anyone know about church of christ?

[summer1052]

Andrew, I’m always happy to accept recognition of my status as Princess! :bowdown2: You are kind to speak with Us.

Ha!

Yeah, I’ve gone over to the Dark Side. I still love them and lift them all up in prayer – what else can you do?

Ah, Lectureship! There are some memories . . .

Sincerely, the hardest part of this transition has been musical. I know you will understand that. People who haven’t heard that kind of singing, don’t understand how stirring it can be. Our c o C brothers and sisters truly can say that when we sing, we pray twice. I now sing in the church choir, and help direct the (Catholic) school children’s choir. “It’s called h-a-r-m-o-n-y, and it’s allowed . . .”

It was my love of Scripture combined with an uneasy sense of “is this the c o C, or the church of Paul?” that made me start searching. And Catholics were literally the LAST group I looked at, after Hindus, Buddhists, B’ahai, Mormons,the Witnesses, and every single Protestant denomination in the phone book!

“Really, Lord? Really? The CATHOLICS have the answers? Oh, God, are you laughing at me?”

But I thought I would post here in case anyone has c o C friends with whom they are conversing, and whose beliefs they don’t understand. I can try to explain where they are coming from and why.

Nice to meetcha!
Summer

 

[andrewstx]

Andrew, I’m always happy to accept recognition of my status as Princess! :bowdown2: You are kind to speak with Us.

Ha!

Yeah, I’ve gone over to the Dark Side. I still love them and lift them all up in prayer – what else can you do?

Ah, Lectureship! There are some memories . . .

Sincerely, the hardest part of this transition has been musical. I know you will understand that. People who haven’t heard that kind of singing, don’t understand how stirring it can be. Our c o C brothers and sisters truly can say that when we sing, we pray twice. I now sing in the church choir, and help direct the (Catholic) school children’s choir. “It’s called h-a-r-m-o-n-y, and it’s allowed . . .”

It was my love of Scripture combined with an uneasy sense of “is this the c o C, or the church of Paul?” that made me start searching. And Catholics were literally the LAST group I looked at, after Hindus, Buddhists, B’ahai, Mormons,the Witnesses, and every single Protestant denomination in the phone book!

“Really, Lord? Really? The CATHOLICS have the answers? Oh, God, are you laughing at me?”

But I thought I would post here in case anyone has c o C friends with whom they are conversing, and whose beliefs they don’t understand. I can try to explain where they are coming from and why.

Nice to meetcha!
Summer

I think. in my case the change music-wise was not as difficult. The congregation I was raised in used music more like main stream Protestants and less the more southern country style. We never sang things like “leanin own the everlastin arms”. I guess we considered ourselves too sophisticated.

The coC exageration toward the bible, which you had to have “authorisation” for every tiny thing, along with the literalism and use of out-context proof texts gave me a bad attitude towards Holy Scripture that has taken years to overcome.

I’m glad, very glad that you still have coC freinds that you can talk to. Since my dissfellowshiping I have been shunned and treated as a pariah.
The founder of cofctocatholic.com is Stephanie. She lives in Austin and goes to the cathedral there. Perhaps you even know her?

 

[summer1052]

I have not met her. I am familiar with the other forum you speak of, but haven’t been there in a while. Most of the wounds have healed.

I sometimes refer to myself in jest as a “recovering Campbellite”, but very few people have a real understanding of what that means – and those that do, don’t appreciate the humor.

I am sorry for your status as outcast. So much for Rom. 16:16. It is certainly NOT what our Lord wanted us to do for each other, and is what He experienced Himself. It is still a heavy cross to bear. You are in my prayers.

As far as Scriptures, love for them, and hijacking of them go, I refer you to a book which was profoundly helpful to me on my own journey:
By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition by Mark Shea. He very logically and coherently dismantles the foundation of Sola Scriptura, or “Bible Only” theology the c o C embraces. It helped clarify issues in my own mind, and gave me solid arguments for the validity of Catholic “Big T” tradition.

I also found helpful:
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by Mark Currie, a broader examination of Catholic vs. Fundamentalist apologetics, tackling Marianism (Mariology?), the Real Presence, and Papal authority.

Of course, it can be difficult to converse with people who believe, “don’t bother me with facts; I’ve made up my mind!”

I’ll pray hard for “your people” if you’ll pray hard for mine.

Summer

 

[Stilldreamn]

I had no familiarity with the coC until i became a stepmom to several children that had been raised in that church. I was informed by my oldest stepson (then about 13) that the Church of Christ (denomination) was the original church founded by Christ. I gently stated that no, that was not true - and briefly laid out the first 1500 years history of the Catholic church, and then the failed attempt at reform that turned into a political squabble resulting in the Lutheran church, and eventually all of the others. Including the Church of Christ.

He was outraged at the suggestion that the Catholic church was the first CHRISTIAN Church…and still doesn’t believe it 26 years later. For the sake of family peace, I stay away from discussing the coC with him and his sister and brothers.

 

[andrewstx]

I had no familiarity with the coC until i became a stepmom to several children that had been raised in that church. I was informed by my oldest stepson (then about 13) that the Church of Christ (denomination) was the original church founded by Christ. I gently stated that no, that was not true - and briefly laid out the first 1500 years history of the Catholic church, and then the failed attempt at reform that turned into a political squabble resulting in the Lutheran church, and eventually all of the others. Including the Church of Christ.

He was outraged at the suggestion that the Catholic church was the first CHRISTIAN Church…and still doesn’t believe it 26 years later. For the sake of family peace, I stay away from discussing the coC with him and his sister and brothers.

How can step-son imagine the cofC is the original church when it has only existed since 1906? That leaves nearly two millenia unacounted for.

The cofC uses the same apostacy-restoration theory as the mormons, in fact one of the original mormons started out as a campbellite, Sidney Rigdon. He brought a lot of Campbells theology into mormonism. Baptism of beleivers only for remission of sins. Eucharist as memorial only every Sunday, and Sunday only.

Even though both groups hate to admit it, they have a lot in common.

 

[Contarini]

The further south you get the more COCs you see. They are “anti-denominational”, obviously not understanding what a denomination is.

What don’t they understand, in your view? This lack of understanding is not obvious to me at all. I suspect that you don’t understand their ecclesiology and their reasons for taking the position they do.

Many are somewhat cultic in thier control over their congregations.

Who is “cultic”? The elders?

I question the validity of this term “cultic”–I think it’s terribly misused. I’m not sure that the sociological category of “cult” has theological meaning–and its not really appropriate in this case anyway, since in my experience most sociologists define a cult as a group that is radically at odds with the prevailing religious culture–in our case, a non-Christian group (or a group whose vision of Christianity is radically different from the majority one).

Perhaps some CoC elders are very authoritarian–but if so they are probably a lot more like early Christian leaders than most pastors/priests in most churches are. My experience is mostly with the “middle” group of the Restoration movement–the “Christian Churches and Churches of Christ” (instrumental). And they don’t seem particularly controlling to me.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It is really a fascinating thing which I knew nothing about until I met my wife who was a Disciple of Christ when I met her. I agree with a lot of Catholic doctrine. Usually when I discuss some theological matter with her from a Catholic perspective she tends to agree with me.

The most interesting thing to me was that the Disciples take communion whenever they get together, which means Sunday morning worship and I believe other times as well. This seems very unusual for a later Protestant church. My wife treats the communion elements very sacredly in an almost Catholic way.

Well, they don’t claim to be Protestants! Of course they are, historically, but they are restorationists trying to return to the New Testament. And from a Catholic perspective, their renewal of sacramental practice (even though with some marked differences from the Catholic tradition) should indicate that they were doing something right.

I attended a CCCC (they’re the middle group between the CoC and the DoC) college, and I learned a lot from them. I come from a Holiness background and we didn’t care about the sacraments much–the Christian Church folks convinced me that baptism and Eucharist were pretty important.

Edwin

 

[summer1052]

Some of that borderline cult activity is often more closely ascribed to a splinter group now calling themselves the International churches of Christ. Sometimes they are referred to as the “Crossroads Movement” or the “Florida church”. They can be pretty firm, making job and living arrangements for their congregants.

Yes, the c o C are Restorationists, believing that they are restoring “original” New Testament Christianity. They believe in a “Golden Thread” of believers who have always differed from the rest of Christianity and “kept alive” the “true” practices, making them the only “true” Christians. Note there is little historical evidence for this They are not Protesting the Catholic church, they are restoring what Jesus left behind. (Quasi tongue in cheek pun there.) Yes, Barton Stone moved on to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young after spending time with Alexander Campbell.

While they DO have communion every Sunday, they differ profoundly from Catholics in that they do not accept the Real Presence. It is a memorial ONLY. They note we are to worship God “in Spirit and in truth”, and have a strong anti-physical bias.

Hope that helps!
Summer

 

[solarguy17]

Hi everyone, I new here, (really new, registered to comment in this thread).

I wanted to post some information from a person that grew up in a church of Christ and still attends. It appears that most of the people posting hear are either former members or speaking based on friend experiences.

If you want to pose a question about a specific belief, please feel free to do so, however, I will not pretend I am 100% knowledgable in Bible and am able to be in error.

As a primer, as mentioned there are many churches that use the name “church of Christ” in their name, these have varying beliefs, from a ceppela, to 1 cup, to gay marriage being acceptable.
For you basic info, I am a member of a church of Christ that is a user of multiple cups, has Sunday school, uses only a ceppla music. Generically we are referred to as church of Christ (non-institution), derogatorily, people (including some here) will refer to us as Campellites.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_churches_of_Christ_(non-institutional This has decent info.

I just want to start with a major correction. I believe this is a mistaken belief that many people that grow up in the church of Christ. This is the belief that there was always a “church of Christ” type faith system in existence since the formation of the church on Pentecost and the local church is connected to that first church through a history of churches.

As people get older they start to realize that in fact between probably around the 2nd to 3rd century Christians started to believe more of the Gnostic believes and turn away from Christ, this can actually be seen to begin in the letters to the seven churches Paul mentioned in Revelation. He doesn’t identify this as Gnostic beliefs but they are starting to turn away like they do later because of the Gnostics.

At that time my guess is that any church that would be considered a church of Christ today disappeared because the churches no longer just relied on Bible for teaching and instruction, this belief is known as sola scripture. It wasn’t until the Restormation movement in America during the 1800’s and early 1900’s did the idea of sola scripture emerge and people started moving away from churches that have extra “stuff” (catechismes, visions, extra-Biblical text, councils, etc) and focus all effort and teaching on only what is permitted in the Bible.

Basically this is what I think happened after the 1st century that led away from a “church of Christ” into what is now the Catholic Church. This isn’t just my thoughts but also some books written by non-Catholics regarding early Christianity say similar things. Note: While I disagree with what the people below did and think it isn’t Biblicaly approved, I do believe their heart was in the right place in trying to safe guard the people in their church and their intentions, however flawed, were in the right place.

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Christians started to go toward the hierarchy that ultimently led to the modern Catholic Church. The early Christians set up head bishops of each church to be over the other bishops in the church. (Note: every reference to leadership of churches in NT shows a multitude of Elders (referred to also as Bishops, Shepards, Pastors, Overseers. The greek shows these titles are all one and the same) and a multitude of Deacons)
These head bishops when got together by region (there were called Patriarchs, and I believe there were 5 or 6) and would work together to keep out heresy and incorrect teaching. And thus until the head bishop of the church in Rome was determined to be the head of the whole church, and this is the person that now has the title “Pope”. The prior bishops of the church in Rome where back named Pope until you get to Peter.

I know that some may not agree with this and I understand that. I am trying to explain my views and my intention is not to offend or even convert, but simply to inform.

In spirit of information, I grew up in a church of Christ and mostly attended the type of church into my mid-20s. During my early teens I also was forced to attend a Lutheran church with my step-mother and as a result I have a very poor view of Lutherans. I married a Catholic woman 4 years ago and we both go to religious services at both of our churches. In fact, I have been to Mass more times in the past 4 years then many of my catholic coworkers have .

Sorry for long post. I hope it was informative. If you wish to ask any question, feel free I will try to answer as best as I can.

 

[andrewstx]

Solar17, I would not call you a Campbellite. But I might call you an “anti”.

I was brought up and dunked in a main-stream church of Christ, and that is what we called those opposed to “institutions”.

The final straw that caused my break from the so called “churches of Christ” was the apostacy/restoration theory.

You know it since you mentioned it in your post.

But the AR theory is historically and logically false.

The church would not even have the bible canonised until the late year 390. By the AR theory the church had already “apostacised” its self out of existance.

How could a church in a time before the bible was made one volume, when most were illiterate, and books had to be handwritten and very exspensive have possiblly gone by sola scriptura?

 

[solarguy17]

Solar17, I would not call you a Campbellite. But I might call you an “anti”.

I was brought up and dunked in a main-stream church of Christ, and that is what we called those opposed to “institutions”.

The final straw that caused my break from the so called “churches of Christ” was the apostacy/restoration theory.

You know it since you mentioned it in your post.

But the AR theory is historically and logically false.

The church would not even have the bible canonised until the late year 390. By the AR theory the church had already “apostacised” its self out of existance.

How could a church in a time before the bible was made one volume, when most were illiterate, and books had to be handwritten and very exspensive have possiblly gone by sola scriptura?

Actually, this is pretty interesting, because the idea that the canon was established in 390. Where do you get that idea? I have never heard of any proof saying what the 1st century Christians did or did not say was canon. From what I understand, in 390, the canon was not established as much as it was confirmed as to what was and wasn’t canon. This may seem to a be a quibbling of words but there is a big difference in establishing something and confirming it. Also, I struggled with this concept for a long time, until I heard a Catholic explain to me what actually occurred in 390 AD. He also gave a me a book regarding Catholic views of the Bible and canon. I skimmed through because at the time (HS) I didn’t really care. But that was some that stuck with me, the idea canon was confirmed not established, similar to what occurred shortly after Luther started attacking the Deutrocanonicals.

This goes back to the idea of the Gnostic gospels, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries gnostics started to write “gospels” and “letters” that were purported to be God-inspired and on the same level as the NT we see today. The council in 390 was simply confirming what was really canon and what really wasn’t.
They didn’t’ take a list of say 50 books and whittle it down to 27. They simply looked at the books that everyone always used and consider to be canon and eliminated the rest. 390AD isn’t that far removed from 70AD and given that theirs was a mostly vocal society it would have been impressed upon most Christians at the time what the original Apostles believed was canon. The attempted additions by the Gnostics were mostly ignored, but Catholic Church took it upon itself to confirm what should be and shouldn’t be included in the canon.

Also, note I’m not telling you that you have to believe it, but I am trying to clear up a common misunderstanding that members of churches of Christ commonly say. That is that church of Christ existed throughout history silently beside the Catholic Church.

Now, granted that really that doesn’t matter because at the end of the day church history and whether or not your belief in that church history will have nothing to do with you getting in to Heaven.

 

[CMatt25]

It is really a fascinating thing which I knew nothing about until I met my wife who was a Disciple of Christ when I met her. I agree with a lot of Catholic doctrine. Usually when I discuss some theological matter with her from a Catholic perspective she tends to agree with me.

The most interesting thing to me was that the Disciples take communion whenever they get together, which means Sunday morning worship and I believe other times as well. This seems very unusual for a later Protestant church. My wife treats the communion elements very sacredly in an almost Catholic way.

They apparently do not believe in infant baptism and baptism is by immersion.

I’m not sure how close the Church of Christ is since their split over musical instruments.

The Disciples practice immersion but do not re-baptize. If someone baptized as an infant desires to become a Disciple, they merely must profess Jesus Lord and Savior. But I must note the Disciples are not as conservative as the Church of Christ. I’d also just like to note just for the purpose of the thread that there is a difference between the Church of Christ and the United Church of Christ. All 3 are separate denominations. However the Disciples and the United Church of Christ have an ecumenical partnership where they share clergy and have mutual recognition of each other’s sacraments.

 

[andrewstx]

Actually, this is pretty interesting, because the idea that the canon was established in 390. Where do you get that idea? I have never heard of any proof saying what the 1st century Christians did or did not say was canon. From what I understand, in 390, the canon was not established as much as it was confirmed as to what was and wasn’t canon. This may seem to a be a quibbling of words but there is a big difference in establishing something and confirming it. Also, I struggled with this concept for a long time, until I heard a Catholic explain to me what actually occurred in 390 AD. He also gave a me a book regarding Catholic views of the Bible and canon. I skimmed through because at the time (HS) I didn’t really care. But that was some that stuck with me, the idea canon was confirmed not established, similar to what occurred shortly after Luther started attacking the Deutrocanonicals.

This goes back to the idea of the Gnostic gospels, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries gnostics started to write “gospels” and “letters” that were purported to be God-inspired and on the same level as the NT we see today. The council in 390 was simply confirming what was really canon and what really wasn’t.
They didn’t’ take a list of say 50 books and whittle it down to 27. They simply looked at the books that everyone always used and consider to be canon and eliminated the rest. 390AD isn’t that far removed from 70AD and given that theirs was a mostly vocal society it would have been impressed upon most Christians at the time what the original Apostles believed was canon. The attempted additions by the Gnostics were mostly ignored, but Catholic Church took it upon itself to confirm what should be and shouldn’t be included in the canon.

Also, note I’m not telling you that you have to believe it, but I am trying to clear up a common misunderstanding that members of churches of Christ commonly say. That is that church of Christ existed throughout history silently beside the Catholic Church.

Now, granted that really that doesn’t matter because at the end of the day church history and whether or not your belief in that church history will have nothing to do with you getting in to Heaven.

Well we both know the cofC would not exist until 1906 when some broke off from the Disciples for the terrible sins of missionary societies. instrumental music and the terrible sin of calling the minster “reverend”.

I do agree that it’s not a salvation matter.

Calling the church building a chruch will send you right to hell.

Just kidding

 

[CMatt25]

Well we both know the cofC would not exist until 1906 when some broke off from the Disciples for the terrible sins of missionary societies. instrumental music and the terrible sin of calling the minster “reverend”.

I do agree that it’s not a salvation matter.

Calling the church building a chruch will send you right to hell.

Just kidding

I know you’re kidding about these things being a sin. But I’ve corresponded with 5 Disciples pastors. 4 seem to have no problem being called by their 1st names and the other uses “pastor” before his 1st name.

 

[andrewstx]

I know you’re kidding about these things being a sin. But I’ve corresponded with 5 Disciples pastors. 4 seem to have no problem being called by their 1st names and the other uses “pastor” before his 1st name.

Of course I’m kidding, but to serious hard-core cofC members they are in dead seriousness about this stuff.

Disciples are mainline Protestants, while people in the churches of Christ are very fundamental, and extremely conservative, they come very near to worshipping the bible as a paper and ink idol.
Everything not explicitly commanded in the bible’s pages is forbidden to them, so they are only semi-orthodox (lower case O). They refuse to speak of the Holy Trinity becuase the word Trinity is not in the pages of the bible. They substitute “God head” equally absent from the bible.

They use the word Christian to describe themselves and themselves only. Others are Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc., while they are the only “Christians”.

Disciples say they are Christians only, while cofC members claim to be the only Christians, and they do beleive those things are terrible sins since they are not “authorised” by the bible. It’s like they play “Bible may I” for everything.

The csofC were began to promote unity amoung Christians, and have become the most exclusionary denomination in existence.

They have splintered into several denominations, all claiming to be the only Christians,and withholding recognition and fellowship from the others.

Mutually excluding denominations claiming to be the only Christians include:

1. the csofC that have sunday school, and support “institions”, orphanages, colleges, etc.
   This is the largest number of cofC members.
2. the csofC who have sunday school, but deny aid to institutions. These are called antis by the first group.
3. the csofC who don’t have sunday school.
4. the csofC who deny aid to institutions, have no sunday school and use one glass of grape juice they pass during the Lord’s Supper.

There are different combinations that mix those indentifiers, making maybe a dozen groups all claming to be the only Christians.

I think this to be very ironic in a group that was started to promote unity amoung Christians. And the only group that tries for unity is the Disciples from whom the other may denominations splintered off.

 

[CMatt25]

Disciples are mainline Protestants, while people in the churches of Christ are very fundamental, and extremely conservative.

I know. That’s why back there I was trying to express the same and for people not to connect the 2 today. As well as there being a huge difference betwen the CoC and UCC.

 

[andrewstx]

The UCC does not exist in the south where most cofCers live.

Probaly never heard of it.

 

[novusCatholic]

I have a friend who is a member of a Church of Christ congregation. Sola Scriptura, anti-Tradition, anti-Catholic, “if the Bible doesn’t say it then we don’t have permission to do it” (musical instruments in worship), etc.

He believes that the Bible is all that we need and that we should simply accept it’s plain reading. The problem with this is that it is not always so plain. We need to read Scripture in context while taking into account the culture of the time, the meaing of words and phrases when it was written, etc.

In an effort to discuss what the first generations of Christians believed about various topics, I attempted to share writings of the Early Church Fathers with him. He told me that I should only refer to the Bible and not writings of “Catholics”.

 

[JustaServant]

Hi everyone, I new here, (really new, registered to comment in this thread).

I wanted to post some information from a person that grew up in a church of Christ and still attends. It appears that most of the people posting hear are either former members or speaking based on friend experiences.

If you want to pose a question about a specific belief, please feel free to do so, however, I will not pretend I am 100% knowledgable in Bible and am able to be in error.

As a primer, as mentioned there are many churches that use the name “church of Christ” in their name, these have varying beliefs, from a ceppela, to 1 cup, to gay marriage being acceptable.
For you basic info, I am a member of a church of Christ that is a user of multiple cups, has Sunday school, uses only a ceppla music. Generically we are referred to as church of Christ (non-institution), derogatorily, people (including some here) will refer to us as Campellites.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_churches_of_Christ_(non-institutional This has decent info.

I just want to start with a major correction. I believe this is a mistaken belief that many people that grow up in the church of Christ. This is the belief that there was always a “church of Christ” type faith system in existence since the formation of the church on Pentecost and the local church is connected to that first church through a history of churches.

As people get older they start to realize that in fact between probably around the 2nd to 3rd century Christians started to believe more of the Gnostic believes and turn away from Christ, this can actually be seen to begin in the letters to the seven churches Paul mentioned in Revelation. He doesn’t identify this as Gnostic beliefs but they are starting to turn away like they do later because of the Gnostics.

At that time my guess is that any church that would be considered a church of Christ today disappeared because the churches no longer just relied on Bible for teaching and instruction, this belief is known as sola scripture. It wasn’t until the Restormation movement in America during the 1800’s and early 1900’s did the idea of sola scripture emerge and people started moving away from churches that have extra “stuff” (catechismes, visions, extra-Biblical text, councils, etc) and focus all effort and teaching on only what is permitted in the Bible.

Basically this is what I think happened after the 1st century that led away from a “church of Christ” into what is now the Catholic Church. This isn’t just my thoughts but also some books written by non-Catholics regarding early Christianity say similar things. Note: While I disagree with what the people below did and think it isn’t Biblicaly approved, I do believe their heart was in the right place in trying to safe guard the people in their church and their intentions, however flawed, were in the right place.

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Christians started to go toward the hierarchy that ultimently led to the modern Catholic Church. The early Christians set up head bishops of each church to be over the other bishops in the church. (Note: every reference to leadership of churches in NT shows a multitude of Elders (referred to also as Bishops, Shepards, Pastors, Overseers. The greek shows these titles are all one and the same) and a multitude of Deacons)
These head bishops when got together by region (there were called Patriarchs, and I believe there were 5 or 6) and would work together to keep out heresy and incorrect teaching. And thus until the head bishop of the church in Rome was determined to be the head of the whole church, and this is the person that now has the title “Pope”. The prior bishops of the church in Rome where back named Pope until you get to Peter.

I know that some may not agree with this and I understand that. I am trying to explain my views and my intention is not to offend or even convert, but simply to inform.

In spirit of information, I grew up in a church of Christ and mostly attended the type of church into my mid-20s. During my early teens I also was forced to attend a Lutheran church with my step-mother and as a result I have a very poor view of Lutherans. I married a Catholic woman 4 years ago and we both go to religious services at both of our churches. In fact, I have been to Mass more times in the past 4 years then many of my catholic coworkers have .

Sorry for long post. I hope it was informative. If you wish to ask any question, feel free I will try to answer as best as I can.

Source for this revisionist history?
We would like to know so we can contact the New York Times, CNN, FOX, and every university in the world to let them know of these brand new historical discoveries,

 

[MrsFlapjack]

I’m not a major expert with the CoC. My husband was born and raised in one, and it devastated his father when he left. As a matter of fact, he is considering attending the CoC on occasions again just to make his dad feel better.

One thing that I haven’t seen specifically mentioned is the kitchen issue. That has divided a lot of CoC’s. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention a kitchen being allowed in the church building and believe it or not, this issue had split quite a few CoCs. My father-in-law drives 20 miles to go to church, and he drives by 2 other CoCs on the way. Plus there are several others that are closer to his place as well. But those CoC’s are “anti” congregations, or the preacher is too liberal for his tastes.

It is funny that they don’t consider themselves a denomination when they so clearly are.