The Tennessean, Otter Creek, & the CofCs (II)
I want to address two more statements from the article The Tennessean ran recently about the churches of Christ. TheTennessean quoted Lee Camp saying, “Restoration Movement founder Alexander Campbell started with good intentions but a faulty assumption… that one could simply read the Bible and everyone would come to the same conclusions… Along the way, the nature of the movement changed as well. In the beginning, Restoration believers said they wanted to be ‘Christians only,’ rather than joining a denomination. Eventually, however, they began to believe they were the only true Christians.”
Camp’s statement as printed represents partial truth (which may be due more to editing than what he actually said, so give him the benefit of the doubt). First, there was no single founder of the Restoration Movement. It sprang from numerous sources throughout Great Britain and America over many years. Second, the so-called “assumption” that all can understand the Bible alike isn’t an assumption at all, it’s what the Bible teaches (John17:21; 1Corinthians1:10). God isn’t the author of confusion (1Corinthians14:33). Disagreements among Christians are our own fault, not God’s for somehow being unable to communicate his will clearly. The real question is how much agreement do we have to have to be unified? I’ll address that in another article. Third, he spoke of the movement changing from an eccumenical, to a more exclusive one. That’s true, but the question is why? Here’s the scoop from Campbell’s own pen, “As the public mind became more intelligent and candid, the great principles… were gradually unfolded… so fully explored were ancient and modern Christianity that, in 1823, the design was formed of commencing a periodical and establishing a press to contend for the original faith and order, in opposition to all the corruptions of fifteen centuries (emph. Mine).”
A second comment was attributed to Rubel Shelly, “Churches of Christ will have to adapt in the future or lose their effectiveness. The notion that people in the 21st century are going to find their identity in a particular denomination is getting more and more unlikely. The issue increasingly is: Do you believe in God or not? And if you believe in God, do you believe in God as he is represented in Jesus or as he is present in Allah or in Buddhism? If we ever had the luxury of being divided at every nuance of belief, we are losing it in this culture.” Three responses: (1) Adapting our own traditions is fine—we need to do that constantly, but may God have mercy upon us if we ever begin adapting Christian doctrine to culture! (2) Churches of Christ are striving against the whole concept of denominationalism, and do not advocate finding identity in one. (3) Believing in God as he’s represented in Jesus means an awful lot more than just identifying oneself as a Christian (Matthew7:21), and I don’t think any of us ever have seen ourselves as having the “luxury” of being divided. I, for one, grieve over the division that exists in Christendom and would have us all “perfectly joined together in the same mind and judgment.”
—JLP
Comments
4 Responses to “The Tennessean, Otter Creek, & the CofCs (II)”
Got something to say?
Amen and Amen! The Campbells (Thomas and Alexander) made some mistakes. Barton W. Stone made some mistakes. David Lipscomb made some mistakes. Harry Anderson makes many mistakes. However, all of us are interested in the full restoration of the New Testament church of the first century as our Lord established it and as He intended for it to continue. As you suggest, every Christian, member of the Lord’s Body, should pray for unification of all believers, based upon the Holy, God Breathed, Word, as delivered by the Holy Spirit. Thanks Joshua for all that you do and for your adherence to and defense of the Word of God as our guide. I love you brother, Harry.
Love you too. Thanks!
Brother Pappas,
I want to first say thank you for the cordial tone of this response. If you’ve read any of the comments at the tennessean, you know full well how vitriolic some get when disussing these issues (maybe going hand in hand with the statements made in the article). I also appreciate your respect for the restoration movement, acknowledging that there is in fact, a history is a step many inthe church of Christ aren’t too willing to take. And I think knowing where we began ( so to speak) is important towards figuring out where were going.
My first point of contention would be the verses you quoted to support the idea that the bible can be read and understood correctly by all. God not being the author of confusion in no way supports your premise, and it’s part of the problem with the church of Christ hermenuetic of taking scripture out of it’s context, whether that be cultural, or textual, to affirm or deny said position.
Before we start throwig out scriptures, we’d do well to consider the context in which the letter or story was written to determine it’s original meaning. Too often we ignore the fact that the bible was written first and foremost to a specific group of people with a specific situation with specific purposes. Only later were those letters and books combined into our new testament cannon. What Dr. Camp is talking about is that we too often come to the text with cultural blinders, our assumptions and biases based on the culture we live in, the period in history, the technology we use, etc. An 18th century christian comes to the text with a different set of assumptions than does a 21sr century Christian, and if we truly want to be like the first century church, we have to understand their worldview, and how the nt scriptures spoke to their specific context.
Beyond that, if we wantto be the hur h of the first century, there are plenty of historical writings that help us understand how they interpreted what little “scripture” they had (nothing had been cannonized in the first century, so it likely wasn’t considered scripture yet). For instance, the first century church shared everything they had, lived lives of radical discipleship, taking in the poor and oppressed, breaking social norms by giving women a voice and even putting them
in positions of leadership. The refused to participate in empire, even going so far as to refuse to serve communion to unrepentant roman soldiers. They believed in non violent resistance (which Jesus introduced, turning other cheek, going e tra mile, they are subversive non violent responses to injustice) and many in the first two centuries spoke out against violence in all circumstances for followers of the way.
They claimed allegiance to Christ, saying “Christ is lord” which was a direct stand against the empire, which forced the confession “Caesar is lord”
and we can go on and on.
I love the c of c. I learned about Jesus there. Ilearned about forming community out of diversity. But the idea of restoration focused on by most c of c folks, IS faulty. There will never be unity on so many of the things church of Christ folk demand unity on because the bible doesn’t even mention them. And the reason they aren’t mentioned is becUsr they are periferal issues. Stuff best left to discernment of a community in light of the scriptural narrative (note not prooftexts). The bigger issues that the scriptures refer to over and over again is not how to do corporate worship on Sunday morning, but how to live out lives of discipleship in Christian community as well as our broader geographic communities.
Let’s focus on bring like the 1st century on those things, love joy peace patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control, against such things there is no law.
Justin,
Thank you so much for reading and commenting. I’m glad to discuss the important points you bring up. Before I do, allow me to say, the thesis of your whole comment is something I come real close to agreeing with, if not completely. However, one of my main problems with the “progressive vs conservative” thing going on in cofCs today is the false dilemma that the idea of living out lives of discipleship in Christian community and being zealous for ecclesial doctrine are mutually exclusive. We’re in this present period of growing division, because of a failure of one group to live out the heart of Christianity in favor of doctrinal precision, and because the other, in trying to reclaim and restore that heart, has in all too many cases minimized the importance of Scriptural authority in determining the will of God. If I’ve misjudged, please help me out, because I’ve watched this thing happening for the last fifteen years (wasn’t really aware of it before then, though I know its roots are as far back as the early 80s or earlier), sometimes leaning one way, sometimes the other, and I’ve decided I don’t want to go either way. I want balance.
We have a history, and it has shaped our collective mind–no doubting that. We all–no exceptions–come to the text with presuppositions & prejudices. Because of that, we must lovingly consider the fragility of Christian unity, and be very patient with one another. The fact that we have “blinders” on, and that we’re all at different levels of ability & maturity means it’s very unlikely we’ll ever all see everything in the Bible exactly the same way. But, that doesn’t mean we can’t. That’s why I said it’s our fault, not God’s. The words of Scripture don’t change. They mean what they mean. We must all strive to understand them accurately, being merciful toward those with whom we disagree, and relying on the guidance & grace of God to help us along–and forgive us our mistakes. That said, the Bible teaches Christians to withdraw from some on the basis of departing from doctrinal truth. That isn’t the only reason, but it is one. These departures are to be with regard to key, fundamental doctrines, not every little disagreement, and I admit, this is where many cofCs have really failed and it grieves my heart.
Concerning 1Cor 14:33, you’re correct that the particular purpose of the verse in it’s context isn’t to prove the exact point for which I cited it. However, without making this reply any longer than it has to be (because, I’d rather talk about it than write about it at present), I think my use of it is in keeping with one of the purposes underlying the context (think about the 8 words that follow v.33 in any major translation), and so I don’t think it’s a prooftext. The point I was making is correct as I presently understand things.
I’m considering starting grad work at Lipscomb within a year or so, so maybe I’ll get a chance to meet bro. Camp and talk with him face to face. Please note, I tried not to ascribe any motives to him, and didn’t write with any animosity. Concerning the 18th century set of eyes, and the 21st, and so on, it strikes me as profound that worship in 1st & 2nd century eyes, & 18th-19th century eyes, & to the present among acapella cofCs is remarkably alike (just read from the manuscript of a 1994 lecture by Dr. John Mark Hicks of Lipscomb that impressed this point upon me even more strongly than before). There are periods in which innovations such as we see happening today have been the big thing, and history doesn’t flatter them as the best eras of the church’s existence.
With your “beyond that,” and forward, I have numerous disagreements & a few notable agreements. I’ll lay them out orderly for the sake of my own cluttered mind:
(1) You said, “what little “scripture” they had (nothing had been cannonized in the first century, so it likely wasn’t considered scripture yet).” —True, the Bible wasn’t complete, but they had apostles & prophets who served as living Scripture until its completion. There was no doctrine we have that they didn’t and there isn’t any essential point of it that was lacking (that I know of) in any of the partial canons various leaders adopted during the period before the final canon was “universally” accepted. However, what they had was accepted as Scripture during the 1st Century (see 1Pet3:15-16).
(2) you wrote, “For instance, the first century church shared everything they had, lived lives of radical discipleship, taking in the poor and oppressed, breaking social norms by giving women a voice and even putting them in positions of leadership.” —I agree with you here, except for the women in leadership point. While there may have been situations in which women were wrongly put in leadership, or usurped such authority, it wasn’t apostolic (1Tim2).
(3) “The refused to participate in empire, even going so far as to refuse to serve communion to unrepentant roman soldiers. They believed in non violent resistance….” —Right on, I agree with you. I’m a conscientious objector. That said, there are alternate interpretations to the peace passages that present some difficult challenges I can’t difinitively answer. Some argue the opposition to soldiery was a 2nd century change. Fergusson’s “Early Christians speak” has some good reading on this, though, that I think strongly supports the non-violent position. Historically, most of the best known & beloved preachers among churches of Christ have been basically pacifists.
(4) “Iesus es Kurios.” Amen!
I love the coC as well. I’m not convinced the Restoration Plea is faulty. I simply think humans are faulty. “The misuse of a thing isn’t a credible argument against the proper use of it.” I don’t know who you’re talking about when you say “church of Christ folk,” because as far as I know I don’t demand unity on anything not mentioned in the Bible. When you talk about “the bigger issues,” you make a case and point for my trouble with the present progressive mindset. I don’t necessarily disagree with you about the weightier matters, but you go beyond the Scriptures if by your statement you mean to say the NT is neutral about how we do corporate worship. I don’t believe it is.
I hope you hear everything I’ve said above in the kind tone with which I wrote it.
Thanks for reading & commenting!
—JLP