stir the nest there Shaun! I grew up C of C…in fact 3 of the 4 members of my good ole band Big Tent Revival did too…we would all agree on some level that we grew up in strong christian homes but in a church environment full of double standards and backwards thinking. i won’t wax so eloquent as previous posters have done that have grown up in the Church of Christ. I for one am grateful that God brought me out of it and has shown me that people in the Church of Christ aren’t the only ones going to Heaven. Novel idea…I used to refer to my self as recovering from the Church of Christ…now I’m healed from it. Praise GOD! let’s all raise our hands now, clap, and talk about what the Holy Spirit is doing in our lives…(not something that was done a whole lot growing up in church.)
Saddle up that guitar…I think the Church of Christ is in for a change.
MB, I agree that “worship” and “ecclesiology” as you’ve defined them are things the Church HAS split over in the past I do not think they HAVE to. I thought you were saying earlier that these are issue WORTH splitting over, things we MUST split over. Perhaps I misunderstood. I do not believe we MUST split over these issues, as important as are to many.
Spence and other c of C folks, I know none of you are accusing me of this but I want to be very very clear for unity’s sake about something: I am not anti-Church of Christ at all. I’m learning their history and find it fascinating. The splitting part of their story is something they have in common with every denomination I know anything about. My fear is that some pro-c of C person will read these comments some day and think I was in agreement with the not-so-positive comments made by former c of C folks. I’m not. I’m not in disagreement either. I don’t know enough, didn’t grow up in that non-denomination, to have an opinion. (Butt protection over.)
; )
Shaun,
Never felt offended or attacked. BUT, I know of and can see many people (both on-line and off-line) who would nail you to a door and throw rotten fruit at you for implying criticism. And at me, too, for being too liberal in the CoC. I will, on occassion, look around at websites of what various people within the church are saying about eachother. Usually, it ain’t pretty. Very sad to admit that, but it is true.
The history is very interesting (for those who like history, which I do). The future will also be interesting, as there are currently many faces to the CoC which causes friction between the more conservative (generally older) groups, the liberal congregations, and the more moderate populace (rather reflective of society in general, actually). Everyone wants it their way (as if it were about us and our preferences) and at times are more than willing to drive off those who disagree. Well, anyway, that’s the selfish side of splitting.
So, if every Church of Christ church is autonomous (not bound to each other like a denomination) how does that friction play itself out? There’s no way, it would seem, for c of C leaders to get together and form a consensus or peace of some kind. Is that accurate?
“So, if every Church of Christ church is autonomous how does that friction play itself out?”
Mostly through posturing, accusations, rumor and gossip (hey, it’s only gossip if it’s not true, right?). Okay, that was very negative, and not very accurate. But this is how it plays out at times.
We’re autonomous, but not in a vacuum. We communicate, even cooperate at times There are some great collaborative efforts between congregations, even ones that don’t see eye to eye on various issues (one example is Eastern European Missions which has been around for decades, another the various CoC-related colleges like Pepperdine, Abilene Christian, Harding, Freed-Hardeman, etc.). While one of the splitting points back in the 1900’s was so-called “Missionary Societies”, most (not all, but most) modern CoC congregations will collaborate to one extent or other, having decided that autonomy does not have to equal isolation. The isolationists are definitely a dieing breed. But at the same time we remain wary of too much interaction, too much group mentality as there has been a history of bad things when that has happened (look into the Boston Movement / Crossroads movement / International Churches of Christ which grew out of the CoC but is not strictly autonomous and considered by many a cult).
But we do still strongly hold on to autonomy. Each congregation makes its own decisions, and if people within the congregation don’t like the direction it’s headed they vote with their feet. Sometimes the parting is amicable, agreeing to disagree and all that. Sometimes those who leave do so in judgment and condemnation of those who stay (and are usually vocal about it over the years). Max Lucado is a prime example of a current friction point, having taken the congregation he leads in San Antonio and moved it firmly into what is considered a liberal position among the churches of Christ. He takes a lot of criticism from many corners for his liberal stance, but at the same time is praised and honored by many.
I mentioned in an earlier comment about a man I knew who recently passed away, who was a great example of a unifier. He was about the most conservative a man you could meet. He would not hold his tongue when he saw something it thought wrong, but he was wise enough and righteous enough to encompass it all in true Godly love. Once, around 20 years ago, our congregation was planning an expansion to which he was vehemently opposed. He was, more or less, the vocal leader of those who did not want to see it happen. When the elders decided to go ahead with the new building plans, they talked to him (afraid of how he might act, with the potential of splitting the church). He responded to them that he respected the decision and would honor it by becoming the most vocal supporter of the decided on plan. And he did just that – swallowed his pride and submitted to the wisdom of the elders and worked his hardest to keep the church together. Would that there were more like him. Never afraid to question, but always keeping in mind love and unity.
How do we handle the friction, without being dictated from an overreaching authority? We rely on people. It, in fact, encourages individuals to step up and act rather than be bystanders in a game. These issues are not something that we see others debate, discuss, and decide on; rather everyone really gets involved, everyone thinks and acts! At its best, this can make a strong and dedicated group of believers. At its worst, you see the splits that riddle our past.
Hope this helps, Shaun.
I don’t really know if you can say “this issue is worth splitting over.” Churches are made up of people and there are often other factors coming into play. Sometimes, the splits aren’t really about what they claim to be about. The issue is just used as an excuse or a front for the human relationships and dynamics going on. In other cases, I’m sure they really are about the issues. I have less experience with those.
The denomination I grew up in (and am still a part of) did not start from a split and has never split so far as I know.
“The denomination I grew up in (and am still a part of) did not start from a split and has never split so far as I know.”
How is this possible? At some point, somebody had to leave another group to start the one you are in. Unless it was formed by people who received the Bible from an angel, every denomination has an origin/geneology. What am I missing here?
MB
What is it, Amy? We’ll find out. Muhahahaha
I guess what I meant is that it wasn’t like a group of people broke off another group of people in a painful event. It didn’t become a denomination until it was realized they were already functioning as one. Christian and Missionary Alliance.
AB Simpson was presbyterian, so I guess you could say it broke off of that if you had to.
Ab Simpson resigned from the church because they wouldn’t let immigrants attend. I guess that could be considered a split?
He resigned also because the Presbyterian churches didn’t take care of the poor well in his estimation. And later, the Pentecostal churches were birthed by splitting from his denomination over speaking in tongues. Some felt it was a sign that the Holy Spirit was in a person and was necessary as proof of salvation. Simpson disagreed. They parted ways. One group keeping the name Christian Missionary Alliance and the others naming themselves all sorts of things, one of which was Pentecostal.
Fascinating guy, Simpson. Starts a ministry to the poor and it seems to have accidentally (almost) become a denomination of its own over time. Things seem to have really taken off and drawn a loyal crowd when he started healing people.
That’s like Benny Hinn having his own denomination today or Joel Osteen or Rick Warren or some other popular minister. It just grew into a denomination as his followers increased. Strange amazing stuff.
dang, I forgot about the Pentecostal thing. I stand corrected.
funny enough, I’m sure a lot of people who attend Alliance churches have never heard AB Simpson’s name. I’ve never heard it mentioned in the church I go to right now. I wouldn’t even know we were alliance if we didn’t have missions conference. Of course that could be b/c this is southern california land of non-denom rules!!!! ha.
i’m well impressed with your knowledge of AB Simpson, but I suppose you travel to a lot of churches. I’m used to no one knowing who we are!
I broke my hip at a CMA ski retreat. I remember you all well.
YIKES! I guess that is definitely something you would remember!
Shaun: “I agree that “worship” and “ecclesiology” as you’ve defined them are things the Church HAS split over in the past I do not think they HAVE to. I thought you were saying earlier that these are issue WORTH splitting over, things we MUST split over. Perhaps I misunderstood. I do not believe we MUST split over these issues, as important as are to many.”
Shaun,
This is a complicated issue. Ideally, I don’t think there *should* be ANY splits over ecclesiology or the form of worship, nor do I think there *must* be any splits. You know I’m Catholic and would love to have you all back.
However, realistically, I have a tough time imagining people continuing to worship together in the midst of deep disagreements over these issues. For some things (like the posture and manner of receiving communion or the detailed duties of deacons or how a particular church’s finances are handled) different ideas can coexist and can vary over time or from group to group with no real problems. However, other issues of ecclesiology and the form of worship are more problematic. An example of a fundamental issue of ecclesiology over which I see little chance of folks staying together in the midst of deep disagreement would be the form of church government. Various camps that I don’t see coexisting are the episcopal/heirarchical (Anglican/Orthodox) vs. the representative/presbyterian (Presbyterian and Reform churches) vs. the congregationalist (e.g. Baptist/non-denominational/home church). Yeah, I may have taken liberties with the congregationalist definition. For fundamental questions of ecclesiology and the form of worship, it seems to me that one of three options is available when resolving disagreements. Caveat, the following generalizes responses into broad categories, so there are details here that are glossed over and probably some broad categories that I’ve missed.
1) No formal decision is made on the topic and people just continue to disagree with each other and do their own thing. Because ecclesiology and the form of worship are very practical issues, someone’s interpretation will need to be implemented. Speaking for myself, I have a tough time imagining coexistence working out and being substantially different than the status quo. Perhaps, someone else has more experience with this sort of thing or an example of it working out long term.
2) A decision is reached and the “losing side” decides to stick with the main group and submit to the decision (e.g., the man Euphrony wrote about earlier who opposed his church’s decision to build yet supported it in the end, many/most Arian bishops after the Council of Nicea and many (though not all) Jews after the Council of Jerusalem)
3) A decision is reached and the “losing side” decides to stick with the group while continuing to advocate for change (e.g., Judaizers in the first century and people advocating for women priests in the Catholic Church). This can work, but often doesn’t work out well. When a decision is made, it is implemented. People who are constantly opposing their church’s leadership do not tend to pass on the faith very well to their friends/children and/or tend to turn into fringe groups, almost always dieing off after a few generations if they don’t take the leap and split off.
So, what categories have I missed? When you say you don’t think we MUST split over ecclesiological/form of worship questions, does that mean all of them or only some of them? I would assume that you think some are worth splitting over, otherwise you would be uncomfortable with Protestantism’s very existence. What issues other than these do you think are worth splitting over? You broached the topic, yet haven’t seemed to offer up your own ideas (which I find puzzling).
“That’s like Benny Hinn having his own denomination today or Joel Osteen or Rick Warren or some other popular minister.” It reminds me of Chuck Smith/Calvary Chapel. Of course, CC doesn’t call themselves a denomination. However, having been a part of it for over a decade, I don’t see why not. They seem to be just as much of a denomination as the Churches of Christ.
MB