Thoughts on "Renewing God's People: A Concise History of the Churches of Christ"

When I was a boy I went to church every Sunday.  Church in the morning, Sunday school, and then back again at night at 6 P.M. (or 5 P.M. in the winter, for some reason.)  Furthermore, we also attended church every Wednesday night.  To me, this was the pattern of life; it was normal, assumed - it simply was what it was.  Being young I guess I also assumed everyone else did the same thing, but I knew that not everyone went to the same church since I never knew what churches my school friends went to.  Eventually it became apparent to me that some people went to church much less regularly; in fact some didn't go to church at all!

   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!

Thoughts on "Mere Christianity"

"The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be simple either." - C.S. Lewis

I had always heard, bouncing around the vast halls of church buildings, people talking about this  book called "Mere Christianity," written by none other than the author of "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" among other pieces of literature.  The author was C.S. Lewis.

Usually the overheard conversations were something along the lines of, "Well, if you are a christian, or have interest in christian beliefs, you should certainly read this book - it's very helpful."  So for years that had echoed around in my head and I finally got around to it! 

As I've only read this book once, and do not know much of the context and state of religious affairs of the twentieth century, I have a feeling some of my interpretations and notes could potentially be inaccurate, only partially correct, or perhaps even untrue altogether.  Regardless for these purposes of my notes here I attempt to recollect as true as I can to what I gleaned from "Mere Christianity."

From what I understand of the context surrounding the book is that it was actually a series of talks given by C.S. Lewis and broadcasted by the BBC during World War II (early 1940's.)  The BBC actually commissioned Lewis to sum up "what Christians believe."  What resulted a group of lessons provided by Lewis, a former atheist, which he then joined together under the title, "Mere Christianity."  The word "mere" is not a word we use often today and from what I understand the phrase "mere christianity" is meant to convey the simple truths of the Christian identity.  In other words, who we really are.    Sometimes, crowded and lost within the veins of hundreds of denominations claiming different things, it can certainly be seen why Christianity would be a confusing topic.

I also have a feeling that this book was a watershed for Christian teachings in the 20th century because perhaps there was a lack of material like itself.  Perhaps all of the denominations had reached a fever pitch and were not working together as they should be.  They are all on the same team... correct? As a side note I also know C.S. Lewis was contemporaries with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, though at the time I don't think they knew of each other.  Their ideas are remarkably similar and I most certainly know their allegiances to Christianity trumped their allegiances to Britain and Germany.  Irony.

As for the actual book.  It's dense.  It's readable, but difficult.  I found some parts I could soar through, understand and agreeing, and some other parts - more philosophical ones - more of a trudging and grinding process to get through.  Maybe someday when I am older or more enlightened I can return to them.  I feel like probably half of the book was like this to me.

I did enjoy the refreshing directness that today rarely exists.  References to other world religions are respectful but clearly acknowledge the errors within them.

I liked his analogy on Free Will.  Some folks have a hard time agreeing that we have Free Will.  And why would God create a world to set us up to fail.  And if God exists, and knows the future, do we really have this Free Will?  Lewis' simple analogy on this subject is:  Imagine a mother who tells their child she expects him to clean up his room every night.  She says she wont do it for them, they have to do it themselves.  Well, a few nights later she finds the room to be a mess. The mother wants it one way, and entrusts the child to act that way.  Whether or not the child does it or not is his decision - his choice - his free will.  If he does, he pleases his mother, and if not, then he doesn't.

The first few chapters build Lewis' defense of Christianity right from the ground up.  Lots of philosophy in the beginning, but it's understandable - talks about morals, right and wrong, the values of good and evil, etc, and why we seem to have this innate understanding when we are born.

I think the most convicting thing for me in this book was an illustration rather early on in the text. He's reasoned thus far that there is a God of the universe. And we are man, since our creation we have driven our own selves away from God, by knowingly committing acts contrary to God.  Whe we come to realize this, we could be fraught with worry or despair, or care less, or ask for forgiveness.  The forgiveness is know in the Christian realm as "repentance."

But though repentance might leave us penintent, humble, and acknowedging of our wayward ways, it doesn't bring us whole again.  We're still the same people.  That changed though, and that change gave all credence and authenticity to the movement we call Christianity, when God himself became a human, who went by the earthly name, Jesus.

God's intention was to send himself as a sacrifice to make up for our mistakes.  So, after he died, he was the "ultimate" sacrifice, which covers all our our misgivings.  That, combined with an accepting and repentant heart, is the key to return back to God.

I guess I had never really envisioned the whole "God coming to Earth" thing - I mean, I had heard the teachings before and could recite them to you, but I never had grasped the meaning or at least the fullness of the meaning before.  I've heard some people say that they're delighted when they find new levels of meaning in their studies.  On the surface Christianity can be easily and understood and fully viable - but then you accidentally go "x" number of layers down and find even more richness and meaning.  That is what it was like for me.

I'm glad I read it.  I don't know if it was exactly what I was looking for, but I do believe it is a vital read if you are in a position and of a mindset to do so.  Maybe I am too attention-deficit to sit and wax philosophic for too long at a time.  Or maybe it's been way too long since I just relaxed and read an entertaining fiction book.  Some of this content hurts my brain!  However, I think it is still relevant and certainly a classic and important book to read for anyone.

"Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side.  God is holding back to give us that chance.  It will not last forever.  We must take it or leave it." C.S. Lewis

Proactivity Pt. 2

Part 2.

I think the tone of this blog has been a skeptic's approach to Christianity, so in line with that today I am asking, what are some things we can proactively do to encourage building faith internally?

My last idea was Testing.  This time I want to discuss Asking.

Asking is much less controversial.   Ask and you shall receive, right?

For one, John 16:27, "...Truly I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.  Until now you've asked nothing in my name.  Ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be full."

Ask for little things.  Ask for huge things.  Ask for anything.  Just try!  For so long I rarely or never tried and I have a feeling many of us are like that.  Is it self-sufficiency? pride? ...or simply ignorance?  Even today I struggle to remember Asking.  I sometimes forget that we have this vital luxury.

I wonder if the other world religions allow such a concept.

The fan-favorite blunt theologian James said, "You don't have, because you don't ask." (James 4:2)

But one of the most monumental episodes of Asking in the biblical record is Solomon's story.  It rings close to home for me because it ties in so many, very important things: philosophy, theology, judgement, knowledge, discernment, and above all, how to apply these truths in everyday life!  Ah, to be the owner of such vast and important information.   It's called Wisdom.

Let's briefly revisit the old King Solomon, king of Israel & Judah.  After surviving his older brothers' unjust attempts to claim the throne, he ascends and is probably overwhelmed by responsibility.  Displaying some uncommon insight (compared to other OT figures), he asks God to give him an understanding, discerning mind for governing God's people.  (1 Kings ch. 3)

Not for wealth, success in war, crops, or decendants.  He asked for a sharp mind.  God ends up being pleased with this powerful request and not only gives him wisdom, but also everything he didn't ask for.  He got the prestige, the gold, and the power.  And for one of the first times in the historical record God's tribe, "ate, drank, and were happy... [Solomon] had peace on all sides around him... and Judah and Israel lived in safety"  (1 Kings 20, 24-25.)

Solomon's request resonated within me.  Before I started studying anything at all, especially the Bible itself, I had a yearning to learn.   When I relearned Solomon's story for the first time as an adult, I thought it was really interesting.  So, I began Asking.  And Wisdom was amongst the top of the list.

So, again, be proactive in your faith... if you're doubting, skeptical, atheistic... but perhaps have the will to try... then try Asking.  And continue to do so.  I wish I could "try" to play the violin, and pick it up on the first time and play like Andrew Bird.  But it takes perserverance... and most certainly the right attitude.

Going back to James 4:2-3, "You don't have, because you don't ask.  You ask and you don't receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions."

Just as in Testing, Asking requires you to have the right motives. 

Proactivity Pt. 1

To begin with a butchering of poetry-

What then? Shall we sit idly by...

That phrase came to mind as I began ruminating on this topic.  I think the tone of this blog has been a skeptic's approach to Christianity, so in line with that today I am asking, what are some things we can proactively do to encourage building faith?

We can't demand that God show himself to us as Aladdin would to a genie.  Furthermore, these days we don't have Christian teachers showing up to dinner parties and turning water into Yellowtail Cabernet.  Those days appear to be past us, though we have quite a recollection of them (the Bible.)

Two ideas came to mind though; Testing and Asking.

The first concept of Testing is a bit touchy.  I get nervous at the concept.  Are we able to test God?  Deuteronomy 6:16: "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah."  OK, this is a statement from God via Moses, referring to the Israelite's lack of trust in God's provision.  At this point in their journey at Massah, Moses' tribe had been carefully cared for daily with the provision of manna.  They had wandered into the land known as "Rephidim."  Apparently it wasn't known for it's bountiful streams and springs.  I have a feeling the people, upon the realization they would be camping there, were a little pre-emptive in their complaints against Moses' and God's choice of lodging.  It even got to the point where Moses feared for his life (Ex. 17:4.)  Well, what ended up happening?  God told Moses to smash a rock with his staff and water blasted out of it.

Jesus quotes this phrase too. In Matthew 4:7 Jesus says "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test" to none other than the primary antagonist of the world, whose motives must be the essence of evil.

So, in light of some unwise, disgruntled former slaves from Moses' tribe, and the sole being attempting to ruin as much as he can of God's empire, it would certainly appear that Testing God would be something we should avoid.

Or, is it?

A commonly quoted phrase in Malachi 3:10 is: "Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.  And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need."  The passage goes on to explain how much of a reward one can truly receive if he only gives.

Now, considering the context this is in reference to those of Judah/Israel who had given up on God.  They had stopped tithing, finding it useless? Or maybe irrelevant?  But God says via Malachi, in modern English, "Get over your hang-ups, you're robbing me of what I am owed.  Start giving your share, and watch what I will do.  Test me, and see how much I can make you grow. I'll bless you beyond your imagination."

OK, so maybe that was one specific reference to a time that God spoke through a prophet to a specific audience giving them directions.  Since we aren't supposed to test God, we probably just shouldn't.  Well, I don't necessarily think so.  After all, 4 verses prior God reminds us, "For I the LORD do not change..."  so I think perhaps that "test" or challenge is open to people to this day.

I took it on and I think it changed my life for the better.

Of important note is to examine yourself and to determine where your heart is.  Do you want to test God like the Israelites, with bad motivations?  Are you complaining?

Or do you actually want to do the right thing?  Make sure you are motivated not in order for your own personal gain, but to be in compliance with what we need to give as Christians.

So that's one idea on how to get proactive with your faith - do you want to start seeing results?  One step could be to consider stepping up or starting your giving.

Asking is part 2.

Faith & Atheism

If you don't believe in anything, do you believe in nothing?

Is that paradoxical?  Does that still require "belief"?

Belief, faith, such interesting words they are.  They're also antiquated and, I think, lost a lot of the weight they used to carry in today's society.  Believing in things, having faith in things are two concepts that are becoming signs of weakness or ineptitude in those that choose to make them public.  Could the common public person actually give a real definition of what "faith" is supposed to mean?  But this topic we shall save for another day.

We're all born into the world and when we finally come of age and begin learning, we find there is a choice to make.  For the majority of us, it's a tough, difficult decision.  Even the most stoic of us can find it heartwrenching.

Why am I here?  Is there really a God or are we here by chance? If there is... well, which one of these lunatics am I supposed to listen to to find God?  That is, if I really care enough to find out?

Such is the foundation of atheism, or at least some of the questions atheists have answered to the above in the "negative."  Before I continue I want to clarify that the term atheist is not meant in any means in a pejorative sense.  If you're from a religious background, atheist is a term that has the most dark undertones.  You may have the perception atheism equates to evil.  You may want to reconsider.  It's a viewpoint, not a truth.  Allow me to explain.

Atheism is the view that there is no God.  Atheism holds this view, among many I'm sure, that Theists (those who believe in God - my definition for the sake of my notes) have constructed God through millenia of rites, ceremonies, society, and a general sense of needing an explanation of the question, "Why?"  If you have a high school level education that had one paragraph on world history and traditions, you would come to know that it is very true that humankind did invent their own gods & traditions on the origin of everything and anything.  On this point, those who believe and those who don't believe agree.  (If you do believe, I am referring to the paganism mentioned ad infinitum in the OT & NT.)

For the purposes of this particular note I only want to emphasize that atheists have faith in their decision to not believe, just as we who do believe put faith in our God.  Why.

21st century Atheists have their evidences: evolution, fossil record, science, lack of physical evidence suggesting existence of supernatural beings, flying spaghetti monsters, etc.

21st century Believers have theirs: well for one, the Bible.  Faith groups all have their respective "book."  As to why the Bible is the be all end all, that is also another blog for another day.  The Bible is an all inclusive history, comprised of chronologies and raw evidential letters and first hand accounts.  It's a theology of teachings and traditions.  It's an explanation (and depending on your faith in the Bible, it's divinely accurate.)  We also have the modern day history of the existence of particular characters in the Bible (e.g. David, Solomon, and yes, Jesus) as well as the cultures & civilization that produced it's content.

So, both sides have their evidences.  And today, If I were of the atheistic persuasion and asked to verify the non-existence of God, well, I could only present my evidences.  I'd have to put faith in the fact that I can't explain why the Big Bang occurred, and why it defied our laws of science.  I could certainly guess or hypothesize, but I couldn't be sure myself.  All I know is that it happened.  I'd have to put faith in the fact that evolution was a chance, albeit a wild and highly unlikely chance, that resulted in my existence and my supposed higher intelligence.

I'd have to put faith in the conclusion that God doesn't exist.  I've heard Christians say faith is believing what you don't see.  Under the Christian context, this is true.  And under the Atheist concept well... I would say they can accept that statement as well, right?  They believe that they don't see anything, so that's that.

Atheists can believe, and have faith, that God is a manifestation of humans, and is therefore not real.  Atheism isn't a lack of faith.  It's just a lack of faith in the things we believe in.  If you want to make a difference to Atheism or it's adherents, don't demonize or lecture because they don't believe in what you do.  Recognize your differences and speak to them.

Tsurezuregusa

No... it's not what happens when you throw your hands at your key board.

That is, "slduihsl;zdrnk".

Tsurezuregusa is a Japanese term meaning "as the brush moves."  When I was in college I took like 1 liberal arts / english class and the rest were boring business classes. In this one liberal arts class I had a liberal teacher from Kansas, and on the required book list was this book called Essays in Idleness, the Tsurezuregusa of Kenko.  He was a Buddhist monk who lived in the 1300's in feudal Japan, and he was pretty cool.

Through translation, his thoughts are written down in short paragraphs and the topics range from weather, customs, honor, manners, and off the wall thoughts.  Kenko was an ancient blogger.  There's so many of his thoughts that are applicable today.  If you like to read and you appreciate ancient literature or old books describing the way a normal person thought back in the old days, you should check it out.

For the record I don't read much ancient literature besides the Bible, but eventually someday I'd like to get into Origen and some of those other dudes.

Anyways I feel my blog and Kenko's Tsurezuregusa are very similar... just thinking out loud.  So I stuck it in the header.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsurezuregusa

Dreams

 Dreams are so hard to remember once you start to wake up.  I've read there's all kind of scientific neurology that goes in to why we forget them so easily.  A few nights ago I dreamt about the lakehouse.  My family used to own a lakehouse near the Alabama / Georgia state line.  I think it was pretty much one of my favorite places in the world - so many good memories.  Although they sold it around 5 years ago, I still have recurring dreams there.  Sometimes in my dreamy state I realize we don't own it anymore and we're always staying there hoping that the new owners don't show up and catch us.

In the same scientific article I read it also talked about how dreams are also a way for our brain to encode memories and thoughts, and process out everything.  Weird, huh?

When the Bible mentions dreams, they are usually purposeful.  Involving some bizarre symbols and numerology.  I like the characters in those stories that are just like "uhh, I don't get it. Could someone explain this to me plainly?"  I think one of the things we can derive from the dreams of the bible is that those images are how God chose to speak to the people.  First, you have the face value of the symbols & images.

Secondly, it seems interesting that God's communication with humans seemed to slowly drift more distant.  In the beginning God himself (gender neutral intended) was in existence with Adam and Eve.  After the separation, either he would occasionally appear, or his voice would be heard.  Then, it seems there would be either an "Angel of the Lord" - a third party messenger on behalf of God - or a cryptic dream.

Dream interpretation and communication weigh heavily in Genesis and the Old Testament.  Just for example, the famous Jacob's Ladder dream (quite an image), and Joseph's dreams that he'll rule his brothers.  But what's neat to think about God and his nature of communication is that he also spoke to non-Hebrew/non-believers.  Joseph also interpreted Pharoah's dreams and the Pharoah in turn revered God, although to what extent we aren't sure.  Gideon, while spying on his future enemies, overheard some men discussing how they had a dream they were about to be conquered.  This assurance gave Gideon the confidence to lead his men to do so.  And then there's Daniel.  I have never read the book in earnest but glanced through it today - it looks extremely difficult!!  Anyhow, his interpretations for Nebuchadnezzar proved very influential - first it drove him mad, and then he came to his senses and acknowledged God.

In the new testament they are more rare, but Joseph dreamt about Mary's pregnancy.  Also there's the interesting inclusion of Pilate's wife - who told Pilate she had a foreboding dream about condemning Jesus.  This objection though, fell on deaf ears, and was not heeded.

To come full circle, it seems evident that God's final direct communication to earth was the physical and spiritual manifestation of Jesus.  That would kind of explain why we don't get the daily morning news from a booming voice in the sky.

I just thought it was interesting the way God chose to interact with humans in the Bible.  I don't know how any of it would figure in with today and if/when this kind of communication still exists.  But I think there is much more to glean from the text by studying that can shed more light on the topic and strengthen faith, rather than this very brief overview here.

As always the mystery and awe of the text draws me in...  the plot thickens.