I think many Churches of Christ are caught in a dilemma that they don’t even know will have a long-term effect on them. See if you agree with me.
Prior to the last quarter century, Churches of Christ viewed as part of their core identity their non-denominationalism. In fact, the earliest roots of the Restoration Movement in the U.S. were a reaction to the fact that denominationalism had become the means of excluding those from one’s fellowship who had different creedal beliefs. By laying aside all human creeds and denominational organizations, restorationists believed they were more perfectly practicing the unity of the Spirit in the one Body of Christ.
During the 1970s, many in Churches of Christ began to believe that regardless of our theology, our practice had become denominational. Churches of Christ had in practice adopted a brand that was defined by its own traditions and that brand was used to exclude rather than include.
Whereas in the sixties, we argued over whether to write “church of Christ” with a capital C or not, by the 70s, those debates were over, and we had become totally tolerant of talking about “Church of Christ” preachers, “Church of Christ” colleges, “Church of Christ” elderships, buildings, JOY buses, and when asked about personal membership “Church of Christ” was the only acceptable answer. The term “Church of Christ” no longer was just a descriptive name borrowed from Romans 16:16, but rather a brand name and trademark of a very particular group of Christians—the very definition of denominationalism.
Interestingly enough, about the same time period, two new developments began to surface in the broader Christian community: a number of new non-denominational groups like Calvary Chapel, The Vineyard, and The Way were started. Also the whole Bible church and community church movements flourished. These were typically individual congregations very loosely associated with other churches, if at all.
As these independent non-denominational churches became more numerous, they were seen to be taking advantage of growing tolerance among evangelical Christians in particular. Congregations of mainline denominations, seeing the tide moving away from denominationalism, began changing their congregational names to more generic names. New names like Harvest Church, Covenant Church, New Life Church, etc., replaced old names and left old denominational identifications to very small fonts in parentheses, if visible at all. Some of these churches quit their denominational organizations, but most just changed names.
So as I see it, about the time the Churches of Christ became comfortable about being one among many churches—at least among evangelical churches (although I myself think we are very inconsistent to only identify with evangelical churches), those same denominations started moving away from that very position and towards the non-denominational position that Churches of Christ were abandoning.
Here are my conclusions for Churches of Christ:
- Churches of Christ need to return to their roots and recover their non-denominational theology. What a great opportunity to be what we have historically claimed to be, a unity movement. What a great time to preach and actively embrace the unity in the Body of Christ.
- Churches of Christ need to quit trying to imitate “successful” churches and decide who God wants them to be and what He wants them to teach. Turning to market research for our identity has two big drawbacks: It leaves us being a lesser imitation—a knock-off—of an original, and it means we are always catching up to the “latest trends” often after those who established those trends have moved on.
- The highly autonomous congregational approach to church is robbing Churches of Christ of the power in community, in fellowship, in “many members but one body!” We must learn to be more collaborative, to look for true fellowship in the work of the Gospel, and to welcome partnerships with other members of the Body. Isn’t that the only way to be a whole and healthy Body!
Watch for more on this last point later.
Mark's Blog 
Amen for that joy that Christ came to always be yes and amen forus inlife with the HOly Spirit and he is amswer to all dilemma and against the devol, thanks and bless and pray,keijo sweden
Fascinating article
When we realize where these non-denominational churches came from, then the appeal to be like them will fade. Many of these “non-denominational” churches are still a part of denominations, but have changed their name putting their denomination in small initials or leaving it off. The rest of these churches are the end result of the crumbling charismatic denominations.
The signs of these churches have no more appeal than “Church of Christ”. This is a marketing ploy and quite literally a niche. When every church has such a name, then what? By the time that we change our name to “Faithbridge Church” or “True Hope Church of Christ”, then what will it matter?
Let us keep to any scriptural names. Let us be called by Christ.
“Church of Christ” on the The harsh reality is the name “Church of Christ” on the building closes lots of doors and opens few. Of all people we understand that “Church of Christ” is not THE name of the church so why do we hold on to it so tightly if it is doing more harm than good? I deeply appreciate the love for the word of God engendered in me during my formative years in the Church of Christ and I have no desire to leave but I do have enormous frustration that something as easily fixed as a name on a sign remains a major obstacle to bringing people into the kingdom.
Lloyd,
Great point. Oddly, I don’t remember any classes specifically focused on learning to love better in preaching school. Can it be we’ve just inadvertently passed by one of the things Jesus emphasized most? What does this say about our listening skills?
G
The key to unity is the cross of Christ, John 12:32. “And I, when I am lifted up, will draw all men to myself.” Lifting up a brand of church, a preacher, a position, a plan, a program or anything else but Christ will result in division.
Excellent observation, Jeff.
You totally get it! Don’t listen to detractors. Keep spreading this message.
John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Have you seen much of this lately? Strange He didn’t say that we would be known by our doctrine.
Brothers and sisters in Christ, We have no jurisdiction on this matter!!!
In John 17, Christ prayed for three issues. One was for Himself, the second for those men who God gave him to work with and three, that all those believers in the future would be united. I believe God answered all three prayers. If you are a Christian and have received the Holy Spirit, you are my brother or sister in Christ. No man or group of men or anything can change that. It is that simple! Men have divided us for power, control, and yes, money. It has failed
all over the world. God will decide who is saved or not…We have no jurisdiction on this issue, but scholars and misguided teachers have led us to believe what is a lie. The titles in the Bible are job descriptions, not ranks.
That is the good news that allows all servants to perform the good works that God planned for us from the beginning. Do you want to be a better Christian?
Be a better father, mother, son, daughter, friend, neighbor, teacher, etc and do it with Joy. The lost must want what you have as a Christian if they are going to listen to you. We have millions of brothers and sisters in the body (church). We just need to accept it and get to work in harmony as we were taught to do.by the scriptures.
The question is not whether or not the Churches of Christ are a denomination, in my mind. They have been since very early, ironically, since they set out in opposition to the idea denominations. Yet it is unavoidable that if they work together and share similar beliefs and practices, they would become a denomination.
The real question is what kind of denomination they are. Being anti-creedal and anti-confessional is not, I believe, conducive to the spiritual health of the Church. It leaves the flock of God vulnerable to many errors, heresies, and schisms, including those that have already popped up in history and been addressed. Where we have differing confessions, it’s because we don’t agree on what the Bible says. The way to unity is not glossing over these doctrinal differences but coming to a unity in the truth by diligently searching the Scriptures together, which will lead to a common confession of faith.
How do you define, “denomination”? Definitions are important. Even loosely organized groups of churches within one or more movements can be considered by most people to be “denominations” based on minimal fellowship and accountability.
You are right, of course. If you will look up Christian denominations in Wikipedia, you will notice in the first and second paragraphs a brief discussion about the definition of denomination that sums up the status quo pretty well.
As a former Sociology professor, let me clarify the definition of “denomination,” if I may. A denomination is a division within a religious belief system. “Baptist” is not a denomination; it is an entire belief system–at least originally. “Southern Baptist” is a denomination, as is “Missionary Baptist,” “American Baptist,” etc. These are all theologically “Baptist,” yet disagree on certain aspects of application of theology. The church of Christ is not a denomination because it IS an entire belief system. We (CoC) would argue that Disciples of Christ “became” a denomination when it adopted “less than the holistic belief system” of the church of Christ. This understanding of denominationalism among the church of Christ, which is accurate but very academic (but what would you expect from A. Campbell?), is what leads to confusion about the question, “Are we a denomination?”
David,
Your definition is good. Applying it as you do to Church of Christ theology assumes that Churches of Christ are NOT a small part of all Christian theology, and that Church of Christ theology is the only legitimate representation of Christian theology in existence. That assumes Campbell and Stone were both in error, since neither of them subscribed to prevailing mainstream Church of Christ theology … which has at least 25 major variations, each one believing their variety to be uniquely correct!!!
How that can be a valid nondenominational theology??
Glenn, I don’t think the “churches of Christ” as they exist today reflect much of Campbell’s and Stone’s theology. In truth, you’d almost have to be schizophrenic to do so as the two seldom agreed. What they agreed on was that a simple, biblical theology is all that should be necessary for Christians to be Christians, and not all the add-ons by denominations. That theology should be simple enough that it could cut through denominational lines and allows Christians–of all makes and models–to work together for the sake of the Kingdom. I would go out on a limb and say that the church of Christ wasn’t the first non-denominational church; it was the first evangelical church!
A. Campbell was a moderate, which is why his writings were mostly suppressed in the cofC for so long. I find it interesting to read what he wrote. Perhaps some good would be achieved if his writings would be read out loud, notwithstanding a few heart attacks.
Hear some old fashioned preaching by finding Johnny Robertson on You Tube.
Our instructions are clearly given in the Bible
I see the sign you show in the picture is an authorized one. It has the proper times, the biblically mandated Sunday evening service and a proper congregational name.
Your article is quite good. You left one thing out about the cofC becoming a denomination. That is the publications and their respective editors. For those who don’t know (and I am not nearly old enough to have seen it first hand), there were some cofC periodicals which were used to keep congregations using the cofC name in line. The editor would frequently criticize a certain church, and when there was no way to rebut the criticism, because the editors controlled the publications, a church just had to suffer. Oftentimes, this put churches out of business. This led to others falling in line with the editor so as to not be criticized. So basically the cofC had de facto bishop(s). John Mark Hicks and others have written pages about the periodicals and the power the editors wielded.
From the beginning there has always existed a tendency to follow Apollos, Cephas, or Paul–or someone–and the 19th and 20th centuries were no different. Not only editors, but lectureships at churches as well as Christian colleges, schools of preaching, and even the list of preachers for gospel meetings have all defined certain positions or camps. It is not so different today, just different preachers or bloggers or Twitter followers . . . .
And that does not even touch the “black list” of speakers and “if you speak at this event, then you can’t speak at ours” and the fact that all females were forbidden from speaking.
[…] Churches of Christ: We Have A Dilemma! […]
Quite an introspective … but nearly completely irrelevant … to anybody else. I grew up in churches of Christ and Churches of Christ. I attended Church of Christ affiliated Junior College and University and the oldest “Church of Christ School of Preaching.” For nearly 12 years I served as an either Part-time or Full – Time Preacher for congregations in Illinois, Arkansas, Texas, and New Mexico. But I found that door closed when my first marriage ended in divorce over my wife’s serial infidelity. Hers, not mine. And she filed the papers because I wouldn’t. Years later I remarried. She didn’t.
Independent Christian Churches asked me to teach classes, then to fill in for the preacher, and to lead singing (they called me a ‘worship leader’, but it was pretty much the same thing).
I have stayed within what one brother in Christ calls the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, but which others call the ‘American Restoration Movement. ‘ The first name I sometimes refer to as the church of SCRaM. After my divorce, that pretty much summed up the treatment I received. The ARM is probably more apt, though … since it is clearly only one member, one branch of sorts (with 25-30 separately identifiable ‘turns’ in that branch), of what Jesus called the ‘Vine’ and Paul called God’s family’s ‘tree.’ Christians stretch much further than the walls of the assemblies known as churches/Churches of Christ. There are, after all, several other names in the New Testament and Old to describe assemblies of God’s people. These days I prefer one from ISA. 56 … God’s gathering. It is one of the prophetic descriptions of people called by God to gather together from among all nations to be His people. It refers specifically to those gathered in the name of the messiah/Christ. It also has the added appeal (to me, at least) of focusing on God’s calling and NOT our self-proclaiming. Too many cheapen what was first called (by outsiders) Christian about 1985 years ago in Antioch of Syria. It began as something town’s folk called followers of Jesus’ Way. Today it is self-proclaimed and much-defamed. And many, if not most, people who claim to be Christian would struggle to define the term as it is in the Bible, much less offer any real proof of a life worthy of that description.
In the last several years I have been invited to preach in some non-RM churches. I grew up among a people who might have considered that heresy. Today, I count it a huge compliment. After all, I love talking about Jesus with anyone who is compelled by His gospel.
So … do you belong to a church? Or do you belong to Jesus? They are NOT the same thing, despite Satan’s whispers to the contrary.
G
I, too, have divorced and remarried as a preacher in churches of Christ. Tricky business. I would like to connect with you outside of this forum to hear your perspectives and share mutual encouragement. Feel free to email at heal@blvdchurch.com.
Thanks, Jeff.
How refreshing to find a brother who approaches with love instead of condemnation and suspicions. I look forward to corresponding with you and sharing the healing God has given.
If anyone else wants to explore how we can minister without condemnation to those who have suffered by divorce, my email is grz311@yahoo.com. You already have Jeff’s.
Glenn
I’m not sure that Calvary and Vineyard churches are any more nondenoms than churches of Christ are, nor do I have any real objection to recognizing that a brand exists – it does.
We need to be bold and wise enough to let go of non-faith expectations of others and our own members. Nothing wrong with “doing” church the way you think best. Rather than making my identity by what I am not, perhaps I should form my identity by what I am and admit that “the faith” includes many fewer absolute strictures than I have come to assume.
Interestingly enough, Calvary Chapel has recently formed an association of its churches, thus, at least, organizing its brand, if not protecting it.
Both Calvary and Vineyard churches, as movements or associations have existed for quite some time. While there may not be a headquarters building, their collegial and self-perpetuating practices mirror that of Churches of Christ. In fact, the reality that we can talk about “Calvary” and “Vineyard” churches reveal their existence as nondenoms is just as questionable as for Churches of Christ.
Explain more partnerships? A partnerships can go bad and create collective disaster. Perhaps I need to better understand what is implied here.
Hang on, Mark. I’m working on expanding that point. Maybe that will help.
There was a survey taken at my church and 70% of the members viewed the Church of Christ as another demonination I included.
[…] believe that what Hirsch and Sinek are talking about are the key piece to us navigating our current identity crisis in Churches of Christ. At one point in time we were one of the fastest growing Christian groups in the United States. At […]
Very good Mark! Appreciate your thinking abilities and your gifts of communication. Keep it up. Would love to visit sometime soon. I woke up the other day and discovered I am older. Hard to believe FWC is 50 years ago.
Rick
Thank you for addressing a sensitive topic. I whole-heartedly agree with point one. We need to regain a vision of being Christ’s body based on biblical teachings. I share your wariness of identification with evangelicals, except I think (based on studies of theological belief spectrums I have seen) that most of our congregations do not fit in the “evangelical” mode. One evangelical website has descriptions of various groups across Christendom. They classify us as “restorationists” and describe us and others in the classification as heretical. As for the second point, I think discernment is in order. We can learn from what similar organizations in the same society have learned if we remember who we are and what we believe. I can imagine several ways to interpret your third point, so I will await future blogs from you.
Agreed.
amen.