Whenever church became a topic of conversation between my peers and I, I'd tell them where I went to church, which was a "Church of Christ." [I still don't know if you're supposed to capitalize the first "C".] Amazingly enough, even amongst kids, I was usually greeting with something like, "Oh you're the ones who think you're better than the rest of us, and we're 'going to hell' right?" Occasionally parents would also express this perception of my church.
Ah, wonderful.
Those attitudes came from some rather zealous church members whose knowledge of the CofC could basically be summed up in one sentence, "The Churches of Christ are modeled after the exact church of Acts - the one Jesus truly intended." Nevermind history... or the Pope and all them others... or the rest of the world, we're the real church. Which, you would have to admit, implies some pretty exclusive teachings. Despite being raised around these kinds of attitudes, I didn't really identify with them. And to the churches' credit, when we met, I don't really recall very many, if any, "hellfire and brimstone" type sermons. So, what was this church in which I was raised, and still attend?
A church elder recommended that I read Renewing God's People: A Concise History of the Churches of Christ. A short book, a quick read, can probably be finished in 2 or 3 good sessions. The book, or others like it, is an absolute read for anyone who has been raised in the Church of Christ. Especially folks from the South or from smaller congregations. I love how the header for chapter 1 is a bit of a sarcastic (even Pauline?) jab at our own church - entitled, "Do we have a history?"
The book starts where most would start - with the historical record of Acts. But instead of going from 40 A.D. to 2013 in one sentence, we slowly weave through history, as we should. I read one criticism of the book on Amazon before buying, and it was because the history of the church from the Apostles to the Reformation (1500's) was very brief. I have a desire to learn more about the church then too, but admittedly it really that epoch does have little to contribute to the overall intention of the book.
The reformers are highlighted, especially the fact that their theologies are very congruent with those of my own church. Luther's sola scriptura is accounted for of course, and also the fact that he was adamant about translating the bible into local languages, allowing for personal study and understanding to be available rather than listening to a priest speak in Latin. Fast forward to the new-found religious freedom of early America (which I had taken for granted) with our various denominations and groups free to practice in the absence of a state religion. However, there were some, provoked even more than the Reformers to return to a purer form of Christianity, and to unite all of the denominations. Two prominent ones were Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell.
The most important parts of the books are understanding the Stone-Campbell movement, why it happened, and to learn about what the founders did to compromise on their convictions in order to lead a new church congregation. Basically, they both had their own church "history." Both were fed up with structure, titles, rites, creeds, etc. They just wanted to be "Christian." Both amassed congregations that eventually merged despite huge doctrinal differences.
Stone and Campbell were the leaders of the groups but expected no honor or status for it. They were both for adult baptism, but disagreed on whether or not it should crucial for acceptance into the church (Thanks to my wife for reminding me!) One wanted Communion to happen every week, the other celebrated it only occasionally. Stone did not have today's traditional view of the equal Trinity. Campbell thought noisy, emotional revivals were uncouth and preferred a rational, civilized conversation. Similarly, they both had their own worship styles - Stone's charismatic and Campbell's subdued & European-influenced. They also couldn't agree what name to put out on the sign in front of the church. But regardless, they merged and with the help of some incredible evangelists such as Walter Scott, had explosive growth.
The church that began as a unity movement later became called the Stone-Campbell movement, or the Restorationist movement (which also encompasses a few other traditions now.) But, as we know, problems would later arise. The civil war would split the country, and racism, especially in the south became rampant. There were "Black" CofC's and "White" CofC's, which still exist to this day in the south.* Issues like supporting missionary societies or instrumental music in church popped up, and since scripture doesn't address those directly, the churches didn't know what to do. The silence of scripture became a vitriolic battle cry for people who determined that silence meant prohibiting. More churches in this unity movement began to break away. Eventually, those churches that came out on the same or similar sides of these debates were called the Churches of Christ and 2/3rd's of those were based in the South.
The best chapter in this book is actually the last, which is kind of a "where do we go from here" type chapter. The authors of the book take a long look at our history and what we have gone through - which I would surmise today's church members have very limited knowledge of. I'm going to give away a bit of these revelations, so if you haven't read the book and plan to, you may want to skip this paragraph. Sadly, some of us in the CofC tradition are legalistic, blind to the obvious pitfalls of the Pharisees in the very own Bible which we cling to so strongly. We take the silence of scripture and use it against things that might be neutral (at worst) to the church. We've had a history of "we're right and you're wrong"when talking to those outside of our congregations. We need to end that. A sample, -->
“[We] should be open to what Christians with other names/practices can teach us. [Our movement should] co-operate with other Christians any way we can. If we can’t worship with them because of conscientious differences, we can serve others with them. Meet for food and fellowship. Break down the barriers of us vs them. We can be reconciled and reconciling.”
When I think about my youth and not knowing how to respond to the reactions of those who did not go to my church... eventually I learned how to smile and disarm those incendiary accusations, basically using common sense as my guide. But reading this book and understanding my church certainly can help me understand myself even better. I'll always have a soft spot for this church since it's been such an important part of my life. How important it is to know though that my predecessors weren't perfect and had their own differing opinions. It's almost imperative to hear the full story, as the authors say, "Warts and all."
In conclusion, the Churches of Christ, despite being relatively new on the religious scene, have their fair share of history behind them. The CsofC wield a powerful, double-edged sword. The church is unencumbered with bureaucracy, overarching government, and official creeds and documents. The sole guide is the Bible. The church is, in theory, autonomous and flexible to provide for the local congregation. But, this puts a lot of responsibility in the hands and messages of the local church leaders to properly represent Christ without "official" and sanctioned leadership from a headquarters somewhere.
Check the book out!
No comments:
Post a Comment